4 ms·

If they broke the law, prosecute them. If they didn’t but what they did should have been illegal, complain to the people who wrote the law. If you had legal acc

If they broke the law, prosecute them. If they didn’t but what they did should have been illegal, complain to the people who wrote the law. If you had legal access to some information that let you make a good bet that a particular stock would rise tomorrow, would you refrain from buying some today on the basis that it’s unethical?

panarky 8y ago
I reject your implicit argument that every action is acceptable unless there is a law that explicitly makes it illegal. It is impossible to legislate everything. People do things that are immoral, unethical and just plain wrong even if there is no law against it, and it's perfectly OK to call them out for it.
- austhrow743 8y ago
  I didn't take that as their implication at all. To me it was a rhetorical question of "are you really saying that it would be unethical?" with the obvious answer being no. As in not questioning the concept of ethics as a whole, but their relevance to this situation. Do you really see this as an ethical issue? As far as I'm aware most laws around what information you can trade on aren't about morality, they're a pragmatic move to ensure a fat financial sector. By restricting the ways in which you can obtain information it opens the field for more players and more speculation. Reducing accuracy of prices in favour of robustness and liquidity. Sure there's exceptions. One could argue that because they've made an agreement, there's a moral obligation for a company executive to look out for their shareholders interests and front-running trades that hurt them would be a dick move. Other situations though? A hedge fund buying polling information? There's no agreement they're breaking there. They're just beating competitors in a zero sum game, with the externality being that markets are more accurate than they otherwise would have been.
  - panarky 8y ago
    > "are you really saying that it would be unethical?" with the obvious answer being no Did we read the same article? Farage "twice told the world on election night that Leave had likely lost, when he had information suggesting his side had actually won..." "feeding specious sentiment into markets..." "he laughed about helping to push the pound higher ahead of its crash, a role he seemed to relish. "'Yeah, and a good thing—good thing'" The obvious answer is that intentionally spreading disinformation to move markets is unethical.
- mikeash 8y ago
  That’s not my argument at all. My argument is explicitly that this is not unethical, and therefore if you want people not to do it then you should actually make it illegal and prosecute people.
  - tripzilch 8y ago
    Your argument was: would you refrain <doing legal thing> on the basis that it’s unethical? Certainly, you should complain to the lawmakers because without making it a legal rule, choosing not to do the unethical thing isn't going to stop others from doing it. But that doesn't make it right to do it yourself!
tripzilch 8y ago
Are you seriously asking whether one ought to refrain from doing something unethical, even if it's technically legal? This is Ethics 101...

panarky 8y ago

I reject your implicit argument that every action is acceptable unless there is a law that explicitly makes it illegal. It is impossible to legislate everything. People do things that are immoral, unethical and just plain wrong even if there is no law against it, and it's perfectly OK to call them out for it.

austhrow743 8y ago
I didn't take that as their implication at all. To me it was a rhetorical question of "are you really saying that it would be unethical?" with the obvious answer being no. As in not questioning the concept of ethics as a whole, but their relevance to this situation. Do you really see this as an ethical issue? As far as I'm aware most laws around what information you can trade on aren't about morality, they're a pragmatic move to ensure a fat financial sector. By restricting the ways in which you can obtain information it opens the field for more players and more speculation. Reducing accuracy of prices in favour of robustness and liquidity. Sure there's exceptions. One could argue that because they've made an agreement, there's a moral obligation for a company executive to look out for their shareholders interests and front-running trades that hurt them would be a dick move. Other situations though? A hedge fund buying polling information? There's no agreement they're breaking there. They're just beating competitors in a zero sum game, with the externality being that markets are more accurate than they otherwise would have been.
- panarky 8y ago
  > "are you really saying that it would be unethical?" with the obvious answer being no Did we read the same article? Farage "twice told the world on election night that Leave had likely lost, when he had information suggesting his side had actually won..." "feeding specious sentiment into markets..." "he laughed about helping to push the pound higher ahead of its crash, a role he seemed to relish. "'Yeah, and a good thing—good thing'" The obvious answer is that intentionally spreading disinformation to move markets is unethical.
mikeash 8y ago
That’s not my argument at all. My argument is explicitly that this is not unethical, and therefore if you want people not to do it then you should actually make it illegal and prosecute people.
- tripzilch 8y ago
  Your argument was: would you refrain <doing legal thing> on the basis that it’s unethical? Certainly, you should complain to the lawmakers because without making it a legal rule, choosing not to do the unethical thing isn't going to stop others from doing it. But that doesn't make it right to do it yourself!

tripzilch 8y ago

Are you seriously asking whether one ought to refrain from doing something unethical, even if it's technically legal? This is Ethics 101...