TIL from R-Todd Akin that if truely raped women can't get pregnant

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

DeathBooger

Malcolm's Sugar Daddy
Sep 16, 2004
1,925
0
36
44
What if an insider sells stock in a company that is about to fold to non-insider? Is that victimless?

What if a few insiders dump stock in company they know is about to fold, and the value of the stock drops because of the sell-off. Are the other non-insider stock holders not victims?

It depends on if it's legitimate insider trading. If it is, the non-insider victims know to shut down.
 

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
What if an insider sells stock in a company that is about to fold to non-insider? Is that victimless?

What if a few insiders dump stock in company they know is about to fold, and the value of the stock drops because of the sell-off. Are the other non-insider stock holders not victims?

Isn't that what is behind each speculative bubble ? Pump liquidity into some trend then pull the carpet when the sharks feel there is enough small fry to eat ? On the bigger scale think of the Asia crisis of 97 and of the dot com bust. They still have consequences today.

TWD might not confirm it but it's sure this sport is being played. Which is kind of sad because it would make ups and downs in economic activity nothing more than a source of income.
 
Last edited:

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
Stocks are not a zero sum game.
yeah that's bullshit.

quoting for truth...

What if an insider sells stock in a company that is about to fold to non-insider? Is that victimless?

What if a few insiders dump stock in company they know is about to fold, and the value of the stock drops because of the sell-off. Are the other non-insider stock holders not victims?
 

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
yeah that's bullshit.

quoting for truth...

There are different views:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061902.asp#axzz24JQSAcA9

Gambling, on the contrary, is a zero-sum game. It merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created. By investing, we increase the overall wealth of an economy. As companies compete, they increase productivity and develop products that can make our lives better. Don't confuse investing and creating wealth with gambling's zero-sum game.

Not sure that applies to currencies and derivatives though. And, yes, manipulation is a problem. Reluctance directed at Facebook's stock is an indication that casual traders have lost trust. See details on LinkedIn's IPO to understand why.
 
Last edited:

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
I'd rather not get to far off on a tangent that is not central to the topic. I will admit that it is a controversial point for which countless books have been written about for and against. But again, it's not really important to the thread as a whole.

However to answer the question no they are not victims. Your scenario is not practical in real life terms. First of all it is difficult if not impossible to single handedly cause such a crash. To do so would require stock manipulation that is illegal in and of it's self. Secondly stock movements on their own have a more significant influence on price than almost anything else. Such a non-insider would be able to see the selling as it occurs, and make their own decision. And thirdly, what have they actually lost? They still own the stock. They didn't lose any money because they had that money because they never sold it to begin with. They merely didn't take an opportunity to sell. Nothing was taken from you.

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1CEoELO0A8[/M]
 
Last edited:

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
Group "A" would hold worthless stock and would be out any money they invested.
Group "B" would hold stock of a lesser value and would be out some of the money they invested.

Far from "victimless". And I'm not alone in that opinion:

"...Illegal insider trading is not a victimless crime... Investors who unknowingly trade with people who have inside information lose because they are in an unequal and unfair relationship. Markets where illegal insider trading occurs can suffer a loss of liquidity if international capital flows avoid them..."

-Stephen Sibold, LLM, former Chair & CEO of the Canadian Securities Administrators

"...nethical insider trading is not a 'victimless crime'. Understanding that it is misappropriation that renders insider trading wrong makes it very clear who the victims of unethical insider trading are: they are the shareholders whose corporate information has been misappropriated...

...Although the primary victims of unethical insider trading are the shareholders of the company which is the subject of the inside information, they are not the only ones to suffer. If the insider trader is employed not by the subject company, but by a firm which was providing services to it, then that other firm and its shareholders will suffer as well. Because of the employee's fiduciary irresponsibility or theft, that organisation's reputation as a reliable adviser or agent, and consequently its ability to attract future customers, can be impaired..."

-Elaine Sternberg, PhD, Principal of Analytical Solutions

"...[T]here are those who argue that insider trading is a victimless offense and that enforcing insider trading prohibitions is simply not cost effective...

...But the options market presents a different story. Professional option writers write options only in response to a particular demand. Where that demand comes from an insider possessing material non-public information, the option writer suffers a loss that would not otherwise have occurred. Additionally, this penny-wise, pound-foolish argument neglects the external costs that result from a perception that insider trading is unchecked. In fact, as regulators throughout the world are discovering, governments cannot afford to turn a blind eye to insider trading if they hope to promote an active securities market and attract international investment..."

-Thomas Newkirk, LLB, former Associate Director, and Melissa A. Robertson,
 
Last edited:

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
Group "A" would hold worthless stock and would be out any money they invested.
Group "B" would hold stock of a lesser value and would be out some of the money they invested.

Far from "victimless". And I'm not alone in that opinion:

"...Illegal insider trading is not a victimless crime... Investors who unknowingly trade with people who have inside information lose because they are in an unequal and unfair relationship. Markets where illegal insider trading occurs can suffer a loss of liquidity if international capital flows avoid them..."

