Hacker News Reader

> So stock buy backs were legal before 1982, but companies faced a risk of stock manipulation if they were reckless in how they did it.

Sounds like a much better state of affairs.

View on HN

Really? You think it's bad that the government is explicit in its rules?

I think that's a good thing. I'd rather have it be clear to all parties what is acceptable and what isn't, rather that a murky legal framework where you never know if you're breaking the law.

Being explicit is good unless it yields outcomes that are strictly worse, which seems to be where we are. I expect plenty of lobbying to clarify rules and be more explicit naturally comes with carefully crafted loopholes that permit unethical behaviour. In that case, being less explicit meant the regulators had discretion to go after truly abusive actors. This has upsides and downsides. I would always prefer more explicit rules if the rule-making process were not compromised.

This subject brings up so much rancor that I think you might have missed the possibility that there was no sarcasm intended in the post you responded to.

That’s why I asked

Reply on news.ycombinator.com