Presented without commentJune 23, 2014 Tim WorstallNewspaper Watch24 Comments @worstall @kmcpartland I replied. You are wrong. And also your belief that economics has to do with market structure is just silly. — Heidi N. Moore (@moorehn) June 23, 2014 previousSo Chuka, UKIP don’t know how to send emails then, eh?nextTsk, listen to what we say, don’t watch what we do 24 thoughts on “Presented without comment” Tim Almond June 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm Economics editor at the Guardian? It’s like asking Homes and Garden for their advice about martial arts movies. Steve June 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm Well that’s you told, Tim. Also, she has a vagina, so she’s pointed out that for you to disagree with her is just #misogyny. Heidi is a serious middle aged woman. Have you seen how serious looking her selfies are? BraveFart June 23, 2014 at 4:53 pm Having someone take a photo of you taking a selfie and using it as your twitter photo is probably getting close to the height of narcissism? She has self-important stamped all over her face too. Bloke in Wales June 23, 2014 at 5:37 pm Can’t be arsed to look at twatter, but I assumed from her handle that her profile pic would be a duck that genuflects every time it takes a step. jono June 23, 2014 at 6:00 pm Couldn’t be arsed to wade through all the Forbes registration crap but the amusing thing is that she hasn’t even begun to understand Malinova, Park and Riordan paper which is actually making the point that when you analyse HFT using the fee change as an exogenous instrument, it’s clear that ” contrary to the commonly held opinion, HFTs appear to not impose negative externalities on the least sophisticated market participants and that they may be beneficial to slower and less sophisticated traders”. As for interday profits of retail traders, far from losses increasing as HFT increases, MP&R actually conclude that “we were surprised to see that retail traders’ intra-day profits decrease significantly as HFTs retract from markets.” Yup – the paper she cites in support argues that she is full of it. jono June 23, 2014 at 6:13 pm Should post a link: http://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/erim_content/documents/Malinova_June10.pdf SadButMadLad June 23, 2014 at 7:57 pm Details are well over my head, but when someone says “As it is, it’s the usual rubbish that one has learned to expect from dim-bulb screamers about “free-market” who favor the one-sided corruptions of capitalist-welfare systems like HFT as long as they’re in the service of some bank’s profits. This is also *exactly* why people should be reading the Guardian — in order not to be sold a load of steaming bullshit in the service of corporate apologism.” then you know they’ve lost and they are in shouting as loud as possible mode using fancy words in order to cover the fact that they are stupid. Ironman June 23, 2014 at 8:35 pm There does seem to be a methodology at work here: name- calling is the start rather than the finish line. Hurl personal and at very childish abuse and then claim to be the victim yourself of ‘ad hominem’ attack. Hence it is legitimate to say Tim has a funny name but it is a scandal that he is a miosogynist even though there is no evidence anywhere in the exchange of misogyny. Interested June 23, 2014 at 9:33 pm Fucking hell. Her twitter feed is brilliant. It’s gold. On this topic: ‘NYT Editorial Board and I come down on the same side on the same day: market is rigged.’ Like that’s a fucking surprise: two lots of economically illiterate leftists working for broke companies effectively reliant on the government for their cash are in agreement! Sort of on-topic: ‘Re: stock market, everything is fucked up and bullshit. Congress and Wall St. are panicking that you may know that.’ World class analysis. Off topic: ‘One of the worst things about LA: white people don’t take the bus, creating a racially segregated transport system.’ (Look at me, I’m not a racist, I want to force people to travel in ways they don’t want to to prove it.) ‘Two-Parent Households Can Be Lethal… Fantastic & important piece from @nytopinion’ (Look at me, I’m a progressive, I want to wreck the two parent family to prove it, and I and my views are Fantastic & Important by the way.) ‘Five goals for France. FIVE. FOR FRANCE.’ (Look at me, I love footie, see, cos I’m a man of the people. That’s the only reason I’m tweeting this, because even though I’m thick I am not so thick as not to know that every single fucking person in the world who wants to know the score in this match already knows it.) ‘OH in elevator: “the worst thing about England losing is that all those great pub nights in London are cancelled now.”’ (Look at me, I’m a fucking liar, I didn’t ‘OH’ that in an ‘elevator’ at all because no-one speaks like that, for a start.) ‘So Amazon asked itself “how would we build something that’s different?” and then made a clone of the iPhone.’ (Look at me, they should have asked me because I could probably design a phone.) ‘In short, stop exoticizing women. Women are half the population of earth. Stop applauding every little achievement like it’s a circus act.’ (Look at me, I accidentally said something half sensible, even if I spelled it the American way and I’m good thanks, can I get a beer? because I work in fucking America and can’t fucking believe I’ve pulled this one off, but don’t worry, normal service will soon be resumed.) theoldgreenfascist June 23, 2014 at 9:41 pm For God’s sake why don’t you write about something interesting? David Moore June 23, 2014 at 10:20 pm theoldgreenfascist, how about a starter for ten? God June 23, 2014 at 11:54 pm theoldgreenfascist: For God’s sake why don’t you write about something interesting? I don’t need you to arbitrate on what’s interesting, thanks. Go fuck a tree! So Much for Subtlety June 24, 2014 at 12:02 am Interested – “(Look at me, I’m not a racist, I want to force people to travel in ways they don’t want to to prove it.)” Stuff White People Like. But worse than that, she does not explain why White people don’t like public transport. They do if they are in Amsterdam. Or they used to. They don’t if they are in Atlanta. Now why would that be? She ought to consider people don’t like being beaten, raped and murdered. All people. Not just White people. Which means people who can afford not to take public transport won’t take public transport. Because it is full of criminals. Now it happens most of those criminals are Black and most of the people who can afford it are White, but I don’t think it is sensible to say that it is White racism that is at fault. How about Black criminals stop assaulting White people? Too much to ask? “(Look at me, I’m a progressive, I want to wreck the two parent family to prove it, and I and my views are Fantastic & Important by the way.)” More Stuff White People Like. As any study picked at random will show, single parent families are vastly more lethal. And not just for children. The best way for women to protect themselves from domestic violence is to get married. “(Look at me, I love footie, see, cos I’m a man of the people. That’s the only reason I’m tweeting this, because even though I’m thick I am not so thick as not to know that every single fucking person in the world who wants to know the score in this match already knows it.)” Football is, in America, the ultimate Stuff White People Like. This is just a class marker. It shows a sensitive Upper Middle Class mind. Unlike NASCAR. “(Look at me, I’m a fucking liar, I didn’t ‘OH’ that in an ‘elevator’ at all because no-one speaks like that, for a start.)” Maybe she is in Ohio? We need to applaud every little success women have. Because they don’t have many bigs ones. The Left treats women like special needs children – tells them it is so good that they can run a mile in six hours or whatever the Army is forced to accept these days. The soft bigotry of low expectations. Surreptitious Evil June 24, 2014 at 7:27 am Mile and a half in 13 minutes. Compared to 10:30 for blokes. Those are both the requirements if you are under 30. Ironman June 24, 2014 at 8:30 am SE How far do they need to throw a hand granade? Is it far enough to prevent them from blowing themselves up? P.S. If that’s just an urban myth don’t answer; don’t spoil it. So Much for Subtlety June 24, 2014 at 10:05 am Surreptitious Evil – “Mile and a half in 13 minutes. Compared to 10:30 for blokes. Those are both the requirements if you are under 30.” So let’s call that a third slower. For the US Army, women aged 17-21 would get a score of 100 if they ran two miles in 15:36. Men aged 17-21 get the same score for a 13:00. Men aged 42-46 have to do it in 14:06. Men aged 47-51 have to do it in 14:24. Men aged 52-56 have to do it in 14:42. Men aged 57-61 in 15:18. Ironman – “How far do they need to throw a hand granade? Is it far enough to prevent them from blowing themselves up?” The problem with hand grenades is likely to be the same with fire fighting equipment – you design the equipment to be as heavy as a fairly hefty bloke can carry. Which means women cannot. With a hand grenade, you take the average G.I. and work out how far he can throw various objects and then maximise weight for distance. Which will also mean women have trouble. Especially as throwing is one area with an obvious and very measurable sex difference. “P.S. If that’s just an urban myth don’t answer; don’t spoil it.” In the Gulf War, British female soldiers were reported to give their hand grenades to the men to throw for them. Or so the story goes. Although the real problem isn’t strength but willingness to fight. Jessica Lynch refused to shoot. Tim Newman June 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm Although the real problem isn’t strength but willingness to fight. Jessica Lynch refused to shoot. I read in the superb Generation Kill that a huge percentage of male soldiers in previous wars didn’t fire their weapons the first time they were called upon to do so, even in such situations as the D-Day landings. The author recorded an American officer expressing surprise mixed with admiration that the section of young marines he was commanding in the Iraq War let loose with everything they had right from the off. Hence the title of the book. So the problem isn’t just confined to women. Steve June 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm Tim Newman – God bless em, most human beings don’t want to kill other people, even if