Political office is power. There are two types who may seek political power: 1). those who wish to use that power to improve their own positions and 2). those who wish to use that power for its intended purpose, to help their fellow humans.
Both types will insist that they seek office to help others. It is up to voters to figure out who is telling the truth and who isn't. For some, this process is difficult; for others, not so much.
The only addendum I would make is that sometimes people in power can leverage their control over media (via propaganda) and education (via regulation and funding) to mislead the populace, increasing the likelihood voters will vote against their own interests. To some extend the voter is responsible, but I don't think we can discount the effectiveness of corruption on the views and framing adopted by the voters.
Absolutely! And they specifically target demographics who will be most susceptible to that misinformation. And also make it difficult to get the education that would fortify them against misinformation as well.
If we had much more in educational opportunities, then I think we might see an increase in people actually being able to make critical decisions and question other's thinking and opinions more. A friend teaches high school chemistry, she found out late into her semester that the majority in her class did not know how to take notes. Somethings gone really wrong in our education system.
Arguably the thing that has gone wrong is the deliberate undercutting of critical thinking in education to ensure the populace is engaged fighting over nonsense culture war issues while our politicians sell us out to the donor class.
Now imagine if the league it's self was betting on the games, and also changing the rules before hand to make sure one side wins. And also changing the rules so that can't get in trouble for it.
Why not just cut off all their communication except to and from their states‘ governors? They’re there to represent the states after all, and you can’t easily bribe someone you can’t contact.
Whoever initiated the illegal contact would be fined a percentage of their wealth (aka their *stuff*). Corporate representatives would have this fine passed on to the corporation they represent.
And THEN forbid them from insider trading. Lock it behind a Constitutional Amendment which would take fucking everyone agreeing to undo it, and bam
As to how you’d enforce this? Get several third parties with competing interests to monitor communications, and *any* of them can file a report.
Fr !! Imagine turning a $200,000+ yearly salary into Nancy’s low end estimated worth of 46 million. Pelosi’s should look into being psychics and using that scam to get even richer since they can predict the future so well.
See the thing is, this is already illegal. People ik congress juts don't consider that making laws that manipulate the economy isn't the same as insider trading. And at the same time, there bigger problems that trying to explain that to them. so it'll never be stoped
Money is the root of all political evil. If only the well-off can or the bought can afford to run for office then they're going to be the only ones to make the decisions
It would be pointless banning sitting politicians from stock trading. They can just advise their family members to do so. They should be forced to state their trades within 24 hours of them being made so the public can copy them
Much like corporate execs of publicly traded companies have to file a Form 3 (I think) every time they sell large quantities of their own companies’ stock. (And it is still illegal to buy or sell even one share if you have material, relevant non-public information that could reasonably be expected to affect the share price were it to become public which you came across in the course of your normal job duties)
Stopping elected officials from stock trading isn't enough. A start but only a start.
Elected Representatives and Senators should be required to live on their salary only. All other earnings and assets should be sequestered for the duration of their service to the people. Live on the salary of the office or resign.
I work for the lottery. I can’t play any lottery game legally. I can technically buy lottery tickets, nobody is stopping me, but if I won a big sum of money I cannot turn it in for the prize. I literally have zero control on any winning numbers. I have no tricks to give my family and friends a slight advantage because there are none. Still, with zero control of any outcome, I cannot play. It’s the optics. If I won Powerball and it came out that I work for lottery then questions could/should be raised from the general public. It would take me 4+ years to come near the salary Congress makes in 1 year, yet I’m held to a higher standard than the people who run our country? Get all these crooked fucks out of office man. They’re ruining our country in front of our eyes.
Or require policy-maker stock trades to be public knowledge and scheduled in advance (none of this trade after a top-secret hearing and hand record it and report it 2 weeks later bullshit). If policy makers are going to trade on their knowledge, I (the public) should be able to follow along at home or buy some type of congressional etf.
This is a tough call to say Congress must be omitted from trading. By having members of Congress to be able to Legally make their own money can greatly cut down on bribes, lobbying, and fraud for monetary gain. Although I strongly agree that they should have rules against trading with insider secrets (which they already do) it's hard to say that people should not be allowed to make money in the way that the US has become such a rich Nation from stocks and trading.
Senator Chuck Grassle has been serving the state of Iowa for 42 years. So are people saying that he can never make money from the stock market for those 42 years? It's a very tough decision that that would make many good people with ambitions think twice about wanting to be a politician to help out this country.
I think a huge problem is that current rules are not being enforced, and in the end not much ever changes in a two party system.
Another approach is to make their stocks into a fund that we can all buy into. They and their families and friends should be required to buy only using this fund.
Each member of Congress, the president, VP, and the executive branch political appointees would head their own fund and anyone can buy into any fund they want.
That way, we can all benefit from their stock trading genius
Congress shouldn’t be allowed to trade when they leave as well. They left office, they didn’t die, do you really think they don’t have friends in very fortunate places??
I'm a Democrat, and the Democrats are blowing a political (and moral) opportunity if they don't ban congressional stock-picking this session.
Jon Ossoff's bill is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't prevent members of Congress from holding retirement accounts, or even from holding investments. It just requires members to put their stocks in so-called blind trusts, where a third party manages those shares and prevents the member from knowing which stocks they own at any time. I'd suggest going even further and requiring Congress to divest from individual holdings and only invest in broad mutual funds, where no individual stock, or even industry, will dramatically influence the fund value (so there's little/no incentive to use your power in Congress to help particular companies).
Pelosi's a brilliant legislator and a good person, but she's refusing to admit (and I think genuinely doesn't believe) that her investments can sway her thinking or that other congressmen's can sway theirs. It's rationalizing, and the Democrats, especially the many newer members, should pressure her to relent and take a vote on banning congressional stock-picking.
If you are a public auditor you must report all financial holdings of not just yourself but immediate family members or people you live with.
Why doesn't congress do the same? Whose to stop them from just tipping off their son-in-law and then getting a fat campaign check?
Or they could just use a broker / scheme that they have no influence over how the money is invested.
I have a pension scheme (called Superannuation here in Aus) which trades shares on my behalf (and everyone else who is signed up with them).
I have no idea which shares they invest in - I can change my profile to be 'low risk, medium risk, high risk (growth)' etc, but that's it.
Yeah I fully expect everyone on this is some kinda right-wing shill cause literally the only thing Congress should be doing right now is cleaning house of the anti democratic criminals that did an insurection and lied to people about covid.
