tootallgavin

I am sure we could find some Members who think this number inadequate. that number could fund about 8 people's salary per year, is that enough staff to do the job? I don't know

> They might read research, but they aren't personally funding it.

might read, or have someone else tell them the important bits. This cost money either way

> Through your taxpaying dollars, just like every other government worker?

If this were the case, why are the politicians even trading stocks to begin with? if they wanted money why not be a private individual and then there would be no scrutiny on trading stocks.

> The salary isn't preventing poor people from becoming elected officials.

I agree, and trading stocks is not keeping poor people from becoming elected officials either

> but, what, you thought they relied on graft to buy their dinners

They will if this ban is instituted

What about the salaries of the staff? What about the tools needed to perform the job?

> Politicians don’t receive money directly from lobbyists and donors. Doing so would be a violation of rules against taking bribes.

> a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party

I agree, trading stocks is an easy, relatively passive way of doing this.

And so how do these members of congress pay for staffing, research, etc? with just 150K per year?

> just to stop trading individual stocks

Why?

Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life.

Insider trading is already illegal.

Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if the public does not know it too can invest where their politicians have invested.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere?

Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

Slightly off topic. But what do you think of the "definition of recession"[1] debacle that is currently going on? Do you think this is similar to "changing the definition of a vaccine" that you mentioned?

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&sour...

Any market is "a machine for creating cults", including the market of ideas.

The first sentence of the article says it all.

I didn't ask you to defend them. I asked why they would be protesting. I, too, would be a bad advocate for them as well. I am neither a Netherlander nor a farmer. I just eat and don't wonder where the food comes from, nor do I want to. I just want the food to be at the store when I am ready to buy it.

I agree the 90s were great, but I'll admit I was born in '92. So I might be biased.

I don't know what you mean by "good faith". I don't think the farmers are the short sighted ones here. They are farmers. They might be little bit interested in the long view, as hear it takes many months to grow food, and years to raise livestock. Again, I don't know, I just go to the grocery store. I hope in 10 years, whatever the farmers are protesting about, the Netherlanders can enjoy a burger [1][2], just like I do.

[1]"The ruling coalition has earmarked an extra 24.3 billion euros ($25.6bn) to finance changes that will likely make many farmers drastically reduce their number of livestock or get rid of them altogether." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/22/thousands-of-dutch-...

[2]"According to government estimates, this could lead to the shutting down of about 30 per cent of livestock farms." https://thewest.com.au/politics/dutch-farmers-block-roads-po...

If they can still grow food, why are they protesting? Seems like a lot of time to waste not working on the farm. But, honestly, I haven't really found a source of news that wasn't just calling the farmers terrible names. Why do you think the farmers are being called terrible names by news sources? Maybe its because they are not growing food. Its becoming a circle now.

Which decades were "uneventful"?

Meanwhile, farmers in Netherlands are no longer allowed to grow food. If there ever was a reason to have the right to own arms, and to overthrow the government, I think losing the right to grow food is a valid justification for a "self-coup".

But, if you take a very big view of things, both the religious and science fanatics believe the world is ending. They have different reasons, of course. Nonetheless, the world is not ending.

Some religious people go to church everyday and others go knocking door to door to evangelize. Notice how some Christians also believe the world is ending?

To answer your question, the Mongers of Climate Change have people of various convictions. Some people risk their lives shutting down highways, others just buy a different car.

You might think it weird to relate these two concepts together but human belief determines human action.

When a drought occurs, some cultures perform rain dances, others try to curtail economic activity. There have been droughts, there will be droughts. It's not like water is a worldly finite resource. Water has migration patterns too.

At this point in Human history, famine, in general, is a political decision. If I am not mistaken, the farmers in Netherland are no longer able to grow food. Why?

Because at the end of a life, you either live like Picasso or live like Dalí

both made fortunes, but one thought it was a good idea to give it all away

I prefer to live like Dalí, the fruits of my labor are for my children

Calling brown skin black is... a weird place to start. Further, there is no legal definition of black person or white person. So, it would be hard to revisit, for instance, interracial marriage in a way that doesn't overlook the 14th amendment

The concentration of melanin in one's skin is not important

race is a belief

Unlike Brexit, the first American civil war has set precedent to prevent secession. The first state to attempt secession will be labeled a word (like insurrectionist, fascist, racist, etc.) and then, like Ukraine, invaded.

Wait until you try to convince someone that brown is not black.

In the idea of race, isn't one of the races "ahead" of the other races? The point of race is to be racist.

That's the point of science.

Weird how science still claims race exists, even as they show a dark skinned scientist

When can we be post-race?