>>539493008
False.
This statement is fundamentally incorrect because it groups two entirely different legal frameworks together and applies a stock market rule to the derivatives market.
Here is exactly where the statement fails legally:
1. Conflating Securities Law with Commodities Law
The statement incorrectly places both the SEC and the CFTC under "US securities laws."
The SEC enforces securities laws (via the Securities Exchange Act).
The CFTC enforces commodities laws (via the Commodity Exchange Act). The CFTC has absolutely no jurisdiction over securities law.
2. The "Disclose or Abstain" Rule
The phrase "obligation to abstain" refers to a famous legal doctrine known as the "disclose or abstain" rule. This is where the two regulators completely diverge.
Under the SEC (Securities):
The statement is true here. If you are a corporate insider with MNPI, you owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders. The law states you must either publicly disclose the information or abstain from trading. If you trade without disclosing it, you have committed a crime.
Under the CFTC (Commodities/Derivatives):
The statement is completely false here. The CFTC explicitly rejected a general "disclose or abstain" rule for commodities markets. Because there are no shareholders or fiduciary duties in futures trading, commercial market participants have absolutely zero legal obligation to abstain from trading on their own lawfully generated MNPI.
In summary, the obligation to abstain is a strict rule in the stock market (SEC), but it does not exist for lawfully obtained, proprietary information in the futures market (CFTC).

>>539493049
>>539492583

This text is 100% fake.
It is entirely fabricated and completely misrepresents Milton Friedman's actual economic philosophy.
Every quote attributed to him in that paragraph—such as "The market works best when everyone has the same information" or "fairness is not optional"—is made up. In fact, the text argues the exact opposite of what Friedman actually believed and publicly stated during his life.
Here is why this text fundamentally clashes with Friedman's real views:
He didn't believe in "equal information": Friedman's economic view was that markets are driven by unequal information. He believed that the people with the most accurate information (the insiders) should be allowed to trade on it so that the stock price quickly adjusts to reality.
He rejected "fairness" as a regulatory goal: As a staunch libertarian and Chicago School economist, Friedman generally opposed government regulations aimed at leveling the playing field. He believed attempts to enforce "fairness" by regulators like the SEC usually did more harm than good and disrupted market efficiency.
The "Invisible Hand" argument is misused: The text claims "the invisible hand cannot guide a market riddled with deception." Friedman's actual argument was that insider trading removes deception by forcing the real value of a company out into the open through price movements, driven by the invisible hand of self-interest.
Whoever wrote that paragraph essentially created an alternate-universe version of Milton Friedman to argue the mainstream regulatory view, rather than his actual free-market stance!

>He posted 166 times in the last thread
>Continued
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>539493575
I accept your concession, liar.

>>539493601
>He still wants to argue this despite losing to everyone else in the previous thread
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>539493411
false. The market should be abolished, and replaced with an AI expert system.

>>539493411
insider trading should be punishable by being flayed over weeks followed by a pure isopropyl alcohol bath, on livestream, change my mind

>>539493823
*genitals flayed last so they have something to look forward to while the less sensitive parts are being flayed

>>539493411
Stock markets should be outlawed, kike playgrounds.

>>539493735
>losing
How so, liar?

>>539493823
>>539493968
False. Insider trading is a good thing, because it makes prices more accurate.

A robust school of economic thought—championed by prominent economists like Milton Friedman and Henry Manne—argues that criminalizing insider trading actually harms the market.

The persuasive case for legalizing insider trading rests on the principles of market efficiency, accurate pricing, and the practical realities of regulatory enforcement. Here is the economic argument for allowing insiders to trade on their knowledge.
1. Faster, More Accurate Price Discovery

The primary function of a stock market is to accurately price assets based on all available information. When information is restricted, the market operates inefficiently because the stock price reflects an illusion rather than reality.

If insiders are allowed to trade on non-public information, their buying or selling pressure moves the stock price toward its "true" value before the official announcement.

For positive news: The price gradually rises, signaling to the broader market that the company's prospects are improving.

