If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   The mythical crime of "insider trading" should really be called "freedom trading"   (forbes.com) divider line 154
    More: Amusing, political freedom, Mises, trade, Spitzer  
•       •       •

1752 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 1:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-18 10:48:37 AM  
"SAC Capital's founder, Steven A. Cohen, is being tried as a witch..."

Well, does he weigh more than a duck?
 
2013-09-18 10:51:29 AM  
Forbes is like Kool-Aid for the 1%.
 
2013-09-18 10:55:05 AM  
Randian Objectivism is a broken and pretty stupid philosophy.

/Harry Binswanger is a cock
 
2013-09-18 11:12:08 AM  
This guy is really going for it today isn't he?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 11:39:54 AM  
It's almost like this is a guy with an antisocial personality disorder than an economic theory.  i have heard interviews with criminals where they describe their viewpoint and it's very similar.
 
2013-09-18 11:41:30 AM  

vpb: It's almost like this is a guy with an antisocial personality disorder than an economic theory.  i have heard interviews with criminals where they describe their viewpoint and it's very similar.


I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life whose world view was entirely informed by a single work of literature that didn't have a personality disorder.

Those two things go hand-in-hand.
 
2013-09-18 12:56:50 PM  

Slaxl: This guy is really going for it today isn't he?


A comment and a question:

Whoever keeps submitting this Forbes crap has stumbled on green-light gold. Well done.

Is Binswanger a real name? It sounds made up. If I was going to create an alt designed to be a total dick, it's a name I might choose.
 
2013-09-18 01:16:35 PM  
Between this and the other article, I can only assume that this dick's idea of competition is preventing anyone from joining the game.  If you're in the game, you've already de facto won.
 
2013-09-18 01:28:29 PM  
This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.
 
2013-09-18 01:31:41 PM  
It is things like this that makes me want to go "eat the rich."

The "job creators" may be good at making money, but not much else.
 
2013-09-18 01:32:36 PM  
Wow...this guy made it to supreme douchebag in a single day.
WTF is wrong with you Forbes?
 
2013-09-18 01:32:54 PM  
So.... lemme get the argument straight.  So long as the 'hapless outsider' is bilked and the 'upstanding insider' makes a delightful chunk of change, all is right with the world?
 
2013-09-18 01:33:23 PM  
I'm totally shocked to find out he's an Objectivist nutball.
 
2013-09-18 01:33:56 PM  
This clown needs to get fark-shamed into a notoriety level akin to Romero.
 
2013-09-18 01:34:09 PM  
This guy again.

Previously from this author: The Big Lie: Intelligence Failure in Iraq

Amongst his main points are, I sh*t you not:

4. What is the evidence for any failure?

5. If there was some failure in intelligence-so what?

6. Intelligence? Why did we need intelligence?
 
2013-09-18 01:34:48 PM  

Cinaed: So.... lemme get the argument straight.  So long as the 'hapless outsider' is bilked and the 'upstanding insider' makes a delightful chunk of change, all is right with the world?


Those who cry for fairness are just envious of the cheaters.
 
2013-09-18 01:36:00 PM  

HighOnCraic: "SAC Capital's founder, Steven A. Cohen, is being tried as a witch..."

Well, does he weigh more than a duck?


See if he floats. His office is right on the Long Island Sound.
 
2013-09-18 01:36:49 PM  

Cinaed: So.... lemme get the argument straight.  So long as the 'hapless outsider' is bilked and the 'upstanding insider' makes a delightful chunk of change, all is right with the world?


Yup that should totally bring back confidence in the market.
 
2013-09-18 01:36:52 PM  
Yes, socialist revolutions have led to the questionable "achievement" of everyone being equally miserable - or "shabby" as this author quoted it. But maybe it's time for the people at the top of this new Gilded Age pyramid we've built to ask themselves what on Earth would lead vast numbers of the bottom-dwelling people to smash everything just to be as shabby as the next guy.

Maybe they should think about what sort of outrages can be inflicted on people who have less, and to what extent, before those people decide it's worth it to be miserable (some of them are already pretty miserable, anyway) just to wipe the self-satisfied smirk off of the faces of the Forbes crowd.
 
2013-09-18 01:36:55 PM  

nmrsnr: This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.


B-b-but nobody would ever do that because free market. Says so right here in Dianetics -er I mean Atlas Shrugged.
 
2013-09-18 01:38:18 PM  
FTA:
"(Actual fraud is, of course, a violation of rights, and any fraudulent statements by the company or other insiders would make them legally liable. But this, too, is something for the courts, not regulators.)
"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price."
Actual fraud is what regulators exist to prevent. Cheating is rampant, especially with invisible and "victimless" crime of insider trading, and would be more so without some regulation.

Worst case scenario? Is that the worst case he can dream up?

Here are a few that are much, much worse.

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-insider-trading-scandals-2 011-11? op=1
 
2013-09-18 01:38:30 PM  
How did we get saddled with this knob twice in one day, dammit?

BTW, did anyone read the derp this time?
 
2013-09-18 01:38:53 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Randian Objectivism is a broken and pretty stupid philosophy....


If they'd just go ahead and accept the part about religion being total bullshiat, I could deal with them.

But every Randian is also a Prosperity Gospel "Christian."
 
2013-09-18 01:40:38 PM  
This is one of the most sociopathic rationalizations of criminal behavior I've ever seen, and I've read a lot of IBD and WSJ op-eds.

He destroys his own argument in the last sentence -

Bear that in mind the next time you hear someone damn any capitalistic act between consenting adults-including insider trading.

An inherent element of a fraudulent transaction is the concealment or omission of critical information about the transaction.  If you'd known what I knew, you might not have consented to the transaction.

He's saying, if I can cheat you, then you deserve to get cheated.
 
2013-09-18 01:40:47 PM  
Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price.
But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire. The cause is the economic facts: the firm's actual losses, not someone's early knowledge of it. It wouldn't have done the buyer the slightest good to have bought the stock from someone ignorant of the fire-the stock is going to plunge in any case. The buyer's problem has nothing to do with the state of mind of the person he buys from.


I literally cannot believe someone had the gall to write that in a major publication, unironicaly.
 
