Source? Sounds like someone just made it up.
This page said they went from 41 to 115 in 14 years, which is more like 12% a year. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmake...
Yet they never come up it's always Nancy Pelosi and that's just creatively bankrupt. So here are 36 more...
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violation...
So yeah, hearing "there's a law against this but there's no enforcement of that law"...most people shrug and say, "ok, that's legal".
In additon there are thousands of elected officials across the country. If we need everyone to abandon/destroy their non-official form of income, nobody will join politics. It is easy to judge from that sidelines.
It was already known in 1987 that he traded while spreading false information and after a couple of years the entire stock market ignored him.
They were really years ahead of everyone else on what to do.
Of course, or some other mechanism.
> In additon there are thousands of elected officials across the country. If we need everyone to abandon/destroy their non-official form of income, nobody will join politics. It is easy to judge from that sidelines.
So you are saying that politics is inherently corrupt and that if you take away the appeal of corruption then no one will participate?
I've heard rumors that quite a bit before I was born, politics was as boring and stuffy as being an actuary. One can only dream that politics gets boring like that soon.
Absolutely, 100% agree. We should also not let children of Presidents get entangled in billion dollar investment deals with foreign powers that are hostile to US interests[1]
There are blind trusts and other vehicles that can be used. Maybe if the ability to exploit inside knowledge for personal financial gain were limited, the people who choose to get involved in politics would be doing so because they care about making the country a better place, and not to enrich themselves.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hunter-biden-holds-stak...
Professionals deal responsibly with conflicts of interest all the time. If you mishandle them, that's somewhere between bad judgement and a punishable offense.
Dehumanizing, isn't it? Working hard to contribute to society while these people accumulate 10, 100, 1000 times our yearly salaries in seconds by playing some market. The world we live in is so absurd, it's such a joke.
We’re ruled over by the rich.
Is there a way to "index-fund" Pelosi's investments? More generally, "index-funding" the investments made by politicians who are in a position of power would be a really interesting thing.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sol...
Not only is it insider trading, it's clear that the briefing indicated the amount of suffering that was coming to their constituents.
In any case, this is distasteful and gross. Every bill should have an estimated impact on publicly traded companies, and politicians with stocks should be forbidden to discuss/mediate the bill, and only vote on it.
[1]" https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes-personal-shopper/2021/10...
I don't think this is feasible.
> and politicians with stocks should be forbidden to discuss/mediate the bill, and only vote on it.
But I'll go one further on this. No person holding public office above a certain level should be allowed to trade individual stocks. Either buy broad-market indices or have a third-party invest for you without your knowledge on specifics.
These people should not be allowed to hold any kind of private or public stock other than ETFs of the S&P 500 index. This way you remove the conflict of interest in favoring one sector/company over another and instead if they want to make money through the market they can do so by helping the overall economy instead.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/senator-joe-manchin-half-mil...
(It would also be infeasible to mandate the divestiture of small, closely-held family businesses in order to hold office.)
He eventually sold it but only after leaving the Presidency (in large part because it was then under crushing debt, having been run by “not the people who knew and cared about the business”.)
I’d rather have us have politicians who are “like us” (who might have an LLC with a rental property in it, who own a pizza shop/dry cleaner/corner bodega, a consulting shop, etc.) than to restrict politics only to those with nothing to lose or so much to lose that if they lose some in a quest for power, it’s OK. I don’t want to shut small businesspeople out because they’ll lose everything they’ve worked to build.
We need people in government who know what it’s like to have to work to make payroll and to sign paychecks on the front.
And because of their wealth, she could dedicate worked for the party for free for 20 years. Which got her to where she is now.
I would be more concerned with presidents who are known to spread/say things to try to influence the market.