| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago |
| >It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power. The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. >The stench of corruption is overwhelming. Yet aside from the raw corruption, these incidents also raise a larger question. The insiders ripped off the parties who sold futures to them at what turned out to be very unfavorable prices to the sellers. What broader damage does this kind of unchecked insider trading do? |
|
| ▲ | not_the_fda 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. They are elected officials that are supposed to be working in our best interests, or at least the interest of their supporters. Are they making decisions in our best interests or what makes their pocket book fatter? Poisons the whole system. |
| |
| ▲ | Lendal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The American people knew who they were electing. They knew it, and they elected him anyway. Whatever damage results from that collective decision is our cross to bear. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Many of them will insist that they didn't know. Another group of "many" will insist that this is all somewhere between "not that bad" and "great". | |
| ▲ | gizajob 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem is that everyone else on earth has to suffer the consequences of those choices. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Again, that's bad, but still under "corruption", which is not what I, or the article is addressing. | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. This is extremely basic incenive / money-flow tracing and "setting aside corruption" is a premise that has the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up. It smells like someone looking to force the framing. Everyone before me in this conversation was right to be suspicious of your motives in asking it, and I am suspicious as well. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. That's still corruption. Your argument about other participants being "taxed" applies for other sophisticated counterparties as well, eg. hedge funds with armies of analysts and can fly helicopters around to gather intel. Unless you want to say that's bad too, the only difference between the two is that the hedge fund isn't engaging in corruption. | | |
| ▲ | hilariously 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you assume the referee is actually playing the game then yes, the difference between a referee making a call to advantage their own bets to make the other team win and an opposing team making a play to make themselves win is one of those entities is engaging in corruption. | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | XorNot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The pacing of strategic military decisions being modulated to allow leading the futures market would be the very definition of "blood money". |