For negative news: The price gradually falls, alerting the market that the company is struggling.

By keeping insider trading illegal, regulators are essentially forcing the market to trade on outdated, inaccurate information until a scheduled press release.

The reason it’s illegal is actually to protect the market itself. The public markets depend on the public participation of investors without insider information. If insider trading becomes so rampant that means the public without insider information would never have first mover advantage ever and if that’s true they wouldn’t stand to gain any money by investing and if that’s true they wouldn’t invest. So the point of prohibiting it is to protect the faith and integrity of the market as a public market.

>>539493823
>>539493968
2. Smoothing Market Volatility

When insider trading is strictly prohibited, stock prices often experience violent, sudden shocks. A company might appear perfectly healthy until a surprise earnings miss causes the stock to gap down 20% in a single minute.

If insiders were permitted to trade, the price adjustment would happen smoothly over time. A gradual decline is much less damaging to market stability than a sudden collapse. Furthermore, this gradual adjustment protects everyday investors: if bad news is priced in earlier through insider selling, fewer retail investors will unknowingly buy into a stock at an artificially inflated peak just days before the crash.

3. The "Victimless Crime" Reality

The most common moral argument against insider trading is that it is "unfair" to the person on the other side of the trade. However, economically speaking, it is largely a victimless crime.

Stock market transactions are anonymous and voluntary. If an insider buys 1,000 shares of a company because they know a lucrative merger is about to be announced, they are buying those shares from a willing seller. That seller had already decided to sell their shares at the current market price.

The seller is not harmed by the insider; they simply missed out on future gains they were already willing to forfeit. In fact, the insider's buying pressure slightly raises the stock price, meaning the seller actually gets a fractionally better price than they would have if the insider had stayed out of the market.

>>539493823
>>539493968
4. Misallocation of Enforcement Resources

The legal definition of insider trading is notoriously blurry. Regulators and courts spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours debating who constitutes an "insider," what qualifies as "material non-public information," and how far down the chain of "tippees" liability extends.

This creates a sprawling, expensive enforcement apparatus focused on an activity that ultimately drives stock prices to their correct valuations. If insider trading were legalized, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice could redirect those massive resources toward prosecuting destructive, unambiguous crimes that actually destroy shareholder value—such as accounting fraud, embezzlement, and market manipulation (e.g., pump-and-dump schemes).

5. Aligning Executive Incentives

When executives are allowed to profit from the positive information they create, it serves as a powerful incentive for innovation and efficiency. If a CEO knows that successfully developing a breakthrough product will allow them to legally buy shares before the public announcement, their interests are deeply aligned with the long-term success of the company. It acts as a highly efficient, self-funding performance bonus that doesn't cost the company's treasury a dime.

The Bottom Line: Banning insider trading prioritizes the appearance of fairness over actual market efficiency. By legalizing it, markets would become more accurate, volatility would decrease, and regulatory bodies could focus on catching corporate criminals who actually steal from investors, rather than punishing those who simply trade on accurate information.

>>539494184
This argument relies on several flawed assumptions about how the stock market actually works and how everyday investors make money.

Here is the economic debunking of the Market Confidence Theory:
1. The "First-Mover" Illusion

The most glaring flaw in the argument is the premise that everyday retail investors currently have—or have ever had—a "first-mover advantage."

In the modern financial system, the playing field is not level, even with insider trading banned. Institutional investors, high-frequency trading (HFT) firms, and massive hedge funds spend billions of dollars on co-locating servers microseconds closer to the exchange, purchasing alternative data sets (like satellite imagery of parking lots), and subscribing to expert networks.

When news breaks, algorithms trade on it in fractions of a millisecond. The public never has the first-mover advantage. The ban on insider trading doesn't level the playing field for the average citizen; it simply shifts the informational monopoly away from corporate executives and hands it to Wall Street analysts and high-frequency algorithms.

