this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
424 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

7746 readers
2704 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
424
Martha's Stew Art (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 10 hours ago by miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

For the record, the term "Insider Trading" is being misused in many posts to describe what Trump did with the tariff rug-pull. He manipulated the markets in an illegal way, just like how Elon has been sued by the SEC/FTC for making (usually) misleading/false public statements to cause changes in the price of his stocks.

Market Manipulation - deceiving investors by artificially distorting the market (like by causing mass investor panic by threatening to destroy the US economy and start a global trade war).

Insider Trading - making stock trades based on privileged/non-public information because you or someone close to you knows something privileged about a company.

So, Trump did what Elon did, but for every US-listed stock (and most globally listed stocks too). I think it might be the largest securities fraud in the history of the stock market.

Making trades based on undisclosed information about tariffs could potentially be insider trading though.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/manipulation.asp

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Insider Trading - making stock trades based on privileged information because you or someone close to you knows something privileged about a company.

Wouldn't "I know exactly what tariffs are going to be imposed and when" be privileged information? Especially when everyone knows that the market will crash as soon as they do it?

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

It isn't technically privileged information - that's generally understood to mean confidential information that is legally protected so that it does not have to be given to the public. What we're working with is information about the actions the manipulator is taking to illegally manipulate the market.

It's called insider trading as the trading is being informed by someone on "the inside" who knows something about (typically) legitimate business, generally for one company or an industry, the general public does not. Examples are new developments, earnings results, impending lawsuits, etc.

Edit: it's early, I bungled the first paragraph so it got a rewrite.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

If Trump knew he was going to do that and told people so that they could buy/sell in a manner that was financially advantageous, that is most certainly insider trading. It may not be what is the most common form or the most commonly prosecuted form, but it is trading based on information others do not have. Having it be protected information may add a layer when it comes to prosecution. I would offer that whether tariffs will be levied or paused is protected information, as well.

Edit: It's also market manipulation, but they used market manipulation to conduct insider trading.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 hours ago

You make a great point, I completely agree. While the Orange Bumblefuck absolutely engaged in market manipulation, profiting by acting on non-public information is at the heart of insider trading, which I'm certain his accomplices did.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Given the unpredictability of Trump's recent behavior (particularly surrounding the tariffs and whether or not they'll go into effect or be delayed) absolutely makes that info privileged imo.

At the very least, there is a legitimate argument for it.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago

I corrected my first paragraph - it's not "privileged information" as information on illegal activities isn't legally protected nor legitimate business.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well its both in this case. Trump is manipulating the market, and his close allies are doing insider trading.

Nvidia and Apple stock both jumped like ~18% a day before the WH announced their tariff exemptions

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Trump is not an employee of Nvidia or Apple. He didn't have privileged information about those companies. He just manipulated macroeconomic factors that affected the price of those stocks.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Insider trading doesn't exclusively apply to employees of a corporation; if it did, execs would be giving tips about major decisions to their close friends.

The point of regulating this is that trading based on exclusive information that the rest of the market can't possibly have is unfair and undermines trust in the market. Trump (allegedly) tipped off his allies about a future market-manipulating decision before it was announced to the rest of the market. They made trading decisions based on that exclusive information, and profited off of other traders' lack of information.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 27 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

She doesn't receive a pass because a bunch of asshole Republicans are openly doing it now. Everybody that's breaking the law should be punished as the law dictates. I don't know what's so fucking hard about that

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 hours ago

I don't think the argument is that Martha should get a pass. The argument is why aren't other rich white privileged assholes like her subject to the the same or worse punishments? I don't know if the law stipulates for it at all, but to do this kind of shit as a politician with the power to manipulate markets and the violation of public trust is so much more egregious in my mind.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

When did she get a pass? She went to jail. Now, she may not receive the same treatment as everyone else, but she was convicted and she went to jail. That's hardly a pass and is way more than these assholes have experienced. What's more, she isn't doing it anymore (as far as I have heard).

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 57 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly.

They made an example of her, to teach those uppity, mouthy women who wouldn't keep their mouths shut in the kitchen.

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

I seem to be a little out of the loop on the history here. What happened to her?

[–] annette_runner@lemmy.world 47 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Martha Stewart was being investigated for insider trading, committed perjury, and spent 5 months in a fed prison in 05. It was all over the news because she sold tupperware and kitchen stuff.

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 9 hours ago

Thanks for the short and sweet answer.

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

My memory is fuzzy if the event, but the reason for her jail time was because she lied about it, right?

[–] annette_runner@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

Yeah exactly. Thats what I meant by perjury. Not sure if they used a different term for the charge.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 21 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

She sold $230,000 worth of stock in a biopharmaceutical company after executives tipped off friends and family about a key drug they were researching failing to acquire FDA approval. After news became public, the company's stock fell.

She was sentenced to 5 months in prison, 5 months of house arrest, two years probation, and recieved a 5 year ban from serving as an executive of a public company, and a fine of $195,000. She has also been denied entry into other countries like Canada and the UK for being a convicted felon.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 hours ago

... Isn't that almost exactly the same thing Vivek Ramiswamy did?

Started or bought a biotech firm, literally got his own mother to conduct a 'study', concluding a drug in development worked and had potential, when in fact everyone knew it was bullshit, then he sold all his shares before larger studies concluded more publically that the drug was indeed bullshit?

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Holy shit. That seems a bit harsh.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 43 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Or, stick with me, it's not overly harsh, it should just be applied to everyone who does insider trading.

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That was pretty much what I meant in a roundabout way. They're being extremely harsh on her when other people are getting away with the same or worse on a daily basis.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh definitely - Black Edge is a fascinating book on the subject if you're interested.

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago

I'll go check it out thanks.

[–] D_C@lemm.ee 12 points 8 hours ago

Tricky, we definitely should not just let any convicted felons into the UK. No, there should be a cut off amount of 33 felonies.

Anybody with 34 felony convictions or more should definitely not be allowed in.
Or be allowed to be a president. Of anything. At all. Ever!

[–] Geetnerd@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well, she was an uppity femoid who needed to be put in her place...

/s

[–] reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 hours ago

Precisely my point. The other people doing this shit are getting away with it.

[–] SanctimoniousApe 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart

Read the section "Stock trading case and conviction"