-Stephen Sibold, LLM, former Chair & CEO of the Canadian Securities Administrators

"...nethical insider trading is not a 'victimless crime'. Understanding that it is misappropriation that renders insider trading wrong makes it very clear who the victims of unethical insider trading are: they are the shareholders whose corporate information has been misappropriated...

...Although the primary victims of unethical insider trading are the shareholders of the company which is the subject of the inside information, they are not the only ones to suffer. If the insider trader is employed not by the subject company, but by a firm which was providing services to it, then that other firm and its shareholders will suffer as well. Because of the employee's fiduciary irresponsibility or theft, that organisation's reputation as a reliable adviser or agent, and consequently its ability to attract future customers, can be impaired..."

-Elaine Sternberg, PhD, Principal of Analytical Solutions

"...[T]here are those who argue that insider trading is a victimless offense and that enforcing insider trading prohibitions is simply not cost effective...

...But the options market presents a different story. Professional option writers write options only in response to a particular demand. Where that demand comes from an insider possessing material non-public information, the option writer suffers a loss that would not otherwise have occurred. Additionally, this penny-wise, pound-foolish argument neglects the external costs that result from a perception that insider trading is unchecked. In fact, as regulators throughout the world are discovering, governments cannot afford to turn a blind eye to insider trading if they hope to promote an active securities market and attract international investment..."

-Thomas Newkirk, LLB, former Associate Director, and Melissa A. Robertson,


That's great that you can copy and paste from procon.org. It would have been nice if you had included their pro arguments too. I feel all of these points have been addressed either my video or the page you took those quotes from. There is not much we can add on this subject, and I've said all I care to on this point.
 

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
That's great that you can copy and paste from procon.org. It would have been nice if you had included their pro arguments too. I feel all of these points have been addressed either my video or the page you took those quotes from. There is not much we can add on this subject, and I've said all I care to on this point.

Thank you, I pride myself on my mad copy-n-paste skillz. I left it to you copy-n-paste from the comically wrong "pro" side.

Now, hows 'bout this Akin cat, real douche bag, no? The really sad part is that his ultimate position is a fundamental (pun intended) plank of the Republican platform.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
You honestly believe that?

I am merely starting that this is my understanding of conservative thought, and how I feel it is misunderstood. My position is usually a bit more cautious. I can only say that societies that value strong traditional families will do best, and that's why I support the traditional definition of marriage. I can also say with certainty that ssm would have a significant impact on our society. It's already started to change things. What that impact will be thirty years from now, whether good or bad, is beyond my ability to prognosticate.
 

DannyMeister

UT3 Jailbreak Coder
Dec 11, 2002
1,275
1
38
40
Bolivar, Missouri
Akin should have stepped aside. There were other constitutional conservatives that could have taken the nomination.

The really sad thing here is not that one man said a really stupid thing which is not factually true which he then apologized for...

I find the most sad thing in this whole ordeal to be that liberal politicians are being terribly disrespectful to women by 1) using rape as a political tool, 2) insulting their intelligence by dangling free contraceptives in front of them like candy in front of a baby, and 3) by endorsing the abuse of women by inviting a certified sexual abuser to be their convention speaker.

It's of course not surprising. The main strategy up to this point has been to ignore the reality of their political positions in favor of fomenting class envy and hatred of rich people. If they had an opportunity to try to (illogical as it is) attach all members of the opposing party to our well-merited hatred of rapists, then by all means they would! Shameful!
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
But if you can find a scholarly source citing otherwise I'd love to hear it.
you don't need a scholarly source to acknowledge reality.

insider trading creates extremely unfair advantages for party X (the participant) that can actually hurt party Y (the nonparticipant) and their shareholders.
it's not rocket science.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
you don't need a scholarly source to acknowledge reality.

insider trading creates extremely unfair advantages for party X (the participant) that can actually hurt party Y (the nonparticipant) and their shareholders.
it's not rocket science.

So are you admitting that you have no way to back up your statement? I'll give you a pass on the zero sum game thing. That's a common mistake. I still do not believe that it hurts party Y. Party Y can exit their trade any time they want.
 
Last edited:

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
I'm admitting that I wouldn't need to.

of course the stock market isn't zero-sum in theory.
any professor and/or economist will tell you that.

but in practice?
you know that's nonsense. the zero-sum aspect doesn't account for all stock activity; it's obviously in the minority. especially when you consider the dollar amounts. the bulk of trading is above ground clearly.

but it's not black and white.
you said that insider trading is a victimless crime. and that's just not true. and I'm pretty sure you know it.
 

Renegade Retard

Defender of the newbie
Dec 18, 2002
6,911
0
36
TX
Visit site
"Zero sum" and "victimless crime" are two different arguments. Seems some individuals here are either confusing the two for the same thing, or trying to blur the two to satisfy their arguments.

The stock market is NOT zero sum. Arguing contrary to that point is just ignorant.

Whether insider trading is victimless or not in an ongoing debate even among economists.

This can be an interested debate as long a people keep their facts straight and stop interchanging terminology to validate ignorance.