5 ms·

Given the volume and profitably of tech trading by members of Congress (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2

Given the volume and profitably of tech trading by members of Congress (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601) I have ZERO confidence that any useful legislation will come of it. It will just be a bunch of earnest and disingenuous theatre by the very people profiting from a bunch of companies who make Microsoft circa 1995 look like a kitten. For my part, I think the fundamental business model of profiting from user engagement (where screen time is money) is toxic, and we can’t fix anything until we find a way to effectively eliminate it.

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
They could just as easily profit from shorting tech etc. True whales make money on the up and down.
- shockeychap 6y ago
  Fair point, but there’s less predictability (both in timing and valuations) on the way down. It’s also harder to disguise the insider nature of shorts based on upcoming legislation. On top of that, these companies spend millions on lobbying and have SO MUCH INFLUENCE among DC insiders that reform doesn’t have a chance. It’s more corrupt than anything Hollywood ever made about Big Oil.
  - JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
    I’ll agree with your second point. How can we begin fixing it?
    - leppr 6y ago
      Have citizens participate in writing legislation instead of deferring to a small entrenched elite? I believe our elders called it Democracy. Nowadays they call it decentralization.
      - mr_toad 6y ago
        > I believe our elders called it Democracy. Direct government by the people is sometimes called demarchy, in contrast to democracy. “The rule of the people has the fairest name of all.”
    - shockeychap 6y ago
      I’m not sure, but I think we have to start with Congressional reform. I don’t generally subscribe to the notion that legislating should be a lucrative, lifelong profession. I think term limits, pay reduction, and abolishment of the Congressional pension would be an excellent start. It would eliminate some of the career aspects of legislating while forcing lobbyists to regularly deal with new people, somewhat limiting their influence. However, getting this would require Congress to vote on something that’s against their own interest.
      - thejohnconway 6y ago
        If you make getting into politic an even less certain career, you’re going to limit it more and more to the independently wealthy.
      - TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
        I think Congressional term limits would be one of the easiest fixes for the current state of affairs. Overturning Citizens United and repealing the 17th would be great steps too. However, I think we should pay Congress people at least $1M/yr. Pay them like Fortune 100 CEO's. Make it so they don't even CARE about playing games with insider trading. If we want to run this capitalist country like the capitalists we think we are, then scrap the notion that Representatives were supposed to be farmers that went and represented their districts for a couple of sessions, and then went back to work. Pay them in a way that attracts truly talented people, instead of the usual suspects who have just enough intelligence to recognize that they have just enough EMOTIONAL intellect to handle the campaigning and the backroom dealings. Of course, then we get into the argument about whether the average Fortune CEO is really any more talented than the average representative, but you get the idea.
        shockeychap 6y ago
        The tone of this is a little hard to read, so forgive me if I've misread anything. I mostly agree with the other changes, except for increasing pay as a means of eliminating the motivation to play games. If there's one thing we've seen play out over and over, it's that excesses and greed just beget more greed. Look at the number of executives, financial managers, and politicians who already had vast wealth yet STILL engage in shenanigans. Furthermore, the job of legislating is an elected one, which means it will always go to those who are best able to convince the most people to vote for them (frequently by promises and pandering), not those who will do the best job. Now, I don't think legislators should get pauper's pay, but I also think we should do what we can to limit it's use as a career path for power and wealth. I have no problems with capitalism. If the market has healthy competition and the referees (regulations and the courts) are fair and transparent, capitalism is good. Unfortunately, many of those elements have gotten worse in recent decades. We regulate more than ever, but it's the small businesses who suffer the burden and have no real voice in DC. Capitalism done right means that I'm not upset by Wal-Mart's success, as it's kept in check by other companies like Amazon and Target. If you think anybody is invincible, take a look at what happened to Sears, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us. Capitalism done wrong means that big companies use regulations and unfair referees to keep out competition. The power wielded by FAANG today dwarfs anything Microsoft ever had.