>>539494184
2. The Stock Market is Not a Zero-Sum Game

The argument assumes that if the public doesn't get the first-mover advantage on breaking news, they "wouldn't stand to gain any money." This fundamentally misunderstands why people invest in public equities.

The stock market is not a zero-sum casino where you only make money by beating someone else to a trade. It is an engine of wealth creation driven by corporate earnings and economic growth.

Day traders care about first-mover advantage to scalp quick profits on price swings.

Investors make money through long-term capital appreciation and dividends.

If you buy stock in a fundamentally strong company and hold it for ten years, you will make money as the company grows, regardless of whether a CEO's cousin bought shares a week before a specific earnings call. Retail investors don't need informational parity to compound their wealth over time.

3. Historical and Empirical Evidence

If the Market Confidence Theory were true—that the public absolutely will not invest if insider trading is rampant—historical data should support it. It doesn't.

Insider trading was essentially legal and entirely unpoliced for the first few decades of the U.S. stock market. The SEC wasn't created until 1934, and insider trading laws weren't strictly enforced until the 1960s and 1980s. Yet, during those early decades of rampant, unpunished insider trading, the U.S. stock market grew massively, capital was raised efficiently, and the public participated heavily.

Furthermore, markets with massive information asymmetry—like real estate—still see massive public participation. Buyers know the seller knows more about the house than they do, yet they still buy, because they value the asset for its long-term utility.

>>539494184
4. Forced Ignorance Harms the Public More

The argument claims that banning insider trading protects the public. Economists argue the opposite: forcing the market to operate in the dark actively harms the public.

Imagine a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, but this information hasn't been made public yet.

Under current laws: The stock price stays artificially high. Everyday retail investors, relying on outdated public information, continue buying the stock at $50 a share. When the bankruptcy is announced, the stock drops to $0 overnight. The public is blindsided and loses everything.

If insider trading were legal: Insiders would quietly start selling their shares. The increased selling pressure would drive the price down gradually—from $50 to $40, to $30, to $15. By the time the bankruptcy is announced, the price has already adjusted. Far fewer retail investors would have bought in at $50, because the dropping price would have signaled that something was wrong.

The Bottom Line: The argument that insider trading destroys public investing conflates speculation with investing. The public does not need perfectly symmetrical information to benefit from long-term corporate growth. By pursuing an impossible illusion of "fairness," regulators actually enforce a system of delayed information that causes the very sudden, catastrophic price crashes that hurt everyday investors the most.

>>539494122
The stock market is the engine that drives modern economic progress. Without it, innovation stalls, wealth remains concentrated, and economic mobility shrinks.

Here is why stock markets are essential for a thriving society:

1. Fueling Innovation and Job Creation

When a company wants to build a new factory, research a life-saving drug, or develop next-generation renewable energy, they need capital. The stock market allows them to raise this money by selling small pieces of the company (shares) to the public.

Instead of relying on a few wealthy aristocrats or restrictive bank loans, companies can source capital from millions of investors globally. This process transforms idle savings into active capital, directly funding the research, physical infrastructure, and millions of jobs that push society forward.

2. Democratizing Wealth

Before public markets existed, the only way to profit from a successful enterprise was to be wealthy enough to own it outright. The stock market fractionalizes ownership.

Today, anyone with a few dollars can own a piece of the world's most profitable companies. This is the primary mechanism the middle class uses to build generational wealth and outpace inflation. Furthermore, the stock market is what funds the retirement of teachers, firefighters, and everyday workers—if you have a pension, a 401(k), or an RRSP, you are relying on the wealth-generating power of the stock market.

File: IMG_1590.jpg (206 KB, 750x1284)

206 KB JPG

>>539493451
https://www.whistleblower.gov/whistleblower-alerts/Insider_Trading_WBO_Alert.htm

>>539494132
If you hadnt lost in the previous thread you wouldnt be seething so much to continue this. After making 166 posts in the previous thread.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>539494122
3. Creating Liquidity and Safety

If you invest your savings into a private, local business, your money is trapped. If you face a sudden medical emergency, you cannot easily sell your 10% stake in a neighborhood bakery.

