<DIV>Well, you and Judge Easterbrook are on the same page. Me, I think it's unfair for people to be able to enrich themselves not bewcause they've done research, but merely because of their positioon or having been tipped. Perhaps it shouldn't be a crime, but definitely at least a civil cause of action. jks Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">andie nachgeborenen wrote: >Securities fraud laws are aimed at real and considerable evils, >unlike the obstruction laws, which are mere bargaining chips for the >US Attorney. Some on the right (Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Cir. >and the U of C comes to mind) have defended legalization of insider >trading as policy, but I disagree with them/him, and at any rate it >is illegal, and indeed a crime. People who peddle fraudulent securities to suckers should be put away, but insider trading is no big deal in my book. Who exactly is the victim? If Stewart did as claimed, who was hurt? Orthodox types would claim the victim was the integrity of the markets, but if you think the markets are structures of exploitation, you won't be moved by that analysis. Analysts who publicly recommended stocks they privately referred to as "pieces of shit" (e.g. Henry Blodget) should have the book thrown at them, and so should their bosses. But why Martha? Sure she's annoying and almost certainly a dreadful person, but a criminal? Please. Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? Free <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/*http://calendar.yahoo.com">online calendar</a> with sync to Outlook(TM).