I think one of the main things that has fueled a backlash against the global elites is the (correct) perception that they play by different rules. When they make financial mistakes, they get bailed out with taxpayer dollars with no consequences. Gains are privatized and losses are socialized. Another example is insider trading where people profit from securities transactions using nonpublic information. While there have been several high profile cases in recent years (e.g. here is a Baltimore example), my guess is that insider trading is rampant since it is so easy to do and so hard to detect. The conventional wisdom for combating insider trading is stronger enforcement and penalties. However, my take is that this will just lead to a situation where small time insider traders get squeezed out while the sophisticated ones who have more resources will continue. This is an example where a regulation creates a monopoly or economic rent opportunity.
Aside from the collapse of morality that may come with extreme wealth and power (e.g. listen here), I also think that insider traders rationalize their activities because they don’t think that it hurts anyone even though there is an obvious victim. For example, if someone gets inside information that a highly touted drug has failed to win approval from the FDA then they can short the stock (or buy put options), which is an agreement or opportunity to sell the stock at the current price in the future. When the stock decreases in value after the announcement, they just buy the stock at the lower price, resell at the higher price, and reap the profits. The victim is the counter party to the trade who could be a rich trader but could also be someone’s pension fund or employees of the company.
Now the losing party or a regulatory agency could suspect a case of insider trading but to prove it would require someone confessing or finding an email or phone recording of the information passed. They could also try to set up a sting operation to try to catch serial violators. All of these things are difficult and costly. The alternative may seem ridiculous but I think the best solution may be to make insider trading legal. If it were legal then several things would happen. More people would do it which would drive down the prices for the trades, the information would more likely be leaked to the public since people would not be afraid of sharing it, and people would be more careful in making trades prior to big decisions because the other party may have more information than they do. Companies would be responsible for policing people in their firms that leak information. By making insider information legal, the rent created by regulations would be reduced.
Scientific Clearing House 
It’s a good argument for prediction markets, too, in other domains.
LikeLike
That is one solution–make insider trading legal. (THis is similar to arguments for drug legalization which i sort of support —i even registered to vote and voted for cannabis legalization in dc, but this is also creating a new class of welathy people ). I have 5 crack dealers in my area. this is why i have a brick hidden out front. a few of them are very hostile and even dangerous, though you would never know it since nowadays its all ‘inside trading’. (except one place up the street–thats an open drug dealing corner–2 blocks from the police station).
all you need to know about economics up to year 2000 is paul samuleson and http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9901243 (but maybe supplemented with another 100 papers–richard goodwin, eugene slutsky , a bit of j p grandmont—france —chaos theory etc)
LikeLike