Wednesday, February 25, 2004
More on Martha Stewart
I've vacillated over the months over whether Martha Stewart should be held accountable for lying about receiving "insider" information regarding ImClone stock. A few weeks ago, I argued that if she went to jail, it would be due to her decision not just to fess up and pay the fine, forcing government to take her to court to penalize her. This article, however, makes an interesting counterpoint to that argument.
The article points out that the drug the FDA blocked, leading ImClone's CEO to sell and for an insider stock tip to be passed to the hapless Ms. Stewart, was later unblocked. That cancer-treating drug is now allowed to be sold in les Etats-Unis. Furthermore, the article questions whether its right in the first place for the FDA to have the right to arbitrarily block access to new drugs the way it does. Americans complain loudly and often (and for good reason) about the high price of medication. That cost is in no small part due to the years-long approval process drugs companies most pass through in order to bring a product to market.
Insider trading is a WEIRD law. You're not supposed to act on information you normally could be expected to act upon, simply because you have information that the general public doesn't have. Not that this would ever happen, but one could argue that programmers shouldn't be allowed to trade in stocks related to software companies, simply because they have access to information the general public wouldn't know anything about, much less understand. Granted, that's extreme, but it shows how odd insider trading laws are.
The article I referenced wonders whether it makes sense to treat Martha Stewart as an "insider," given that she isn't involved in any way in the the operations of ImClone. On the other hand, should an insider be allowed to tell all his friends to "get out now?"
One very good point the article makes is that its is ridiculous to claim Martha Stewart defrauded investors in her own company (Martha Stewart Living) by defending herself against government allegations. The prosecution argues that such a false claim negatively affected investors in her company. In other words, you better not defend yourself against a government allegation, otherwise we'll try you and convict you for negatively affecting the people who rely on you for making false statements. Twisted logic, truly, and that logic was rejected outright by the judge in Ms. Stewart's case.
I've vacillated over the months over whether Martha Stewart should be held accountable for lying about receiving "insider" information regarding ImClone stock. A few weeks ago, I argued that if she went to jail, it would be due to her decision not just to fess up and pay the fine, forcing government to take her to court to penalize her. This article, however, makes an interesting counterpoint to that argument.
The article points out that the drug the FDA blocked, leading ImClone's CEO to sell and for an insider stock tip to be passed to the hapless Ms. Stewart, was later unblocked. That cancer-treating drug is now allowed to be sold in les Etats-Unis. Furthermore, the article questions whether its right in the first place for the FDA to have the right to arbitrarily block access to new drugs the way it does. Americans complain loudly and often (and for good reason) about the high price of medication. That cost is in no small part due to the years-long approval process drugs companies most pass through in order to bring a product to market.
Insider trading is a WEIRD law. You're not supposed to act on information you normally could be expected to act upon, simply because you have information that the general public doesn't have. Not that this would ever happen, but one could argue that programmers shouldn't be allowed to trade in stocks related to software companies, simply because they have access to information the general public wouldn't know anything about, much less understand. Granted, that's extreme, but it shows how odd insider trading laws are.
The article I referenced wonders whether it makes sense to treat Martha Stewart as an "insider," given that she isn't involved in any way in the the operations of ImClone. On the other hand, should an insider be allowed to tell all his friends to "get out now?"
One very good point the article makes is that its is ridiculous to claim Martha Stewart defrauded investors in her own company (Martha Stewart Living) by defending herself against government allegations. The prosecution argues that such a false claim negatively affected investors in her company. In other words, you better not defend yourself against a government allegation, otherwise we'll try you and convict you for negatively affecting the people who rely on you for making false statements. Twisted logic, truly, and that logic was rejected outright by the judge in Ms. Stewart's case.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
More on Nader
...which is far more than the guy deserves. I don't know why I'm bothering posting ANYTHING about the guy, but it's a slow news day, and I'm tired, and I told myself that I would post something EVERY DAY to this blog, if nothing else but to build the habit.
As part of Nader's platform, Mr. Nader included the following:
Withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization which, he said, “undermine our nation’s sovereignty.”