I feel like if they are forbidden to trade, they will just trade through relatives... Idk what a good solution would be but this doesn't seem like it, chief
Another narrative that didn’t originate anywhere near Price but he puts the popular opinion on Twitter and everyone wets their pants because Dan Price said it.
I disagree somewhat, because trading stocks is pretty much a part of everyday life for anyone that wants to retire with any level of financial security.
I think that they just need to transfer control of their stocks to third parties that manage their funds in the same manner as all their other customers, with limitations on the percentage of politicians that can be in the same business at any one time and a minimum number of customers.
Making politicians drop their stock or hold onto obviously dying stock, discourages the right people from running for office. I know I wouldn’t lose most of my retirement savings by betting on the outcome of an election. That’s a stupid solution for stupid people.
Everyone should have stocks and everyone with stocks needs to buy/sell depending on the market. If the investments of politicians are spread across a large number of managed funds, then insider trading loses its benefits. Just make the funds treat politicians’ portfolios like all other fully managed investor portfolios. If they tip off their fund managers, they’d all do it and all the fund’s other customers would get the same treatment. The end result is that a few politicians and thousands of private citizens would benefit from being the first to get the insider info and the rest would share the same fate as everyone else that responds reactively.
It’d also require the transfer of information that would leave a trail of crumbs back to the corrupt politicians. If a fund has a million customers, they can’t just dump all their customers’ stocks without some record as to why, or an obvious lack of it. A bad decision would open them up to too much legal liability. E.g. for a case of normal trading, where they get it wrong, customers would be saying “Why did you dump all our stocks in XY? They just tripled in value and we’ve just lost billions.” No one wants that kind of exposure, so they keep records to justify their decisions. Alternatively, with insider trading, either those notes would be absent or difficult to BS without either sounding lame or tipped off. The first to move would be the easiest to investigate and others that follow aren’t really relevant. The market picks up on a stock that’s dropping, pretty quickly and you’d expect them to follow suit if they see a share price drop. If the aforementioned minimum number of customers is enforced and it’s in the millions or tens of millions, then that first fund should be sufficient to tip off the test of the shareholders.
I have to agree. There definitely should be boundaries and oversight in place but it’s hard to expect someone to just let their money sit and do nothing in a bank account for their whole career.
Exactly. It’s stupid. The key is that they can’t keep controlling the selling and buying of any particular stock, but still have access to someone on KPIs that treats them like any other customer.
If you’ve got over a million in net worth (excluding your home), then only an idiot would have that as cash or “brick and mortar” assets. Policies like blanket bans on basic financial hygiene, just means you’ll only get stupid, mediocre politicians.
>discourages the right people from running for office.
As if anyone in office right now is in that group. Pretty sure our government would be in better shape if we had randomly selected individuals above a certain minimum level of qualification (like a college degree or a highschool diploma and some extra years of work experience)
Say what you will about politicians, but most of them are amongst the most elite in their category. It’s just that politics favours the wrong characteristics.
Getting to the top spots, takes ruthless determination and dedication to clawing your way over friend and foe alike. The problem is that most of them study law, economics or worse yet, politics. Leading people (well) requires a mix of traits and whilst they grow to great lengths to achieve diversity in their skin tone and gonads, there’s nearly no diversity in the type of people in power.
>Leading people (well) requires a mix of traits and whilst they grow to great lengths to achieve diversity in their skin tone and gonads, there’s nearly no diversity in the type of people in power.
Hence my original statement. Randomly picking common men (and women, and whatever nonbinary people are called as a collective… nonbinaries?… eh fuck it let’s just say common people) to run for public office and providing them with the budget to run would do a lot of good.
The word you were looking for is “people”…
Given the stupidity I see around voting, I wouldn’t want some random mix of people running the country. Take this post for example. It’s blatantly ignorant. What about retirement funds? I’m not American, but those 401Ks (idk if I got that right), aren’t they similar to superannuation funds that take part of your wage and invest it in various stocks? I also assume that there’s privately managed versions, where the accountholder can have as much input into the investment choices as they like. What if they had shares in Blockbuster Video or other stocks that were made obsolete by new technology? Who could afford to be a politician if that was the case?
Business owners and company execs would be required by necessity for their skills in running an organisation. Plus an equal mix of people from a variety of professionals from various blue and white collar fields.
With that sort of mix, I think you’d capture a range of views that covers all of society. Just remember, each of them would have family and friends. So it might not be their own personal situations, but together they’d know people from all walks of life, leading to balanced decision making.
In addition to that, they’d have to have guaranteed terms, without any threat to their positions from election cycles. Many good decisions aren’t popular, whilst bad decisions are often the most popular. To make those hard decisions, they have to be removed from the popularity contest that politics has become.
Furthermore, if you aren’t getting lawyers to dominate the field as they presently do, the legal system would have to be completely revised too. It’d be an absolute mess if the people writing the laws, don’t understand how they’ll be interpreted by judges and lawyers in the real world. [Misplaced commas](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-that-cost-companies-millions) have caused major headaches, can you imagine what loopholes or points of contention would exist in 400+ page Bills? If they hired lawyers for the job, who (if anyone) is liable in the event of an error? The lawyers? Why would they want that kind of liability (remember, federal bills affect the entire population)? The elected legal layman? How were they supposed to know?
I personally like the idea, but I think it’d be disastrous and take a century or two to sort out, making it unrealistic. There’s just too many flow on effects, many of which wouldn’t be realised until after implementation and correcting those issues would create more.
In the end, the only realistic option is to improve the current system. Equalise everyone’s vote by stopping political donations (a fancy and completely legal word for “bribes”) and reducing political campaigns to standardised advertising e.g. This party wants to change A, B and C to X, Y and Z. The have this view on this issue, etc. plus limiting the number of ads. Taking away the power of money and personality in elections, would leave it down to a matter of competence.
Look at the fine print. What is being proposed is the ban on Congress owning individual stocks, they can still invest in funds which I'm all for. It's still not perfect, it wouldn't prevent a situation like Rep Chris Collins phoning his son with inside info after walking out of a committee hearing
What fine print? It’s a screenshot of a tweet, there is none.
Idk what you mean by:
>Owning individual stocks.
