
Britain’s White-Collar Cops Are Getting Too Good at Their Job - dmmalam
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-01/britain-s-white-collar-cops-are-getting-too-good-at-their-job
======
raesene9
This seems to fit in with the UKs ambivilence towards tax evasion.

On the one hand whenever there's another leak of all the lengths people have
gone to avoid/evade taxes (e.g. panama papers) the government will pledge to
"get tough".

But then when it comes to practical measures like reining in the tax havens
which are used to hide the details of people's finances, they seems to throw
up their hands and say "nothing we can do" despite the fact that many of these
havens have strong connections to the UK and there is a level of pressure that
could easily be exerted by the UK government for more transparency.

The dissembling you see from government ministers when asked to explain why
these tax havens are so popular for company formation if it's not for tax
evasion reason is comical.

~~~
Silhouette
Meanwhile, the UK government has recently hit shareholders, including most
small business owners and solo freelancers/contractors, with a 7.5% increase
in their tax rate on dividends. This after a succession of other changes in
recent years that have all made starting or running a smaller business less
attractive.

It's very strange how they turn such a blind eye to massive tax avoidance (or
even tax evasion?) schemes from large businesses, while simultaneously leaning
on by far the largest part of the business economy. Leaving aside the ethical
considerations, I have never understood how this makes much economic sense
either.

~~~
madeofpalk
Why do countries like, the UK, tax income from dividends differently to
regular PAYE income? By creating a complicated system like they have it seems
like they just invite people to create structures to pay themselves in
dividends and reduce the tax they should pay.

~~~
neilwilson
There's no good reason. If a service business is worth having it can charge
its clients enough to cover its tax bills.

~~~
Silhouette
Just curious: How many service businesses have you owned/managed to reach that
conclusion?

Your premise seems to imply that every such business can afford to lose 20% or
so off its margins and still remain viable. (Or that the market will bear all
such businesses increasing their prices accordingly, but in that case, we have
to ask why they have not done so already.)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
They can't because their competitors don't. If their competitors had to, then
they would be able to as well. If that didn't happen, then even a sales tax of
a few percent would destroy every grocery store because that is as big as
their entire profit margin.

~~~
Silhouette
_They can 't because their competitors don't._

That's one possible factor, but not the only one. Otherwise any business with
no direct competition could increase its prices arbitrarily, and clearly
that's nonsensical.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> Otherwise any business with no direct competition could increase its prices
> arbitrarily, and clearly that's nonsensical.

That's the entire theory behind why monopolies are bad. It's not nonsensical
at all. Monopolies can increase their prices far beyond what the market would
bear if they had competition.

Obviously, they can't increase their prices without any limit at all, because
at some point people would decide to do without instead of paying the higher
prices, but they can increase their prices far beyond what a normal business
with competition could.

~~~
Silhouette
_Monopolies can increase their prices far beyond what the market would bear if
they had competition._

Monopoly suppliers of something _essential_ can do that, and that is why we
tend to have stronger regulation of such "markets". However, if you're
offering a luxury, customers can simply choose not to buy if they don't think
the price is worth it. So again, where does this magical ability to knock 20%
or so out of existing margins and continue trading viably come from?

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> However, if you're offering a luxury, customers can simply choose not to buy
> if they don't think the price is worth it.

Right, but the market price usually isn't exactly the same as the maximum
price customers would be willing to pay, because competition between suppliers
forces suppliers to set their prices lower than that. This is referred to in
economics as the consumer surplus[1]. So that is where the "magical" 20% comes
from: from the consumer and producer surplus.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus)

~~~
Silhouette
OK, but that effect assumes significant competition in the market, and we were
talking about monopolies.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that you are characterising
businesses having such competition as being the norm. I'm not sure that's a
valid assumption in the market today. Contrary to various traditional economic
theories, it's pretty obvious by now that there are plenty of niche markets in
the online/digital era that can support a viable small business but where
competition will not automatically follow.

I have businesses that do things that, as far as I'm aware, no-one else is
trying to do in anything like the same form. There are some services that we
in turn use that also provide unique abilities where as far as I'm aware
there's no-one we could readily switch to offering a similar facility in a
similar way that provides direct competition. In effect, their competition is
that if they become too expensive or too much trouble to use, we will do it
ourselves instead of outsourcing.

I'd say this sort of situation is not particularly unusual today, at least in
some "broad but shallow" sectors. The pricing we set (and, I have to assume,
that the services we use set) is based on experimenting with what our
customers are willing to pay. As such, we _know_ that we couldn't just
increase prices by say 20% to cover higher overheads. And even if we could
reduce margins by 20% of revenue to absorb the cost instead, that would have a
crippling effect on growth.

More fundamentally, we would probably never have started some of these
businesses in the first place. The risk of losing our money before they became
established enough to cover their costs would simply have been too high.

------
osrec
As a former investment banker, it's pretty clear that corruption is everywhere
in the UK, even if it's channeled via "legal" protocols. I mean, just on the
trading floor, we have all sorts of weird and wonderful deals going on between
brokers, clients and other intermediaries. Most of this will never be picked
up because (a) it's either shrouded in complexity (engineered by some of the
brightest minds), or (b) hardly anyone actually investigates the audit trail
in the level of detail required to highlight wrongdoing. As an example, the
guy doing the the bad stuff is a triple first graduate from Cambridge, while
the investigator is a 2:1 recipient from University of Salford. In most cases,
the Cambridge guy gets away with it by outwitting his investigator.