2013-09-18 01:40:59 PM  

sigdiamond2000: vpb: It's almost like this is a guy with an antisocial personality disorder than an economic theory.  i have heard interviews with criminals where they describe their viewpoint and it's very similar.

I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life whose world view was entirely informed by a single work of literature that didn't have a personality disorder.

Those two things go hand-in-hand.


So you're saying that most Christians have a personality disorder? In fact, that could be said of most religious people, no matter their faith.

I can get behind that.
 
2013-09-18 01:43:27 PM  
 Harry Binswanger, Contributor  I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

stoppedreadingrightthere.png
 
2013-09-18 01:43:35 PM  
The author of that article sounds guilty.  I bet if you spend 5 minutes looking at his trades you could find a couple felonies.
 
2013-09-18 01:45:11 PM  
God, is it Binswanger Day on Fark?

JENNIFER GOVERNMENT WAS NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL
 
2013-09-18 01:45:12 PM  
The point is anyone can work off insider trading.  I can short McDonalds stock and then put cyanide in their ground beef - its not the stocks fault, its the people who ate the poison.  If anyone dies, so what.

/what a horrible worldview to hold
 
2013-09-18 01:46:08 PM  
Oh God, there's even more by the guy to the right. Third on his clickthrough rankings is "Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?"
 
2013-09-18 01:47:20 PM  
I didn't get past this: I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Does anyone have a summary that won't make my IQ go down too many points?
 
2013-09-18 01:47:28 PM  

MrBallou: Is Binswanger a real name? It sounds made up. If I was going to create an alt designed to be a total dick, it's a name I might choose.


I don't know, didn't he do a few scenes with Asia Carrera?
 
2013-09-18 01:47:35 PM  

El Pachuco: This is one of the most sociopathic rationalizations of criminal behavior I've ever seen, and I've read a lot of IBD and WSJ op-eds.

He destroys his own argument in the last sentence -

Bear that in mind the next time you hear someone damn any capitalistic act between consenting adults-including insider trading.

An inherent element of a fraudulent transaction is the concealment or omission of critical information about the transaction.  If you'd known what I knew, you might not have consented to the transaction.

He's saying, if I can cheat you, then you deserve to get cheated.


I took it as a jab(a poorly thought out one) at gay rights groups, or an attempt to co-opt one of their mantras.

That being said, I got as far as

"The hostility toward insider trading is based not on any legal consideration but on a vicious perversion of morality: egalitarianism-the same twisted, envy-ridden idea of morality our President is now promulgating in speeches around the nation."

So thinking everyone should have equal rights and stuff is being envious? I thought it was one of the ideas America was founded on? WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?

/oh, and your blog sucks
 
2013-09-18 01:47:50 PM  
TWO greenlights for this pile of sentient dog feces.

All you need to know about this guy, right here:

Binswanger has been described as an "orthodox" Objectivist for his commitment to the ideas of his mentor, Ayn Rand, whom Binswanger considers a "once in a millennium genius."
 
2013-09-18 01:48:30 PM  
didn't know Forbes had a satirical section.
 
2013-09-18 01:48:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Forbes is like Kool-Aid for the 1%.


Forbes is Koo-Aid for "the 53%".

I've gotten to where I'm told about layoffs before they happen and numbers before they're released.  I see the stock move accordingly.  A lot of people insider trade.
 
m00
2013-09-18 01:49:07 PM  

nmrsnr: The company is decimated

...

it's reduced by by a tenth?
 
2013-09-18 01:49:12 PM  

rustypouch: sigdiamond2000: vpb: It's almost like this is a guy with an antisocial personality disorder than an economic theory.  i have heard interviews with criminals where they describe their viewpoint and it's very similar.

I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life whose world view was entirely informed by a single work of literature that didn't have a personality disorder.

Those two things go hand-in-hand.

So you're saying that most Christians have a personality disorder? In fact, that could be said of most religious people, no matter their faith.

I can get behind that.


If they reject anything that isn't in the Bible. Or, even perhaps more strictly, rejects anything that is outside their own Religion Tradition's interpretation of their holy work (IE, some Protestant-derived Christians denying Catholics are Christian. Almost got sent to detention in highschool over that argument with the teacher).

It's one thing to read the Bible and believe and follow Christianity, it's another to keep your worldview limited to just that and treat all others with hostility, derision, and hatred.
 
2013-09-18 01:49:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: 6. Intelligence? Why did we need intelligence?


There's another joke right there about his Randian philosophy, it's just not coming to me right now.
 
2013-09-18 01:49:58 PM  
i215.photobucket.com

Approves
 
2013-09-18 01:50:21 PM  

rev. dave: The author of that article sounds guilty.  I bet if you spend 5 minutes looking at his trades you could find a couple felonies.


It's not a crime if you assert that it is your "right". Any statement to the contrary just means that you don't love America.

Unless that right is the right to be able to marry who you want to. That is still regulated for your own good.

theknuckler_33: Harry Binswanger, Contributor  I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

stoppedreadingrightthere.png



www.gravatar.com 
Hell, I stopped when I saw it was the same moron from the other thread. Didn't even need to get to his name, the pic was enough.
 
2013-09-18 01:51:24 PM  
So, trading stocks isn't a right. Does he then have a problem with not allowing anyone making more than $50 thousand a year to do it? It's not a right after all, and poorer folks are the ones who most need a way to get some cash by laying some money out on companies and then going to their day job.

Of course I'm being ridiculous, but if I have to justify trying to ensure that nobody fixes the game, then he gets to justify letting anyone play at all.
 
2013-09-18 01:53:30 PM  

El Pachuco: This is one of the most sociopathic rationalizations of criminal behavior I've ever seen, and I've read a lot of IBD and WSJ op-eds.

He destroys his own argument in the last sentence -

Bear that in mind the next time you hear someone damn any capitalistic act between consenting adults-including insider trading.

An inherent element of a fraudulent transaction is the concealment or omission of critical information about the transaction.  If you'd known what I knew, you might not have consented to the transaction.

He's saying, if I can cheat you, then you deserve to get cheated.


You didn't know?  It's totally -not- rape to have sex with a woman after feeding her a roofied drink!
 
