Comment by tel
3 years ago
Arbitrage and it's various squishier more stochastic cousins are the vehicle by which information flows through markets. Markets exist as a global network of interactions and persistent imbalances anywhere in the system can have massive consequences. Generally, these consequences rhyme with "two counterparties which don't interact with one another directly all that often suddenly discover grave disagreements in the desired price and quantity of something they'd like to trade". Economic wreckage is the result, at least, but also imagine what would happen if corn farmers produced only half the crop that their buyers would have liked to purchase.
So, markets work pretty hard to make sure that information from one area of the global economy can flow to all of the rest of the system with relative efficiency. This works a lot like a game of telephone where changes in one market venue propagate through related instruments to other venues crossing space, species, and even time. Much like telephone, each pair of neighbors wants to do a good job sharing information without loss and, also, over long distances minor errors add up.
Arbitrage is the glue which prevents this from happening. Arbitrage says that any time anyone discovers some level of disconnection occurring, they can make money at very low risk by voting to shift markets to better align with one another.
Arbitrageurs are getting paid to provide a service to the market and subsequently the entire world. Their actions ensure that information flows throughout the global financial system quickly and without relying on centralized planning. Without them, markets could become disconnected and wander out of agreement.
>Arbitrage and it's various squishier more stochastic cousins are the vehicle by which information flows through markets.
>This works a lot like a game of telephone where changes in one market venue propagate through related instruments to other venues crossing space, species, and even time.
Hell yeah I'm not sure where I fall on accepting this way of thinking about things, but the line of poetics/skeuomorphics/analogy is very cool to me.
>Economic wreckage is the result, at least, but also imagine what would happen if corn farmers produced only half the crop that their buyers would have liked to purchase.
This is kind of my sticking point because on direction of that risk is like an actual hazard to my biology and the other is the consequence of allocating food by market. Not saying it's 'wrong' per se, but it does stand out that we're resolving market problems with like market^2