Pages

Jump to bottom

13 comments

1 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 13, 2011 5:33:16pm
"Insider trading is a very nebulous concept, and it's almost a victimless crime"

We'll see.

2 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 13, 2011 5:37:53pm

re: #1 000G

[Link: mediamatters.org...]

We'll see.

Anyone else in the public sector did what some Congresscritters do, the federal government (of which Congress and the SEC are a part of) would nail them to the wall.

See: Martha Stewart (not that I care for her, but she was made an example of).

3 recusancy  Sun, Nov 13, 2011 5:44:03pm

re: #2 talon_262

Anyone else in the public sector did what some Congresscritters do, the federal government (of which Congress and the SEC are a part of) would nail them to the wall.

See: Martha Stewart (not that I care for her, but she was made an example of).

Martha Stewart is not in the public sector. And, no they don't. The SEC is weak and spineless.

4 Gus  Sun, Nov 13, 2011 6:14:49pm

Unfortunately the 11th Commandment applies to both parties. Hence, the inclusion of Nancy Pelosi in this 60 Minutes segment will lead to a good deal of self-censorship of this unethical practice by those on the other side of the Republican aisle.

5 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:01:43am

I'm glad this is being highlighted by a Major Media outlet.

Congress Critters are not above the law.

6 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:40:09am

re: #4 Gus 802

This is why I've always disliked Pelosi. She's corporatist to the hilt.

7 Holidays are Family Fun Time  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 10:20:08am

re: #6 Obdicut

This is why I've always disliked Pelosi. She's corporatist to the hilt.

Another Patrician of the Patricians.

Dynasty Politics, IMHO.

8 Buck  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 1:53:34pm

re: #1 000G

"Insider trading is a very nebulous concept, and it's almost a victimless crime"

I am surprised that Mediamatters could say such a thing. It is completely NOT true.

It is not nebulous at all, and it always has a victim.

Every trade has a winner and a loser. If I sell you shares and you know inside information that I don't... you are stealing from me. I would very likely not sell it to you at that price, if I knew what you knew.

It works the same when you know information that will cause the shares to go down.

Nebulous? Everyone knows what is public information, and when they are taking unfair advantage. Not always easy to prove, but it is not nebulous.

9 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:14:03pm

re: #8 Buck

I am surprised that Mediamatters could say such a thing. It is completely NOT true.

Media Matters did not say it, Fox Business' Charles Gasparino said it. Is this another one of these Canadian internet things? Anyhow, thank you for agreeing with Media Matters.

10 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:30:01pm

re: #8 Buck

owned

11 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:36:19pm
12 jaunte  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:39:13pm

"Professor Bainbridge" has some more info on the legal issues:

Under current law, it is unlikely that Members of Congress can be held liable for insider trading. The proposed Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act addresses that problem by instructing the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt rules intended to prohibit such trading.
......
Where a Member of Congress, a Congressional staffer, or other government information obtains material nonpublic information in the course of their duties and then uses it to trade in the stock of the relevant issuer, their conduct could be colloquially described as a theft of the information, but under O’Hagan any potential insider trading liability under the misappropriation theory would require proof of a duty of disclosure between the official and the source of the information. The initial question is whether that duty must arise out of a fiduciary duty or whether the requisite duty can be created, inter alia, by agreement. This is so because, as we shall see, while Congressional aides and other government employees have duties arising out of both their fiduciary relationship with their employer and their employment contract, Members of Congress are bound only by the implied obligations created by Congressional ethics rules.[1] Whether those latter obligations rise to the level of a contractual duty to refrain from insider trading is debatable, but they clearly do not rise to the level of a fiduciary duty.
[Link: www.professorbainbridge.com...]

13 Gus  Mon, Nov 14, 2011 3:40:03pm

re: #11 000G

More Fox Business wisdom:

Fox Business Host Andrew Napolitano: Insider Trading "Should Be" Legal

I think that's the perfect indicator as to the ethicalness of this practice. In other news. I can't believe the spin this story is getting in DC.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh