5 ms·

Yet if the average corporate person does insider trading it comes with a prison sentence not pricing. It’s wild how banana republic level corrupt the US is all

by Havoc 3mo ago

Yet if the average corporate person does insider trading it comes with a prison sentence not pricing. It’s wild how banana republic level corrupt the US is all of a sudden. Really went from 0 to 100 in months

AngryData 3mo ago
[flagged]
- Paratoner 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster.
    - orwin 3mo ago
      From an external point of view, one side is at least trying. Ranked choice voting, "no corporate money in politics" and other initiative like this, to add more democracy, suddenly come out on my news feed and each time i say to myself "it won't work right now, but at least it seems those are steps in the correct direction". Supporting the people who run on those platform is infinitely better than a destructive nihilism.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        One side is trying to destroy America, the other is sitting by and prioritising maintaining decorum and insider trading off the destruction of America that's already happening. I don't know who's running on the platform you just said.
        sheikhnbake 3mo ago
        There are quite a few democratic socialists running on that platform across the country.
    - throw0101d 3mo ago
      > Both sides are bad. There were (then-)members of the Republican party who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris: > Conservative author David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday that he cast an early vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. * https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-frum-i-voted-for-clinton/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-fr... > But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others. > So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal. * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch... That was in 2016.
  - swed420 3mo ago
    > We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty The intellectual dishonesty is pretending that not calling out both sides will lead to any kind of long term solution. > But hey! Kamala would've done the same. Saying both sides are bad is not saying they're the same. They take on different forms but are both fundamentally broken and part of the same uniparty of capital interests. The blue/red parties offer an illusion of democracy, but really they just play good cop/bad cop while ultimately serving the wants of elites instead of needs/wants of the vast majority. But elections appear close, so people think they still have a democracy while they argue about which flavor of shit to install in the control booth. Installing the subjectively "less bad" flavor only guarantees the other one will soon take over in a collective race to the bottom. Dems elevated Trump from meme tier gameshow host to serious contender thanks to their pied piper strategy, and all they could manage was to get mad at wikileaks for exposing them.
    - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
      You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). And here we are with perfect being the enemy of the good…
      - swed420 3mo ago
        > You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). Maybe if you want to manufacture consent for the broken system which continues to make lives worse with each passing year instead of confront it. If you're trying to find agreement, maybe say both sides are responsible for widespread misery, and corruption/exploitable systems and perpetual settling for lesser-evils among "voters" is what keeps us on this path. And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote.
      - IAmBroom 3mo ago
        > And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote. ... Yes, I agree. Abstaining from voting is the same as voting for Trump. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
bestouff 3mo ago
30 to 100 maybe
- hakunin 3mo ago
  The difference between a million and a billion is a billion. It's basically 0 to 100.
lostlogin 3mo ago
> It’s wild how banana republic level corrupt the US is all of a sudden. It’s wild how utterly predicable this was and yet it was the chosen path.
- spwa4 3mo ago
  When you get older, eventually you see the pattern. Political parties, whatever their viewpoints, are tolerated as long as they improve economic outcomes fast enough. When that even just slows down, there is some tolerance, but not much.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Literally the reason people voted for Hitler was that the German economy was in the shitter and he promised to fix it, with promises that made no sense, similar to Trump's.
    - antisthenes 3mo ago
      As always, uneducated ignorant people make life hell for everyone else. In order for a democracy to function, you need people that are able to evaluate political promises as bullshit or not. If you believe nonsense from grifters, you get either what you described or the current US admin. Or Brexit. I'm sure there are more examples of this in history.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        That's why the right wing always defunds the education system everywhere it gets power, right?
        hn_acker 3mo ago
        While siphoning the remaining public school funding to private schools [1]: > ProPublica analyzed data from 13 states of varying sizes that do publish private school directories and offer public funding to these types of schools, and found that at least 1,500 more are listed today than were five years ago — bringing the total to more than 9,600. The numbers provide a rare look into the growth catalyzed by friendly legislatures and government money, while public school districts are losing students and closing schools. > When public money is available, most private schools take advantage of that funding. In several states, all or nearly all students at some private schools pay tuition with public dollars. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/private-schools-vouchers-growth-florida-arizona-west-virginia https://www.propublica.org/article/private-schools-vouchers-...
