Breaking and entering: $1000's of damage, per instance. Insider trading: $100,000's of damage, per instance. Enforcement level of insider trading is also low, so a person can commit many more times the crime of insider trading before they're caught.
Breaking and entering - very traumatic to someone.
insider trading - traumatic to no one. I'm not sure what these "damages" you speak of are. Someone wanted to buy or sell stock, and an insider bought or sold it. Sure, they have more information, but someone always has more or different information. carl icahn and warren buffett have more information than me about a lot of things. yet we trade on the same market everyday. many economists argue that it should be legal, and it is a victimless crime. "Other critics argue that insider trading is a victimless act: a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to trade property which the seller rightfully owns, with no prior contract (according to this view) having been made between the parties to refrain from trading if there is asymmetric information. The Atlantic has described the process as "arguably the closest thing that modern finance has to a victimless crime""[1]
i can't imagine how someone can suggest that insider trading is a worse crime than breaking and entering.
also, FWIW, if you want to get mad at insider trading, don't get mad at martha stewart. She went to jail for it. Get mad at the fact that it is completely legal for politicians to insider trade. I mean WTF. They get non-public important information on a regular basis and for whatever bizarre reason we decided that they can trade on it but nobody else can. WTF?
Losing a job is traumatic. Enron though, wasn't about insider trading. Yes several of the guys at the top were charged with insider trading, but they were also charged with fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, bank fraud, making false statements to banks and auditors, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, among other crimes. Insider trading, not the thing that caused trauma, and in fact I believe most of them were actually acquitted on the insider trading charges. And, fwiw, the guys found guilty of these things did end up with significant prison terms for the trauma they caused.
So despite listing all the extreme damage they did, you still think it is reasonable that they got "significant" prison terms and the guy who stole a wallet gets life?
You just suggested that Enron was insider trading so I don't think you have a great handle on what insider trading is. It is not traumatic for someone to enter into a stock trade that they are planning to make. The fact that the person on the other end might know more than you is a fact of life for every stock trade ever made. There are prominent economists that think we should let people insider trade. It is a victimless crime.
Just because the damage is spread out to thousands of people doesn't mean it's a victimless crime. I'm trade stocks and I'm a victim, too. The damage to the share market's reputation may scare off some people, they will lose an avenue for investing their savings, as a result suffer a reduction on the return of their capital over their lifetime, with a significant chance of relying on the society for their retirement, because they were put off from investing, causing an increased drain on society's resources as well as a permanent reduction in their self esteem due to their lack of self reliance. In terms of damage to people's emotional state I still think insider trading is more insidious than breaking and entering. My home has been broken and entered into twice but I'm still more angry when insiders traded off private information in a company I invested in.
