3 ms·

> Let free people interact in the market This isn't the question. The question is whether or not the market is fair. This is the role of government in this cas

by mbreese 13y ago

> Let free people interact in the market This isn't the question. The question is whether or not the market is fair. This is the role of government in this case - to protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by the big guy. You can argue about whether or not Reuters should be able to release public information in a tiered manner. In this case, I don't think they should, but others may differ. But what you can't argue about is that the knowledge of the tiers must be made public. You should be able to know if someone else is getting information 2 seconds or 10 minutes earlier than you, just because they paid more for access.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>This isn't the question. The question is whether or not the market is fair. This is the role of government in this case - to protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by the big guy. Exactly. Having a free market is desirable if and only if we can also ensure fairness for all market participants. Otherwise it's just like the Wild West where the strong take advantage of the weak.
javert 13y ago
> "This is the role of government in this case - to protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by the big guy." That narrative is nonsense. The government mainly protects the big guys and takes advantage of the little guys. That's what the banking bailout was. That's what a lot of Wall Street is today. When nobody can use force on anybody else to get their way, we are all players in a market. Our society has gotten very, very far away from that ideal. > But what you can't argue about is that the knowledge of the tiers must be made public. You are just making an assertion without any principle to back it up. I think people who produce knowledge should be free to sell it in whatever way they want, per whatever agreement they come up with with their customers. In this case it's more complicated, as the people producing knowledge (University of Michigan) are doing it via government handouts. In such a sitauation, there is no "right" or "wrong" except for the government to stop bossing people around.
- mbreese 13y ago
  I'm not saying Reuters can't sell their information however they want. (Well, I'm not entirely sure about this). But what I am saying is that they need to make customers aware that they may get access to the data after other customers. It should be public when others get access, but I'm not willing (yet) to say that open access should be mandated. Depending on how the original contracts were written, it may be an FTC issue if everyone thought they were getting the information as soon as possible only to find out now that others were getting it earlier.

by mbreese 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>This isn't the question. The question is whether or not the market is fair. This is the role of government in this case - to protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by the big guy. Exactly. Having a free market is desirable if and only if we can also ensure fairness for all market participants. Otherwise it's just like the Wild West where the strong take advantage of the weak.

javert 13y ago

> "This is the role of government in this case - to protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by the big guy." That narrative is nonsense. The government mainly protects the big guys and takes advantage of the little guys. That's what the banking bailout was. That's what a lot of Wall Street is today. When nobody can use force on anybody else to get their way, we are all players in a market. Our society has gotten very, very far away from that ideal. > But what you can't argue about is that the knowledge of the tiers must be made public. You are just making an assertion without any principle to back it up. I think people who produce knowledge should be free to sell it in whatever way they want, per whatever agreement they come up with with their customers. In this case it's more complicated, as the people producing knowledge (University of Michigan) are doing it via government handouts. In such a sitauation, there is no "right" or "wrong" except for the government to stop bossing people around.

mbreese 13y ago
I'm not saying Reuters can't sell their information however they want. (Well, I'm not entirely sure about this). But what I am saying is that they need to make customers aware that they may get access to the data after other customers. It should be public when others get access, but I'm not willing (yet) to say that open access should be mandated. Depending on how the original contracts were written, it may be an FTC issue if everyone thought they were getting the information as soon as possible only to find out now that others were getting it earlier.