The stock market provides liquidity—the ability to buy or sell an asset in seconds at a publicly visible price. This safety net encourages people to invest their savings rather than hoarding cash. Because they know they can get their money back out when they need it, capital keeps flowing through the broader economy.

4. Forcing Corporate Transparency

Publicly traded companies are forced into the light. Because they accept money from the public, regulators require them to undergo rigorous independent audits, publish detailed quarterly financial reports, and answer to a board of directors.

While no system is immune to fraud, this mandated transparency creates a baseline of corporate accountability and standardizes how businesses must report their health—a level of scrutiny that private companies are rarely subjected to.

Ultimately, the stock market is a bridge. It connects human ingenuity with the capital needed to realize it, while allowing everyday people to share in the financial rewards of that progress.

>>539494495
Non sequitur.

>>539494473
>duty to protect MNPI
Red herring.

>>539493544
false.

Friedman only argued for legalisivg insider trading because it would give jews the upper hand. He is only agaimst government regulation because lawlessness helps the jews thrive. Jewish theories aren't real. Everything they teach is fake, admereafront to advance judaism's power. There is nothing else to their mental diarrhea. Friedman wasn't an economist at all, he was a con artist concealing jewish supremacism as economic theory.

>>539494659
You're agreeing your buddy's text is fake.
And you didn't even realize it.

>>539493763
This concept collapses when confronted with fundamental economic and computational realities. Here is why an AI cannot simply replace the market.

1. The Local Knowledge Problem

The fatal flaw of any centrally planned economy—whether run by bureaucrats or a supercomputer—is the assumption that all necessary economic data can be gathered in one place. In reality, economic knowledge is highly decentralized.

The economist F.A. Hayek famously identified that most economic information isn't written down; it is tacit, fleeting, and highly localized. It exists in the minds of billions of individuals: a farmer noticing a slight change in soil quality, a consumer deciding they suddenly prefer chicken over beef, or a factory manager figuring out a tiny shortcut in assembly.

An AI can process data perfectly, but it cannot process data that hasn't been digitized or formally expressed. By the time qualitative, localized human preferences are translated into data points for an AI to compute, the information is already out of date.

2. Prices are Signals, Not Just Numbers

In a market economy, the price mechanism acts as a decentralized telecommunications system. If a copper mine floods in Chile, the price of copper wire rises globally. Manufacturers instantly start using aluminum or plastic alternatives, and consumers buy fewer copper-heavy goods. No one needed to know why the price went up; the price itself communicated the scarcity and incentivized the exact right behavior across the globe.

An AI expert system abolishing markets would eliminate prices. Without prices, the AI loses the very metric that measures subjective human value. It would have no reliable way to weigh tradeoffs. If there is a shortage of steel, should it go to building hospitals, bridges, or cars? Without a price mechanism reflecting the urgency and willingness to pay across different sectors, the AI has to guess.

>>539494583
Cope and seethe

>>539493763
3. The "Objective Function" Dilemma

AI models are incredibly powerful optimization engines, but they require a strictly defined "objective function"—a goal to maximize or minimize. What is the objective function for human society?

Maximize overall GDP?

Minimize carbon emissions?

Ensure perfectly equal distribution of calories?

Human desires are wildly subjective and constantly conflicting. If person A wants a thriving local music scene and person B wants cheaper rent through high-rise development, how does the AI resolve this without a market? An AI cannot mathematically solve a problem of subjective, competing human values. Ultimately, humans would have to program the AI's goals, which means shifting immense political and social power to a tiny group of engineers or politicians.

4. The Innovation Blindspot

AI systems are fundamentally predictive; they optimize based on historical training data. The free market, conversely, is an engine of creative destruction.

Markets allow for wild, unprecedented experiments that defy historical data. Before the smartphone or the automobile existed, there was no measurable "demand" for them that an AI could have tracked. A centrally planned AI system optimizes for the status quo. It would excel at making the existing production of horse-drawn carriages perfectly efficient, but it would struggle to justify reallocating massive resources to a speculative, unproven technology like the internal combustion engine.

