… that someone has exposed which were behind a paywall. I’m merely acknowledging its existence.
As they mentioned in the post, the searchable index is temporarily down, but the cache remains up here: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaced4xstofs4tc5q4irede6uzaz3qzcdvcb2eedxgfakzwdyjnxgohq/
@FarmerJayhawk Yeah, the results of a study are only as good as the method my memory of instrumental variable approach is fuzzy, so please share thoughts if you see something questionable… I’m assuming they implemented it properly… but not sure if there are concerns with the employment of that method (and if there was a better alternative.)
@nuleafjhawk said in Coronavirus Origins:
@mayjay and why has it taken - however long bats have been on earth- for this to show up ?
Hard to say. For example, HIV didn’t show up until the late 60’s and came from apes. It’s possible there were more localized outbreaks years and years ago before globalization when China was effectively autarkic both in terms of labor and capital.
My theory is we’re all so economically related now it’s much, much easier for a virus to both jump to humans and once it does, infect a lot of people. There are more of us than ever and it’s easier to travel than ever.
A friend of mine is in charge of the infectious disease center for a county close to here. They have part of the small hospital, but it has its own ventilation system. Wonder how much of a problem that is? She retired from being in charge of the nurses at a clinic to this job. Never imagined.
On January 29th, China had reported 7700 global cases of COVID-19. That’s a hell of a lot of masks being worn for 7700 total cases. Oh, to be young and have access to N95 masks via unbroken supply chains and undepleted caches… To have the luxury of covering up an epidemic that isn’t even a pandemic yet…
@approxinfinity said in Is this website a joke?:
@jayballer73 we will get through this and see eye-to-eye in the end. Just a bump in the road.
oh no doubt for sure. we will always see eye to eye at the end of the day, wouldn’t want it any other way. No one see’s eye to eye on everything buddy. We gonna be ok. – -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
@FarmerJayhawk said in Donald Trump's Public Service Announcement:
@Kcmatt7 said in Donald Trump's Public Service Announcement:
In times of crisis, everyone’s a democrat…
Not even sort of
It’s just a joke considering the republican politicians at the moment…
Your CEO scenario is an argument for corporate inside information to be disclosed more publicly and sooner than it is now so all shareholders have equal opportunity to make decisions. The idea that a CEO selling their shares gives everyone information doesn’t really hold water since there is a lag in the reporting and anyone seeing the report has no idea why the CEO sold a bunch (college tuition due?).
It is highly inefficient economically to depend on shareholders guessing about insider trading as a means of detecting crucial corporate info. When I was at the CFTC, we often worked with the SEC on these things. Reporting disclosures sometimes alerted our regulators to the need for an investigation. But even with govt investigative power it took a long time to determine why a transaction occurred. Not much use to investors because a sale, or buy, could even be planned far in advance under a contract, ot triggered by economic indicators.
You are correct: insider trading is perfectly legal provided it is done properly. We want corporations to be run by people who have a stake. But the rules against using inside information are designed to avoid letting the insiders be the first in line which leads to distrust of market pricing.
As to all public officials, I would prohibit all market activity except for blind investments in mutual funds. These trades were legal until 2014. One of these guys was one of the 2 senators who voted against the law then.
But in my mind, this may not even count as inside info. There were many sources telling us that this was going to spread, and anyone with an ounce of realism knew the markets would tank. The fact that they got a secret briefing sure didn’t seem to motivate any pushback against the Admin’s rosy posturing.
Nice discussion, by the way. Reminds me of dinner discussions on theoretical stuff that would go on for hours in Law School.
Afterthought: If trading on insider information is victimless, then how far would that extend? Let’s say the CEO, the board, all the officers, and all their relatives own half the shares, and by dumping in concert take virtually all the equity out within a couple of minutes and leave the stock in a company frozen by the NYSE–no victims among the remaining 50% of shareholders?