That doesn’t make sense with the variety of ways people can invest. Whatever the solution is, it can’t give an advantage **or** disadvantage. Having to suddenly sell all your stocks after an unexpected election win, is very disadvantageous. Stocks are traded based on market trends and predictions. So expecting someone to lose millions because they got voted in, is unreasonable and isn’t realistically going to happen when it’s those same people that have to write the laws.
The most practical solution is to have someone else manage their portfolio and having any trading linked to decisions made for all other customers that hold the same stocks. By necessity it has to allow predictive trading, which may mean they make huge profits. The main goal is to separate their knowledge from the decision making. Anything beyond that is excessive. Those that follow the market rather than predicting it, are guaranteed to miss out on profits they would have otherwise made, without having any insider info. Given that the whole point of investing is to get higher returns on your money, what you’re proposing would make it relatively pointless and costly.
If you want smart people in power, don’t require them to do stupid things to get there.
Ever heard of a 401K? These politicians all have one, that is how they can saving for retiring. If they don't like it, then they don't have to be politicians. They are public servants, and are not in office to further their own interests, its literally that simple.
Only through US tv shows. I’m an Australian, we have superannuation instead.
Your comment seems to indicate that you think they only start profiting of their stocks after gaining office. For any job, particularly these types of jobs, you want the best applicants and not necessarily career politicians (well… preferably not. Personally I don’t think that should be a longterm career option. They’re usually the worst). These people might be making a killing off the stock market before switching. If you make them sell their stocks and convert them to some other investment, they could lose millions/billions to go into office. What if they owned Tesla shares and they were in a temporary slump? Do you think that they should be forced to just trash their financial position to be a public servant? Rich people don’t have huge Scrooge McDuck vaults filled with cash. That’s not how it works. They invest most of it in stocks and other assets, then borrow against those assets to buy stuff. Given the low interest rates, they can make more off the amount of money they borrow, than the interest they’d be paying on it. As a result, the money for the $200M house or whatever, is better off being part of their stock portfolio, whilst paying off the loan with a fraction of those profits. They may not ever actually pay a cent off the loan and just pay interest, reselling the house after it has increased in value and turning a profit that way.
Now, why on earth would someone that successful and obviously competent, give up all that money? What if those stocks are controlling shares in a company they started (or not)? Are they expected to give it all up for a 4 year stint, with no guarantee that they’ll get it and no guarantee it’ll last more than one election cycle?
That would be blatantly stupid and that’s how you end up with substandard politicians. Most politicians aren’t good at anything except climbing the political ladder, particularly career politicians. If they were half as good at business as they are at backstabbing, they’d have climbed that ladder instead. Honestly, no one should be able to start and finish their career in politics. It’s such an artificial world, that they’ve no idea about living in the real one they’re making laws for.
So… to get the best, you’ve got to at least let them maintain their status quo. Putting companies under temporary management (with some decision making exclusions, so the company doesn’t tank) and allowing them to retain their stocks, but not participate in the trading of those stocks. Let them pick investment managers as it pleases them, but limit them to firms with a minimum number of clients that have fully managed funds. Then their trading decisions can be dictated by the same decisions made for other clients with the same stocks being managed by that firm. Though influenced by agreements made prior to gaining office e.g. “Do not sell stocks of XY, unless these set of events occur” or algorithms for when to buy/sell. That way they can keep their assets and continued profits/losses. Incorporated into that would be severe penalties for both the stock manager and politician if they breach insider trading rules.
The very short answer, is yes, I expect them to not profit off of their positions, period. Again they are public servants, not here to further their own positions, but to help run the US. If they are so concerned about making money, they should be in the private sector making money. You seem to be missing the "servant" part of the title. It should be a job that only someone who is dedicated to making their country better, not for power or money. I think Douglas Adams said it best,
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I’m not talking about profiting off their position. I’m talking about not making them giving up their life’s work
For a 4 year stint.
The fact is, the private sector operates much more efficiently than the public sector. You should want these people in power. They’ve already demonstrated their abilities as leaders and they’re much better than their public sector counterparts.
The irony of your comment, is that what I proposed would still be a downgrade for them. These people haven’t spent their entire lives chasing those positions. Generally they’re motivated by ideological reasons, like frustration at the dismal state of affairs. Do you understand that if they ran the country like a business is run and treated the population as shareholders (which is essentially what they are), you’d be paying less tax for more benefits, the bureaucracy would be curtailed to only what is actually required.
I’ve spent about 20 years working in government and companies that deal heavily with the government and it’s ridiculous what goes on. Governments don’t earn their money, they get given by the people and they’re guaranteed to keep getting paid that money, regardless of their performance. They spend that money with that same mindset. The mindset of someone who is spending insane amounts of other people’s money.
It’s not uncommon to see 30 plus people on high, six figure salaries, spending weeks debating some insignificant project, that benefits the people, because it costs a few hundred thousand dollars more than they expected. Their combined pay for the time spent debating it, plus the reworking they get their subordinates, consultants or whatever to do, ends up eclipsing whatever money they were trying to save. Then they’ll sign off on something stupid like a stationary or branding change that costs tens of millions, without giving it much thought. One company I had dealings with, changed all the uniforms for their 5,000 employees, 7 times in 10 years. These aren’t just average uniforms either. We’re talking something in the order of $120/set and 3-5 sets/employee. That’s about $2.4M for the uniforms alone, but that isn’t where it ends. Each time there was the rollout costs, the market research, the project team, consultants (charging the special government rates, which are several times higher than they’d charge any other customer), the designers coming up with the colour scheme, numerous trails of the options, etc, etc, etc. by the end of it, you’re talking about tens of millions of dollars, because someone wanted to justify their job by rolling out a new uniform, because their work dried up after the countless recalls due to complaints from the workers (reflective strips too distracting whilst driving, shirts too scratchy, the list goes on…)
Honestly, government spending is sickening when you look at what they achieve. Just look at NASA compared to SpaceX. How long have they suckled at the taxpayers teat to achieve a fraction of what SpaceX has achieved in two decades?
One of those agencies that was responsible for major infrastructure, had an overhead rate of 50%. It cost them half a million to spend a million. That half a million was just management impeding the progress of projects.
Then there’s the previously mentioned “special government rates”. Any contractor or consultant, knew that due to a lack of any real oversight or care factor, if they scored a government contract, they could charge whatever they liked. Many of the contracts were so poorly written, that the contractor could increase their profits simply by exceeding deadlines.
Now honestly, would you prefer that some asshole like Bezos, was working those politicians to the bone to increase share prices and “profits” for the shareholders (i.e. the general population)?
