Posted on 06/25/2002 10:23:43 AM PDT by Registered
What a deal!
"Especially when you have to make it in big vats, to serve 1,348 guests wearing stripes."
But seriously - the "insider trading" laws are a folly, and impossible to enforce fairly.
As an investor - not an employee of Imclone - Martha Stewart made a rational decision based on the information she had. It's not reasonable to expect her to know that the company stock was about to get hammered and not do the only thing she could do - sell it.
The legal burden should be on the company to make immediate public disclosure of material information, not the investors. It's the executives of the companies that withhold information from public investors who should have their hides nailed to the wall.
FMCDH
When a drug developer submits a drug for a approval to the FDA, the developer is pretty sure of the out come. In most cases the developer is 100 percent sure of the outcome.
The first step in a drug is the idea. An independent developer then raises the capital to do the testing prior to submitting the drug to the FDA for approval. If the drug meets the FDA criteria for drug approval the drug is approved. It is not all that difficult to figure out if a drug meets the criteria.
Five years ago at just about this time the FDA approved a Cancer drug, that was believed to have a 15 percent chance of success. I was diagnosed in early August of 1997 with lung cancer. I was told I had a 33 percent chance of living until Christmas... a less than 8 percent chance of living a year. In the first week of August a Doctor told me about a new drug, just approved. It had terrible side effects. It had about a 15 percent chance of killing my cance and a 85 percent chance of kiling me. If it failed the Doctor said the side effects would likely kill me before the end of September. I took the chance and won. Last year the Doctor told me teh Drug actually has proven in use to have a 50 percent success rate rather than the 15 percent if was believed to have when it was approved and teh side effects were not as bad as original expected. But that tells you what the FDA will approve.
Yes Virginia, the FDA approves cancer drugs that tests show to have a 15 percent success rate, and high terrible side effects rates.
It seems obvious that this drug was not that good. It seems obvious that the developer knew it was not that good. The developer had to know. He conducted the tests.
That explains why it was hyped so much during the approval process. All the expenses had been paid before the results were submitted.
I can't see a reason to sell you stock before a drug is approved, unless you know it will not be approved. If you submit and know it will not be approved then hyping before the decision and selling out before the decision is a real con.
If it is approved, the stock will bring far more after approval than before.
It is, however, an attractive con, because to prosecute the govermnet would have to prove the developer knew it would not be approved before the FDA announced it would not be approved. It is hard to prove what someone knew or believed. It is next to impossible. That is why such a con would appear attractive to a con artist.
But the govenment did what it often does when they can't prove what they know you did. The prosecute for what they can prove... In this case insider trading.
If this drug had been approved, if the application were valid, and the promoter had told some people to buy before it was approved, there would be no investigation.
That is the problem with the prefect rip off.
The Arthur Anderson case is another one. Arthur Anderson takes legal bribes in the form of consulting contracts and looks the other way when the hanky hits the panky. How do you prove they knew Enron was cheating and that Andrson looked the other way? The DOJ can't so they nail them on trashing documents.
"This is a Leona Helmsly sort of issue IMHO as Mean Martha has made some money and a lot of enemies thus she's gonna fall for that reason alone........" Squantos 2
That's an astute observation. Prosecution based on whipping up inequality emotions in the little guys. Sure, the prosecution will make it all appear as just a matter of following the law. Most people wouldn't know bad law if it was staring them in the face. Why? Because they default on critical thinking and let an external authority do it for them -- let incompetents guide them. Propaganda on a platter.
Bill Clinton, when he was President sold inside secrets to the Chinese government. Now there's a real crime.
"The government picks the citizens' pockets taking half their money yet may of them think the government is looking out for their best interest and Martha Stewart's their 'enemy'." -- Zon
Politicians and bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent when it comes to solving real problems yet champions at creating problems where they need not exist.
Politicians and bureaucrats create and implement roughly 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. That number increases on average from one year to the next. Each year they tell us that the new laws are "must-have laws" that people and society can't prosper without. They do that to keep people from running society headlong into destruction. To that end lawyers are their greatest champions.
Yet how is it that citizens and the society they make up has managed to not only survive but increase prosperity when they didn't have this year's 3,000 new laws last year or for decades before. Likewise, how did citizens increase prosperity for decades prior to last year's 3,000 new must-have laws? And they do that despite a mountain of laws that they've already saddled with. Thirty new laws a year is probably overkill. But 3,000 is insane.
During Clintons eight years in the White House alone, there were 25,000 new laws and regulations created. How many of those laws did you break? With that many laws piled on top of the ones that already existed virtually every citizen is a criminal.
However, if in a day it was physically possible to apprehended even one quarter of those lawbreakers society would come to a screeching halt. Yet with all these supposed criminals on the lose prosperity continues to increase.
Seems obvious that lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to buy access to government power in order to gain unfair competitive advantages would be non existent if politicians weren't putting government power up for sale in the first place. They sell the "little guys" snake oil while they sell access to government power to their cronies.
Politicians and bureaucrats write and implement thousands of laws each year to justify their unearned paychecks and to usurp power that rightfully belongs to the citizens.
It seems obvious to this writer that politicians and bureaucrats think the citizens are as stupid as themselves and can't readily comprehend the bigger picture when given even a small amount of full-context facts presented honestly.
Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- free association wherein any or all parties are free to walk away -- will make things worse rather than better.
Parasitical Elite vs. Prosperity Creators
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and private property rights -- military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.