2013-09-18 01:53:57 PM  
Look, could someone just mix me a Harvey Wallbanger and stop with the Binswanger already?
 
2013-09-18 01:54:42 PM  
is he saying that if a corporate officer pulls an insider trading trick that nets him huge amounts of mone at the expense of the shareholders losing all of their investment, the only way to recover the money is through the courts fighting against a person with HUGE amounts of money, and in the courts that have been stacked in favor of the very rich?

or.

invest in my corporation is the same as giving me money.  cut out the middle man.
 
2013-09-18 01:55:02 PM  

Slam Bradley: The point is anyone can work off insider trading.  I can short McDonalds stock and then put cyanide in their ground beef - its not the stocks fault, its the people who ate the poison.  If anyone dies, so what.

/what a horrible worldview to hold


This was the plot to Casino Royale (the Craig version).  The bad guy was going to make the stock in an airline manufacturer tank by blowing up the prototype of their latest jetliner, and he was going to make a bundle by shorting the stock before it happened (using other people's money).  Bond stopped the bomb, which caused the bad guy to lose a ton, and the people who's money he used would kill him if they found out, so the bad guy tried to win it back in a high stakes poker game.
 
2013-09-18 01:56:55 PM  
Came into this thread to say "shut up Forbes Magazine you shameless cocks".

TomMalory: [i215.photobucket.com image 320x240]

Approves


Right now he's on my wallpaper with the text "Disregard females. Acquire Profit."
 
2013-09-18 01:57:18 PM  
But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire. The cause is the economic facts: the firm's actual losses, not someone's early knowledge of it. It wouldn't have done the buyer the slightest good to have bought the stock from someone ignorant of the fire-the stock is going to plunge in any case. The buyer's problem has nothing to do with the state of mind of the person he buys from.

It wouldn't have changed things for the buyer whether he bough from someone who knew about the fire or from someone who didn't.
But it would have changed things for the sellers to know about it.  If the company hides the knowledge of the fire from stockholders until after all the CEO's have unloaded the now worthless stock, then they're farking over the stockholders.
 
2013-09-18 01:57:39 PM  
I have a theory. This guy is really on the opposing team and is writing as ridiculously as he can for effect. He will come out in a few weeks with a GOTCHA!
 
2013-09-18 01:58:07 PM  
I bet this guy thinks that the only notion of crime is when someone poor tries to rob someone rich.

What's next: Organized Crime a Myth or Why should the State have a Monopoly on Violence?
 
2013-09-18 01:58:09 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: But every Randian is also a Prosperity Gospel "Christian."


Not really. I've been an atheist my whole life, but when I was in high school I thought along the lines of Rand's nonsense. (There it is - my big dirty secret.)

I got over it quickly after talking to someone who agreed with me and suggested I read Ayn Rand's work. She laid out very well the stuff I was thinking, and took it to a natural conclusion that any decent person ought to find utterly repugnant. So I decided that my premise had to be faulty.
 
2013-09-18 01:59:49 PM  

jayhawk88: Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price.
But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire. The cause is the economic facts: the firm's actual losses, not someone's early knowledge of it. It wouldn't have done the buyer the slightest good to have bought the stock from someone ignorant of the fire-the stock is going to plunge in any case. The buyer's problem has nothing to do with the state of mind of the person he buys from.

I literally cannot believe someone had the gall to write that in a major publication, unironicaly.


He didn't. He wrote it on Forbes' version of Examiner.

/Call him the Scott Wampler of Forbes.
 
2013-09-18 02:01:44 PM  

m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?


Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to


No, we're not.
 
2013-09-18 02:01:55 PM  
Just posted this on another story on another website, but it applies again

America is a country, where no matter how destructive your greed is, you can always count on a news outlet to defend it.
 
2013-09-18 02:02:25 PM  
Thanks for that Mr. Inherited Wealth.
 
2013-09-18 02:02:59 PM  
lol forbes, real rich merkins read the robb report
 
2013-09-18 02:03:11 PM  
This from the same "the 99% should give back to the 1%" guy from the other thread.  Awesome, this moron is getting 2 greenlights a day.  Thanks,  Drew!  I love Ayn Rand-fellating trolls!
 
2013-09-18 02:03:21 PM  
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
 
2013-09-18 02:05:59 PM  
Why am I reading through this guy's archive? Get a load of this one.

"Bush lied, people died!"-they yell it out. But that is a moral denunciation. Despite their multiculturalism and relativism, in practice the Left does not treat morality as up for grabs, as subjectively "in the eye of the beholder." They assert moral absolutes, while still mouthing their official doctrine: "There are no absolutes."

If relativist Leftists accepted and lived by their notion that morality is a myth, they could not advocate any political position. If morality is a myth, then there's really no such thing as "social justice"-or any other kind of justice, no such thing as an obligation to the needy or to anyone else. If morality is just a "social construct," then the concept of "obligation" as such is mythical-on a par with the concept of "ghost." How can the relativist-Left then have any political position at all? Only by sneaking in the kind of absolutist moral judgments that their theory scorns.
 
2013-09-18 02:06:11 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTafZRecy2k">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=aTafZRecy2k   Fark the fat cats!
 
2013-09-18 02:07:37 PM  
That reminds me, I actually have a fond memory of the robb report, I was a fun loving 20 year old at a party at this rich kid's house, where this guy was selling hits of acid the friends I was with and myself each bought 2 and immediately took them. We tripped all night and in the early hours of the morning when I was coming down I was sitting with this really cute girl on a couch in the library looking at the ads for islands and planes in the back of the robb report, deciding which ones we should buy.
 
2013-09-18 02:08:03 PM  
Consequences dictate
course of action
and it doesn't matter what's right
It's only wrong if you get caught.
 
2013-09-18 02:08:04 PM  

nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.


The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.
 
2013-09-18 02:09:10 PM  
Who is this motherfarker and why is he Onionizing Forbes?
 
2013-09-18 02:09:21 PM  
In before someone claims, in all seriousness, that this loop should run for president.
 
2013-09-18 02:09:27 PM  

Gosling: Why am I reading through this guy's archive? Get a load of this one.