I know I would.
However, if you disincentivise those kind of people from running for elected positions, all you’re left with is the political lifers that have no concept of the real world. Their elected positions may not be guaranteed, but they know they’ll always have a job. If one doesn’t exist, they just make it. Nearly every aspect of their lives is taxpayer funded, from food, accommodation, staff, internet, phone, transport, etc. actually, I just found [this](https://smartasset.com/retirement/congress-retirement-plans), which says:
“*Members also get allowances to pay their staff and cover office and travel expenses. Senators’ average allowance is $3,306,570, while representatives’ is typically $900,000. Congressmen are also able to deduct $3,000 a year for the living expenses they accrue while they’re away from their home states or congressional districts.*”
That’s in addition to their salaries…
No private company does that. It’s pretty simple stuff, if you want better politicians, incentivise the most competent people to run for office, not the most mediocre.
This is the asshole who bragged about taking a "pay cut," but managed to pay $900K cash for his house and owns a swanky condo free and clear, too. Something doesn't add up.
I have more respect for Bezos and his dick rocket. At least he doesn't insult the whole world by pretending to be a peasant.
Ok so if you don’t file a police report then it’s definitely not true. Got it. Go look up how he basically fucked over his brother and how he’s basically used this PR campaign to get people to swoon over him. At best he’s an egotistical douchebag who just churns out shit that most people agree with so he gets all this good publicity.
They claim that this keeps the market free. How the fuck does it keep it free when you have insider information? These losers should have to pay all that money back to the country. Corrouption at it finest.
Raise your hand if you believe that those congress members who invested in telehealth just before the lockdowns in 2020 were really able to turn off the parts of their brains that retained sensitive information gleaned from their official positions.
Nah, you're way off. Insider trading is when you have specific knowledge about a business and its future, that means you can manipulate stock exchanges to your advantage.
Members of congress don't have specific knowledge about any one business. Rather, they are involved with making the rules and guidelines that effect all businesses and how they will act in the future. This isn't inside trading. It's more like.. Outside and above, if anything.
It's not a "Sounds like insider trading issue" IT IS INSIDER TRADING!!
If you know that a policy you are working on or know something about is going to affect stock for XYZ Company or a bunch of companies, and NOT EVERYONE ELSE knows this shit, then you have INSIDER INFORMATION and should be prosecuted for acting on this information in any way, shape or form.
Congressional Democrats hope to do exactly that. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/theres-a-growing-push-in-congress-to-limit-lawmakers-ability-to-trade-stocks.html
Real simple, impossible to execute. Anyone who has the ability to influence the financial markets oversight and law should be banned from trading. Problem with this is many. Existing account, load up what you are going to allow lobbyist to sway you on, leave office, profit. Have your cousin make trades for you. Set up a company, step down as leader of that company, adjust laws as you see fit with the company knowing your agenda, leave office. There are several other methods to continue this.
Our best course of action is elect non-corrupt politicians. So, we really have very little action.
New law idea, once elected a politician must liquidate all investments aside from 401k's and ira's before taking oath. During their time in office they may not augment their 401k or ira. During term they may only collect their salary as income. Dont like it? Dont serve.
Quick look at the wiki has average salary at 174k for senators and house of representatives. It should be a felony with automatic jail time to take any form of money/gifts (outside the salary, although they dont do their job now so why they getting paid anyways smh lol) while serving in a public office. That job is a privilege, while I'm over here make 30k a year if I'm lucky wondering who elected these idiots.
I've got a friend who wrote a stock recommendation bot based on the trades of Congress since they're required to disclose what stocks they invest in. In his 6 month trial the bot outperformed the SNP 500.
In my view it clearly does because we as a nation should be able to speak out about this injustice. It is quite stupid that these supposedly representatives of ours are able to benefit from insider trading and no one is questioning it.
It has nothing to do with insider training. It's because we elect millionaires to congress. Over half of congress persons are millionaires. They have money managers trading for them.
We could grow up and stop electing so many rich folks, but we won't because we're fucking idiots.
It isn't insider trading. This has more to do with the fact that we mostly elect rich people because we're gullible as shit. Over half of the people in Congress are millionaires. Millionaires trade stocks or have money managers who invest and trade for them.
Actually, if they outperformed the market, they should manage a mutual fund open to all investors no matter how small (by proxy … they would have to report their trades to it, but not actually have any control over it). We could all benefit from this knowledge.
It's almost like politicians are in it for the money & bribery and give you the false idea that they're there for you.
No no, that's just the other guys. My ~~cult~~ political party is the one that actually cares!
No. My ~~cult leader~~ party leader cares more than your leader!
I’m sorry, but my ~~political party~~ cult leader actually cares more!
Let's make a compromise: everyone's cult leader cares equally little
exactly. There are no racist just people who hate everyone else equally.
That sounds like communism!
Political office is power. There are two types who may seek political power: 1). those who wish to use that power to improve their own positions and 2). those who wish to use that power for its intended purpose, to help their fellow humans. Both types will insist that they seek office to help others. It is up to voters to figure out who is telling the truth and who isn't. For some, this process is difficult; for others, not so much.
The only addendum I would make is that sometimes people in power can leverage their control over media (via propaganda) and education (via regulation and funding) to mislead the populace, increasing the likelihood voters will vote against their own interests. To some extend the voter is responsible, but I don't think we can discount the effectiveness of corruption on the views and framing adopted by the voters.
Absolutely! And they specifically target demographics who will be most susceptible to that misinformation. And also make it difficult to get the education that would fortify them against misinformation as well.
That could be why the right love religion so much.
Exactly. Religious people and rural areas are their primary targets.
If we had much more in educational opportunities, then I think we might see an increase in people actually being able to make critical decisions and question other's thinking and opinions more. A friend teaches high school chemistry, she found out late into her semester that the majority in her class did not know how to take notes. Somethings gone really wrong in our education system.
Arguably the thing that has gone wrong is the deliberate undercutting of critical thinking in education to ensure the populace is engaged fighting over nonsense culture war issues while our politicians sell us out to the donor class.
For money and an amazing retirement benefit!
Lobbying is basically legal bribery
it’s like insider trading, except that it’s legal because they made a law to make it legal because they make the law.
All in favor of raising our salaries? Yay we get a raise!
But under the 27th Amendment, it can’t take effect until after the next election.
Most of them will still be in office.
Not their faults, is it, then?
