4 ms·

What part of the constitution protects the right to trade stocks?

by halpert 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago
Taking property without compensation.
- klyrs 5y ago
  What property is being taken, in this case?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Owning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights.
    - halpert 5y ago
      But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it), so your property rights aren’t being violated.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Sorry, but stocks are clearly property. > But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it) That doesn't even make any sense.
        halpert 5y ago
        My point is that you don’t own a stock until you buy it. So you can restrict the ability to buy a stock without impacting the someone’s ownership rights.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        The right to buy is another property right.
        halpert 5y ago
        So you can buy anything? Where is that right enshrined in the constitution?
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Looping back to the beginning, the taking of property without compensation.
        halpert 5y ago
        But again, what property is being taken? Unless you consider “the right to buy stocks” as property itself, which seems tenuous. You basically could apply that to any such item: “the right to buy drugs”, “the right to buy nuclear weapons”, etc. This isn’t a value judgement on whether or not one should be able to buy prohibited items. Rather, it’s an observation that clearly the legal system does not interpret “the right to buy” as property covered by the constitution. By the way, society does generally let you buy whatever you want. It’s only when your ownership of an item infringes the rights of others are you generally barred from owning something. E.g. you’re not allowed to buy nuclear weapons because they pose a danger to those around you. Allowing policy makers and their families to trade stocks also poses a danger that insider knowledge will be used for personal gain in the market. This is a form of theft against the market and public at large. What about the rights of everyone else?
        WalterBright 5y ago
        I already answered that. I'm not interested in going in circles.
        5y ago
    - hermitdev 5y ago
      > Owning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights. I've spent the vast majority of my professional career working in finance, subject to SEC rules and regulations regarding insider trading. None of this precludes own, buying or selling stocks. SEC rules prohibit acting upon material nonpublic information for financial gain, the likes of which congress critters do all the time. It is this act of buying and selling on material nonpublic information that is illegal for the common folk, and ought to be illegal for those making the laws that affect the stocks. Don't want to be subject to mandatory holding periods and disclosures? Buy ETFs like the rest of us. And yes, insider trading rules apply to my family as well. I cannot tell my parents or children or siblings or in-laws or friends any material nonpublic information with the intention of financial gain through buying or selling stocks. If one is going to engage in buying & selling of stock to which one is privy to insider knowledge, there are means to both buy and sell said stock. It usually involves disclosures of intention to buy or sell and a predetermined date. It may typically only be done within a certain time frame, typically quarterly after earnings have been announced. If you're buying, there's typically minimum holding periods (length varies, but it effectively precludes day trading). Point is, there are legal ways to buy and sell within the rules. No one is being deprived of rights. But, if you buy or sell in violation of the rules, there may be forfeiture involved, because you were never allowed to make the transaction in the first place. Break the rules, be prepared to pay the penalty. Congress is not above the law, and they should be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. This isn't a Republic or Democrat issue. It's common sense, but doesn't benefit the people in charge of making the laws, so it doesn't happen. Or if anything does happen, it's loudly and publicly championed and then quiet neutralized when things have calmed down and no one's looking anymore. Let me put it bluntly. If I, not being a member of Congress, pulled the same thing Pelosi does with her husband and their trading, my spouse and I would both be in jail and rightfully so. And no, Pelosi is by far the only one, but she's a very public example of this as the Speaker of the House.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I hear you, but I'm not sure that insider trading laws actually accomplish their objective. There are so many ways to cheat on this, I bet it's rampant. It's like anti-doping rules in bike racing. Now, if it were legalized, professional investors would be monitoring the trading activity of insiders. down to the microsecond. Any adverse trades by insiders would provoke an immediate reaction, and so the gains by such trades would be minimized. Furthermore, such moves would be public information. Would you invest in a company where the insiders were making adverse trades? I wouldn't. As for Congressmen, if I was trying to unseat one, you bet I'd make a campaign issue out of them if they're using the seat for personal gain.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Yes, and upon assuming a seat of power, I think it's reasonable to expect a politician and their close confidantes to divest of their ties to the market that the politician wields undue power over. As in, they can sell it, on the open market. Nobody's property is being taken with undue compensation. Unless they violate the law, and then it's subject to ordinary forfeiture of assets used in the commission of a crime.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I'm not arguing whether it is a good idea or not, I was responding to the request for where those property rights were in the Constitution. As for the applicability of those rights to specific issues, that's up to the courts, which have a record of creative interpretations to do whatever they want to.
belltaco 5y ago
The ninth amendment.