~~~
Chriky
As another former investment banker, and current NCA Investigator, and - for
what it's worth - Cambridge graduate, I can tell you your description of the
relative competencies of the good guys and bad guys is just elitist crap.

~~~
osrec
One counter example does not refute the averages across the industry. Makes me
happy that you're on the good side though :)

~~~
Chriky
Well, I mean you didn't provide /any/ examples, you stated something false.

My point was more that this "battle of wits" cops vs robbers narrative is just
Hollywood nonsense.

Do you feel the same about MI6/GCHQ (organisations staffed to a large degree
by Cambridge grads) vs ISIS (an organisation staffed mainly by idiots and
conspiracy theorists)?

Clearly the two sides are not playing the same game, and any disparity in
ability will be completely overwhelmed by structural differences in their
respective challenges.

The uninformed opinion you're spreading is damaging because it implicitly
implies that these crimes wouldn't happen if only our cops were a bit
brighter.

If only they were as clever as those City boys! Too bad old chap, better luck
next time, all's fair in love and war etc etc.

~~~
osrec
I seem to have touched a nerve, but I'm quite simply explaining what I've
seen. I believe it to be true, much like you believe your version to be true.
Without giving names, it's hard for me to prove my point unequivocally, so I'm
afraid that's where I'll have to leave it.

But it's not just cops. It's also internal compliance. The truth is money
attracts people. A front office person offered 40% more starting salary than
compliance will attract the top performing grads. Lower paying jobs will get
second pick (barring exceptions where people are committed to a career due to
passion, regardless of payoff).

------
namelost
> For the most part, being a U.K. prosecutor isn’t even a career. Instead,
> barristers, as trial lawyers are known, both prosecute and defend clients,
> depending on the case.

This is really not accurate. You can certainly have a career as a solicitor
that specialises in prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service employs vast
numbers of them. You can also have a career as a criminal defence solicitor.
The barristers are there to _present_ the case in court.

------
shasheene
Giving up the principle of an impartial, unbiased, universally-enforced law
JUST to do business with corrupt but wealthy nations is unfortunate and
dangerous.

Hopefully the next leader of this anti-corruption agency will continue to be
effective as David Greene.

~~~
zeristor
The article’s essence appears to me that that is unlikely to happen.

------
forapurpose
> Green acknowledges the quandary. “You can detect a certain ambivalence about
> corporate crime,” he says. “You can see people wondering, ‘Why on Earth are
> you investigating blue chip, listed companies? Don’t we need those?’ ..."

This isn't a quandary: No, we don't need corrupt companies. Corrupt blue-chip
financial companies rob people and benefit themselves. The loss of the rule of
law would reduce returns in markets and reduce liquidity by scaring away
investors. Corrupt blue-chip financial companies cause financial crises.

~~~
jimnotgym
Dirty (especially Russian) foreign money coming in to London had long been
acknowledged as the cause of the extraordinary property prices. The sad thing
is that the demagogues have managed to blame it on EU migration of blue collar
workers. This was a big driver for Brexit.