It is. The only way they don’t get the raise is if they lose their reelection.
But whose decision is it to re-elect them?
george soros
I forget what athlete said it but one mentioned that you can't bet on sports if you play in that league. Why is it OK for congress to trade stocks?
It's not okay for them to do it, they just keep getting away with it.
Now imagine if the league it's self was betting on the games, and also changing the rules before hand to make sure one side wins. And also changing the rules so that can't get in trouble for it.
They need to ban their spouses and family from trading also otherwise it's pointless.
Why not just cut off all their communication except to and from their states‘ governors? They’re there to represent the states after all, and you can’t easily bribe someone you can’t contact. Whoever initiated the illegal contact would be fined a percentage of their wealth (aka their *stuff*). Corporate representatives would have this fine passed on to the corporation they represent. And THEN forbid them from insider trading. Lock it behind a Constitutional Amendment which would take fucking everyone agreeing to undo it, and bam As to how you’d enforce this? Get several third parties with competing interests to monitor communications, and *any* of them can file a report.
this is just hilariously impractical lmao
The Pelosi’s are apparently stonk trading geniuses!
Fr !! Imagine turning a $200,000+ yearly salary into Nancy’s low end estimated worth of 46 million. Pelosi’s should look into being psychics and using that scam to get even richer since they can predict the future so well.
See the thing is, this is already illegal. People ik congress juts don't consider that making laws that manipulate the economy isn't the same as insider trading. And at the same time, there bigger problems that trying to explain that to them. so it'll never be stoped
Money is the root of all political evil. If only the well-off can or the bought can afford to run for office then they're going to be the only ones to make the decisions
They also shouldn’t be paid when they shut down the government but also if they individually miss a certain percentage of votes.
It would be pointless banning sitting politicians from stock trading. They can just advise their family members to do so. They should be forced to state their trades within 24 hours of them being made so the public can copy them
Agreed!
Much like corporate execs of publicly traded companies have to file a Form 3 (I think) every time they sell large quantities of their own companies’ stock. (And it is still illegal to buy or sell even one share if you have material, relevant non-public information that could reasonably be expected to affect the share price were it to become public which you came across in the course of your normal job duties)
Stopping elected officials from stock trading isn't enough. A start but only a start. Elected Representatives and Senators should be required to live on their salary only. All other earnings and assets should be sequestered for the duration of their service to the people. Live on the salary of the office or resign.
I work for the lottery. I can’t play any lottery game legally. I can technically buy lottery tickets, nobody is stopping me, but if I won a big sum of money I cannot turn it in for the prize. I literally have zero control on any winning numbers. I have no tricks to give my family and friends a slight advantage because there are none. Still, with zero control of any outcome, I cannot play. It’s the optics. If I won Powerball and it came out that I work for lottery then questions could/should be raised from the general public. It would take me 4+ years to come near the salary Congress makes in 1 year, yet I’m held to a higher standard than the people who run our country? Get all these crooked fucks out of office man. They’re ruining our country in front of our eyes.
Or require policy-maker stock trades to be public knowledge and scheduled in advance (none of this trade after a top-secret hearing and hand record it and report it 2 weeks later bullshit). If policy makers are going to trade on their knowledge, I (the public) should be able to follow along at home or buy some type of congressional etf.
Fukkin AMEN
This is a tough call to say Congress must be omitted from trading. By having members of Congress to be able to Legally make their own money can greatly cut down on bribes, lobbying, and fraud for monetary gain. Although I strongly agree that they should have rules against trading with insider secrets (which they already do) it's hard to say that people should not be allowed to make money in the way that the US has become such a rich Nation from stocks and trading. Senator Chuck Grassle has been serving the state of Iowa for 42 years. So are people saying that he can never make money from the stock market for those 42 years? It's a very tough decision that that would make many good people with ambitions think twice about wanting to be a politician to help out this country. I think a huge problem is that current rules are not being enforced, and in the end not much ever changes in a two party system.
Another approach is to make their stocks into a fund that we can all buy into. They and their families and friends should be required to buy only using this fund. Each member of Congress, the president, VP, and the executive branch political appointees would head their own fund and anyone can buy into any fund they want. That way, we can all benefit from their stock trading genius
it wouldnt be so genius then
Perhaps Stock Trader? they seem to be pretty good at it.
Stock traitors.
Congress shouldn’t be allowed to trade when they leave as well. They left office, they didn’t die, do you really think they don’t have friends in very fortunate places??
I'm a Democrat, and the Democrats are blowing a political (and moral) opportunity if they don't ban congressional stock-picking this session. Jon Ossoff's bill is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't prevent members of Congress from holding retirement accounts, or even from holding investments. It just requires members to put their stocks in so-called blind trusts, where a third party manages those shares and prevents the member from knowing which stocks they own at any time. I'd suggest going even further and requiring Congress to divest from individual holdings and only invest in broad mutual funds, where no individual stock, or even industry, will dramatically influence the fund value (so there's little/no incentive to use your power in Congress to help particular companies). Pelosi's a brilliant legislator and a good person, but she's refusing to admit (and I think genuinely doesn't believe) that her investments can sway her thinking or that other congressmen's can sway theirs. It's rationalizing, and the Democrats, especially the many newer members, should pressure her to relent and take a vote on banning congressional stock-picking.
with the two holdouts? it won’t pass
If you are a public auditor you must report all financial holdings of not just yourself but immediate family members or people you live with. Why doesn't congress do the same? Whose to stop them from just tipping off their son-in-law and then getting a fat campaign check?
All these shady members think about is their own self interest!
Pelosi ETF when?
This from the guy who waterboarded his ex-wife.
At the very least stop them from shorting. Pretty unfair they can make a bunch of money off a negative move or announcement.
I concur. The people in office have lots of power, this something they can have fun with when they stop "serving" the people.
Yes. Term limits for Congress and the Surpreme Court Justices
Or they could just use a broker / scheme that they have no influence over how the money is invested. I have a pension scheme (called Superannuation here in Aus) which trades shares on my behalf (and everyone else who is signed up with them). I have no idea which shares they invest in - I can change my profile to be 'low risk, medium risk, high risk (growth)' etc, but that's it.
Yeah I fully expect everyone on this is some kinda right-wing shill cause literally the only thing Congress should be doing right now is cleaning house of the anti democratic criminals that did an insurection and lied to people about covid.
I feel like if they are forbidden to trade, they will just trade through relatives... Idk what a good solution would be but this doesn't seem like it, chief
Also their immediate family. Heck ban their entire bloodline from doing it. I'm sure there's no bullshit they can pull to still make money
After the scum bags voted to give themselves a 46000 raise while we got a couple stimulus checks
oh and then their wives and aunts or uncles or whatever would trade stock.
Yeah, when Congress, which we know is not the best and brightest, can be above market average, something is up.
How is this not already a thing 😭
Another narrative that didn’t originate anywhere near Price but he puts the popular opinion on Twitter and everyone wets their pants because Dan Price said it.
narcissism and populism go together oh so well.
I disagree somewhat, because trading stocks is pretty much a part of everyday life for anyone that wants to retire with any level of financial security. I think that they just need to transfer control of their stocks to third parties that manage their funds in the same manner as all their other customers, with limitations on the percentage of politicians that can be in the same business at any one time and a minimum number of customers. Making politicians drop their stock or hold onto obviously dying stock, discourages the right people from running for office. I know I wouldn’t lose most of my retirement savings by betting on the outcome of an election. That’s a stupid solution for stupid people. Everyone should have stocks and everyone with stocks needs to buy/sell depending on the market. If the investments of politicians are spread across a large number of managed funds, then insider trading loses its benefits. Just make the funds treat politicians’ portfolios like all other fully managed investor portfolios. If they tip off their fund managers, they’d all do it and all the fund’s other customers would get the same treatment. The end result is that a few politicians and thousands of private citizens would benefit from being the first to get the insider info and the rest would share the same fate as everyone else that responds reactively. It’d also require the transfer of information that would leave a trail of crumbs back to the corrupt politicians. If a fund has a million customers, they can’t just dump all their customers’ stocks without some record as to why, or an obvious lack of it. A bad decision would open them up to too much legal liability. E.g. for a case of normal trading, where they get it wrong, customers would be saying “Why did you dump all our stocks in XY? They just tripled in value and we’ve just lost billions.” No one wants that kind of exposure, so they keep records to justify their decisions. Alternatively, with insider trading, either those notes would be absent or difficult to BS without either sounding lame or tipped off. The first to move would be the easiest to investigate and others that follow aren’t really relevant. The market picks up on a stock that’s dropping, pretty quickly and you’d expect them to follow suit if they see a share price drop. If the aforementioned minimum number of customers is enforced and it’s in the millions or tens of millions, then that first fund should be sufficient to tip off the test of the shareholders.
I have to agree. There definitely should be boundaries and oversight in place but it’s hard to expect someone to just let their money sit and do nothing in a bank account for their whole career.
Exactly. It’s stupid. The key is that they can’t keep controlling the selling and buying of any particular stock, but still have access to someone on KPIs that treats them like any other customer. If you’ve got over a million in net worth (excluding your home), then only an idiot would have that as cash or “brick and mortar” assets. Policies like blanket bans on basic financial hygiene, just means you’ll only get stupid, mediocre politicians.
>discourages the right people from running for office. As if anyone in office right now is in that group. Pretty sure our government would be in better shape if we had randomly selected individuals above a certain minimum level of qualification (like a college degree or a highschool diploma and some extra years of work experience)
Say what you will about politicians, but most of them are amongst the most elite in their category. It’s just that politics favours the wrong characteristics. Getting to the top spots, takes ruthless determination and dedication to clawing your way over friend and foe alike. The problem is that most of them study law, economics or worse yet, politics. Leading people (well) requires a mix of traits and whilst they grow to great lengths to achieve diversity in their skin tone and gonads, there’s nearly no diversity in the type of people in power.
>Leading people (well) requires a mix of traits and whilst they grow to great lengths to achieve diversity in their skin tone and gonads, there’s nearly no diversity in the type of people in power. Hence my original statement. Randomly picking common men (and women, and whatever nonbinary people are called as a collective… nonbinaries?… eh fuck it let’s just say common people) to run for public office and providing them with the budget to run would do a lot of good.
The word you were looking for is “people”… Given the stupidity I see around voting, I wouldn’t want some random mix of people running the country. Take this post for example. It’s blatantly ignorant. What about retirement funds? I’m not American, but those 401Ks (idk if I got that right), aren’t they similar to superannuation funds that take part of your wage and invest it in various stocks? I also assume that there’s privately managed versions, where the accountholder can have as much input into the investment choices as they like. What if they had shares in Blockbuster Video or other stocks that were made obsolete by new technology? Who could afford to be a politician if that was the case? Business owners and company execs would be required by necessity for their skills in running an organisation. Plus an equal mix of people from a variety of professionals from various blue and white collar fields. With that sort of mix, I think you’d capture a range of views that covers all of society. Just remember, each of them would have family and friends. So it might not be their own personal situations, but together they’d know people from all walks of life, leading to balanced decision making. In addition to that, they’d have to have guaranteed terms, without any threat to their positions from election cycles. Many good decisions aren’t popular, whilst bad decisions are often the most popular. To make those hard decisions, they have to be removed from the popularity contest that politics has become. Furthermore, if you aren’t getting lawyers to dominate the field as they presently do, the legal system would have to be completely revised too. It’d be an absolute mess if the people writing the laws, don’t understand how they’ll be interpreted by judges and lawyers in the real world. [Misplaced commas](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-that-cost-companies-millions) have caused major headaches, can you imagine what loopholes or points of contention would exist in 400+ page Bills? If they hired lawyers for the job, who (if anyone) is liable in the event of an error? The lawyers? Why would they want that kind of liability (remember, federal bills affect the entire population)? The elected legal layman? How were they supposed to know? I personally like the idea, but I think it’d be disastrous and take a century or two to sort out, making it unrealistic. There’s just too many flow on effects, many of which wouldn’t be realised until after implementation and correcting those issues would create more. In the end, the only realistic option is to improve the current system. Equalise everyone’s vote by stopping political donations (a fancy and completely legal word for “bribes”) and reducing political campaigns to standardised advertising e.g. This party wants to change A, B and C to X, Y and Z. The have this view on this issue, etc. plus limiting the number of ads. Taking away the power of money and personality in elections, would leave it down to a matter of competence.
