So you think that people who have the ability to affect the value of a publicly traded good should be allowed to trade on actions that they can plan and know about in advance? Especially when the way insider traders benefit the most is by selling off stock before an announcement like Intel's, which by definition hurts whoever they sell to as they are left holding the bag.
If you care that little about equality why not go all the way and just say laws don't apply to the rich, not just in fact but by law.
The only point of having laws is prevent people with power from amassing ever more power and hurting others. Without that there would be no reason for anyone to not take whatever they can the moment they get an opportunity
> So you think that people who have the ability to affect the value of a publicly traded good should be allowed to trade on actions that they can plan and know about in advance?
Insider trading laws don't stop this from happening. People not considered "insiders" can impact the price of stock. For example, in 2007 Lululemon stocks took a temporary dive when their seaweed claim was challenged:
"Not so, says the New York Times, which commissioned its own test after a Lululemon investor, who is shorting its stock, supplied the paper with lab results."
That, of course, doesn't include market professionals:
"Market professionals gain disproportionately from bans on insider trading because they are in a position to act on information that insiders cannot use, and can do so more quickly than any other group, including shareholders" [1]
> which by definition hurts whoever they sell to as they are left holding the bag
Of course. The Intel CEO sells stock to investors without telling them that there is a vulnerability that makes the stock worth much less than they think, thus hurting these investors. Sounds intuitive, right?
The investors he sells to had already sent an order to buy to their broker. They were going to buy at the same or worse price anyway, so they aren't harmed by this. Someone else is harmed, but that's the market professionals who, months later, don't get an opportunity to profit off of the news before everyone else. I'm sure economics not being intuitive has something to do with why democracies end up with bad policies all the time.
A: if you are going to just slip in an insult there with the line about economics being unintuitive, go fuck yourself. If you honestly didn't mean it as an insult, then I apologize.
B: you've moved the goalposts. I said it hurt others when they sell based on information they know as an employee, of the company whose stock they are selling. You are arguing that its fine because those people would probably be hurt anyway. If it was really fine then why didn't the CEO tell everyone about the vulnerability before making the sale? Those investors would have just bought it anyway, right?
If you care that little about equality why not go all the way and just say laws don't apply to the rich, not just in fact but by law.
The only point of having laws is prevent people with power from amassing ever more power and hurting others. Without that there would be no reason for anyone to not take whatever they can the moment they get an opportunity