|
By no means am I trying to paint the behavior as innocent and I'd rather withhold judgement until the facts are clear, rather it's a critique about the system that encourages antisocial behavior in the first place. Why do we allow people in likely positions of insider information to invest in certain ways if we don't allow them to act in certain circumstances on that information? Were these people selling individual stocks, or their portfolio in general? I only have index funds, so I can't even have insider information to act on other than generally which direction the market is headed (which I don't believe falls under SEC rules, but I'm no expert).
Your other point about lack of notifying the public is also not so cut and dry. There's a certain amount of social engineering that must occur to achieve optimal outcomes, so it isn't clear that withholding certain information was meant purely for selfish political purposes. For example, if a fire started in a theater, and the attendant told people they had a technical problem and needed everyone to evacuate immediately, it would empty faster than if the guy yelled "fire!". In one scenario, the best outcome was achieved despite incomplete information, and in the other a suboptimal outcome occurred despite full information.
Again, I'm not calling the actions of the administration good or bad until enough time has made that more clear. I suspect the top people in their areas of expertise report to people who have the president's attention, and that a president regardless of political affiliation leans heavily on the expertise of their advisors. I doubt outcomes would be significantly different regardless of who is the face of the executive branch.
|