What part of the constitution protects the right to trade stocks?

WalterBright 5y ago

Taking property without compensation.

klyrs 5y ago
What property is being taken, in this case?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Owning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights.
  - halpert 5y ago
    But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it), so your property rights aren’t being violated.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Sorry, but stocks are clearly property. > But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it) That doesn't even make any sense.
      - halpert 5y ago
        My point is that you don’t own a stock until you buy it. So you can restrict the ability to buy a stock without impacting the someone’s ownership rights.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        The right to buy is another property right.
        halpert 5y ago
        So you can buy anything? Where is that right enshrined in the constitution?
        WalterBright 5y ago
        Looping back to the beginning, the taking of property without compensation.
        halpert 5y ago
        But again, what property is being taken? Unless you consider “the right to buy stocks” as property itself, which seems tenuous. You basically could apply that to any such item: “the right to buy drugs”, “the right to buy nuclear weapons”, etc. This isn’t a value judgement on whether or not one should be able to buy prohibited items. Rather, it’s an observation that clearly the legal system does not interpret “the right to buy” as property covered by the constitution. By the way, society does generally let you buy whatever you want. It’s only when your ownership of an item infringes the rights of others are you generally barred from owning something. E.g. you’re not allowed to buy nuclear weapons because they pose a danger to those around you. Allowing policy makers and their families to trade stocks also poses a danger that insider knowledge will be used for personal gain in the market. This is a form of theft against the market and public at large. What about the rights of everyone else?
        WalterBright 5y ago
        I already answered that. I'm not interested in going in circles.
        5y ago
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    > Owning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights. I've spent the vast majority of my professional career working in finance, subject to SEC rules and regulations regarding insider trading. None of this precludes own, buying or selling stocks. SEC rules prohibit acting upon material nonpublic information for financial gain, the likes of which congress critters do all the time. It is this act of buying and selling on material nonpublic information that is illegal for the common folk, and ought to be illegal for those making the laws that affect the stocks. Don't want to be subject to mandatory holding periods and disclosures? Buy ETFs like the rest of us. And yes, insider trading rules apply to my family as well. I cannot tell my parents or children or siblings or in-laws or friends any material nonpublic information with the intention of financial gain through buying or selling stocks. If one is going to engage in buying & selling of stock to which one is privy to insider knowledge, there are means to both buy and sell said stock. It usually involves disclosures of intention to buy or sell and a predetermined date. It may typically only be done within a certain time frame, typically quarterly after earnings have been announced. If you're buying, there's typically minimum holding periods (length varies, but it effectively precludes day trading). Point is, there are legal ways to buy and sell within the rules. No one is being deprived of rights. But, if you buy or sell in violation of the rules, there may be forfeiture involved, because you were never allowed to make the transaction in the first place. Break the rules, be prepared to pay the penalty. Congress is not above the law, and they should be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. This isn't a Republic or Democrat issue. It's common sense, but doesn't benefit the people in charge of making the laws, so it doesn't happen. Or if anything does happen, it's loudly and publicly championed and then quiet neutralized when things have calmed down and no one's looking anymore. Let me put it bluntly. If I, not being a member of Congress, pulled the same thing Pelosi does with her husband and their trading, my spouse and I would both be in jail and rightfully so. And no, Pelosi is by far the only one, but she's a very public example of this as the Speaker of the House.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I hear you, but I'm not sure that insider trading laws actually accomplish their objective. There are so many ways to cheat on this, I bet it's rampant. It's like anti-doping rules in bike racing. Now, if it were legalized, professional investors would be monitoring the trading activity of insiders. down to the microsecond. Any adverse trades by insiders would provoke an immediate reaction, and so the gains by such trades would be minimized. Furthermore, such moves would be public information. Would you invest in a company where the insiders were making adverse trades? I wouldn't. As for Congressmen, if I was trying to unseat one, you bet I'd make a campaign issue out of them if they're using the seat for personal gain.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Yes, and upon assuming a seat of power, I think it's reasonable to expect a politician and their close confidantes to divest of their ties to the market that the politician wields undue power over. As in, they can sell it, on the open market. Nobody's property is being taken with undue compensation. Unless they violate the law, and then it's subject to ordinary forfeiture of assets used in the commission of a crime.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I'm not arguing whether it is a good idea or not, I was responding to the request for where those property rights were in the Constitution. As for the applicability of those rights to specific issues, that's up to the courts, which have a record of creative interpretations to do whatever they want to.

belltaco 5y ago

The ninth amendment.