= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on Applying utility functions to humans considered harmful - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (114)
Where?
If the efficient market hypothesis false, I still think insider trading laws are a bad idea. The people with the best information about the health of a company are precisely the insiders. This is the sort of information that investors would love to have when deciding whether to commit resources to one company or another, and the sort of information which would be socially useful for investors to be acting on. None of this requires the efficient markets hypothesis, just that markets do process information, even if imperfectly.
Less efficient than other taxes. As a general rule, you never want to tax production - it discourages productive activities. Capital gains is different because it isn't production per se, but savvy trading - even on the stock market - serves a socially useful function. (Yes, that means I like speculators)
I am a libertarian, but probably not as serious as you think. Has it occurred to you that I'm mainly just reporting the collective knowledge of economists?
By the way, you still haven't explained why you want economists to have less influence, or what you want them to have less influence on.
You are reporting the collective knowledge of economists as reported to you by libertarians. Most economists are not libertarians and most support the status quo. Look for a survey of economists' opinions, eg, by Robert Whaples. They probably lean in your direction on all these issues, compared to the general public, but that does not mean they support them in absolute terms. eg, half want to eliminate the minimum wage, but half want it as is or higher.
I wasn't aware that there was such an even split on the minimum wage, thanks. (One of the citations in the ejw article you linked to below provided the evidence)
I tried to pick items that I thought there was a general consensus on in the profession. Apparently I was wrong about the minimum wage. Looking back on my list, I would also be worried about insider trading laws (I'm sure it's controversial), the capital gains tax, and probably the post office. I was intentionally vague about which subsidies economists would dislike because they aren't necessarily bad (and economists don't necessarily dilike them), but ethanol is one there is probably some agreement on. Tariffs and the income tax I'm also pretty confident in. Fannie and freddy I'm less confident in, but still pretty sure about. Note that the ejw article you linked supports my assertions about tariffs and the ethanol case of subsidies.
Do you happen to have a link to a Whaples survey on general economic policy issues? Everything I see is behind a subscription.
ejw is not gated.
economists' voice is gated, but has some kind of guest access.
Let me just endorse what Douglas Knight said.
You seem to have no clue what insider trading laws are. Company employees and executives can purchase stock. However it is illegal to act on information that is not public.
You can look for filings to see what executives are purchasing positions in their companies. Like you say, it is good sign if people who know the company well are buying in.
My point is that insider trading makes nonpublic information public.
Securities law does that.