they’re Krauts or Japs. So in the conscript armies of the past, a lot of chaps just pointed their rifles in the general direction of the enemy. Lethal intent is much higher among self-selecting groups of warriors in modern volunteer armies, but even then, most people aren’t sociopaths and it takes training to prepare soldiers to kill. I think there might also be something to the idea that being raised on videogames makes a difference. Games don’t teach you to kill, but they might help psychologically dissociate yourself from the consequences of aiming and firing at a man-shaped target. If you’ve done it hundreds of thousands of times in Call of Duty it might make it feel less like murder when doing it for real. Rob June 24, 2014 at 1:54 pm I think I read somewhere that about half of all infantrymen didn’t fire their weapon AT ALL during the Normandy campaign. Roue le Jour June 24, 2014 at 3:14 pm The “not firing at the enemy” thing is quite well treated in the amusing George Cloony pic The Men Who Stare At Goats if anyone’s interested. Hey, God, Dawkins says he’ll see you in the car park. Want me to hold your coat? OriginalMichael June 24, 2014 at 4:15 pm If you ever want to see Tim’s stuff at Forbes without registering you can use this link http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/ Although he might appreciate it if you register and follow him as I suspect (but do not know) that followers somehow affect compensation. And here is a link to the article in question: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/23/heidi-moore-doesnt-seem-to-understand-high-frequency-trading/ Apologies to Tim if he didn’t see the humor in this, but I got a chuckle out of this reply “First of all, there’s nothing nice about [Tim]. He’s a spiteful hack”. This started to come about after other people had informed her of her mistake. I also liked when she called you out for having “leaned on your degree in a completely unrelated subject as proof that you are an expert” despite the fact that his related degree was never mentioned prior to this. Great stuff over there. So Much for Subtlety June 24, 2014 at 10:59 pm Tim Newman – “I read in the superb Generation Kill that a huge percentage of male soldiers in previous wars didn’t fire their weapons the first time they were called upon to do so, even in such situations as the D-Day landings.” This is the famous S. L. A. Marshall study Men Against Fire. Which is a little controversial as people have suggested that he got it wrong. I don’t doubt that some soldiers do not fire their weapons. The US Army took steps to remedy this – they used targets shaped like people rather than the circles they had used before. The training got much more aggressive and dehumanising. By Vietnam, something like 90% of soldiers fired their weapons. Which is a bit of a worry if the original study wasn’t very good. “So the problem isn’t just confined to women.” Women fairly reliably refuse to fight. There have been female pilots that have refused to fire in support of troops on the ground. As well as refusing to land under fire to pick up soldiers. There have been multiple cases of female soldiers crying and refusing to drive trucks into areas where they might get shot at – in every American War since Panama in fact. It may not be confined to women, but it is a problem for women. Especially as training institutions have had to remove most of the actual fighting training they used to do because the female candidates either did not like it or could not do it. Like the boxing at West Point. Steve – “God bless em, most human beings don’t want to kill other people, even if they’re Krauts or Japs.” Yeah. Not sure about that either. It is obviously a very hard subject to study but someone wrote a book a few years back that said most soldiers in WW2 got an almost sexual pleasure out of killing people. Hugely controversial. As you can well imagine. I would think both may be true for some soldiers, some times the same soldier, some of the time. But who knows? I would like to see more social scientists in uniform shooting at people before they write silly books. “So in the conscript armies of the past, a lot of chaps just pointed their rifles in the general direction of the enemy.” Snipers have always had a mixed reputation in Armies and it is only recently that the US Army has made such heroes of them. Frederick the Great once kicked a soldier out of his hole for trying to specifically hit an officer on the other side. So in the old days that is all anyone wanted. Interested June 25, 2014 at 7:58 am @smfs ‘There have been female pilots that have refused to fire in support of troops on the ground.’ Source? Interested June 25, 2014 at 8:02 am @smfs ‘Snipers have always had a mixed reputation in Armies and it is only recently that the US Army has made such heroes of them. Frederick the Great once kicked a soldier out of his hole for trying to specifically hit an officer on the other side. So in the old days that is all anyone wanted.’ Camouflage was once similarly frowned on. Simple fire and manoeuvre tactics were revolutionary. Warfare evolves. Calling on Frederick the Great to bolster your case is not a good sign. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.