Translated: Screw the non-Americans. National sovereignity my butt. The WTO and NAFTA makes sure countries can't protect its markets from poorer nations, thus ensuring those poor nations remain poor for the foreseeable future. Does anybody else see anything immoral in this? Why on earth is Nader considered a compassionate consumer advocate when he is taking a blatantly nationalist position like this? As a side note, Pat Buchanan has the EXACT same position on this issue.
Sounds to me the only difference between them is motivation. Pat Buchanan is a nationalist. Ralph Nader is anti-corporate. For Pat, the issue is that America's market should be kept for America and America alone. For Ralph, heck, I can't figure out WHAT the heck he thinks he's doing.
...which is far more than the guy deserves. I don't know why I'm bothering posting ANYTHING about the guy, but it's a slow news day, and I'm tired, and I told myself that I would post something EVERY DAY to this blog, if nothing else but to build the habit.
As part of Nader's platform, Mr. Nader included the following:
Withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization which, he said, “undermine our nation’s sovereignty.”
Translated: Screw the non-Americans. National sovereignity my butt. The WTO and NAFTA makes sure countries can't protect its markets from poorer nations, thus ensuring those poor nations remain poor for the foreseeable future. Does anybody else see anything immoral in this? Why on earth is Nader considered a compassionate consumer advocate when he is taking a blatantly nationalist position like this? As a side note, Pat Buchanan has the EXACT same position on this issue.
Sounds to me the only difference between them is motivation. Pat Buchanan is a nationalist. Ralph Nader is anti-corporate. For Pat, the issue is that America's market should be kept for America and America alone. For Ralph, heck, I can't figure out WHAT the heck he thinks he's doing.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is entering the race as an indepdent. Though I doubt he will garner the 3-4% he managed in the last election, he could, as the referenced article suggests, serve as a "spoiler" because he is sure to pull more votes from the Democrats (who have a lefty wing) than the Republicans (who don't).
My only theory as to WHY he wants to run is as a way to pull the Democratic party more to the left. If Kerry (or Edwards, though probably Kerry) has to fight to keep certain Democrats from voting for Nader, he is more likely to advocate more "leftish" policies. That would pull Kerry (or Edwards) away from the center, though that would also lose Kerry (or Edwards) the election given that America isn't going to vote for anything further to the left than a moderate.
I guess Nader could be trying to make a point, that Republicans and Democrats don't "own" the American political system. However, I might make a point that I have the right cross the road at the crosswalk, but that doesn't mean I'm going to step into the road when a semi comes barreling down the road paying little heed to mundane things such as "crosswalks."
Nader is NOT going to win the election, making the retirement he seems to want all but guaranteed after the November elections. He isn't going to make much a dent in the two-party system, either. That's going to take a serious and concerted effort to reduce the amount of money required to get politicians elected, not independent candidates with a yen for tilting at windmills. I think the BEST way to change the system is by running as a Democrat or a Republican, getting yourself elected, and then changing the system from the inside. Trying to take on a squadron of tanks on your environmentally-friendly mountain bike is more than ludicrous.
Ralph Nader is entering the race as an indepdent. Though I doubt he will garner the 3-4% he managed in the last election, he could, as the referenced article suggests, serve as a "spoiler" because he is sure to pull more votes from the Democrats (who have a lefty wing) than the Republicans (who don't).
My only theory as to WHY he wants to run is as a way to pull the Democratic party more to the left. If Kerry (or Edwards, though probably Kerry) has to fight to keep certain Democrats from voting for Nader, he is more likely to advocate more "leftish" policies. That would pull Kerry (or Edwards) away from the center, though that would also lose Kerry (or Edwards) the election given that America isn't going to vote for anything further to the left than a moderate.
I guess Nader could be trying to make a point, that Republicans and Democrats don't "own" the American political system. However, I might make a point that I have the right cross the road at the crosswalk, but that doesn't mean I'm going to step into the road when a semi comes barreling down the road paying little heed to mundane things such as "crosswalks."
Nader is NOT going to win the election, making the retirement he seems to want all but guaranteed after the November elections. He isn't going to make much a dent in the two-party system, either. That's going to take a serious and concerted effort to reduce the amount of money required to get politicians elected, not independent candidates with a yen for tilting at windmills. I think the BEST way to change the system is by running as a Democrat or a Republican, getting yourself elected, and then changing the system from the inside. Trying to take on a squadron of tanks on your environmentally-friendly mountain bike is more than ludicrous.
