Tom DeLay gets indicted

[BX 0]

I was expecting to come here and find a raging discussion of this issue, with Mike and Powerplay and others chiming in in defense of DeLay, but apparently this hasn't happened.

 

This folder is dead. I think we're all complicit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh, fuck off. When have I ever defended Delay?

 

Perhaps we should consider your "STARTLING REBUTAL TO THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MUMIA".

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Calm down there, little buddy. I tend to group you with the wingnuts cause, you know, you advocate a lot of conservative viewpoints. Plus, I've pretty much been AWOL from here since March.

 

As far as Henry Winkler goes, you know you smiled.

[Justice 0]

Oh, I did. I advocate some conservative viewpoints, but Mike? Seriously, to think I'd defend Delay is an insult upon my honor.

 

And normally I don't bring this stuff up, but I'm seriously wasted at moment. I personally feel offended by being put into the 'defending Delay' crowd when I have never liked the guy in the first place. It is an insult upon my honor, and it must be addressed immediately.

 

And, well, yes, Henry Winkler rocks in just about every form he takes.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Justice

[The Czech Republic 0]

Henry Winkler rocks in just about every form he takes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You just can't fuck with the Fonz.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It's going to be difficult to actually convict the guy, but the damage has already been done. The "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that's been fostered in this country for years is an unfortunate turn. I'm more curious about Frist's stock selling story. At least that's a bit more concrete and doesn't rely on an iffy term like "conspiracy."

[The Czech Republic 0]

Whether he did something or not, I think insider trading is one of the more ridiculous laws.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Explain.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, I agree with Tyler here. Using non-public information to keep other investors in the dark while you make a killing isn't exactly a 'fair' practice...

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well, it's just a matter of having more knowledge than anyone else. We don't punish people for making informed transactions elsewhere.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It's more than that.

[SuperJerk 0]

Czech lack of knowledge about the business world doesn't surprise me.

[Slayer 0]

From Wikipedia, take it for what you will

 

Arguments for insider trading

Although insider trading is often illegal, there are arguments in its favour. Insider trading amounts to a consensual act between adults, i.e. a victimless act. A willing buyer and a willing seller agree to trade property which they rightfully own, with no prior contract having been made between the parties to refrain from trading if equal knowledge is not possessed. Hence, it is maintained that no one's rights are violated.

 

A stock will eventually move when the non-public information is released regardless and investors will lose or make money as a result. Many hold that making money by having superior information is what trading is "all about": A trader does not sell his stock unless he believes he knows information that is more indicative of the future move of a stock than his buyer, and vice versa.

 

Insider trading can make markets more efficient by increasing the amount of information that is known about the company, and can motivate outsiders such as analysts to increase their knowledge about the company. The costs of complying with anti-insider-trading laws are also thus avoided. Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman says: "You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that." Friedman does not believe that the trader should be required to make his trade known to the public (to reveal his identity or the reason for his trade), but says that the buying or selling pressure itself is information for the market.

 

Some of those who favour regulations against insider trading assert that market liquidity comes from confidence that all participants have equal access to information. A counter-rebuttal to this is that a significant motivation of trading is the belief on the part of a trader that he has better knowledge than others do in the market and that therefore a stock is improperly priced. If a stock was always accurately priced, there would no point in speculative trading, which would result in decreased liquidity in the market. Indeed, all estimates indicate that speculative trading accounts for the lion's share of buying and selling of stocks.

 

Advocates of legalisation sometimes also make free speech arguments. Punishment for telling someone else about a development pertinent to the next day's likely stock moves would seem, prima facie, to be one of prohibited speech, i.e. an act of censorship. [1] A counter-argument is that public interest may be strong enough to make individual freedom of speech subservient.

 

Also, there is the question of why what amounts to insider trading is legal in other markets, such as real estate, but not in the stock market. For example, if a geologist knows there is a high likelihood of the discovery of petroleum under Farmer Smith's land, he is entitled to make Smith an offer for the land, and buy it, without first telling Farmer Smith, or competing potential buyers, of the geological data and reasoning that justify his interest. If the value of the hidden oil can be acquired in such a manner in real estate transactions, some ask: why not unlock hidden values in the stock market through the same mechanism?

[SuperJerk 0]

Wait...a Wikipedia article...not cited by me????

 

I call gimmick infringment!

