Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (7683)	12/9/1998 8:08:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 9980

Steven- I do not believe your friend's father was as far off base as the prevailing wisdom in the US would have one believe. Information is not a free commodity, and in a free society a person should be able to act freely on all information he or she has obtained without the use of force or fraud. Simply put, trading on inside information should, per se, be none of Uncle Sam's business. Having said that, the NYSE could make as a condition for listing on the exchange, that certain people- call them insiders if you will- not act on or divulge information to which they are privy. Those affected by such an agreement might have to sign appropriate documents in order for a company to be listed, and, of course, violations of said agreements could be cause for for civil- or possibly criminal- proceedings. The free-wheeling Denver Exchange, however, might have, shall we say a more casual policy regarding insider trading. And, hence, the Denver exchange would arguably be more efficient The actions of free people in free markets would decide, in the long run, which model- the NYSE's or the Denver's- prevailed. Possibly markets would decide that one model was better for "blue-chips", while another was preferable for microcaps. By the way, under the system I propose, if I, as an outsider, obtained privileged information about which I had signed no agreements, well I am free to act on it as much as I wish (again, assuming no force or fraud, including theft, on my part). Note the person who gave- or sold- me the info might be culpable for his actions. Under the system I propose, people would be free to embrace the system of trading they think is best for them (again, excepting the use of force fraud, or threats thereof) and important principles of freedom would not be abridged by government. Government action would be indicated when force or fraud was used by someone to obtain a desired end, but there is no moral reason why trading on non-public information should in and of itself be considered wrong. The point I am making is free minds and free markets work! Regards, Larry P.S. to Stitch: Thanks for presenting one of Arthur Miller's more celebrated lines in what- to me at least- was a new light! P.P.S. to Bosco: That Thunderbird must have been a vintage brew! Gallo bowed to the minions of righteousness and political correctness (are "liberals" and social conservatives entering an unholy alliance?) by puliing "the Bird" off the market a few years ago. You must indeed have a valuable cellar!