>>539493763
The Reality: AI as an Augmentation, Not a Replacement

Rather than abolishing the market, AI is actively making the market more efficient.

We are already seeing this in the "micro-planned economies" of massive corporations. Companies like Amazon and Walmart use incredibly advanced AI systems to predict demand, optimize logistics, and manage inventory. However, these systems only work because they are nested inside a broader market economy that provides them with hard price data and continuous feedback from consumer spending.

AI will revolutionize supply chains, but it is a tool for navigating the market, not a replacement for it.

>>539494651
It’s the official whistle blower website of the CFTC and it contradicts what you say is true about the CFTF lol

Now make an argument without ai writing it for you or saying something is a fallacy

>>539494764
Concession accepted.

>>539494843
>it contradicts what you say is true about the CFTF
No, it doesn't.

The reason that section does not contradict my earlier points about the CFTC is that the specific misconduct the Whistleblower Office is asking people to report perfectly aligns with the CFTC’s unique, narrow definition of "insider trading."

When you look at what that alert actually asks whistleblowers to watch out for, it completely avoids the SEC's definition (corporate insiders trading their own stock) and focuses entirely on fraud, theft, and breaches of duty.

Here is why the misconduct listed in that alert confirms exactly what we discussed earlier:

1. It Focuses on Misappropriation, Not Lawful Possession

The alert asks whistleblowers to look out for individuals trading on information misappropriated from their employers.

This confirms my earlier point: the crime under the CFTC is the theft or unauthorized use of information. If an employee steals their company's confidential trading algorithm or secret client list to make a personal trade, they have breached a duty of trust, which is illegal. The alert does not ask whistleblowers to report a company trading on its own lawfully generated, internal data (which remains entirely legal).

>>539494849
>Concession
Sorry anon i'm not sharing the popcorn

>>539494843
2. It Targets Front-Running

The alert highlights brokers or traders executing trades ahead of large, market-moving client orders.

This is known as front-running, and it perfectly illustrates the CFTC's focus. The broker is illegally using their client's confidential information against them. Again, this requires a breach of trust between the broker and the client. It is entirely different from a commercial producer trading on their own agricultural or energy data.

3. It Highlights Government Leaks

The CFTC explicitly warns against trading on embargoed government data (like unreleased USDA crop estimates or Department of Energy petroleum reports).

As discussed earlier, this is a strictly enforced carve-out. Because government data belongs to the public, secretly obtaining it—through leaks, bribery, or hacking—is a fraudulent information advantage.
The Bottom Line

The "misconduct" the CFTC wants you to look out for all requires a *fraudulent act*—stealing from an employer, cheating a client, or bribing a government official.

The alert does not contradict my previous explanation because it never claims that simply holding and trading on material non-public information (MNPI) is illegal. It confirms that under the CFTC, the offense is strictly about how you obtained the information, not the mere fact that you have it.

>>539494958
Nice EM dashes faggot
You were crying in the other thread about someone else using chatgpt.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>539495131
>your buddy starts using AI
>you cry when it's used against your buddy
Not my problem.

>>539494720
I didn't read his post and he's not my buddy. i'm just pointing out that all jewish academics are fraudsters replacing real ssuence and real theory with kabbalic garbage designed to destroy gentiles and make the jews their masters. There is no other aspect to jewish academia. There is not a single jew in the world who truly values wisdom, knowledge or understanding. Because the ones who do are ex jews.

>>539495201
>NOOOOOO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME ARE BUDDIES, THEY'RE AN ORGANISED ANTI ME TASK FORCE
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>539495333
>THEY'RE AN ORGANISED ANTI ME TASK FORCE
No one said that.

>>539495525
Dont let me trigger you
Have a laugh jigaboo

>>539494659
>>539495226
There are jews who argue against legalizing insider trading.
So where does that leave you?