blancheneige

Ah yes. When it's Wall Street doing it it's "greedy evil bankers" but when it's Soros, a vocal advocate of liberalism, suddenly it's just business as usual.

The article makes no mention of asylum seekers. This is pure speculation on your part.

> given the fact that US citizens have been detained in them for extended periods despite clear proof of citizenship

I'd be curious to hear more about these cases as well as their proportion relative to the illegal immigrants detained at these facilities. I'm not aware of lawful residents being detained in such proportions that this would suddenly warrant tipping the terminology on the side of indetermination.

>Has the legality of their immigration been determined at that point?

By that logic, how do you even know they're immigrants to begin with, then? All it takes is flashing your visa or any documentation proving your status which you are required to carry at all times, just like I am. You were not expecting bartenders to give you a free pass in your teenage because you left your ID at home, did you?

>Regardless, the statement as written is accurate

Accuracy by omission is deceit, not journalism.

>How many modifiers are necessary?

One: illegal immigrant. Now I re-iterate my question: why is it so hard for The Guardian to use the correct terminology?

>Two of Ice’s largest immigrant detention centers in California

Can somebody explain to a legal immigrant why The Guardian keeps omitting the illegal part over twelve times throughout the article?

>Speculation is merely placing an order in the direction of an anticipated future price move.

For the purpose of making a profit. If gambling doesn't sound like the right term then sure, call it speculation. But a skilled trader is no different than a skilled poker player.

>Informed speculators make trades because they understand something about the market that many others do not.

They think they understand. Hence the gambling part, for it is entirely probabilistic in nature. Further, are you referring to the market as given by its technicals or its fundamentals? In the latter case, the state of the order book should have no immediate bearing on that perception, as the order book should be a causal reflection of the asset's fundamentals. In the former case, if that perception is partially derived from the order book itself, then we are back to probabilistic inference, hence gambling.

>What if someone lies to you saying that the supply of homes like yours is much higher than reality and this information causes you to accept a lower-than-fair price? Would you consider that beneficial to your selling process?

No, I would look at the price of houses available right now, just like a trader who means to buy now looks at what the best available ask is. The difference is in trading you can execute nearly immediately, neutering the effect of a spoofed ask removed causally as a result of buying intent.

>You seem to be arguing that the price you want should not be affected by the true prices that others want.

The "true" price that others want right now is the last quoted bid/ask that can be immediately sold/bought into. And that one can't be "spoofed" without the risk of someone actually market selling into it before it has a chance to be cancelled, hence making it reliable.

Again, if you rely on the buy side of the order book to make a decision, then you are using a technical indicator, which you'd hypothesize is derived from fundamentals, rather than using your supposed superior understanding of fundamentals (external to the market) to better price the market (internal adjustment).

This is like saying we'll allow you to play poker but you can't bluff.

>3) The huge order to buy makes other buyers think the price is about to increase significantly, so they immediately buy at the Spoofer's higher price even though they would otherwise prefer to wait for a lower one.

Wait a minute, how did we go from "facilitating the efficient exchange of assets" to "making it easier for speculator to gamble based on what other speculators are doing"?

edit: If anything, spoofing should be allowed to make the price discovery more efficient. For traders wouldn't trade as much based on what other traders are doing hoping to squeeze a short profit. Rather, if they really want in, they will get in with a market or fill-or-kill order at their desired price, period. And it will instantaneously snatch the lowest ask and go deeper into the order book if they want to allow slippage and get a bigger size as well. This would restrain all kinds of quick buck momentum trading and whatnot which only serve to increase the noise around the price and are purely speculative in nature.

>More specifically, spoofing tricks others into thinking that their transaction costs will be higher or lower than reality.

How so? If you want to market buy 100 shares at time t and the "spoofed" limit order is up at time t, you will buy into the spoofed order. Only if the spoofer somehow has knowledge of your intention to buy at time t and quickly pulls the rug from under your feet at time t-t1, where t1 would have to be an unrealistically small amount of time, can they mess with you. So clearly this argument against spoofing, i.e. that it's creating a false sense of liquidity, doesn't work in an environment when the quote can flicker dozens of time per millisecond.

It's more likely that spoofing is used to, say, protect a margin position from liquidation by flashing a wall above/below it hoping to scare away other market participants. In which case it shows the latter don't really mean their move to begin with, or that they are merely trading to squeeze gains on short timeframe, which has hardly anything to do with "facilitating the efficient exchange of assets".

>but takes it down when you reach the door

like I said, your market order will be executed before the alleged spoofer can take his down, i.e. there is no way for him to react and cancel his limit order causally, unless you are yourself doing something fishy prior to that market order. so no, the analogy doesn't hold. it really is an insignificant thing outside of HFT which is speculation to the max anyway.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with spoofing. If you really mean your market order then you don't care about whether resting orders are bluffing, unless you're bluffing yourself. You'll be matched against the best available bid/ask before these can be causally removed, period.

How to do you define "objective" when objectivity depends on the very phenomenon studied?

I live in a big city in the Northeast and 90% of my neighbors barely speak English. I really don't see the point.

it's pretty normal in backwater countries that can't thrive on their own. otherwise not so much.