~~~
dash2
Evidence for either of these claims?

~~~
jimnotgym
Demagogues: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332449/Now-
houses-b...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332449/Now-houses-
better-green-fields-minister-says-immigration-driving-home-prices.html)

Dirty money: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-
the...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-
money-laundering-centre-for-the-drug-trade-says-crime-expert-10366262.html)

But a search engine will give thou many many hits on 'money laundering London'

Russians buying property in London :
[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/09/rich-
russians...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/09/rich-russians-
buying-london-property-real-estate)

> Evidence for either of these claims?

If you really just wanted sources I'm guessing thou would have phrased that
differently? If you want to dispute the points then please post a counter
argument instead. I am a UK citizen and I felt the points I made were very
well known. The relative importance of each is a matter of opinion of course.

~~~
dash2
The fact that dirty money exists is well known. The fact that property prices
are high is well known. The claim that the two things are linked requires a
bit more than a newspaper article, sorry. FWIW I would not be surprised if it
were true. Similarly for the claim that "demagoguery" caused Brexit. That
proposition is widely believed by people who are against Brexit; I don't know
of any evidence for it though.

------
coldtea
> _To anyone unversed in the folkways of official Britain, the Green-Cameron
> exchange would seem strange. It’s hard to imagine a U.S. president, Donald
> Trump aside, being asked if he supported the FBI—let alone responding that
> it ought to think about the commercial damage when it goes after suspected
> criminals._

Oh, the hypocrisy. White collar criminals get by just fine if they play by
certain rules there just as well.

> _Green acknowledges the quandary. “You can detect a certain ambivalence
> about corporate crime,” he says. “You can see people wondering, ‘Why on
> Earth are you investigating blue chip, listed companies? Don’t we need
> those?’ But we’re one of the richest countries in the world. We have a
> responsibility to do business ethically.”_

Again, oh the hypocrisy. Britain became one of the "richest countries in the
world" by supporting sea piracy, the East India company, the colonial
plundering of the third world, the Opium trade, and so on...

~~~
dragonmum
> the colonial plundering of the third world,

At the time of the plundering, the countries that the East India Company
plundered were not the third world. They were literally wealthy self-
sufficient countries that had not seen famine or serious poverty. It is not an
exaggeration that the EIC brought those countries to their knee.

Eg:

"A country that was the world leader in at least three industries- textiles,
steel and ship building. A country that had everything... And after 200 years
of exploitation, expropriation and clean outright looting, this country was
reduced to one of the poorest countries in the world by the time the British
left in 1947," he said.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/12/21/poverty-was-
unknown...](https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/12/21/poverty-was-unknown-to-
india-before-the-british-arrived-tharoor_a_21632939/)

~~~
detritus
I'm not much happy to defend the EIC, but Tharoor sits at the sharp edge of
nascent Hindu nationalist resurgence and is known to have a bit of an axe to
grind where the Raj was concerned.

[https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/dear-
sha...](https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/aakarvani/dear-shashi-
tharoor-the-fault-was-not-in-the-raj-but-in-ourselves/)

~~~
jogjayr
That's an ad-hominem argument. And Shashi Tharoor is pretty far in my mind
from Hindu nationalism. He's a member of the party that Hindu nationalists
oppose.

Additionally, the linked article itself is guilty of lots of omissions. For
example

> Europe went to a different level in that period, particularly England after
> the Restoration and the forming of the Royal Society and the genius of
> Boyle, Hooke, Newton and all the rest of it. We remained where we were

Fails to mention that the Industrial Revolution didn't reach India for a long
time because colonial government taxes on domestically produced goods stunted
the growth of Indian industry.

In fact the only substantive argument the article makes is that various armed
forces in India and the colonial Indian army was a professional fighting force
that went to battle for whoever paid them. And that the British took over
India by playing one rival faction against the other and ultimately screwing
over both. Which has very little to do with the reasons for India's relative
lack of development.

On balance I'll still admit that the British were responsible for making India
a united nation. And India after independence adopted less-than-ideal economic
policies, and suffers from lots of corruption that hobbles growth. But to
pretend that looting isn't a legacy of colonial rule is wilful blindness.

~~~
detritus
+1

I view constructs like the EIC or The Empire much like waves on an ocean -
functions of their time, circumstance and fortune - so don't see much point in
specifically apportioning blame or contemporarily-ascribed guilt. For sure
these were not entirely saintly enterprises and did indeed result in misery
and misfortune for untold millions of otherwise-deserving people. But as much
abroad, as at home.

As much as the wave that was Empire screwed over natives in subjugated
colonies, it screwed its own at home - Britain's underclasses sacrificed at
the altar of industrialism and history.

If it weren't England tramping over the various bits of Asia, it would've been
its imperical antecessor. If it was not to be England's time, then their
descendant. America took over from England, China might in turn America. Each
Imperium is an evolution of that to which it was at first mere reaction.

