Thank you for the compliment. I am hardly brilliant, but I am a participant in this mess, for better or worse.Quote from HelloDollar:
I'm not saying any of this activity is clandestine. But I am saying it's manipulative. And I will look up the thread you're speaking of. Don't misconstrue; I think you're a brilliant guy and one of only a dozen or so participants here worth listening to.
So it seems that we all here agree that mkts ARE manipulated by the govts, as a matter of EXPLICIT policy. Likewise, I assume that we ALL agree that some mkt regulation is necessary (otherwise, we have coordination/negative externality issues). For example, I doubt that many here would argue that you don't need enforcement of certain rules, such as insider trading prohibitions and anti-trust laws.
That brings me to an honest (but, possibly, rhetorical) question that I'd like to ask you peeps here. Where do you draw the line between regulation and manipulation? For instance, SEC going after insiders = regulation = GOOD. On the other hand, SEC short-sale restrictions = manipulation = BAD. I can come up with similar examples for Fed actions. What are the objective criteria (if they exist) that allow you to define certain policies as "manipulative"?
