So there is a difference between insider trading and fraud (the poker thing). I personally have not looked into the philosophical underpinnings of why insider trading should be considered unethical or not. Personally my opinion is that transparency is more important than regulation. Quick example/hypothetical: Insider trading is allowed ... Enforcement of transparency (availability of information such as who is in power) gives consumers the ability to watch a person in power start to sell or buy large quantities of an item/commodity. Consumers should have the ability to track this. It is their prerogative to watch the markets and infer that a price evaluation is shifting. Why is it the companies responsibility to say "Hey we are about to affect the price. On your mark get set go!" I imagine the markets as more of a flow, when insider trading is allowed, the new price evaluation occurs on a ramp or smooth function. When it isnt allowed, the price change happens quickly. Efficiency of markets are determined by their ability for information to flow smoothly without delays. Banning insider trading actually delays the information from hitting the market and could perhaps cause more harm than good (delays cause oscillation in systems). I'm not down with lying, and I honestly think it is the consumers job to inform himself with available information. Lets stress the government into enforcing the kinds of information we are given (like which companies house offshore liabilities of toxic mortgages) than enforcing regulations. Open source business, based on principles not incidents. Sorry for the rant. Just a thought experiment on efficiency.
IHTFP There exists a Mario hat and a mustache upon entering the "Infinite Corridor." Although hacks at MIT are fairly common, this one is minor in its complexity. Love your beaver! MIT 08
"I have a MacBook Pro and an Xbox 360 and I would like to get a 20- to 24-inch display that will support both devices. The speakers should be inbuilt, or there should be an aux out on the display to hook up external speakers. Help! Please!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So there is a difference between insider trading and fraud (the poker thing). I personally have not looked into the philosophical underpinnings of why insider trading should be considered unethical or not. Personally my opinion is that transparency is more important than regulation. Quick example/hypothetical: Insider trading is allowed ... Enforcement of transparency (availability of information such as who is in power) gives consumers the ability to watch a person in power start to sell or buy large quantities of an item/commodity. Consumers should have the ability to track this. It is their prerogative to watch the markets and infer that a price evaluation is shifting. Why is it the companies responsibility to say "Hey we are about to affect the price. On your mark get set go!" I imagine the markets as more of a flow, when insider trading is allowed, the new price evaluation occurs on a ramp or smooth function. When it isnt allowed, the price change happens quickly. Efficiency of markets are determined by their ability for information to flow smoothly without delays. Banning insider trading actually delays the information from hitting the market and could perhaps cause more harm than good (delays cause oscillation in systems). I'm not down with lying, and I honestly think it is the consumers job to inform himself with available information. Lets stress the government into enforcing the kinds of information we are given (like which companies house offshore liabilities of toxic mortgages) than enforcing regulations. Open source business, based on principles not incidents. Sorry for the rant. Just a thought experiment on efficiency.
Jacob