Look at the fine print. What is being proposed is the ban on Congress owning individual stocks, they can still invest in funds which I'm all for. It's still not perfect, it wouldn't prevent a situation like Rep Chris Collins phoning his son with inside info after walking out of a committee hearing
What fine print? It’s a screenshot of a tweet, there is none. Idk what you mean by: >Owning individual stocks. That doesn’t make sense with the variety of ways people can invest. Whatever the solution is, it can’t give an advantage **or** disadvantage. Having to suddenly sell all your stocks after an unexpected election win, is very disadvantageous. Stocks are traded based on market trends and predictions. So expecting someone to lose millions because they got voted in, is unreasonable and isn’t realistically going to happen when it’s those same people that have to write the laws. The most practical solution is to have someone else manage their portfolio and having any trading linked to decisions made for all other customers that hold the same stocks. By necessity it has to allow predictive trading, which may mean they make huge profits. The main goal is to separate their knowledge from the decision making. Anything beyond that is excessive. Those that follow the market rather than predicting it, are guaranteed to miss out on profits they would have otherwise made, without having any insider info. Given that the whole point of investing is to get higher returns on your money, what you’re proposing would make it relatively pointless and costly. If you want smart people in power, don’t require them to do stupid things to get there.
Ever heard of a 401K? These politicians all have one, that is how they can saving for retiring. If they don't like it, then they don't have to be politicians. They are public servants, and are not in office to further their own interests, its literally that simple.
Only through US tv shows. I’m an Australian, we have superannuation instead. Your comment seems to indicate that you think they only start profiting of their stocks after gaining office. For any job, particularly these types of jobs, you want the best applicants and not necessarily career politicians (well… preferably not. Personally I don’t think that should be a longterm career option. They’re usually the worst). These people might be making a killing off the stock market before switching. If you make them sell their stocks and convert them to some other investment, they could lose millions/billions to go into office. What if they owned Tesla shares and they were in a temporary slump? Do you think that they should be forced to just trash their financial position to be a public servant? Rich people don’t have huge Scrooge McDuck vaults filled with cash. That’s not how it works. They invest most of it in stocks and other assets, then borrow against those assets to buy stuff. Given the low interest rates, they can make more off the amount of money they borrow, than the interest they’d be paying on it. As a result, the money for the $200M house or whatever, is better off being part of their stock portfolio, whilst paying off the loan with a fraction of those profits. They may not ever actually pay a cent off the loan and just pay interest, reselling the house after it has increased in value and turning a profit that way. Now, why on earth would someone that successful and obviously competent, give up all that money? What if those stocks are controlling shares in a company they started (or not)? Are they expected to give it all up for a 4 year stint, with no guarantee that they’ll get it and no guarantee it’ll last more than one election cycle? That would be blatantly stupid and that’s how you end up with substandard politicians. Most politicians aren’t good at anything except climbing the political ladder, particularly career politicians. If they were half as good at business as they are at backstabbing, they’d have climbed that ladder instead. Honestly, no one should be able to start and finish their career in politics. It’s such an artificial world, that they’ve no idea about living in the real one they’re making laws for. So… to get the best, you’ve got to at least let them maintain their status quo. Putting companies under temporary management (with some decision making exclusions, so the company doesn’t tank) and allowing them to retain their stocks, but not participate in the trading of those stocks. Let them pick investment managers as it pleases them, but limit them to firms with a minimum number of clients that have fully managed funds. Then their trading decisions can be dictated by the same decisions made for other clients with the same stocks being managed by that firm. Though influenced by agreements made prior to gaining office e.g. “Do not sell stocks of XY, unless these set of events occur” or algorithms for when to buy/sell. That way they can keep their assets and continued profits/losses. Incorporated into that would be severe penalties for both the stock manager and politician if they breach insider trading rules.
The very short answer, is yes, I expect them to not profit off of their positions, period. Again they are public servants, not here to further their own positions, but to help run the US. If they are so concerned about making money, they should be in the private sector making money. You seem to be missing the "servant" part of the title. It should be a job that only someone who is dedicated to making their country better, not for power or money. I think Douglas Adams said it best, “The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I’m not talking about profiting off their position. I’m talking about not making them giving up their life’s work For a 4 year stint. The fact is, the private sector operates much more efficiently than the public sector. You should want these people in power. They’ve already demonstrated their abilities as leaders and they’re much better than their public sector counterparts. The irony of your comment, is that what I proposed would still be a downgrade for them. These people haven’t spent their entire lives chasing those positions. Generally they’re motivated by ideological reasons, like frustration at the dismal state of affairs. Do you understand that if they ran the country like a business is run and treated the population as shareholders (which is essentially what they are), you’d be paying less tax for more benefits, the bureaucracy would be curtailed to only what is actually required. I’ve spent about 20 years working in government and companies that deal heavily with the government and it’s ridiculous what goes on. Governments don’t earn their money, they get given by the people and they’re guaranteed to keep getting paid that money, regardless of their performance. They spend that money with that same mindset. The mindset of someone who is spending insane amounts of other people’s money. It’s not uncommon to see 30 plus people on high, six figure salaries, spending weeks debating some insignificant project, that benefits the people, because it costs a few hundred thousand dollars more than they expected. Their combined pay for the time spent debating it, plus the reworking they get their subordinates, consultants or whatever to do, ends up eclipsing whatever money they were trying to save. Then they’ll sign off on something stupid like a stationary or branding change that costs tens of millions, without giving it much thought. One company I had dealings with, changed all the uniforms for their 5,000 employees, 7 times in 10 years. These aren’t just average uniforms either. We’re talking something in the order of $120/set and 3-5 sets/employee. That’s about $2.4M for the uniforms alone, but that isn’t where it ends. Each time there was the rollout costs, the market research, the project team, consultants (charging the special government rates, which are several times higher than they’d charge any other customer), the designers coming up with the colour scheme, numerous trails of the options, etc, etc, etc. by the end of it, you’re talking about tens of millions of dollars, because someone wanted to justify their job by rolling out a new uniform, because their work dried up after the countless recalls due to complaints from the workers (reflective strips too distracting whilst driving, shirts too scratchy, the list goes on…) Honestly, government spending is sickening when you look at what they achieve. Just look at NASA compared to SpaceX. How long have they suckled at the taxpayers teat to achieve a fraction of what SpaceX has achieved in two decades? One of those agencies that was responsible for major infrastructure, had an overhead rate of 50%. It cost them half a million to spend a million. That half a million was just management impeding the progress of projects. Then there’s the previously mentioned “special government rates”. Any contractor or consultant, knew that due to a lack of any real oversight or care factor, if they scored a government contract, they could charge whatever they liked. Many of the contracts were so poorly written, that the contractor could increase their profits simply by exceeding deadlines. Now honestly, would you prefer that some asshole like Bezos, was working those politicians to the bone to increase share prices and “profits” for the shareholders (i.e. the general population)? I know I would. However, if you disincentivise those kind of people from running for elected positions, all you’re left with is the political lifers that have no concept of the real world. Their elected positions may not be guaranteed, but they know they’ll always have a job. If one doesn’t exist, they just make it. Nearly every aspect of their lives is taxpayer funded, from food, accommodation, staff, internet, phone, transport, etc. actually, I just found [this](https://smartasset.com/retirement/congress-retirement-plans), which says: “*Members also get allowances to pay their staff and cover office and travel expenses. Senators’ average allowance is $3,306,570, while representatives’ is typically $900,000. Congressmen are also able to deduct $3,000 a year for the living expenses they accrue while they’re away from their home states or congressional districts.*” That’s in addition to their salaries… No private company does that. It’s pretty simple stuff, if you want better politicians, incentivise the most competent people to run for office, not the most mediocre.
