&gt;You are ignoring the context of the article<p>The discussion went off course way before I dived in.<p>&gt;Comes now &#x27;cdroconnor. You&#x27;re playing a semantic game. You&#x27;re defining &quot;HFT&quot; as &quot;bad HFT&quot;, and everything else as simple &quot;electronic trading&quot;. FINE. Nobody disagrees with you, except on the very boring point of what labels to attach to things.<p>There is a very substantial non-semantic difference between robot-executed sub-millisecond trades (HFT) and trades which are are just executed electronically.<p>In every discussion about HFT the probability of someone falsely attributing the decreased transaction costs of &quot;not shouting in a pit&quot; to algorithms that execute sub-millisecond transactions approaches 1.<p>&gt;But your argument here doesn&#x27;t make any sense for the thread, because the good simple electronic trading you&#x27;re condoning is also targeted by the cancellation regulation Clinton proposed<p>I&#x27;m no particular fan of that either. I&#x27;d prefer Italian style micro-transaction tax. That wipes out nearly all of the sub-millisecond trading and leaves the rest intact, including market making.