These are functions of reality, and everything and everryone plays its part.

I don't see the point in creating monolithic scapegoats, because in
apportioning specific blame to abstractions, we ignore the underlying causes
and diminish what should be learnt.

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
> There’s no British equivalent to aggressive, outspoken U.S. Attorneys, who
> seek out high-profile cases and routinely ascend to elected office. For the
> most part, being a U.K. prosecutor isn’t even a career. Instead, barristers,
> as trial lawyers are known, both prosecute and defend clients, depending on
> the case. To put a crook behind bars, they must convince judges and juries,
> rather than simply threaten a terrifyingly long sentence. Plea bargains in
> the American sense don’t exist, and jail terms for nonviolent offenses
> usually max out at about 10 years.

This is a scary take-home message for us in the US.

~~~
pjc50
Why is this scary? Please could you explain.

~~~
mcguire
Not the poster, but without publicity-crazed prosecutors and 'terrifying' plea
bargain threats, along with other similarly bad side effects, you end up with
endemic corruption that is long-term unstable.

~~~
pjc50
Whereas _with_ publicity-crazed prosecutors, you end up with the highest
prison population in the world. Also elected prosecutors have to _fundraise_ ,
which is a whole other league of legalised corruption in itself. The United
States arguably has a worse corruption problem than the UK in its police
system, thanks to "forfeiture" and the lack of an effective complaints system.

There was an attempt to import this system to the UK, in the form of "police
and crime commissioners" \- an almost total failure. They're extremely highly
paid, ineffective, and elected on turnouts of about 25%.

------
freech
> In October 2008, Barclays was saved from collapse thanks to a $12 billion
> investment led by Qatar’s government. As part of the transaction, Barclays
> paid Qatar a secret $452 million fee for “advisory services” and loaned the
> country an additional $3 billion. To the SFO, the fee looked like a bribe
> and the loan an attempt by Barclays to illegally fund a purchase of its own
> shares. (The executives and the bank deny wrongdoing.)

Preventing stuff like this is essential to a working stock market. How can
anyone invest in any company, if he has to fear that the companies assets he
supposedly owns a share of, are given away in exchange for buying stock, so
that the managers can get a bonus for the rising stock price, instead of the
company getting raided and the managers replaced with better ones?

There's no detail about the other cases, but at least in this case it's clear
that there's no dichotomy at all between the UK's economic interest, jobs, the
free market and ethics, but rather between those things and the upper
management of a single company.

> Bankers who manipulate markets ought to be charged, he said, but “simply
> ratcheting up ever-larger fines that just penalize shareholders, erode
> capital reserves, and diminish the lending potential of the economy is not,
> in the end, a long-term answer.”

"penalize shareholders" Shareholders are supposed to invest in sound
businesses. There's nothing wrong with them being "penalized" by fines,
anymore then there's anything wrong with them being "penalized" if a companies
new product fails.

------
stuaxo
If course the British Establishment was scandalised, the people being arrested
are also part of it.

There's a long history of contempt for people outside te establishment, from
simple rent seeking through to out and out fraud, hopefully the SFO starts to
send a message.

------
goodmachine
In the UK, the SFO has been systematically starved of funding:

"Its budget has been slashed steadily over the years. In 2008 it stood at
£52m, while last year (2016) it was £35.7m"

[Paywall]
[https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7...](https://www.ft.com/content/8751e754-6e3e-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa)

More depth on the same report here:

[https://www.financierworldwide.com/white-collar-crime-
enforc...](https://www.financierworldwide.com/white-collar-crime-enforcement-
in-the-uk/)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_Its budget has been slashed steadily over the years._

As has just about every government department, I'm not sure you can read much
into that.

~~~
goodmachine
I'd like to think that was the case.

Unfortunately, there is an (economically self-defeating) incentive to cripple
the SFO beyond mere cost-cutting measures. The same incentive is not true for
reduced budgets at other organs of government.

The scale of damage is jaw-droppingly huge and largely unacknowledged. Whilst
the media are weirdly obsessed with street crime, white collar crime in the US
(and one suspects, in the UK) is bigger than all other crimes combined:

"Contrary to the common perception, the most dangerous criminal is not a youth
in a hoody, but a middle aged man in a suit."

[https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/06/24/the-other-kind-
of-...](https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/06/24/the-other-kind-of-crime/)

It's more than a little depressing to see Britain slumping into corruption -
or as Pope puts it

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then
embrace.”

\- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man (1734)

------
freech
> Even Green’s 93-year-old father sometimes asks if he really wants to spend
> his time making life difficult for companies that employ thousands of Brits.

This is such a teriffic argument. The mafia also employs people. If a company
that employs people that earns money with fraud, not by doing anything
productive goes bankrupt, that just means that those people will now have to
work for a company that does do something productive, which is a good thing.

------
dm319
High moral standards are expensive. It sounds like moral standards need to be
lowered to weather the predicted effects of Brexit on the economy [1].

[1] [https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade-
competiti...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade-
competition/trade-deal-with-britain-must-prevent-unfair-tax-labour-
competition-eu-idUKKBN1FL5J5)

------
emodendroket
This seems like kind of a nonsense "problem" but I'd welcome these guys here
if the Britons feel this way.

------
dtf
Consider this with BuzzFeed’s reports on the recent string of suspicious
Russia-connected deaths in the U.K. (police seeming to close cases either out
of fear, lack of resource or advice from the security services) and the future
is looking worrying.

~~~
makomk
What caused me to question the general honesty of those articles was the
third: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/janebradley/scientist-who-helped-
co...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/janebradley/scientist-who-helped-connect-
litvinenkos-murder-to-the)

They lead with the idea that this obviously couldn't be suicide - playing up
the role he played in the Litvinenko murder investigation, the supposed
suspicions of the US intelligence services, and the fact that some friends and
family members shared those suspicions. It took until the 28th paragraph for
them to mention that he had been showing signs of depression for a while, and
the 33rd to clarify that his wife had apparently caught him trying to kill
himself the week before his death. They then explain that doesn't matter
because a former Scotland Yard counter-terror officer told them this could
just have been the result of secret mind control chemicals. (Seriously.)

Their explanation of his role in the Litvinenko investigation is also just
plain wrong from what I can tell. He and another scientist re-calculated
polonium-210 intake and lethal dose in 2010 based on the discovery that
Litvinenko has been exposed twice, rather than once[1] (which made little
difference to the results). He doesn't seem to have had anything to do with
the original 2006 investigation, which was carried out by a number of other
scientists[2]. All of the things Buzzfeed attribute to his work - the
discovery of a lethal amount of polonium, the HPA's public statement,
suspicion falling on Russia, and Scotland Yard finding a radioactive trail all
over London - in fact appear to predate his involvement by years.

It's been rather disappointing seeing them gain further credibility and
attention these past few days.

[1]
[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093928/htt...](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613093928/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/INQ007647wb.pdf)

[2]
[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613091729/htt...](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613091729/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/INQ007633wb.pdf)

~~~
zuzun
So I read the article and I don't think it's as bad as you make it. The part
that explains his involvement in the investigation is actually backed by a now
inaccessible source. It would be crucial to know what the authors linked there
before we judge the credibility.

The rest is a matter of opinion. They obviously have no definitive answer, so
it's all speculation. Their point is that his personality changed after these
trips.

Maybe I would be more inclined to agree with you if I hadn't seen a Channel 4
documentary on Litvinenko [1] where one of the Scotland Yard detectives
recounts lots of strange things happening on their separate trip to Moscow:
parts of their group fell ill, they thought they were being followed, and they
were driven aimlessly around before they could see one of the suspects.

[1] [http://www.channel4.com/programmes/hunting-the-kgb-
killers](http://www.channel4.com/programmes/hunting-the-kgb-killers)

~~~
makomk
It's actually pretty easy to figure out what document was linked to explain
his involvement in the investigation. If you look at the URL of the now-
inaccessible document it ends with INQ007647. That's the identifier of the
statement to the Litvinenko inquiry describing the late 2010 reassessment of
how much radiation Litvinenko was exposed to based on the new discovery that
he'd been exposed twice, which it specifically mentions Dr. Puncher was
involved in. I linked to the copy of that document on the inquiry website in
my original comment. It wasn't just a case of Buzzfeed linking to the wrong
document either; I looked at the earlier documents which it was a follow-up to
and the earlier work was all done by other scientists.