    - kenny87 6y ago
      Very nice to see to genuine interest on HN in solving our Democracy's problems, instead the general cynicism, apathy and self-interest we all too often see. But to be fair, I think it's first important to realize that we are discussing historical forces. The kind of movements that we all read about in school, are happening now. And I think when we look at history we'll see that social forces strong enough to reform empires have always started in the marginalized communities. Our role here is to become active participants, on a day-to-day basis, in these communities and aid them, both technically and morally, in building -- and here is the key concept -- decentralized quasi-autonomous [1] communities. No amount of reform, sorry being a cynic, will "fix" Washington and its relationship with "corporate capitalism". The Supreme Court settled this question, campaign money is "free speech". [2] But we can build new social structures in the gaps. It happened about 2,000 years in empire built in Rome. Why not today? [1] http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admin.htm http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Shorting is much more legally risky. SEC basically doesn’t view shorts as investors, and that has interesting outcome. The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit. But causing stock to go down opens you to much higher liability, for hurting investors. And if you profit of it via short, you’re in much more legal risk.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit. They clearly do, as we've seen with musk's "funding secured" tweet.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      Do they? He got financial slap on his wrist, didn’t have to admit to any wrong doing, kept absolute power in the company, ignored any corrective actions of the settlement, and continues to pump stock on weekly basis, to a place that made him one of the richest people in the world. And in the free time he’s pumping other meme investments, just for fun. SEC vs Musk is perfect example of how powerless/not interested in pumping stock schemes regulators are. Until stock start to go down, then they get more power.
      - brigade 6y ago
        On the other hand, did Musk ever get in trouble for his “stock price too high” tweet?
        dan-robertson 6y ago
        CEOs say all the time that the stock is too low (musk was weird for saying high). They can express an opinion. They can’t make a false material statement of fact
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
You can profit when a stock tanks too.
undefined1 6y ago
wow, you're not kidding. what are the chances they are going to bite their main investments and key donor class? "About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-electi... https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-election-donation-breakdown-ranking/ https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-elec... https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valley-fundraising-donald-trump-joe-biden-analysis https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valle...
- hn8788 6y ago
  Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook flat out told them "we're on the same side" when they allowed them to abuse the same API Cambridge Analytica did.
  - yao420 6y ago
    Facebook, like all corporations, play every politician. What do you think Trump and Zuckerberg talked about when they would have dinner at the White House?
- NationalPark 6y ago
  It's a little misleading to quote that without the context. The "98%" number is referring specifically to personal donations by the CEOs of tech companies (out of those who donated politically to someone at all) in the 2020 presidential election, not to political contributions from the companies they run.
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  There’s two ways to look at donations from companies. When you donate to a political campaign in the us you need to write down your employer. So one way to look at it is by looking at where eg all the donations from people employed by Google went (big surprise: democrats, but also, the kind of democrats who have safe seats and policies to rein in big tech companies). Another way to look at it is to look at the PACs run by tech companies. These are paid into by employees (often they may sign up to give some small amount of their pay automatically, and then forget about it), but they tend to make donations in the companies interests (mainly to an assortment of politicians with an aim to be balanced in some way) and do not lean massively towards democrats, or even towards politicians that align with the companies’ stated values (I’m talking about values that tend to be pro-immigration or pro-lgbt for example here). Two big tech companies that don’t have a PAC are Apple and IBM. Microsoft has one that disappears for a few months when employees start complaining about it (but it doesn’t ask for its donations back from politicians which it can do with likely success)

