Dave Smith > wrote:

She may have the last laugh.

While she was in prison she made 500 million from her new reality TV
show.

Perhaps crime does pay..........

> ScratchMonkey wrote:
>
> > "Fudge" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only lied and
> > > stole 40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched
> > > billions. Now, the gullible public can safely entrust their cash to
> > > Wall Street secure in the knowledge the guilty have been punished.
> >
> > A nice analysis of her "crime":
> >
> > http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
> >
> > The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names for
> > themselves.
>
> Harry Brown certainly has an interesting take on Martha's crime, and
> contrary to what he says, I think it is a crime. The western world's
> economy relies very heavily on the stock market, and the value of stocks and
> investments should have some credibility to it. Sure, it can be a bit of a
> crap shoot to invest in some companies. Sometimes you win and sometimes you
> lose. In Martha's case, as I understand it, she got some inside information
> that something had happened that was going to make the value of her stock
> plummet. Accordingly, she dumped it. If the information she had been privy
> to have been made public, she would have lost a considerable amount of
> money. Instead, she sold the stock and someone from whom that important
> information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what is
> supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it was worth
> much less.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
om:

> That's probbaly true in a technical sense, but there is a huge
> difference between doing something to help others becaiuse it makes
> you feel good, and doing something to harm others to make money.

An excellent argument against taxation. Putting someone in prison (harm)
because they object to one's taking their income without permission
(making money) so one can "help others" with it is wrong.

> There's nothing bizarre about it. It's quite simple and easy to
> understand. Certain information about companies is public and
> available for all to base investment decisions on. Other information
> is not available to all - it is available only to those involved in
> the operation of the company - insiders. If they are permitted to buy
> and sell stock based on this information, it is blatantly unfair.

If all have equal access to the same information, then all will make the
same decisions, and there's no need for the market at all. The market is
fundamentally an information transfer system, transmitting information
from the knowledgable to the ignorant using the information carrier of
pricing. Allowing insider information isn't "unfair". It just means one
has to factor in another piece of information (whether the trading
partner is an "insider") when making decisions. "Insiders" who make
frequent advantageous trades will be watched very closely by peers.

> When Martha sold her stock based on inside information, she was in
> effect saying to who ever bought the stock: "I know this stock is
> worth a lot less than the current price, and you don't. So **** you, I
> am going to take your money."

And the buyer is screwed only because the system pretends to protect him
from "unfairness". And actual buyers are still screwed because they
don't get compensated from Martha's gains (or those of other insiders
who get away with it). Without the false "protection", traders would
know to look more closely at who's trading with them.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3933

Someone who shares your disdain for Martha:

http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/...0403090901.asp

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in
:

> if she was honest up front, she would have probably done little or no
> time and the prosecutors would have missed on the publicity.

"Martha Admits to Wrong-doing! Film at 11!" And the prosecutors are
rewarded for getting her to confess without any trial time.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> she sold the stock and someone from whom that important
> information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what
> is supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it
> was worth much less.

Value is subjective. The people buying the stock would have done so no
matter who sold it. In fact, in a brokerage-based system, the stock is all
dumped into a big hopper anyway, so those buying the stock were mostly
getting it from other ignorant people.

Consider a market where insider trading is allowed. One could tell one's
broker, "buy the stock unless an insider is selling". With such a brokerage
feature in place, Martha would have made squat, and there'd be no "need"
for the pointless insider trading law. If your broker lacks an insider
watch feature, complain.

ScratchMonkey > wrote:
>An excellent argument against taxation. Putting someone in prison (harm)
>because they object to one's taking their income without permission
>(making money) so one can "help others" with it is wrong.
>
I'm thinking that I don't usually agree with your posts (may be
thinking of someone else) but in this case you have certainly found
some serious common ground. I won't ignore you in the future, if I
have been guilty of it in the past.

TheAlligator wrote:
> "Elisa" > wrote:
> >I don't steal pens either, I point out clerk's errors in change, if
I find
> >money on the ground, I try to find the owner...however, if I got a
stock tip
> >from a good friend that could save me from losing $40,000 the very
next day,
> >I am not sure that I am that rightous to ignore the information. I
know I
> >would be tempted....
> >
> >Elisa
> >
> >
> Of course you'd be tempted, Elisa and so would I. Almost everything
> is a temptation - the true test of character is how you respond to
it.
> And from what little I know about you, I'm fairly certain that YOU
> wouldn't have done it, either. Especially if, as in her case, it was
> the equivalent of pocket change. Whatever you think about her, she
is
> certainly not stupid - she knew she committed a federal felony the
> second she made the call.

She wasn't ever charged with fraud. She was charged with lying to the
investigators, and she wasn't even under oath.

N.