"Bush lied, people died!"-they yell it out. But that is a moral denunciation. Despite their multiculturalism and relativism, in practice the Left does not treat morality as up for grabs, as subjectively "in the eye of the beholder." They assert moral absolutes, while still mouthing their official doctrine: "There are no absolutes."

If relativist Leftists accepted and lived by their notion that morality is a myth, they could not advocate any political position. If morality is a myth, then there's really no such thing as "social justice"-or any other kind of justice, no such thing as an obligation to the needy or to anyone else. If morality is just a "social construct," then the concept of "obligation" as such is mythical-on a par with the concept of "ghost." How can the relativist-Left then have any political position at all? Only by sneaking in the kind of absolutist moral judgments that their theory scorns.


That guy sounds like an elitist intellectual.
 
2013-09-18 02:10:00 PM  

neversubmit: Consequences dictate
course of action
and it doesn't matter what's right
It's only wrong if you get caught.


If consequences dictate
My course of action
Then I should play God
And shoot you myself.
 
2013-09-18 02:10:16 PM  

Cinaed: So.... lemme get the argument straight.  So long as the 'hapless outsider' is bilked and the 'upstanding insider' makes a delightful chunk of change, all is right with the world?


That is literally it. Here's a comment below all of the "great job!" comments in the article that spells it out:

I'm guessing this is an oblique reference to the idea that a market that allows "insider trading" is somehow "fixed" against the average investor. If so, so what? Why is that the government's business? Noone is forcing the average investor to participate in this allegedly rigged game. Nor is anyone preventing the stock markets from setting up whatever rules they like for trading on their exchanges.

If there is no coercion, then anyone who invests can use their own judgment to decide if it is in their interest to continue to do so, given the rules of the market. Since such trading undoubtedly does take place, government interference or not, and since the average investor undoubtedly knows of this, I would conclude that Giuliani's analogy fails. It's not the first time Rudy's been wrong, and it won't be the last.


The stock market is a scam for the average investor. Yet we're constantly told to be trust all of our savings and retirement plans to it and conservatives want to make sure even more money from average investors gets "freed" from things like Social Security and health care and put into the market.
 
2013-09-18 02:10:24 PM  

Karac: It's totally -not- rape to have sex with a woman after feeding her a roofied drink!


It's her fault for insufficient due diligence on the contents of her glass.
 
2013-09-18 02:11:50 PM  

Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.


Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.
 
2013-09-18 02:12:52 PM  

Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.


Words evolve.  Get used to it.  Or get used to being regarded as a douche.  Pick one.
 
m00
2013-09-18 02:13:15 PM  
Here's the thing.

An "insider" is someone at a company that has specific financial knowledge. It's not the engineer making a product, he's not an insider. Insiders are the CEO, CFO, board of directors, and so forth.

The "insider trading" is an unethical business practice and grossly unfair is because in a world where insiders exist, CEOs have even more incentive to obscure information that goes public about their business so that they can capitalize on it. Or share it with their CEO clique of friends so they can all capitalize on it. The breaks the foundation of the free market.

When I buy a share of a public company, it's because the CEO and the board have created it. Creating shares takes a chunk value out of a company in a very real sense, and then the company exchanges that value for cash. Stock trading is a competition -- you are competing with every other shareholder to buy and sell at the right time (aka before anyone else). If I CEO can buy and sell his personal shares with  asymmetric information because he is also the guy issuing those shares, then it's a rigged game and a conflict of interest.

It's like playing "guess a number between 1 and 10" and the person you are playing against is also the guy choosing the number. Of course he is going to win every time, because he knows the number he is thinking of.
 
2013-09-18 02:13:21 PM  

grumpfuff: Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.

Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.


How is insisting on an antiquated usage in the face of obvious meaning in context not trolling?
 
2013-09-18 02:14:14 PM  
With some borrowed money and inside information, you can extract all the value out of any company you want with a few selected trades.   This is why it is illegal.  If it were legal our entire economy would collapse from the actions of a few selected traders.
 
2013-09-18 02:14:51 PM  

Aristocles: The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.


I'm not Roman and I ain't in the legion. Decimate means ruin, destroy, etc. Or are you going to tell me next that living in Texas means I'm friendly because Texas is the english version of Tejas, which is the spanish version of an indian word meaning friend?
 
2013-09-18 02:15:04 PM  
HARRY BINS WANGER
 
2013-09-18 02:17:12 PM  

Aristocles: The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.


In the spirit of your post, screw you.
 
2013-09-18 02:17:14 PM  

ikanreed: grumpfuff: Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.

Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.

How is insisting on an antiquated usage in the face of obvious meaning in context not trolling?


Compared to the usual crap he posts? For instance, he didn't blame it on libruls or N0bama or whatever.
 
2013-09-18 02:18:01 PM  
Coming from Steven A. Cohen, who has access and use of collocated trading platforms in major exchanges seems humorous. For the uniformed, collocating means the user pays a yearly fee of several million dollars a year for the right and ability to manipulate the market price of stocks. He already gets to cut to the front of the line on trades and because of the unfetter access of the platform users can and do cause prices drops and increases with buy and sell order that are never completed. He not only has the right in his mind for insider trading I bet he pays a firm in DC for political intelligence, that is considered a form of legal insider trading but because there is no government oversight or registration required of the lobbyists and Congress and Obama excepted themselves again from insider trading laws, the amount siphoned of the capital markets for personal enrichment is unknown.
 
2013-09-18 02:18:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: I didn't get past this: I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Does anyone have a summary that won't make my IQ go down too many points?


What ever the rich want to steal from you should be legal, it should only be illegal when the poor or the government are taxing the rich.
 
2013-09-18 02:19:35 PM  

m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?


Let's ask Hostess that. Oh wait you can't because they were decimated.
 
2013-09-18 02:19:36 PM  

rev. dave: With some borrowed money and inside information, you can extract all the value out of any company you want with a few selected trades.   This is why it is illegal.  If it were legal our entire economy would collapse from the actions of a few selected traders.


Not to mention any retail investor who was paying attention would pull their money out of the market.
 
m00
2013-09-18 02:24:50 PM  

nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.


Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

As it was pointed out in this thread 3 arises due to modern misuse. It's a Latin word, and it means something very specific. I mean c'mon... it has deci in it which means tenth. There's no ambiguity here.