pjc50 3mo ago
Does raise the question of whether this also comes with free immunity from prosecution, or whether the NYAG should just pre-emptively say that anyone signing up for this and trading on the results will be prosecuted under NY state law. (Critical to the whole thing is unfortunately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in... , where the judge inexplicably decided to waive sentencing for a felony conviction)
- PunchyHamster 3mo ago
  that comes with extra donations
- spwa4 3mo ago
  If you want law and policing to work, it needs to be very predictable for everyone. So yes, if there is the least bit of doubt, the NYAG should absolutely say, far in advance, that this will happen. Because if this isn't the case, then people will be forced to compete by "slightly" violating the law, everyone a little bit more, until the law is a total joke. This has happened in history.
- tenthirtyam 3mo ago
  Well, maybe information that is for sale on the open market to anybody that's willing to pay is no longer considered 'insider' information? i.e. trader Jane Doe can't complain that trader John Doe has this info - she could have it too if she wanted. (edit: not defending this, I find it to be deplorable and disgraces the office of president.)
  - tavavex 3mo ago
    She could only have that info if she has the money to pay for it. In every possible interpretation, this is just discriminating based on wealth. There was no paywall before. Now the rich get direct access to better information and more wealth, everyone else is left in the dust. As if they didn't already have that advantage before. To me this would be similar to an argument that "one dollar = one vote" is democractic because anyone could hypothetically pay more or just earn more money.
feverzsj 3mo ago
The system is broken. There is no effective restrict on president's powers. And the president is Trump.
- mDyJzDPmBdG 3mo ago
  I mean Congress or SCOTUS could restrict his powers but they don't want to. How do you even go about fixing that? And is it really that uncommon when president, congress and supreme court is controlled by same party? I have a feeling the only new element is that the same can be now said for media.
  - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
    Previous comment: "The system is broken." Reply: "Congress or SCOTUS could restrict his powers but they don't want to." Conclusion: the system is broken.
whazor 3mo ago
real danger of insider trading is that you can get jailed 20 years in the future for something you did today
- bradleybuda 3mo ago
  Inshallah
  - red-iron-pine 3mo ago
    yeah ima be doin hookers and blow for the next 20 years, they can jail my 78 year old ass crypto means they'll never find the money either
bko 3mo ago
Not sure what "average corporate person" means, but if you're just a random dude and you trade on your golf buddies tips, no one is going to throw you in jail. Very few people get charged a year, like dozens. I'm sure >99.9% of get away with it. I think it's often political or targeted. The weirdness here comes from the president owning a social media company. I think they're playing up how markets move on their posts for obvious reasons. But social media companies likely sell priority access. They're called enterprise licensing deals. Same with news media, like Bloomberg, Dow, Reuters. This isn't "insider trading" its publicly available information. The idea that the "little guy" is somehow screwed over by this is just silly. https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/insider-trading-fbi-sec-charges-74ac19e5 https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/insider-trading-fbi...
bathtub365 3mo ago
The algorithmic trading firms were already doing this via scraping. What I’m curious about is if they’re going to also impose a slight delay between when posts show up in the API vs when they’re posted on the website.
- John23832 3mo ago
  > The algorithmic trading firms were already doing this via scraping. That doesn’t matter. That’s fundamentally different than the president selling access to himself.
- red-iron-pine 3mo ago
  thats math bots reading trades and making best guesses. probably detremental to the market as a whole but not fundamentally illegal -- they're just watching really, really, really closely. DJT is selling access to stuff that he knows will move the market, and may only be done just to move the market. wholesale graft, and depending on who benefits, possibly treason.
- hazard 3mo ago
  >if they’re going to also impose a slight delay between when posts show up in the API vs when they’re posted on the website. help Yes, they say it will be a few milliseconds. This service is squarely targeted at algo trading firms.
halJordan 3mo ago
Definitely not 0->100 Remember companies go bankrupt. Slowly then all of the sudden. We're in a problem that was made by the Bushs, Clintons, Obama & Biden. And Trump. Those who went before them. And of course the voters who put them in power.
Jordan-117 3mo ago
It's kind of what happens when an electorate empowers a pathologically lying corrupt criminal to head of state and gives their craven sycophants legislative majorities.
duxup 3mo ago
Generally the SCOTUS majority seems to feel "It's ok if our president does it." when it it comes to most things. The few times they disagree they let it stand (like tariffs) and allows the government to collect illegal taxes from the people, and then just shrug at the end with "well guess that was wrong"... and the citizens get nothing back.
- red-iron-pine 3mo ago
  SCOTUS takes money from them -- it is to be expected
Eddy_Viscosity2 3mo ago
> if the average corporate person does insider trading it comes with a prison sentence not pricing More like it went from 60 to 100. Laws not applying to very wealthy and connected people is definitely not a new development in the USA. But yes, the trend has been accelerating and become very blatant and in-your-face.
0ckpuppet 3mo ago
you're about 3 administrations late to the party. The only difference now is that you're paying attention.