[Slayer 0]

For all your wiki-wiki needs

 

I don't agree with all the arguments cited, but I've always wondered for a long time about the "everyone must have free access to information" bit with IT... if everyone had the exact same information, either everyone would sell at the same time, buy at the same time or do nothing at the same time... which defeats the point of trading in the first place.

 

But then there's the other side where big wigs will try to use their information to do something like, say, bail themselves (and maybe some friends too) out before a collapse while Average Joe Trader is left with scraps of toilet paper

[SuperJerk 0]

Also, there is the question of why what amounts to insider trading is legal in other markets, such as real estate, but not in the stock market. For example, if a geologist knows there is a high likelihood of the discovery of petroleum under Farmer Smith's land, he is entitled to make Smith an offer for the land, and buy it, without first telling Farmer Smith, or competing potential buyers, of the geological data and reasoning that justify his interest. If the value of the hidden oil can be acquired in such a manner in real estate transactions, some ask: why not unlock hidden values in the stock market through the same mechanism?

 

That's not really a valid analogy. A valid analogy would be if you sold a house knowing that it had major problems with it and did not disclose them (which IS illegal).

[Slayer 0]

Well, I think that's going with the primary connotation of IT, that is, with "insiders" bailing on a company before the public at large finds out, but there's also the opposite case where insiders jump on a low stock that, with inside info, they know will soon rocket and thus make a huge killing that "outsiders" won't get... I think that may be part of the analogy the author meant

[SuperJerk 0]

Too bad they couldn't put together a defense of that end of it, since that IS part of what they were trying to defend.

[BX 0]

DeLay indicted AGAIN

 

A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering.

 

A different grand jury whose term ended last week indicted him on a conspiracy charge, forcing DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader.

 

Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

 

Link

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

dang rogue District Attorney

[EricMM 0]

For whoever wondered about Mike not defending DeLay over here,

 

he REALLY is over there.

 

I mean Earle is the worst scum and DeLay is absolutely golden.

 

Which is rediculous.

 

He's a Republican.

 

All Democrats and Republicans have done SOMETHING. Especially Congresspeople.

[BX 0]

I want to see this.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There's no way this guy gets convicted of anything now. Strike while the iron's hot and all, but there's gotta be another asshole somewhere doing something wrong. Go get THAT person now. It's like the left is obsessed with shooting itself in the foot. You're virtually giving a sheet of talking points to every fuckhead in the media to rally the people against you.

[SuperJerk 0]

There's no way this guy gets convicted of anything now. Strike while the iron's hot and all, but there's gotta be another asshole somewhere doing something wrong. Go get THAT person now. It's like the left is obsessed with shooting itself in the foot. You're virtually giving a sheet of talking points to every fuckhead in the media to rally the people against you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You so lost me.

[EricMM 0]

PS I was wrong, Mike did say he thought DeLay was an idiot.

 

But he spent much more time ripping on Earle than on the man shaming his political party.

[Art Sandusky 0]

There's no way this guy gets convicted of anything now. Strike while the iron's hot and all, but there's gotta be another asshole somewhere doing something wrong. Go get THAT person now. It's like the left is obsessed with shooting itself in the foot. You're virtually giving a sheet of talking points to every fuckhead in the media to rally the people against you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You so lost me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've adopted the political motivation explanation after the second indictment came down. If you're trying to bring down the GOP, go for multiple targets instead of concentrating on one who's already someone under a controversial indictment that a lot of people aren't buying. Trying to nail the guy over and over again on nebulous charges doesn't help anyone but the accused and their party.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Trying to nail the guy over and over again on nebulous charges

 

...

 

Are we talking about the same guy here? Tom Delay is at least somewhat crooked. His party had to change the ethics rules so he could remain majority leader. Everyone around him (Abramoff, other TRMPAC guys) has been indicted. Hell, Abramoff, who has payed for some of Delay's junkets, is even being questioned in connection with mob murders. How are "conspiracy to launder money" and "money laundering" "nebulous charges"?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Well DUH, but this is all stuff that's incredibly difficult to prove. What would constitute "conspiring" anyway? I want to see the dude strung up and set on fire on principle too, but it's going to be soooo hard to convict him. I don't care how much his friends have gotten in trouble. DeLay's name is on the indictment, and that's all that the justice system will care about.

[Justice 0]

While I agree on the "crooked bastard", the questioning thing is a bit out of place. Being questioned doesn't necessarily mean you were involved in a crime at all, it means you might just have evidence pertinent to the investigation. :-\

[SuperJerk 0]

Republicans strongly beleive in innocent until proven guilty...unless your last name is Clinton.