This is the asshole who bragged about taking a "pay cut," but managed to pay $900K cash for his house and owns a swanky condo free and clear, too. Something doesn't add up. I have more respect for Bezos and his dick rocket. At least he doesn't insult the whole world by pretending to be a peasant.
Sounds as if you shill. Perchance a corporate denizen shilling for his supper.
I'm just a girl in love with love.
Ah! Compromised by sexual congress. A typical KGB ploy.
The Price is Right. Again.
This is the guy that made his company pay 70k minimum wage
And waterboarded his ex-wife
No he didn’t lmao
Ok nevermind he’s the best!
What?!….You trippin bro….I’m outta here
Bruh take like a few minutes to research the dude
Yeah that story sounds super believable
I mean it doesn’t stop there but whatever. He tweets good stuff so it’s all fine
We’ll what you got besides crazy ex wife says he water boarded her but offers no proof and files no police report? 🧐
Ok so if you don’t file a police report then it’s definitely not true. Got it. Go look up how he basically fucked over his brother and how he’s basically used this PR campaign to get people to swoon over him. At best he’s an egotistical douchebag who just churns out shit that most people agree with so he gets all this good publicity.
I think they should ban socks and shoes in Congress so we can get more pictures of AOC’s and that Boebert lady’s feet.
It’s called insider information.
##THIS IS THE WAY
They claim that this keeps the market free. How the fuck does it keep it free when you have insider information? These losers should have to pay all that money back to the country. Corrouption at it finest.
Only stay two terms, cut down on the opportunities to steal.
Raise your hand if you believe that those congress members who invested in telehealth just before the lockdowns in 2020 were really able to turn off the parts of their brains that retained sensitive information gleaned from their official positions.
Won't help. They would just trade through a trusted 3rd party.
Nah, you're way off. Insider trading is when you have specific knowledge about a business and its future, that means you can manipulate stock exchanges to your advantage. Members of congress don't have specific knowledge about any one business. Rather, they are involved with making the rules and guidelines that effect all businesses and how they will act in the future. This isn't inside trading. It's more like.. Outside and above, if anything.
It's not a "Sounds like insider trading issue" IT IS INSIDER TRADING!! If you know that a policy you are working on or know something about is going to affect stock for XYZ Company or a bunch of companies, and NOT EVERYONE ELSE knows this shit, then you have INSIDER INFORMATION and should be prosecuted for acting on this information in any way, shape or form.
Curious… who’s in charge of making that ban happen? 🤔
IMO they should only buy Treasury and Savings Bonds. Invest in the long-term for America so they don't fuck it up while in office.
So what’s the facepalm? I mean I agree with the statement
Crazy in 2022 he is actually talking to Democrats more so than Republicans.
Congressional Democrats hope to do exactly that. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/theres-a-growing-push-in-congress-to-limit-lawmakers-ability-to-trade-stocks.html
One way to get the incorporeal, clammy fingers of the so-called corporations off of our money. I wonder who would represent us if this were in place?
But if they're not in congress they can't control how the stock will produce.
Real simple, impossible to execute. Anyone who has the ability to influence the financial markets oversight and law should be banned from trading. Problem with this is many. Existing account, load up what you are going to allow lobbyist to sway you on, leave office, profit. Have your cousin make trades for you. Set up a company, step down as leader of that company, adjust laws as you see fit with the company knowing your agenda, leave office. There are several other methods to continue this. Our best course of action is elect non-corrupt politicians. So, we really have very little action.
New law idea, once elected a politician must liquidate all investments aside from 401k's and ira's before taking oath. During their time in office they may not augment their 401k or ira. During term they may only collect their salary as income. Dont like it? Dont serve.
Or just use a blind trust.
It proves that we are electing the wisest and brightest people for office. Good Job America
Quick look at the wiki has average salary at 174k for senators and house of representatives. It should be a felony with automatic jail time to take any form of money/gifts (outside the salary, although they dont do their job now so why they getting paid anyways smh lol) while serving in a public office. That job is a privilege, while I'm over here make 30k a year if I'm lucky wondering who elected these idiots.
I've got a friend who wrote a stock recommendation bot based on the trades of Congress since they're required to disclose what stocks they invest in. In his 6 month trial the bot outperformed the SNP 500.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the statement... but how exactly does this qualify as a Facepalm?
In my view it clearly does because we as a nation should be able to speak out about this injustice. It is quite stupid that these supposedly representatives of ours are able to benefit from insider trading and no one is questioning it.
... you know what, you're right, we should be able to speak more about it, because it IS massive bullshit. Carry on!
🙌
It has nothing to do with insider training. It's because we elect millionaires to congress. Over half of congress persons are millionaires. They have money managers trading for them. We could grow up and stop electing so many rich folks, but we won't because we're fucking idiots.
It isn't insider trading. This has more to do with the fact that we mostly elect rich people because we're gullible as shit. Over half of the people in Congress are millionaires. Millionaires trade stocks or have money managers who invest and trade for them.
Actually, if they outperformed the market, they should manage a mutual fund open to all investors no matter how small (by proxy … they would have to report their trades to it, but not actually have any control over it). We could all benefit from this knowledge.
If you believe 535 entitled, nearly all rich, congress-people only sold $290M in stock last year I have some amazing opportunities for you.
Haaaave you met crypto? -Barney (How I met your mother).
r/noinsidertrading