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago

They could just as easily profit from shorting tech etc. True whales make money on the up and down.

shockeychap 6y ago
Fair point, but there’s less predictability (both in timing and valuations) on the way down. It’s also harder to disguise the insider nature of shorts based on upcoming legislation. On top of that, these companies spend millions on lobbying and have SO MUCH INFLUENCE among DC insiders that reform doesn’t have a chance. It’s more corrupt than anything Hollywood ever made about Big Oil.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  I’ll agree with your second point. How can we begin fixing it?
  - leppr 6y ago
    Have citizens participate in writing legislation instead of deferring to a small entrenched elite? I believe our elders called it Democracy. Nowadays they call it decentralization.
    - mr_toad 6y ago
      > I believe our elders called it Democracy. Direct government by the people is sometimes called demarchy, in contrast to democracy. “The rule of the people has the fairest name of all.”
  - shockeychap 6y ago
    I’m not sure, but I think we have to start with Congressional reform. I don’t generally subscribe to the notion that legislating should be a lucrative, lifelong profession. I think term limits, pay reduction, and abolishment of the Congressional pension would be an excellent start. It would eliminate some of the career aspects of legislating while forcing lobbyists to regularly deal with new people, somewhat limiting their influence. However, getting this would require Congress to vote on something that’s against their own interest.
    - thejohnconway 6y ago
      If you make getting into politic an even less certain career, you’re going to limit it more and more to the independently wealthy.
    - TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
      I think Congressional term limits would be one of the easiest fixes for the current state of affairs. Overturning Citizens United and repealing the 17th would be great steps too. However, I think we should pay Congress people at least $1M/yr. Pay them like Fortune 100 CEO's. Make it so they don't even CARE about playing games with insider trading. If we want to run this capitalist country like the capitalists we think we are, then scrap the notion that Representatives were supposed to be farmers that went and represented their districts for a couple of sessions, and then went back to work. Pay them in a way that attracts truly talented people, instead of the usual suspects who have just enough intelligence to recognize that they have just enough EMOTIONAL intellect to handle the campaigning and the backroom dealings. Of course, then we get into the argument about whether the average Fortune CEO is really any more talented than the average representative, but you get the idea.
      - shockeychap 6y ago
        The tone of this is a little hard to read, so forgive me if I've misread anything. I mostly agree with the other changes, except for increasing pay as a means of eliminating the motivation to play games. If there's one thing we've seen play out over and over, it's that excesses and greed just beget more greed. Look at the number of executives, financial managers, and politicians who already had vast wealth yet STILL engage in shenanigans. Furthermore, the job of legislating is an elected one, which means it will always go to those who are best able to convince the most people to vote for them (frequently by promises and pandering), not those who will do the best job. Now, I don't think legislators should get pauper's pay, but I also think we should do what we can to limit it's use as a career path for power and wealth. I have no problems with capitalism. If the market has healthy competition and the referees (regulations and the courts) are fair and transparent, capitalism is good. Unfortunately, many of those elements have gotten worse in recent decades. We regulate more than ever, but it's the small businesses who suffer the burden and have no real voice in DC. Capitalism done right means that I'm not upset by Wal-Mart's success, as it's kept in check by other companies like Amazon and Target. If you think anybody is invincible, take a look at what happened to Sears, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us. Capitalism done wrong means that big companies use regulations and unfair referees to keep out competition. The power wielded by FAANG today dwarfs anything Microsoft ever had.
  - kenny87 6y ago
    Very nice to see to genuine interest on HN in solving our Democracy's problems, instead the general cynicism, apathy and self-interest we all too often see. But to be fair, I think it's first important to realize that we are discussing historical forces. The kind of movements that we all read about in school, are happening now. And I think when we look at history we'll see that social forces strong enough to reform empires have always started in the marginalized communities. Our role here is to become active participants, on a day-to-day basis, in these communities and aid them, both technically and morally, in building -- and here is the key concept -- decentralized quasi-autonomous [1] communities. No amount of reform, sorry being a cynic, will "fix" Washington and its relationship with "corporate capitalism". The Supreme Court settled this question, campaign money is "free speech". [2] But we can build new social structures in the gaps. It happened about 2,000 years in empire built in Rome. Why not today? [1] http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admin.htm http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
justapassenger 6y ago
Shorting is much more legally risky. SEC basically doesn’t view shorts as investors, and that has interesting outcome. The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit. But causing stock to go down opens you to much higher liability, for hurting investors. And if you profit of it via short, you’re in much more legal risk.
- gruez 6y ago
  >The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit. They clearly do, as we've seen with musk's "funding secured" tweet.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Do they? He got financial slap on his wrist, didn’t have to admit to any wrong doing, kept absolute power in the company, ignored any corrective actions of the settlement, and continues to pump stock on weekly basis, to a place that made him one of the richest people in the world. And in the free time he’s pumping other meme investments, just for fun. SEC vs Musk is perfect example of how powerless/not interested in pumping stock schemes regulators are. Until stock start to go down, then they get more power.
    - brigade 6y ago
      On the other hand, did Musk ever get in trouble for his “stock price too high” tweet?
      - dan-robertson 6y ago
        CEOs say all the time that the stock is too low (musk was weird for saying high). They can express an opinion. They can’t make a false material statement of fact

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

You can profit when a stock tanks too.

undefined1 6y ago

wow, you're not kidding. what are the chances they are going to bite their main investments and key donor class? "About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-electi... https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-election-donation-breakdown-ranking/ https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-elec... https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valley-fundraising-donald-trump-joe-biden-analysis https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/10/30/21540616/silicon-valle...

hn8788 6y ago
Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook flat out told them "we're on the same side" when they allowed them to abuse the same API Cambridge Analytica did.
- yao420 6y ago
  Facebook, like all corporations, play every politician. What do you think Trump and Zuckerberg talked about when they would have dinner at the White House?
NationalPark 6y ago
It's a little misleading to quote that without the context. The "98%" number is referring specifically to personal donations by the CEOs of tech companies (out of those who donated politically to someone at all) in the 2020 presidential election, not to political contributions from the companies they run.
dan-robertson 6y ago
There’s two ways to look at donations from companies. When you donate to a political campaign in the us you need to write down your employer. So one way to look at it is by looking at where eg all the donations from people employed by Google went (big surprise: democrats, but also, the kind of democrats who have safe seats and policies to rein in big tech companies). Another way to look at it is to look at the PACs run by tech companies. These are paid into by employees (often they may sign up to give some small amount of their pay automatically, and then forget about it), but they tend to make donations in the companies interests (mainly to an assortment of politicians with an aim to be balanced in some way) and do not lean massively towards democrats, or even towards politicians that align with the companies’ stated values (I’m talking about values that tend to be pro-immigration or pro-lgbt for example here). Two big tech companies that don’t have a PAC are Apple and IBM. Microsoft has one that disappears for a few months when employees start complaining about it (but it doesn’t ask for its donations back from politicians which it can do with likely success)