quote:

Who was hurt by what Collins allegedly did? The answer might seem obvious: anyone who bought the stock that Collins’s son, Cameron, and others sold. But it’s not as if Cameron Collins went door to door persuading pensioners to buy his ticking-bomb shares. According to the indictment, he used a broker to sell the stock. The broker presumably sold that stock to people who already had an interest in buying it.

Yes, Cameron Collins allegedly knew that the interest was misguided. It would have been selfless of him to hang on to the stock and bear the losses himself. But if he hadn’t sold, those interested buyers would have bought shares from someone else. And here’s the kicker: Since share prices tend to decrease as the supply of shares increases, the buyers might have actually paid a higher price if Cameron Collins’s weren’t on the market, and thereby would have lost more money.

But maybe insider trading is bad for the market? Actually, insider trading probably makes markets more efficient. During the interval between the discovery of material nonpublic information and the publicizing of that information, the shares are being systematically mispriced through general ignorance. If insiders were trading, the shift in the supply of the stock would tend to push the price closer to a more realistic value.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

By Megan McArdle, WaPo's resident libertarian sociopath

Sodomy Hussein posted:

By Megan McArdle, WaPo's resident libertarian sociopath

Sodomy Hussein posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/08/09/show-me-the-victims-of-insider-trading-ill-wait/?utm_term=.bc553b50419b

But maybe insider trading is bad for the market? Actually, insider trading probably makes markets more efficient. During the interval between the discovery of material nonpublic information and the publicizing of that information, the shares are being systematically mispriced through general ignorance. If insiders were trading, the shift in the supply of the stock would tend to push the price closer to a more realistic value.

Shear Modulus posted:

folks,

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

“the poet laureate of identity politics”

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I don't even understand what the gently caress that's supposed to mean. Who appoints him the laureate?

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I don't even understand what the gently caress that's supposed to mean. Who appoints him the laureate?

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

ahahahahahahahahahahahaahhhhahahahahahahahhahaha

https://twitter.com/loebvernon/status/1027583334430466048?s=21

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

eric levitz had Things™ to say about caitlin flanagan's love letter to jordan peterson

seriously though it takes a special kind of person to think obama is “the poet laureate of identity politics”

Jose posted:

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

eric levitz had Things™ to say about caitlin flanagan's love letter to jordan peterson

seriously though it takes a special kind of person to think obama is “the poet laureate of identity politics”

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

who wants to bet that the first draft of that article called obama the kung fu master of being uppity instead

Uranium Phoenix posted:

"I don't care two cents about Bosnia. Not two cents. The people there have brought on their own troubles. Let them keep on killing one another and the problem will be solved."
--Thomas Friedman, on the Bosnian Genocide where over 8,000 civilians were murdered and 30,000 expelled, and civilian prisoners in concentration camps were raped, starved, and tortured

Algund Eenboom posted:

Now that the war is over, and there’s some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?

Well I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. And I think that looking back, I know, or certainly understand, that I feel I know what the war was about. And it’s interesting to talk about it here, in Silicon Valley, because I think looking back at the 1990s, I can identify, there were actually three bubbles of the 1990s. There was the NASDAQ bubble. There was the government’s bubble. And lastly there was what I would call the terrorism bubble. The first two were based on creative accounting. The last was based on moral creative accounting. The terrorism bubble that basically built up over the 1990s said that flying planes into the World Trade Center? That’s ok. Wrapping yourself with dynamite and blowing up Israelis in a pizza parlor? That’s ok. Because we’re weak and they’re strong and the weak have a different morality. Having your preachers say that’s ok? That’s ok. Having your charities raise money for people who do these kind of things? That’s ok. And having your press call people who do these types of things martyrs? That’s ok. And that built up as a bubble, and 9/11, Charlie, was to me the peak of that bubble. And what we learned on 9/11, in a gut way, was that that bubble was a fundamental threat to our open society. Because there is no wall high enough, no INS agent smart enough, no metal detector efficient enough to protect an open society from people motivated by that bubble. And what we needed to do was to go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it. Because part of that bubble said “We’ve got you. This bubble is actually going to level the balance of power between us and you because we don’t care about life. We’re ready to sacrifice it. All you care about are your stock options and your hummers." And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, “What part of this sentence don’t you understand: You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we’re just going to let it grow? Well suck on this.” That, Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia. We could have hit Pakistan, it was part of that bubble. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.

Crowsbeak posted:

Source your quotes.

Crowsbeak posted:

Source your quotes.

GalacticAcid posted:

It’s a famous Tom Friedman quote in an interview with Charlie rose

GoluboiOgon posted:

the wapo fact checker is at it again!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...6d6b_video.html

not going to waste time with all of these claims, but the first "false" claim she makes is not only true, but was covered as fact in WaPo!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d890_story.html

Ytlaya posted:

It's been amazing how much the media has been flipping out over her. I can't count the number of articles I've seen that are negative about her in some way.