| ▲ | Havoc a day 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 |
|
| ▲ | duxup 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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... , where the judge inexplicably decided to waive sentencing for a felony conviction) |
| |
| ▲ | tenthirtyam 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | that comes with extra donations | |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | bathtub365 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | hazard 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >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. | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | lostlogin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ima tell you like Wu told me: cash rules everything around me, dollar dollar bill yall been that way since Reagan | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Predictable? It was a campaign promise. People actively decided this is what they wanted. | |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's why the right wing always defunds the education system everywhere it gets power, right? | | |
| ▲ | hn_acker 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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-... |
|
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hitler did create an "economic miracle", which is why he actually went up in popularity, even with the parties he would later ...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRlbUeji01U It was all based on a purposefully designed system of lies. Which can work, until someone proves it's a lie to external parties. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know why this is downvoted, this is the entire basis of China being politically stable despite being unfree. The problem is trying to untangle which are the economic indicators that matter and what the causality is. Despite everything, the stock market is at or near an all time high (mostly due to AI), and that grants Trump a lot of leeway from the money class. It's also why this matters: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-stocks-us-strate... Oil prices going up would probably also be extremely unfavourable for the Trump regime. So simply empty the US SPR onto the market to keep prices down and avoid the Iran war having any impact. Should last for the rest of his term. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bestouff a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 30 to 100 maybe |
| |
| ▲ | hakunin 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference between a million and a billion is a billion. It's basically 0 to 100. |
|
|
| ▲ | whazor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| real danger of insider trading is that you can get jailed 20 years in the future for something you did today |
| |
|
| ▲ | feverzsj a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The system is broken. There is no effective restrict on president's powers. And the president is Trump. |
| |
| ▲ | mDyJzDPmBdG a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jordan-117 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | bko a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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... |
|
| ▲ | halJordan 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | AngryData a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | Paratoner a day ago | parent [-] | | We're going to take the "both sides bad" intellectual dishonesty to the forced labor Freedom Trump camps. But hey! Kamala would've done the same. God I despise the likes of you so much. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Both sides are bad. One is worse. Both lead America rapidly downhill. One does it faster. | | |
| ▲ | orwin a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | There are quite a few democratic socialists running on that platform across the country. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throw0101d a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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-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/arch... That was in 2016. |
| |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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." | | |
| ▲ | swed420 a day ago | parent [-] | | And as my parent comment says, voting for complicit Dems is a future vote for him. Treating a corrupt system as legitimate is what perpetuates it. Only one of the three options marks it as illegitimate. Collectively admitting the problem is a prerequisite to fixing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
