(vince) wrote in message om...
(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...
(vince) wrote in message . com...
(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...
Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 30 Jul 2003 10:23:01 -0700, (psyshrike)

or establishing civil rights. The legal system defines what is
property several different ways.


Law, is the abstraction of a pragmatic repudiation to some form of
human behavior. This does not limit _value_ from being expressed. To
compare civil and property rights is to compare two seperate layers of
linguistic abstraction. In a book context: (Property 1. Civil 1.1)
vs. (Property 1. Civil 2.)

How you arrange your chapters does not change the fact, that both
property and civil rights are expressable in a capitalistic context.
Or:

If you can assign a value to an abstract, (intellectual property. A
software license for example) that abstraction opens the door for
other abstract valuation assignments. Freedom, is marketably
expressable even if our forefathers didn't write it that way. If it is
expressed up to including the price of life for some, then that is the
price. The cost assosciation does not dissapear, even though the cost
negates any interest in the purchase.


Insider trading, is itself functional in a market solely run for
predicitive purposes. Or: Markets can be manipulated. THATS THE POINT.
The fluctuation of the price of a tradable asset, is itself usefull
information that _something_ is going on.

no, becsue the insider trading may not be of something of predictive
value. assume that as an insider ai know that person X is going to
buy a million shares at 9AM. I dont knwo wheyy or care. I do know
that take advantage of that knwoledge to manipulate the market. it
degrades the predictive power of the market.

I disagree. I think it increase the predictive ability. If big money
makes decisions in the market, the sheep follow. The amount of
information that gets to the sheep is flexible and in contention ant
any given time. The sheep and the theives influence market
INstability. Since it is the peaks in the chart we are looking at for
prediction, not the flatlines, instability is not a bad thing within
limits.

Rational purchase motive tends to weigh more heavily on the market,
than insiders. In fact even using your example, the insider is making
the decision to purchase AFTER the the rational motive purchaser. The
sheep actually make up more of the transactions than either of the
ration person, or the insider, and they follow both parties. So
provided that the count of insiders does not exceed the count of
rational purchasers, the market remains predictive.

Insider trading, fraud, investigation, regulation, and insider
regulation, are rampant in both major US markets today, yet people
still invest, and the markets are still predictive. (You shouldn't
need examples)

nonsense. as you point out, to make your market workd you have to
investigate the motives of the participants, which woudl automatically
prevent them from taking part.


Vince .

So, insider trading prevents prediction, and investigation prevents
the viability of a market? The truth is somewhere in between me
thinks.

It sounds like you are either a lawyer or law student. Markets are
more abstract than law. The language of law has a pragmatic end. A
function.

Market fluctuations are symptomatic of infintely variable
relaitonships. They have no "reason to be", they are just
measurements. Like a thermometer.

Market language exists for people to interpret correctly the symptoms.
100% of the decision, is still to the investor, whether his info is
correct or not.

With law, at least some of the decision making process is influenced
by the framer.

IMHO: Therefore; in a time where global opinions change faster than
they once did; it may be prudent to use market techniques to impliment
regulation, particularly in a government service setting.

This would provide a floating abstraction for each government service
(a stock symbol), the price of which would provide pressure both on
the populace and the state, such that "public will" would be easily
interpreted, and government fraud would be easier to investigate.

Ex. 1. A climbing price indicates a public interest, and
precapitalizes the
states coffers to respond to that interest.

2. The standardized book keeping mechanism required by
transpearent
markets would create a publically disclosed paper trail for
prosecuting fraud cases.

I am quite interested in why this wouldn't work. As I haven't really
found a good reason yet.

-Psyshrike