It would be like if kids stopped learning about geometry and in 30 years "hexagon" started being used as a generic word for "shape" because nobody knew better.

As I said, pet peeve. :)
 
2013-09-18 02:26:58 PM  
It would be an interesting experiment to eliminate insider trading laws, but you're a fool if you think you can be certain about how it would go.
 
2013-09-18 02:29:26 PM  
 
2013-09-18 02:29:38 PM  
Buying and selling of stock across state lines is "interstate commerce", to which Congress is granted the authority to regulate "promote the general welfare". The prohibition on insider trading seeks to promote the general welfare by trying to reduce the deviations from the ideal theoretical "free market" resulting from increased deviation from the presumed condition of "perfect information"; and also (historically) to increase public trust in stock markets, thus increasing the capital pool available for corporate investment towards further wealth creation.

If you don't like it, feel free to petition for Amendment, or to go Galt.
 
2013-09-18 02:32:32 PM  

grumpfuff: Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.

Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.


I know. I've come to see that no matter what I post, I'll be "decimated" by at least a handful of Farkers.

joeshill:

Words evolve.  Get used to it.  Or get used to being regarded as a douche.  Pick one.

I'm not regarded as a douche, I'm regarded as a condescending a-hole who thinks he's smarter and, therefore, better than everyone with whom he speaks.
 
2013-09-18 02:35:12 PM  

Mikey1969: theknuckler_33: Harry Binswanger, Contributor  I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

stoppedreadingrightthere.png

[www.gravatar.com image 136x136]
Hell, I stopped when I saw it was the same moron from the other thread. Didn't even need to get to his name, the pic was enough.


I had the same reaction, but then I thought: "Hmph. I myself have written many stupid things in a public forum while drunk, angry, or just plain trolling.  I would not want to be judged solely by the content of one of those posts.  I should give Mr. Binswanger a chance and read this."  So I did.

You guys were right.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
 
2013-09-18 02:40:53 PM  

Aristocles: grumpfuff: Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.

Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.

I know. I've come to see that no matter what I post, I'll be "decimated" by at least a handful of Farkers.

joeshill:

Words evolve.  Get used to it.  Or get used to being regarded as a douche.  Pick one.

I'm not regarded as a douche, I'm regarded as a condescending a-hole who thinks he's smarter and, therefore, better than everyone with whom he speaks.


As long as you are aware of the fact, then my work here is done.

Missed you at the last meeting.    Next time, get there early, and bring Tim Hortons.
 
2013-09-18 02:44:30 PM  

Virtuoso80: It would be an interesting experiment to eliminate insider trading laws, but you're a fool if you think you can be certain about how it would go.


He's starting from the assumption that all the inside information traded on will be good news, which isn't even remotely true.  In reality, you're also giving insiders the chance to dump their stock at the first sign of a drop.  The market would have to watch insiders closely and follow what they do as closely as possible to hope to have any chance of riding the wave up or down.  If it goes up, insiders get richer and investors get richer.  If it goes down, insiders stay rich, investors minimize their losses, and the company collapses under the losses even in situations that it may have been able to ride out without the massive initial sell off.  Also, insiders are under heavy pressure to sell at the earliest signs of a problem, because whoever sells first reaps the greatest reward as everyone else tries to catch up.

In essence, you're benefiting the rich by injecting steroids into the boom/bust nature of business and introducing a great deal of chaos to an already chaotic system.  And once again, the guy left holding the bag is the now unemployed worker whose retirement is worth a small fraction of what it was worth before the company folded.
 
2013-09-18 02:45:56 PM  

Gosling: "Those on the Right should be pointing out that "selfish greed" is a smear-term: it blackens ambitiousness and the desire to produce wealth, which are virtues, by associating them with mindless gluttony. But Rightists don't expose the smear because they share the anti-self morality, or at least fear to challenge it."

He just keeps farking talking.


Someone should tell this guy that cancer is simply a condition that is very ambitious and has a desire to produce wealth, both of which are virtues.

Perhaps he should investigating getting it (cancer, that is).
 
2013-09-18 02:47:11 PM  
I am very sad that this isn't from the onion.
 
2013-09-18 02:49:23 PM  

m00: Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine.


I'll bet you use a dozen words exactly like that every day and don't notice.

The "dashboard" of your car? Comes from the board that used to be in front of the driver of a carriage that the mud kicked up from the horses would "dash" against. Nothing to do with gauges or meters.

Is a fancy party "decadent?" I doubt the building it was in was falling apart, but the word stems from the same root as "decay."

Give me an hour and I'm sure I could come up with ten more.
 
2013-09-18 02:50:52 PM  

Aristocles: grumpfuff: Aristocles: nmrsnr: m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?

Oh look, aren't we being clever? Oh, wait

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to

No, we're not.

The third listing for that word is the result of modern misuse. The first is the true definition.

Whoa there buddy. You're supposed to be an obvious troll, not someone who makes sense.

I know. I've come to see that no matter what I post, I'll be "decimated" by at least a handful of Farkers.

joeshill:

Words evolve.  Get used to it.  Or get used to being regarded as a douche.  Pick one.

I'm not regarded as a douche, I'm regarded as a condescending a-hole who thinks he's smarter and, therefore, better than everyone with whom he speaks.


Just to assuage your pet peeve.  The Theban Legion was reportedly decimated (for refusing to worship the emperor?) repeatedly.   "until none were left"
 
2013-09-18 02:51:19 PM  

HighOnCraic: "SAC Capital's founder, Steven A. Cohen, is being tried as a witch..."


If he's guilty, do we get to burn him at the stake?

/I'll bring the marshmallows
 
2013-09-18 02:51:31 PM  
He's kind of right. People should assume that people with insider knowledge are conspiring to turn that knowledge into money. Given that information, they should not invest in the stock market. His ideas are as cunning as his plans are foolproof.
 
2013-09-18 02:54:44 PM  

nmrsnr: Is a fancy party "decadent?" I doubt the building it was in was falling apart, but the word stems from the same root as "decay."


The see no problem with that word as commonly used and decay sharing a root. "Decadent" and "sinful" are often used to describe the same dessert for a reason.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 02:56:43 PM  

ikanreed: How is insisting on an antiquated usage in the face of obvious meaning in context not trolling?


