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 32
    More: Amusing, political freedom, Mises, trade, Spitzer  
•       •       •

1751 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-18 01:28:29 PM  
10 votes:
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 01:43:35 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:58:09 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:40:38 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:36:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:32:54 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:31:41 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:16:35 PM  
2 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 11:39:54 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:51:29 AM  
2 votes:
Forbes is like Kool-Aid for the 1%.
2013-09-18 10:27:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:34:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:19:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:01:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:57:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:33:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:28:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:06:01 PM  
1 votes:
Time to set one of these up right on Wall Street
i280.photobucket.com
2013-09-18 02:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:57:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:50:21 PM  
1 votes:

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.
m00
2013-09-18 01:49:07 PM  
1 votes:

nmrsnr: The company is decimated

...

it's reduced by by a tenth?
2013-09-18 01:48:30 PM  
1 votes:
didn't know Forbes had a satirical section.
2013-09-18 01:47:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:40:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:40:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:38:30 PM  
1 votes:
How did we get saddled with this knob twice in one day, dammit?

BTW, did anyone read the derp this time?
2013-09-18 01:38:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:36:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:55:05 AM  
1 votes:
Randian Objectivism is a broken and pretty stupid philosophy.

/Harry Binswanger is a cock
2013-09-18 10:48:37 AM  
1 votes:
"SAC Capital's founder, Steven A. Cohen, is being tried as a witch..."

Well, does he weigh more than a duck?
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report