ScratchMonkey wrote:

> > she sold the stock and someone from whom that important
> > information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what
> > is supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it
> > was worth much less.
>
> Value is subjective. The people buying the stock would have done so no
> matter who sold it. In fact, in a brokerage-based system, the stock is all
> dumped into a big hopper anyway, so those buying the stock were mostly
> getting it from other ignorant people.

The value of some things is partially based on subjective qualities. Only the
stocks that are available for sale are dumped into your hopper. In Martha's
case, a considerable amount of stock got dumped because she had obtained inside
information about something that was going to make the value of that stock take
a dive.


> Consider a market where insider trading is allowed. One could tell one's
> broker, "buy the stock unless an insider is selling". With such a brokerage
> feature in place, Martha would have made squat, and there'd be no "need"
> for the pointless insider trading law. If your broker lacks an insider
> watch feature, complain.

There is a difference between having inside information and being involved in
inside training. People in the business of trading stocks should obviously be
aware of information about companies that make them good or bad investments.
There is no problem with that so long as everybody has equal access to the
information.

I would be cautious about buy and selling stocks on the basis on what the
insiders are doing. Some of them are quite good at dumping large quantities of
stocks and taking a small short term loss in order to cause a selling panic
that drives the price down even further, and then they buy back a while lot
more of the same stock at rock bottom prices. As they start buying it back the
prices climbs.

> wrote in message

> She wasn't ever charged with fraud. She was charged with lying to the
> investigators, and she wasn't even under oath.
>
> N.

Did your mother say is was OK if you lied to her since you were not under
oath?

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>Did your mother say is was OK if you lied to her since you were not under
>oath?
>
>
Very good point made. I have been trying to get across the
understanding that wrong is wrong no matter how you disguise it. Why
is that such a foreign idea these days? And if I stole pens from
work, or kept the wrong amount of change because of a clerk's mistake,
it is still WRONG. Personal responsibility will do wonders in the way
of changing the world. It's just a shame it seems to be a rare
commodity these days.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> > She wasn't ever charged with fraud. She was charged with lying to
the
> > investigators, and she wasn't even under oath.
> >
> > N.
>
> Did your mother say is was OK if you lied to her since you were not
under
> oath?

Of course not - but that isn't the point I was making, which is that
hardly anyone ever gets made an example of by getting prison time for
lying under oath, let alone lying in other instances. Sheesh.

N.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> The value of some things is partially based on subjective qualities.

Just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", value is in the mind of
the valuer. You can't have value without someone to do the valuing. One
might assume that people with very similar backgrounds would have
similar values. But I disagree on the value of things with close family
members, so there's not a lot of hope for any objective basis for value
at greater distance.

> There is a difference between having inside information and being
> involved in inside training. People in the business of trading
> stocks should obviously be aware of information about companies that
> make them good or bad investments. There is no problem with that so
> long as everybody has equal access to the information.

No one ever has equal access to information. Trying to force a level
playing field reduces the effectiveness of the market by slowing down
its natural information channel.

> I would be cautious about buy and selling stocks on the basis on what
> the insiders are doing. Some of them are quite good at dumping large
> quantities of stocks and taking a small short term loss in order to
> cause a selling panic that drives the price down even further, and
> then they buy back a while lot more of the same stock at rock bottom
> prices. As they start buying it back the prices climbs.

If you only get to make the decision once, that's a valid objection. But
most participants are in for the long haul, and won't make a decision
based on isolated one-time data. An insider should only get away with
that behavior once, and then his peers will be onto him. (In game
theory, this is called the "tit-for-tat" strategy. Honesty pays off in
the long run, for participants who meet each other more than once in the
game, by rewarding honesty or dishonesty with the like response.)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, ScratchMonkey wrote:

> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>> I would be cautious about buy and selling stocks on the basis on what
>> the insiders are doing. Some of them are quite good at dumping large
>> quantities of stocks and taking a small short term loss in order to
>> cause a selling panic that drives the price down even further, and
>> then they buy back a while lot more of the same stock at rock bottom
>> prices. As they start buying it back the prices climbs.
>
> If you only get to make the decision once, that's a valid objection. But
> most participants are in for the long haul, and won't make a decision
> based on isolated one-time data. An insider should only get away with
> that behavior once, and then his peers will be onto him. (In game
> theory, this is called the "tit-for-tat" strategy. Honesty pays off in
> the long run, for participants who meet each other more than once in the
> game, by rewarding honesty or dishonesty with the like response.)

so... how _do_ you figure out someone's investing fist?

I mean, it's fairly easy in programming (we've _all_ heard of hungarian
notation, after all...).

Lbk

Lena B Katz > wrote in news:Pine.GSO.4.60-
:

> I mean, it's fairly easy in programming (we've _all_ heard of hungarian
> notation, after all...).