It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

It means reduce by 1/10th.
 
2013-09-18 02:58:35 PM  

nmrsnr: m00: Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I'll bet you use a dozen words exactly like that every day and don't notice.

The "dashboard" of your car? Comes from the board that used to be in front of the driver of a carriage that the mud kicked up from the horses would "dash" against. Nothing to do with gauges or meters.

Is a fancy party "decadent?" I doubt the building it was in was falling apart, but the word stems from the same root as "decay."

Give me an hour and I'm sure I could come up with ten more.


You're getting rather hysterical over this, no?
 
2013-09-18 03:02:58 PM  

Aristocles: You're getting rather hysterical over this, no?


Unfortunately, I can't, I don't have one of those.
 
2013-09-18 03:03:30 PM  

joeshill: Words evolve. Get used to it. Or get used to being regarded as a douche. Pick one.


Douche is the French word for "shower".  Anyone who uses it in any other way is a moron.

/this is a fun threadjack!
 
2013-09-18 03:03:45 PM  
I just went to his blog.

He's hidden his blog posts behind a paywall. He wants $14 a month, or $145 a year, for the pleasure of reading his nonsense.
 
2013-09-18 03:03:54 PM  
The inevitable result of unfettered Capitalism.
 
2013-09-18 03:06:01 PM  
Time to set one of these up right on Wall Street
i280.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-18 03:06:43 PM  

Gosling: I just went to his blog.

He's hidden his blog posts behind a paywall. He wants $14 a month, or $145 a year, for the pleasure of reading his nonsense.


And ya know, I bet there's people out there who'd be willing to pay it.
 
2013-09-18 03:08:33 PM  

vpb: ikanreed: How is insisting on an antiquated usage in the face of obvious meaning in context not trolling?

It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

It means reduce by 1/10th.


Yeah, I had my 4 years of Latin, and ancient roman history class, thanks.  I don't need the patronizing explanation.   The usage literally comes from Ancient History.  It's safe to call it antiquated.
 
2013-09-18 03:28:43 PM  
You've got to wonder if "Harry Binswanger" isn't some sort of troll.  He's almost a parody.  One of his other articles is titled, "Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%".  A quote from it:

Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it's too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year's top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind.
 
2013-09-18 03:30:22 PM  

Gosling: I just went to his blog.

He's hidden his blog posts behind a paywall. He wants $14 a month, or $145 a year, for the pleasure of reading his nonsense.


And yet he seems to hold himself up as some kind of expert on the economy.
 
2013-09-18 03:31:13 PM  
Forbes contributors get paid by the traffic. Don't click on the work of these clowns.
 
2013-09-18 03:32:11 PM  

2chris2: You've got to wonder if "Harry Binswanger" isn't some sort of troll.


His name is an anagram for Brawny Rash Reign.
 
2013-09-18 03:33:27 PM  
i.imgur.com

Regulation FD is a reasonable compromise to protect the interests of shareholders against corruptible fiduciaries. There is a fine line between due diligence, expert networks, and insider trading. Stay on the legal side of that line, and it's due diligence. Cross that line, in the ways that Galleon Group and SAC Capital were alleged to have done, and you turn a pyramid of ability into an aristocracy of pull. This isn't even taking into account the fact that employees have responsibilities towards their employers, and that director-level employees have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, etc. etc. etc. If we want to dig up scandals from a decade ago, Martha Stewart got railroaded over ImClone, but Waksal's actions were so far over the line against his own company's fiduciary interests that I can't see any rational justification for them.

In this essay, Binswanger argues that insider trading is a good thing because he appears to (a) uncritically accept the literal truth of everything Rand wrote, and because (b) Rand was on record as having written positively about it. In poorly attempting to rehash Rand's original essay on the topic, he inadvertently makes the case for an "aristocracy of pull" over the "pyramid of ability" that he lauded in the immediately-preceding essay. In light of this contradiction, I would humbly suggest that Mr. Binswanger check his premises: he will find that one of them is wrong.
 
2013-09-18 03:42:36 PM  

vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.


must be why next month is December.
 
2013-09-18 03:48:04 PM  

heap: vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

must be why next month is December.


Actually, December was originally the tenth month. October was the eighth and November was the ninth.
 
2013-09-18 03:50:31 PM  

Aristocles: heap: vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

must be why next month is December.

Actually, December was originally the tenth month. October was the eighth and November was the ninth.


NOOOOOO, REEEAAAAAAAALLLLLLY????

you mean at some point, the word meant one thing, and now it means another? give me room, i've got the vapors. your startling insight was so needed, thank you!
 
2013-09-18 03:52:28 PM  

Aristocles: heap: vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

must be why next month is December.

Actually, December was originally the tenth month. October was the eighth and November was the ninth.


Yeah, but September was the fourth.
 
2013-09-18 03:57:01 PM  
The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all
It's a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts. . .
 
2013-09-18 03:59:35 PM  

sprawl15: Aristocles: heap: vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

must be why next month is December.

Actually, December was originally the tenth month. October was the eighth and November was the ninth.

Yeah, but September was the fourth.


Err, no it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar
 
2013-09-18 04:01:18 PM  

nmrsnr: This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.


He completely misunderstands criminal law.  I'm not a lawyer, but from what I remember about mens rea, someone who sold their stock but didn't know about the fire wouldn't be committing a crime; someone who sold their stock and did know about the fire would be committing a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
 
2013-09-18 04:11:50 PM  

HighOnCraic: nmrsnr: This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.

He completely misunderstands criminal law.  I'm not a lawyer, but from what I remember about mens rea, someone who sold their stock but didn't know about the fire wouldn't be committing a crime; someone who sold their stock and did know about the fire would be committing a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea


I can't say exactly for stock, but I do know that if you're a real estate broker closing a deal and you neglect to tell the buyer that the place burned down last night that you're going to be in a bit of a legal pickle.
 
2013-09-18 04:20:29 PM  

Karac: I can't say exactly for stock, but I do know that if you're a real estate broker closing a deal and you neglect to tell the buyer that the place burned down last night that you're going to be in a bit of a legal pickle.


