[lambdapie]

I wouldn't say that I ignored the benefit or a more accurate price, since I explicitly mentioned this benefit twice. But I wasn't clear enough of the implications. To clarify: insider trading has both benefits and costs, and there is no simple argument that shows which is greater. I was primarily addressing people (like in the article I referenced) who say that insider trading is clearly and unambiguously good.

[joe_the_user]

Theft benefits the thief while costing the person stolen from.

If one can backup and use a fuzzy enough lens, one can just ask "how should society calculate the total benefits here" but the problem is this begs the question of whether it's proper for the state to just ask these questions.

My impression is that none of the insider trading proponents are also proponents of the view that it's not theft to take money that falls off the back of an armored car because "it's hard to who it belongs to" and "we might well benefit from this money more than whoever it really belongs to" but their arguments seem the same. Further, the average people finding money on the street probably really do need it more than your average insider trader.

[thaumasiotes]

> Theft benefits the thief while costing the person stolen from.

> If one can backup and use a fuzzy enough lens, one can just ask "how should society calculate the total benefits here" but the problem is this begs the question of whether it's proper for the state to just ask these questions.

But in the case of insider trading, there is no such person. Lambdapie identifies that there is a cost (yes!), but that cost only exists at a fuzzier level than "the person stolen from". Trying to examine at a finer level doesn't make sense.

[wavefunction]

What if you considered the lost "profit" the non-insiders would have made from buying at 100 rather than 105, or 103, or whatever price results from normal speculative activity?

[thaumasiotes]

Can you sketch a more concrete example of what you're talking about?