economist6373

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by economist6373 5y ago

   Fine, this feels needlessly pedantic but let me correct myself. Good enforcement is impossible without subjecting anybody trading stocks and everybody they know to a completely unprecedented level of surveillance. This would have to go fa
2. 2.▲
   by economist6373 5y ago

   This doesn’t make any sense. Such activities would be criminal regardless of insider trading. What difference could it possibly make if insider trading was legal? Should we maybe add more laws to forbid such activity in different creative w
3. 3.▲
   by economist6373 5y ago

   It’s important to understand that the usual argument against insider trading isn’t actually about true fairness, but rather the impression of fairness . These are two different things. The argument that insider trading should be banned bec
4. 4.▲
   by economist6373 5y ago

   Good enforcement is impossible. You can never meaningfully hinder insider trading, far too many people have access to insider information. They don’t have to make the trades themselves either. > I think it would be dishonest to do so act
5. 5.▲
   by economist6373 5y ago

   > If insider trading is legal, you could actively destroy a company from the inside and profit from its downfall. What you are describing is an entirely different kind of misconduct than “insider trading”.