3 ms·

Good point. I'd be happy with any sort of blind trust where it's reasonably correlated with overall economic health.

by wpietri 5y ago

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>correlated with overall economic health. How is this measured?
- wpietri 5y ago
  That's the rub, of course. I suspect there's a whole array of valid measures sufficient to blunt incentives. We don't need something perfect, just enough so legislators don't gain so much that their pecuniary motivations override their duty to public service (and their fear of getting caught). Right now they can profit massively from legislation by betting on individual companies. If they're instead looking at a blind trust that contains a mix of index funds, bond funds, etc, then they still are aligned with the wealthy, which is certainly bad, but any gains they can drive for themselves become much smaller.
ryandrake 5y ago
I'd like to see a system where, while in office, a representative's income is hard capped at the median income (or some multiplier of median) of the people they represent. This could apply to the president, too.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  One could argue that such a policy actually just ends up incentivizing politicians to accept bribes. Then again, it isn't like the current salary of a congressman seems to be preventing that anyway.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Exactly. They should be able to live comfortably, so that they don't have to take bribes to survive. But wealth inequality in the US is so large that we can't pay them enough so they won't feel like they have to keep up with the joneses. If we made the salary, say, $10m/year we'd get the problem of totally unqualified loons pursuing the job and doing anything to keep it just because they wanted the money. So I think N times the median where N is between 1 and 10 is about the best we can do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

3 ms·

Good point. I'd be happy with any sort of blind trust where it's reasonably correlated with overall economic health.

by wpietri 5y ago

Good point. I'd be happy with any sort of blind trust where it's reasonably correlated with overall economic health.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>correlated with overall economic health. How is this measured?
- wpietri 5y ago
  That's the rub, of course. I suspect there's a whole array of valid measures sufficient to blunt incentives. We don't need something perfect, just enough so legislators don't gain so much that their pecuniary motivations override their duty to public service (and their fear of getting caught). Right now they can profit massively from legislation by betting on individual companies. If they're instead looking at a blind trust that contains a mix of index funds, bond funds, etc, then they still are aligned with the wealthy, which is certainly bad, but any gains they can drive for themselves become much smaller.
ryandrake 5y ago
I'd like to see a system where, while in office, a representative's income is hard capped at the median income (or some multiplier of median) of the people they represent. This could apply to the president, too.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  One could argue that such a policy actually just ends up incentivizing politicians to accept bribes. Then again, it isn't like the current salary of a congressman seems to be preventing that anyway.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Exactly. They should be able to live comfortably, so that they don't have to take bribes to survive. But wealth inequality in the US is so large that we can't pay them enough so they won't feel like they have to keep up with the joneses. If we made the salary, say, $10m/year we'd get the problem of totally unqualified loons pursuing the job and doing anything to keep it just because they wanted the money. So I think N times the median where N is between 1 and 10 is about the best we can do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]