Not inside trading just 100% winning rate
twitter.com
twitter.com
https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate
Nancy Pelosi has her own page: https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pel...
>Senator Warren's bipartisan bill with Senator Daines would ban Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading individual stocks.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hea...
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdi...
So nothing? lol
I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position in the government in any form
Why would you ever buy or sell anything unless you thought you knew something other people didn't? But, if that's not insider trading, then what is, and why?
When I write "what is", I mean both as a matter of current law, and as a platonic ideal.
When big investors talk to company management, what are they doing if not getting inside information? Why is this legal? Is it legal? Should it be legal? Isn't it kind of peculiar if someone that supposedly owns something can't talk to the people managing it?
Congressional stock trading (not necessarily insider) would be banned by that bill, and to your point about "previous": I think it's fairly well established that laws can't be enforced retroactively: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
My point is that this bill won't help our desire to see punishment for (alleged) insider trading by congress that is already happening.
Im asking as a serious question … who is being hurt by this?
Second, why the hell should it be legal if the same thing done by a normal citizen results in ultra harsh penalties ( look up laws on Insider Trading).
But the distinction between public information and private information can be quite arbitrary. Especially when Congressional leaks are so common.
If a congressman takes confidential information, puts it in their blog, then makes trades with it, is that ok?
It just seems like the “public information/private information” distinction is less clear, and the harm the law seeks to prevent less defined. And it’s already pretty unclear and undefined, at least to me.
If people believe that there is widespread insider trading going on, the stock market becomes a market for lemons. As someone without insider information, your assumption should be that whoever you are trading against has more information than you, which means you got the raw end of the deal. If your assumption is that you get a bad deal whenever you trade, you are never going to trade, and then the market collapses.
This was a contributing factor to the crash of '29, and sure enough, the SEC was created in 1933. Its first chairman, Joe Kennedy (father of JFK), was one of the most notorious insider traders in history, and his mission was to prevent anyone else from getting away with what he did.
I think that that ownership by a diverse group of non-insiders is preferable to consolidating the control over huge individual insider shareholders, for two reasons:
- That ordinary citizens can be shareholders of companies, and so won't make decisions against their own interests.
- That large groups tend to be more ethically moderated (in the nuclear physics sense: slowed down from snap decisions) and less likely to become cynically corrupt than individuals.
Now, big groups still do those things all the time, but the idea is that, for a few reasons (e.g. people don't corrupt at the same rates, so the unless the group shifts all at once they'll identify the people that become corrupt as interlopers and outgroup them), it's still better than taking the chance on an individual.
But I see a lot of confusion here between “public” in the sense of “oriented towards the common good” and “public” in the sense of “not widely known”.
Same with “private” - could mean “oriented towards the good of only certain individuals” and also “not generally known.”
When a politician makes a positive return on selling their contract(s), another person loses and their wealth is transferred to the politician.
That’s not something I can do. So the folks who analyze “public” information fast enough effectively turn it into “private information” for the first few milliseconds.
The apocryphal story about the Rothschilds building special boats to report the outcome of Waterloo is like that.
So it seems that you can have massively asymmetrical information, as long as it’s passed on public info. Which seems like a dumb distinction.
In regards to congressmen, they’re often the first people to be exposed to new public information. So the distinction between public and private is less clear for them.
Yeah, that's public information. It's fair to everyone. We're specifically talking about "insider" knowledge which they take advantage of before anyone else knows.
They are the government, so clearly there is no will to do anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable.
If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we deserve.
these 2 lies continue to crack me up.
Lets look at it from the other perspective. There are people trying to provide alternative options. They are not winning because you are not voting for them. There is no excuse, there is no one to point to, it is your vote and you cast it. What others do should have no influence.
If all the voters really cant make their own decisions, if they really cant think for themselves: Then you would provide a major example by doing your own thinking and making your own choices. They would all follow like the sheep they are portrayed as by these lies.
if non of that makes sense, maybe those ignorant enough to provide alternative options deserve your support in their futile effort? it seems the honorable thing to do
Corruption should be a non-partisan concern.
But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean campaign contributions is the problem and will never be solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which means never, unfortunately.
These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling amongst ourselves.
- direct election of Senators basically eliminated them being recalled and fired; and
- capped growth of House of Representatives with population growth.
That also ignores my point about campaign financing. It's legalized bribery.
With that attitude you're correct
I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at dialog here in HN never bear fruit.
We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over country.
Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to discuss the details in a non-partisan manner.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past experience and it's not encouraging.