Hey man, buyer beware. You should have known to go look at the property before you bought it. The free market will take care of that broker anyway.
 
2013-09-18 04:24:30 PM  
Binswanger is a horrible person. Can we all at least agree on that point?
 
2013-09-18 04:35:00 PM  

White Lobster: Binswanger is a horrible person. Can we all at least agree on that point?


Well, no - the word horrible comes from horror, and I'm not scared of him.

/Are the words actually related? I'm too lazy to look up the etymology.
 
2013-09-18 04:36:02 PM  

odinsposse: Karac: I can't say exactly for stock, but I do know that if you're a real estate broker closing a deal and you neglect to tell the buyer that the place burned down last night that you're going to be in a bit of a legal pickle.

Hey man, buyer beware. You should have known to go look at the property before you bought it. The free market will take care of that broker anyway.


That's why I said 'closing' and 'last night'.  As in, you've already looked at the property and agreed to buy it, but it went up the last night before money actually changed hands - but the agent was told about it but not you.
 
2013-09-18 04:44:27 PM  
img202.imageshack.us
 
2013-09-18 04:47:43 PM  

Aristocles: I'm not regarded as a douche


Sure you are.
 
2013-09-18 04:48:47 PM  
Wow - that is a huge load of hogwash.

This is part of why I could never be a Libertarian.
 
2013-09-18 04:50:43 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Wow - that is a huge load of hogwash.

This is part of why I could never be a Libertarian.


The author despises Libertarians, actually.
 
2013-09-18 05:01:11 PM  

gnosis301: Ricardo Klement: Wow - that is a huge load of hogwash.

This is part of why I could never be a Libertarian.

The author despises Libertarians, actually.


I despise people who think there is a real difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

This sort of splitting hairs is about as creepy as to someone objecting to the word "pedophile" because there are more specific words for desire for specific age ranges and the person knows them all.
 
2013-09-18 05:11:53 PM  
I agree with Forbes, the US needs to become a third world banana republic just like our forefathers wanted.

While we're at it, let's bring back royalty and slavery so the GOP can finally be happy.
 
2013-09-18 05:13:03 PM  

heap: Aristocles: heap: vpb: It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

must be why next month is December.

Actually, December was originally the tenth month. October was the eighth and November was the ninth.

NOOOOOO, REEEAAAAAAAALLLLLLY????

you mean at some point, the word meant one thing, and now it means another? give me room, i've got the vapors. your startling insight was so needed, thank you!


Yes, really. You are quite welcome.
 
2013-09-18 05:15:24 PM  
Next week from Harry Binswanger: Why it's okay for Major League Baseball managers to bet on games their team plays.
 
2013-09-18 05:18:43 PM  

vpb: ikanreed: How is insisting on an antiquated usage in the face of obvious meaning in context not trolling?

It literally means that in Latin.  Decem = 10.

It means reduce by 1/10th.


"Literally" doesn't even mean literally anymore.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literall y_ now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/
 
2013-09-18 05:25:19 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: I agree with Forbes, the US needs to become a third world banana republic just like our forefathers wanted.

While we're at it, let's bring back royalty and slavery so the GOP can finally be happy.


2055: Why do these peasants look so slovenly? They should costume themselves in a manner more pleasing to my eye.
 
2013-09-18 05:25:39 PM  
FTA: "The hostility toward insider trading is based not on any legal consideration but on a vicious perversion of morality: egalitarianism-the same twisted, envy-ridden idea of morality our President is now promulgating in speeches around the nation."

You mean that everyone involved in any business deal should have all the information available for that deal at the same time - a level playing field, if you will? Like how capitalism is supposed to work?

What is up with these Randian assholes today?
 
2013-09-18 05:40:59 PM  

m00: nmrsnr: The company is decimated...

it's reduced by by a tenth?


Well, I thought it was funny.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:25 PM  

joeshill: Just to assuage your pet peeve.  The Theban Legion was reportedly decimated (for refusing to worship the emperor?) repeatedly.   "until none were left"


Sweet Caesar. What'd they do with the last guy, cut a tenth of his body off at a time till he died? (I wouldn't put that past the Romans - they weren't shy about brutality to make a point.)
 
2013-09-18 05:48:55 PM  

HairBolus: I despise people who think there is a real difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

This sort of splitting hairs is about as creepy as to someone objecting to the word "pedophile" because there are more specific words for desire for specific age ranges and the person knows them all.


So, I guess there's no real difference between Progressivism and Communism then.

Or, you might say there is some overlap here and there, but the two philosophies start with different premises and come to different conclusions?
 
2013-09-18 05:53:10 PM  

nmrsnr: This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.


The article seems like the kind of hyperbole that appears to be arguing one thing while actually making the case for the opposition. A Modest Free Market Proposal, but probably not on purpose.
 
2013-09-18 06:19:26 PM  

rewind2846: FTA: "The hostility toward insider trading is based not on any legal consideration but on a vicious perversion of morality: egalitarianism-the same twisted, envy-ridden idea of morality our President is now promulgating in speeches around the nation."

You mean that everyone involved in any business deal should have all the information available for that deal at the same time - a level playing field, if you will? Like how capitalism is supposed to work?

What is up with these Randian assholes today?


Asymmetrical information is cool, as long as I'm making money off you. It's just evidence that I am smarter than you, and deserve more. But if you use asymmetrical information to make money off me, that's what we call fraud, and that's just like theft. Speaking of which, it's not theft if I let you to work for me for half of what you're labor is worth, and you agree to my terms because for some reason you think you'll starve. But it is theft if, for whatever reason, I think you'll beat me up if I don't give you money.
Objectivism is really pretty simple, when you understand the objective, so to speak: I have something I don't want to share, and I need to convince the everyone that's the way nature intended it to be.
 
2013-09-18 06:41:07 PM  

strathcona: Aristocles: I'm not regarded as a douche

Sure you are.


In what way is he a shower?

//I know this game.
 
m00
2013-09-18 06:57:40 PM  

nmrsnr: m00: Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine.

I'll bet you use a dozen words exactly like that every day and don't notice.

The "dashboard" of your car? Comes from the board that used to be in front of the driver of a carriage that the mud kicked up from the horses would "dash" against. Nothing to do with gauges or meters.