by Havoc 3mo ago

AngryData 3mo ago

[flagged]

Paratoner 3mo ago
[flagged]
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster.
  - orwin 3mo ago
    From an external point of view, one side is at least trying. Ranked choice voting, "no corporate money in politics" and other initiative like this, to add more democracy, suddenly come out on my news feed and each time i say to myself "it won't work right now, but at least it seems those are steps in the correct direction". Supporting the people who run on those platform is infinitely better than a destructive nihilism.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      One side is trying to destroy America, the other is sitting by and prioritising maintaining decorum and insider trading off the destruction of America that's already happening. I don't know who's running on the platform you just said.
      - sheikhnbake 3mo ago
        There are quite a few democratic socialists running on that platform across the country.
  - throw0101d 3mo ago
    > Both sides are bad. There were (then-)members of the Republican party who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris: > Conservative author David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, announced Wednesday that he cast an early vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. * https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-frum-i-voted-for-clinton/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/303984-david-fr... > But she is a patriot. She will uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States. She will defend allies. She will execute the laws with reasonable impartiality. She may bend some rules for her own and her supporters’ advantage. She will not outright defy legality altogether. Above all, she can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others. > So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal. * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch... That was in 2016.
- swed420 3mo ago
  > We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty The intellectual dishonesty is pretending that not calling out both sides will lead to any kind of long term solution. > But hey! Kamala would've done the same. Saying both sides are bad is not saying they're the same. They take on different forms but are both fundamentally broken and part of the same uniparty of capital interests. The blue/red parties offer an illusion of democracy, but really they just play good cop/bad cop while ultimately serving the wants of elites instead of needs/wants of the vast majority. But elections appear close, so people think they still have a democracy while they argue about which flavor of shit to install in the control booth. Installing the subjectively "less bad" flavor only guarantees the other one will soon take over in a collective race to the bottom. Dems elevated Trump from meme tier gameshow host to serious contender thanks to their pied piper strategy, and all they could manage was to get mad at wikileaks for exposing them.
  - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
    You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). And here we are with perfect being the enemy of the good…
    - swed420 3mo ago
      > You might as well say neither side are perfect (which no one disagrees with). Maybe if you want to manufacture consent for the broken system which continues to make lives worse with each passing year instead of confront it. If you're trying to find agreement, maybe say both sides are responsible for widespread misery, and corruption/exploitable systems and perpetual settling for lesser-evils among "voters" is what keeps us on this path. And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote.
    - IAmBroom 3mo ago
      > And before anybody tries to blame the non-voters, abstaining from voting in a broken system is indeed a vote. ... Yes, I agree. Abstaining from voting is the same as voting for Trump. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

bestouff 3mo ago

30 to 100 maybe

hakunin 3mo ago
The difference between a million and a billion is a billion. It's basically 0 to 100.

lostlogin 3mo ago

> It’s wild how banana republic level corrupt the US is all of a sudden. It’s wild how utterly predicable this was and yet it was the chosen path.

spwa4 3mo ago
When you get older, eventually you see the pattern. Political parties, whatever their viewpoints, are tolerated as long as they improve economic outcomes fast enough. When that even just slows down, there is some tolerance, but not much.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Literally the reason people voted for Hitler was that the German economy was in the shitter and he promised to fix it, with promises that made no sense, similar to Trump's.
  - antisthenes 3mo ago
    As always, uneducated ignorant people make life hell for everyone else. In order for a democracy to function, you need people that are able to evaluate political promises as bullshit or not. If you believe nonsense from grifters, you get either what you described or the current US admin. Or Brexit. I'm sure there are more examples of this in history.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      That's why the right wing always defunds the education system everywhere it gets power, right?
      - hn_acker 3mo ago
        While siphoning the remaining public school funding to private schools [1]: > ProPublica analyzed data from 13 states of varying sizes that do publish private school directories and offer public funding to these types of schools, and found that at least 1,500 more are listed today than were five years ago — bringing the total to more than 9,600. The numbers provide a rare look into the growth catalyzed by friendly legislatures and government money, while public school districts are losing students and closing schools. > When public money is available, most private schools take advantage of that funding. In several states, all or nearly all students at some private schools pay tuition with public dollars. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/private-schools-vouchers-growth-florida-arizona-west-virginia https://www.propublica.org/article/private-schools-vouchers-...

pjc50 3mo ago

Does raise the question of whether this also comes with free immunity from prosecution, or whether the NYAG should just pre-emptively say that anyone signing up for this and trading on the results will be prosecuted under NY state law. (Critical to the whole thing is unfortunately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in... , where the judge inexplicably decided to waive sentencing for a felony conviction)

