3 ms·

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

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

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