Is a fancy party "decadent?" I doubt the building it was in was falling apart, but the word stems from the same root as "decay."

Give me an hour and I'm sure I could come up with ten more.


Yeah but a dashboard on a car is skeuomorphic. It's a design feature that exists as vestigial ornament of the form from which an automobile was derived. It's no longer functional, but the term is correct because that's what it is. Calling a party decadent refers to moral decay so that is also proper usage. It's an abstract usage, but it's valid.

But the word decimate literally means to reduce by a tenth.

Just like annihilate means to reduce to nothing since its root is nihil (see: nihilism).

I suspect that's the meaning you intended to convey: that the hypothetical company in your example was reduced to nothing.

I'm just saying... if you want to convey your ideas in a clear and precise manner, it's helpful to know the meaning of the words in your vocabulary. :)
 
2013-09-18 06:59:58 PM  

ox45tallboy: Dusk-You-n-Me: 6. Intelligence? Why did we need intelligence?

There's another joke right there about his Randian philosophy, it's just not coming to me right now.


Saw that and was about to jump all over it but you beat me too it! Darn you Ox.
 
2013-09-18 07:46:42 PM  
I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.


archive.foolzashit.com
 
2013-09-18 08:08:28 PM  
So can we call the mythical crime of voter fraud "freedom voting" too?
 
2013-09-18 09:34:00 PM  
This guy needs or is asking for an SEC boitch-slap.
The rules are there because everyone has a legitimate interest, including non-stockholders, and the government from ensuring a fair market place. Caveat emptor as it is known, the philosophy is guy is schlepping around in this column (he knows the word but knows that legally its a very very dirty word) doesn't work for one principal reason. People stop buying. If you cant trust that the goods you're buying at least have some warranty that what they what they are being sold as and appear to be at face value, are in fact what they are, then as a buyer you should demand a much lower price. The seller of the stock is demanding that you accept a risk as the buyer. But sellers want to make a profit and unless they  willing to offer some warranty they won't be able to make one because who would rationally take the risk. This leads of course to sellers intentionally or unintentionally violating said warranty because they either had no intention of honoring it, claim lack of consideration, or someone somewhere makes an oops. Now the buyer cannot trust the warranties they are issued with their purchase of stock and stop buying, and thus stop investing in the stock of corporations. Likewise the courts now overflow with contract cases for implied and actual warranties. Most of you probably aren't old enough to remember strike suits (I'm not) but we've already had to deal with stockholder shenanigans from both buyers and sellers earlier this century that clogged the courts. How do we solve this problem you ask? By mandating under law that everyone gets the same information. That way the buyer does not have to give a warranty because he can only act on the same information you have. The playing field is now somewhat leveled and risk is spread around.
/Objectivists are morans
 
2013-09-18 10:27:51 PM  

crab66: I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism.


[archive.foolzashiat.com image 850x606]


Yeah, that's one thing that Forbes is great at doing: All of their opinion columns have a short statement at the beginning that very succinctly tells the reader what the author's personal bias is. The same goes for those writing from the left in their pages, as well. It's kind of interesting, really- they're basically making sure their readers are aware of what lens to use when reading the column.
 
2013-09-18 10:40:32 PM  
Forbes is really terrible. Some of the articles are "shout in public" bad. Just purely offensive on every level. This is one of them.

Although the article about spending $50k on tax preparation fees was my personal favorite.
 
2013-09-18 11:27:57 PM  

HairBolus: gnosis301: Ricardo Klement: Wow - that is a huge load of hogwash.

This is part of why I could never be a Libertarian.

The author despises Libertarians, actually.

I despise people who think there is a real difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.

This sort of splitting hairs is about as creepy as to someone objecting to the word "pedophile" because there are more specific words for desire for specific age ranges and the person knows them all.


In this case: Libertarians have far too many blue collar folks who are championing their cause, and that makes the Job Creators nervous, because they don't like to mix with "the help."
 
2013-09-18 11:33:18 PM  

PanicMan: Forbes is really terrible. Some of the articles are "shout in public" bad. Just purely offensive on every level. This is one of them.

Although the article about spending $50k on tax preparation fees was my personal favorite.


In fairness, their online publication has to compete with the National Review Online, and that is a sea of DERP that just shames their parent magazine with every damn sentence. Forbes has long been about patting folks on the back, and telling them that they're OK for being rich, and they deserve it, dammit, for having to sit through all those boring "ethics" lectures. It is essentially a cheerleading session, for guys who don't want to admit that they would rather be at the Tilted Kilt for Hoegaarden draft night...
 
2013-09-19 12:28:31 AM  
Wouldn't that just drain ALL the faith out of the stock markets?

The only things that are left will be bots extracting crumbs through rounding errors.
 
2013-09-19 07:23:39 AM  

nmrsnr: This guy cannot be real, right? I mean you can't write this:

"Take a worst case scenario: a fire has just broken out in one of the firm's warehouses. Insiders start dumping their stock, selling it to hapless, ignorant outsiders who are about to see their newly bought stock plunge in price. But what is the cause of the stock's fall? The cause is not insider trading, but the fire."

And actually mean it. Because that's not even close to the worst case scenario. An obviously worse scenario is a bunch of CEOs shorting their own stock because they have direct control over whether their stock tanks, making a killing by destroying their own company, and walking away. The company is decimated not by accident, not by random act like fire, but because greedy people actively destroyed it for their own gain, putting hard working people out of work. And I'm pretty sure even that's not a worst case scenario, but I didn't want to spend more than a minute on this ridiculous human being.


Are you saying that if you had stock that you knew was facing one of these worst case scenarios, you'd hang on to it?
 
2013-09-19 11:15:18 AM  

HighOnCraic: "SAC Capital's founder, Steven A. Cohen, is being tried as a witch..."

Well, does he weigh more than a duck?


"Same as a duck". If she weighted more than a duck she wouldn't float nor be made of wood.

ARTHUR: A duck.CROWD: Oooh.BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.BEDEMIR: And therefore--?VILLAGER #1: A witch!CROWD: A witch!BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
 
2013-09-19 11:39:17 AM  
MindStalker:
ARTHUR: A duck
.CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!


My linebreaks went where???
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report