LOL, even I've been known to use it at times, and I'm not a big MS fan. And
I'm growing to like Perl, where the idioms are quite different. (Cringing
in preperation for the rock-throwing.)

Dave Smith wrote:
> ScratchMonkey wrote:
>
> > "Fudge" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only
lied and
> > > stole 40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched
> > > billions. Now, the gullible public can safely entrust their cash
to
> > > Wall Street secure in the knowledge the guilty have been
punished.
> >
> > A nice analysis of her "crime":
> >
> > http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
> >
> > The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names
for
> > themselves.
>
> Harry Brown certainly has an interesting take on Martha's crime, and
> contrary to what he says, I think it is a crime. The western world's
> economy relies very heavily on the stock market, and the value of
stocks and
> investments should have some credibility to it. Sure, it can be a bit
of a
> crap shoot to invest in some companies. Sometimes you win and
sometimes you
> lose. In Martha's case, as I understand it, she got some inside
information
> that something had happened that was going to make the value of her
stock
> plummet. Accordingly, she dumped it. If the information she had been
privy
> to have been made public, she would have lost a considerable amount
of
> money. Instead, she sold the stock and someone from whom that
important
> information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what
is
> supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it was
worth
> much less.


You are making the same mistake as many others - the stock sale was NOT
her "crime." Lying to investigators was the "crime." Her prison
sentence had nothing at all to do with whether or not she was guilty of
insider trading.

N.

jmcquown wrote:
> Rusty wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 06:06:02 -0600, "jmcquown"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> BOB wrote:
> >>> Found in my e-mail earlier.
> >>>
> >>> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
> >>> by Scott Ott
> >>>
> >>> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were
on
> >>> edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals,
Martha
> >>> Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
> >>>
> >>> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall
Street
> >>> executive.
> >>> "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did the
> >>> correctional institution really correct her?"
> >>>
> >> Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something. They
> >> should be watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about
> >> Martha making a stock trade.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Damn, I'm going to lock my doors. It won't be 24-hours until she's
> > beating eggs, whipping potatoes and smashing garlic.
> >
> > No food will be safe. ;-)
> >
> > Rusty
>
> "Oh the humanity!" LOL
>
> Jill


Tsk, Jill - surely, you're too young to use that quote ;-) I for sure,
am.

N.

On Thu 10 Mar 2005 03:10:20p, wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Rusty wrote:
>> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 06:06:02 -0600, "jmcquown"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> BOB wrote:
>> >>> Found in my e-mail earlier.
>> >>>
>> >>> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
>> >>> by Scott Ott
>> >>>
>> >>> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states were
>> >>> on edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals,
>> >>> Martha Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
>> >>>
>> >>> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall Street
>> >>> executive. "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but did
>> >>> the correctional institution really correct her?"
>> >>>
>> >> Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something. They
>> >> should be watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about
>> >> Martha making a stock trade.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Damn, I'm going to lock my doors. It won't be 24-hours until she's
>> > beating eggs, whipping potatoes and smashing garlic.
>> >
>> > No food will be safe. ;-)
>> >
>> > Rusty
>>
>> "Oh the humanity!" LOL
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> Tsk, Jill - surely, you're too young to use that quote ;-) I for sure,
> am.
>
> N.
>

Ah, the miracle of modern film!

Wayne

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 10 Mar 2005 03:10:20p, wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> >
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >> Rusty wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 06:06:02 -0600, "jmcquown"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> BOB wrote:
> >> >>> Found in my e-mail earlier.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> New York 'Jittery' as Prison Releases Martha Stewart
> >> >>> by Scott Ott
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (2005-03-04) -- Residents of New York and neighboring states
were
> >> >>> on edge today as one of the nation's most notorious criminals,
> >> >>> Martha Stewart, was released from a West Virginia prison.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Stock brokers will be watching their backs," said one Wall
Street
> >> >>> executive. "We're all a bit jittery. She's done her time, but
did
> >> >>> the correctional institution really correct her?"
> >> >>>
> >> >> Oh pulleeeeeeze. Like Martha is a terrorist or something.
They
> >> >> should be watching the skies for airplanes, not worrying about
> >> >> Martha making a stock trade.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Damn, I'm going to lock my doors. It won't be 24-hours until
she's
> >> > beating eggs, whipping potatoes and smashing garlic.
> >> >
> >> > No food will be safe. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Rusty
> >>
> >> "Oh the humanity!" LOL
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> >
> > Tsk, Jill - surely, you're too young to use that quote ;-) I for
sure,
> > am.
> >
> > N.
> >
>
> Ah, the miracle of modern film!
>
> Wayne


LOL. Exactly.

BTW, Martha's not only out, she's now made the billionaire list! Boy,
that'll teach her a lesson!

;-)

N.