Is Technology Evil?

In the post Is Technology Evil?, Robert X. Cringely asks if the automated trading software used by Goldman Sachs is destroying the economy.

Wall Street traders invest in ever faster, smarter trading systems. There’s a lot of money to be made in being the first to respond to the ever changing market conditions.

My response has four points, followed by a startling conclusion.

Technology is amoral. Adopting technology is a tradeoff, we forfeit something in exchange for the innovation. The failure to consider consequences is where things often go wrong. (This is covered wonderfully in Neil Postman’s book Technolopy.)

The rewards of innovations are spread unevenly. Without progressive wealth redistribution, inequity accelerates. This is a basic mechanism of how the rich get richer. As we’ve seen in our economy since the 70s, even though productivity continues to increase, labor has not shared in the bounty.

Open markets are effective when it has a level playing field. Having the ability to conduct trades sooner and quicker gives those Wall Street firms an unfair advantage. As an analogy, imagine the old school trading floor where Goldman Sachs’ traders stood in front and were always called on first. The other traders would riot, for good reason.

Automated trading makes the markets more viotile. Automation is at least partially responsible for Black Monday in 1987. (Note, I know almost nothing about finance. But I know a lot about the inappropriate use and risks of automation.)

So in conclusion, creating ever faster trading systems is overall a pretty bad idea. It’s unfair. It causes havoc. No one fully understands what’s going on. (Maybe that’s a benefit for some traders.)

I’ll propose my fix in a future post.

Posted Aug 24, 2009 3:44pm - Add your comment

Apple Responds to FCC

Google Voice is pretty cool. Google ported Voice to the iPhone. Apple has rejected continues to study the app. FCC asked why. Apple responded. In brief, Apple is concerned about the user experience, where Voice replaces iPhone’s functionality.

Much is being made about competition between Apple and Google. Android competes with the iPhone etc, etc.

I’m not too worked up about it.

Like everyone, I hate AT&T. Yet I still bought an iPhone. Its positives outweigh AT&T’s negatives. For now.

I get why Apple partnered with AT&T. It was a great way to sell a lot of iPhones. Eventually, Apple will end their exclusive with AT&T, in order to sell more iPhones.

I don’t think Apple cares at all what network a customer uses to make a phone call. Apple makes their money selling units and apps, not connecting calls or transmitting bits. Having Voice available on the iPhone will drive more sales. Eventually, it’ll happen.

Unless Apple decides to be the carrier itself. We know that Google is building its own backbone. There’s no indication that Apple is doing the same.

So I accept Apple’s explanation at face value, more or less. They’ve always been obsessed with the user experience. And holding up approval gives Apple some negotiation leverage, so of course they’ll play it out.

Posted Aug 24, 2009 3:12pm - Add your comment