4 ms·

Is there a legitimate argument for keeping this legal and not pursuing an expansion of existing insider trading laws? The incentives here are horrifically backw

by doitLP 3y ago

Is there a legitimate argument for keeping this legal and not pursuing an expansion of existing insider trading laws? The incentives here are horrifically backwards.

ekianjo 3y ago
at the same time let's remove the immunity of politicians and prevent long terms that keep people in office until they die.
- _jal 3y ago
  > prevent long terms It is a quandary. Some pols burrow in and never go away, to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be serving. On the other hand, term limits just empower lobbyists, who don't have them. You think capture is bad now, just wait until all elected officials are perennial novices at the game.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Long term politicians are not adverse either to lobbying. On the contrary they are even more likely to be corrupted like a ripe apple exposed to the sun for too long
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Is there a legitimate argument for keeping this legal and not pursuing an expansion of existing insider trading laws? What existing insider trading laws?
frankbreetz 3y ago
Because the people in charge of changing it are getting rich. Why would they change it?
adamckay 3y ago
Can you clarify what you mean by "this"? Being able to copy the trades of politicians or politicians making trades that are almost instantly profitable?
- hyperhopper 3y ago
  Why in the world would somebody be complaining about the first one? Obviously the second one is a long standing, often talked about issue and is what they mean. Don't play dumb.
  - darig 3y ago
    [dead]
  - adamckay 3y ago
    I'm asking for clarification because whilst there's a strong argument that politicians are performing insider trading (which as you say is widely regarded as something that should be stopped), if an amateur can copy those trades and make a 20% profit on them, what's stopping hedge funds from doing the same and millions or billions from what is basically second-degree insider trading? I was asking if they are also suggesting that this second-degree insider trading be stopped somehow?
    - hyperhopper 3y ago
      1. Are you saying something is wrong with amateurs making 20%? 2. If an amateur could do it, hedge funds, HFT firms, etc have definitely been doing it for longer than them and have taken away and arbitrage opportunities. 3. It very likely might be that the one month lead that the politicians have make their trades profitable, while anybody copying them will be unprofitable due to those same politicians decisions
Aunche 3y ago
I've yet to see any good evidence that Congress is outperforming the market due to insider trading. Even if they were, I don't think that the net loss of a few million dollars in market efficiency is such a terrible sin, especially when you consider how terrible they are at their jobs. I find it much more concerning that they're spending half their time fundraising rather than actually doing their jobs.

by doitLP 3y ago

Is there a legitimate argument for keeping this legal and not pursuing an expansion of existing insider trading laws? The incentives here are horrifically backwards.

ekianjo 3y ago

at the same time let's remove the immunity of politicians and prevent long terms that keep people in office until they die.

_jal 3y ago
> prevent long terms It is a quandary. Some pols burrow in and never go away, to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be serving. On the other hand, term limits just empower lobbyists, who don't have them. You think capture is bad now, just wait until all elected officials are perennial novices at the game.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Long term politicians are not adverse either to lobbying. On the contrary they are even more likely to be corrupted like a ripe apple exposed to the sun for too long

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> Is there a legitimate argument for keeping this legal and not pursuing an expansion of existing insider trading laws? What existing insider trading laws?

frankbreetz 3y ago

Because the people in charge of changing it are getting rich. Why would they change it?

adamckay 3y ago

Can you clarify what you mean by "this"? Being able to copy the trades of politicians or politicians making trades that are almost instantly profitable?

hyperhopper 3y ago
Why in the world would somebody be complaining about the first one? Obviously the second one is a long standing, often talked about issue and is what they mean. Don't play dumb.
- darig 3y ago
  [dead]
- adamckay 3y ago
  I'm asking for clarification because whilst there's a strong argument that politicians are performing insider trading (which as you say is widely regarded as something that should be stopped), if an amateur can copy those trades and make a 20% profit on them, what's stopping hedge funds from doing the same and millions or billions from what is basically second-degree insider trading? I was asking if they are also suggesting that this second-degree insider trading be stopped somehow?
  - hyperhopper 3y ago
    1. Are you saying something is wrong with amateurs making 20%? 2. If an amateur could do it, hedge funds, HFT firms, etc have definitely been doing it for longer than them and have taken away and arbitrage opportunities. 3. It very likely might be that the one month lead that the politicians have make their trades profitable, while anybody copying them will be unprofitable due to those same politicians decisions

Aunche 3y ago

I've yet to see any good evidence that Congress is outperforming the market due to insider trading. Even if they were, I don't think that the net loss of a few million dollars in market efficiency is such a terrible sin, especially when you consider how terrible they are at their jobs. I find it much more concerning that they're spending half their time fundraising rather than actually doing their jobs.