Looking at systems by considering whether they 'create value' in some generalized utilitarian sense is unproductive. Such systems survive by being able to extract energy somehow, in this case by exploiting properties of the stock trading system. I guess you could say that they create a lot of value—for the people doing it. Very few modern economic activities make sense in a broader perspective, they exist purely because they allow some energy to flow towards the people perpetuating them, on a more local level.
I disagree completely. You seem to be confusing money/worth with value. If someone manages to redirect money towards themselves without creating a new economic resource, then no new value is made.
Avoiding systems that don't create value would help us live in a world with more value in it. That's why considering this is very productive, and helps moral people avoid wasting precious resources on zero sum games.
What I'm trying to say is that systems don't exist because they are 'good', they exist because they survive. When trying to interpret the world, 'value' is a much less powerful explainer than survival.
Also, I do think that knowing whether something actually creates value or not (is a positive-sum, negative-sum or zero-sum game) is definitely helpful in understanding large systems. i.e: It helps predicting whether a society will succeed or fail, by seeing how much of it is wasted on negative/zero sum games.
Societies will always succeed for a while and then fail. It is the cycle of life and energy in the economy. There is "value" created by HFTs that is used by HFTs and their families. It helps them survive and reproduce. This does not mean value is created for society overall, but it certainly makes society more complex. The more complex an ecosystem/economy is, the more likely it will be able to adapt to future environmental changes.
You're again using the confused notion of "value". The HFTs are taking value away from others to themselves, not creating new value (at least if we reject the extra liquidity as a positive value).
Societies will succeed more or less based on various parameters, one of which is whether they generate value to sustain themselves or not.
Looking at systems by considering whether they 'create value' in some generalized utilitarian sense is unproductive. Such systems survive by being able to extract energy somehow
A perfect description of many forms of organized crime.
Truth! Something that creates value for a certain form of business or life most likely does not create value for society or the ecosystem. It simply is another niche.
You don't even have to create value for your species, or lasting value for your genes.
The classic example is -- if I recall correctly -- a mutation sometimes found in mice. The mutation causes a male to only produce male children. This mutation will spread through the population until there are only male mice, and one generation later the mice are all dead.
I would draw a line between systems that rely upon voluntary interaction like stock markets vs systems that rely upon forced coercion like organized crime.
