this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
593 points (98.2% liked)

News

21662 readers
6508 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (35 children)

If she’s investing at the same time you’re getting the information, she missed the best time to buy. She might have hedged her bets and bought early

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (33 children)

Fun fact: Congresspeople can legally inside trade, but the rest of us cannot.

[–] disguy_ovahea 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of ~~bribery~~ lobbying.

According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

[–] ajoebyanyothername 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If everyone doing it gets away with it, then is it actually illegal?

[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes. It is. They just need to be arrested and prosecuted. I agree that it should be taken more seriously, considering that it’s against the law.

[–] themeatbridge 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No one has ever been prosecuted in the decade and change that it has been illegal, despite frequent violations.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That doesn’t change the law. It’s simply evidence that Congress lives above it. Seven Democrat Senators cosponsored a bill in September to ban the practice entirely. It died at introduction.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments

[–] TropicalDingdong -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That doesn’t change the law.

Oh you sweet summer child.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Now you’re wrong, and condescending. Lol

[–] TropicalDingdong 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You have a philosophy around what laws are and what they mean that is incongruent with reality.

What is the word we use when people have believes that don't match up with the previous or future state of things?

Laws on paper are only one aspect of what a law is. How those laws are interpreted and how they are enforced matter far, far more. Law is what is applied and enforced. If something is a 'law' but is not enforced, then its not really law.

And its fine that you have a different philosophy around what the law means. I just don't find it particularly useful because it doesn't predict the past, present, or future states of the world.

In other words:

spoiler

[–] disguy_ovahea -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

People who don’t understand the problem typically have little success in fixing it. You should consider reading more.

[–] TropicalDingdong 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
[–] disguy_ovahea 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

While I’m flattered that you’d take the time to make a meme for me, it probably would’ve taken you far less time to research insider trading law as it applies to members of Congress.

I’ll give you a little head start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/

[–] TropicalDingdong 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?

And on that, you haven't outlined anything that's worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they've are applied. Its likely you don't even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn't predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn't how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.

Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn't matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn't get applied.

Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don't understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.

[–] RainfallSonata 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Martha. Stewart.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)