PunchyHamster 3mo ago
that comes with extra donations
spwa4 3mo ago
If you want law and policing to work, it needs to be very predictable for everyone. So yes, if there is the least bit of doubt, the NYAG should absolutely say, far in advance, that this will happen. Because if this isn't the case, then people will be forced to compete by "slightly" violating the law, everyone a little bit more, until the law is a total joke. This has happened in history.
tenthirtyam 3mo ago
Well, maybe information that is for sale on the open market to anybody that's willing to pay is no longer considered 'insider' information? i.e. trader Jane Doe can't complain that trader John Doe has this info - she could have it too if she wanted. (edit: not defending this, I find it to be deplorable and disgraces the office of president.)
- tavavex 3mo ago
  She could only have that info if she has the money to pay for it. In every possible interpretation, this is just discriminating based on wealth. There was no paywall before. Now the rich get direct access to better information and more wealth, everyone else is left in the dust. As if they didn't already have that advantage before. To me this would be similar to an argument that "one dollar = one vote" is democractic because anyone could hypothetically pay more or just earn more money.

feverzsj 3mo ago

The system is broken. There is no effective restrict on president's powers. And the president is Trump.

mDyJzDPmBdG 3mo ago
I mean Congress or SCOTUS could restrict his powers but they don't want to. How do you even go about fixing that? And is it really that uncommon when president, congress and supreme court is controlled by same party? I have a feeling the only new element is that the same can be now said for media.
- JKCalhoun 3mo ago
  Previous comment: "The system is broken." Reply: "Congress or SCOTUS could restrict his powers but they don't want to." Conclusion: the system is broken.

whazor 3mo ago

real danger of insider trading is that you can get jailed 20 years in the future for something you did today

bradleybuda 3mo ago
Inshallah
- red-iron-pine 3mo ago
  yeah ima be doin hookers and blow for the next 20 years, they can jail my 78 year old ass crypto means they'll never find the money either

bko 3mo ago

Not sure what "average corporate person" means, but if you're just a random dude and you trade on your golf buddies tips, no one is going to throw you in jail. Very few people get charged a year, like dozens. I'm sure >99.9% of get away with it. I think it's often political or targeted. The weirdness here comes from the president owning a social media company. I think they're playing up how markets move on their posts for obvious reasons. But social media companies likely sell priority access. They're called enterprise licensing deals. Same with news media, like Bloomberg, Dow, Reuters. This isn't "insider trading" its publicly available information. The idea that the "little guy" is somehow screwed over by this is just silly. https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/insider-trading-fbi-sec-charges-74ac19e5 https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/insider-trading-fbi...

bathtub365 3mo ago

The algorithmic trading firms were already doing this via scraping. What I’m curious about is if they’re going to also impose a slight delay between when posts show up in the API vs when they’re posted on the website.

John23832 3mo ago
> The algorithmic trading firms were already doing this via scraping. That doesn’t matter. That’s fundamentally different than the president selling access to himself.
red-iron-pine 3mo ago
thats math bots reading trades and making best guesses. probably detremental to the market as a whole but not fundamentally illegal -- they're just watching really, really, really closely. DJT is selling access to stuff that he knows will move the market, and may only be done just to move the market. wholesale graft, and depending on who benefits, possibly treason.
hazard 3mo ago
>if they’re going to also impose a slight delay between when posts show up in the API vs when they’re posted on the website. help Yes, they say it will be a few milliseconds. This service is squarely targeted at algo trading firms.

halJordan 3mo ago

Definitely not 0->100 Remember companies go bankrupt. Slowly then all of the sudden. We're in a problem that was made by the Bushs, Clintons, Obama & Biden. And Trump. Those who went before them. And of course the voters who put them in power.

Jordan-117 3mo ago

It's kind of what happens when an electorate empowers a pathologically lying corrupt criminal to head of state and gives their craven sycophants legislative majorities.

duxup 3mo ago

Generally the SCOTUS majority seems to feel "It's ok if our president does it." when it it comes to most things. The few times they disagree they let it stand (like tariffs) and allows the government to collect illegal taxes from the people, and then just shrug at the end with "well guess that was wrong"... and the citizens get nothing back.

red-iron-pine 3mo ago
SCOTUS takes money from them -- it is to be expected

Eddy_Viscosity2 3mo ago

> if the average corporate person does insider trading it comes with a prison sentence not pricing More like it went from 60 to 100. Laws not applying to very wealthy and connected people is definitely not a new development in the USA. But yes, the trend has been accelerating and become very blatant and in-your-face.

0ckpuppet 3mo ago

you're about 3 administrations late to the party. The only difference now is that you're paying attention.