In fact, the case against the federal insider trading prohibition has a long and distinguished academic pedigree. The leading spokesman for the view that John holds is Henry Manne, a long-time law professor and retired dean of the George Mason law school. Henry wrote so much on why the insider trading prohibition is a bad idea that the Liberty Fund collected his works into a volume that was edited by yours truly.
As I explained in my introduction to that volume:
Henry Manne’s 1966 book INSIDER TRADING AND THE STOCK MARKET therefore ranks among the truly seminal events in the economic analysis of law. One exaggerates only slightly to say that Manne stunned the corporate law academy by daring to propose the deregulation of insider trading. As we will see, the response by all too many traditionalist scholars was immediate and vitriolic.
Indeed, if Anderson wants to brush up on his vitriol, he should check out some of Manne's critics.
While Manne's critics are many, so too are his followers. Together, they demolished the series of incredibly bogus policy justifications offered over the years for the insider trading prohibition. John's case against insider trading stands squarely in that intellectual tradition.
Now pardon me while I find my tweed jacket.
Questions? Comments? Email us atNetNet@cnbc.com
Follow John on Twitter @ twitter.com/Carney
Follow NetNet on Twitter @ twitter.com/CNBCnetnet
Facebook us @ www.facebook.com/NetNetCNBC