~~~
zuzun
Thanks for your explanation! Since HN cut of your URLs, the similarity between
the filenames didn't jump to my eye. You're right, 2007 doesn't mention
Puncher, it only mentions his close colleague Birchall. Both were publishing
articles together around the time [1-4], so I find it hard to believe that he
wouldn't work on such a high-profile case that was being solved by their
computer software [2]. Since Buzzfeed authors talked to Birchall and Puncher’s
family, I trust their accounts of his involvement.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410294](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410294)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17132655](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17132655)

[3]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18003710](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18003710)

[4]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806256](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806256)

------
wiz21c
>>> Green acknowledges the quandary. “You can detect a certain ambivalence
about corporate crime,” he says. “You can see people wondering, ‘Why on Earth
are you investigating blue chip, listed companies? Don’t we need those?’ But
we’re one of the richest countries in the world. We have a responsibility to
do business ethically.”

Damn, that's almost Stallman level of clairvoyance :-)

~~~
fwdpropaganda
More context please. In what sense is that clairvoyance?

~~~
wiz21c
In the sense that it's my subjectivity that is at play here, such as Stallman,
such as Green.

But I agree with both of them, so I call it "clairvoyance" instead of "lack of
pragmatism".

~~~
dash2
I'm very sorry, but I do not understand what you mean.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
To be honest I have no idea what he means either, but since I had already
asked for a clarification once I thought that insisting would be seeing as
confrontational and provocative and get me downvoted (like you got downvoted).

------
barrkel
A significant part of the establishment supports Brexit precisely because it
forces the country to do unsavoury but profitable deals. They want Britain to
be an amoral self-interested global actor, taking advantage of regulatory
arbitrage and beggar thy neighbour practices to extract rents and windfall
profits, like a kind of global parasite.

The powerful people who support Brexit most visibly in the media are not
themselves concerned with immigration or the working man's difficulty
competing with global labour and capital; but they leverage those fears
effectively.

This piece is obviously part of a PR effort to try and reduce the appeal of
that path. What happens next with the office will be a decent indicator of the
prevailing winds.

~~~
mberning
What a completely cynical and one sided view of a very complicated situation.
First, dumping cheap labor and goods into a country has a very real impact on
poor and working class people. Second of all, buying cheap crap made in China
has a amorality of its own. You are exporting environmental and human
suffering in exchange for cheap goods. So let’s not pretend that the pre-
brexit economic model is without serious faults.

~~~
namelost
Rich Brexiteers such as Liam Fox are happy to throw UK producers (especially
food producers) under the bus in favour of cheap imports from abroad which
have lower environmental standards.

The parent is absolutely correct that the pro-Brexit politicans are using the
working poor as their useful idiots.

~~~
namelost
Further to this, it is interesting to consider their motivations.

Usually trade policy is an attempt to reconcile two conflicting goals:

1\. To protect your own industries/producers

2\. To grow your export markets abroad

They are conflicting, because growing export markets (by striking trade
agreements) often requires concessions that may damage sectors of a state's
internal market. States attempt to strike the right balance of protectionism
and free trade.

The Brexiteers' trade policy seemingly values _neither_ protectionism nor free
trade. They do not care if they damage UK producers by flooding the UK market
with cheap imports. And they do not care if they damage UK exporters by
throwing away all the UK's trade agreements and reverting to WTO terms.

Why? Because they do not care about trade or industry. For ideological reasons
they wish to turn the UK into a low-tax, low-regulation state. Trade and
industry are a mere inconvenience to them.

The irony is that the UK was already becoming such a state while it was in the
EU, and the loss of financial passporting is extremely damaging to the City
and thus to the Brexiteers' project. They just haven't realised yet.

------
TomGullen
Should insider trading be legalized? It's apparently unenforceable.

~~~
OliverJones
Should it be legal? That depends on your view of the purpose of the market in
stocks.

If you believe the basic purpose is to provide capital for enterprises from
the savings of individuals and the earnings of other businesses, insider
trading is probably a bad idea. It erodes trust in the system and makes
suckers out of the people with 401k retirement savings. It eats into the
returns that can be earned by competent fund managers for savings.

If you believe that the stock market's primary purpose is enabling arbitrage
then insider trading is a good idea.

Legalizing insider trading would make it very hard for managers of public
companies to do their work. As things stand today there's a "blackout period"
each quarter. That's the time when the managers of the company know the
results of the previous quarter, but they haven't yet told the public.
Legalizing insider trading would eliminate the blackout period. The market
would be flooded with rumors and speculation. "An assistant comptroller at QRS
Corporation says they lost a big customer. He's a friend of a friend." What a
mess that would cause! It would make it even more attractive for companies to
go private and remove the ability of the public to invest and share in their
success.

