WSJ Insider trading by bureaucracy
Knowing ahead if time what a regulatory decision will be, or even the timing of the decision, is insider information of great value, and Federal bureaucrats are taking full advantage.
Still want to claim the Federal Government is not corrupt?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
There’s a notable pattern in the individual case studies whereby officials inside and outside the subject agency are made aware of potential corruption, but decline to do anything about it. This pattern could mean a few different things:
The anti-corruption laws are malformed in ways that make them ineffective.
Corruption is so prevalent that agency employees simply acclimate to it (this being a cultural/spiritual phenomenon as opposed to an organizational design factor)
Any approach to solving the problem will probably require civil service reforms, especially reforms of the Senior Executive Service. For example, it might be useful to make it easier to fire civil servants.
I’d be willing to entertain more radical proposals, such as eliminating the civil service in its entirety, or even eliminating Federal agencies themselves.
LikeLike
Thomas Sowell wrote THE VISION OF THE ANNOINTED years ago that sums them up.
They believe that they are so important that the rules don’t apply to them. We owe them because their wisdom is so vital to keeping society going so they are entitled to take what they want and live as they please.
That’s why they do things like fly around in private jets while telling us we have to give up our cars and they don’t understand when we object to their hypocrisy.
The Bureaucracy is like Leona Helmsley on steroids.
LikeLike
Why do you only bring up corruption when a Democrat is in the WH? You never went so far out of your way during the previous administration to scream about the same kind of corruption that has been going on for DECADES.
Your concern is valid. Your timing is hypocritical. – IMO
LikeLike
WSJ wrote the article now, not then. But no doubt the bureaucracy is corrupt no matter who is President.
LikeLike
Actually, the investigation by WSJ cover the period from 2016 and through 2021. So it covers a year of Obama, 4 years by Trump and another year with Biden.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said, it has nothing to do with the party of the President. At least not until one finds it politically expedient to decimate those agencies(which is fine with me)
LikeLike
As I said; it is your TIMING that is hypocritical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, I should have posted the WSJ article some other time than when it became available?
LikeLike
I was pointing out the span covering 3 presidents.
You won’t agree I’m sure, but during our current stalemate of ultra-partisanship, the only stable part of our government is the professional bureaucracy. I admit that our government is unwieldy and sclerotic, but in a weird way, that is not bad when the political whims change every election.
Bush enforced what he wanted with XO’s.Obama did the same overriding Bush’s XO’s. Trump did the same, as did Biden.
Recall that the car companies said they were fine with stricter pollution numbers since they had already retooled and shifted priorities to meet standards set by Obama. Trump decided to change that and confusion and lawsuits reigned supreme.
Business wants many things, but consistency is paramount. Even if regulations are onerous, business will adapt and move on. Changing them every few years is seriously counterproductive.
Dictatorships are more consistent, corrupt, but consistent. Until, of course, regime changes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not sure what your point is. Is it OK with you that bureaucrats use their inside information on the timing and outcome of regulatory actions to enrich themselves, to the detriment of your 401K ot IRA?
LikeLike
Obviously, in an ideal world, none of the regulatory agencies would have any conflicts.
But I could not help but notice the contempt from you via Sowell:
“They believe that they are so important that the rules don’t apply to them. We owe them because their wisdom is so vital to keeping society going so they are entitled to take what they want and live as they please.“
That is just sour grapes with a broad brush.
Two points:
First, we have public records and laws that are supposed to resolve conflicts in economic interests among lawmakers, enforcers and the market. The article brought that out.
We can, and should, tighten the regs more, but that won’t happen with a moribund political atmosphere.
Next, wealth building in a free market, capitalist society is dependent upon investments. We have to stipulate that experts in a field avoid investing in what they know best. Doable and attainable, but more difficult to recruit folks.
Insider trading is already illegal, enforcement is notoriously tough.
Some of the folks in the article said they relied on third party investment consultants. Is that an excuse or a loophole for nefarious deeds?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not an excuse. Knowing, or being able to affect, the timing alone of a decision presents an opportunity for elicit gain.
When you go into government service, either elected or bureaucratic, investment should be limited to blind trusts or index funds, Leveraged or individual stock investing should be off limits.
LikeLike
Agree. That should include presidents and their families, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“When you go into government service, either elected or bureaucratic, investment should be limited to blind trusts or index funds,”…
Agreed. Yet where was your outrage when that did not happen in the previous administration? You even said that he should be able to continue to earn money through his businesses being ruin by his sons.
You can crow all you want about possible corruption in the administrative state, but you need to be honest with yourself and those you share posts with about ALL of the corruption.
LikeLike