4 ms·

Holding any elected position should come with a lifetime ban against holding stock in any publicly traded company, full stop. Congressman, president, sheriff, c

Holding any elected position should come with a lifetime ban against holding stock in any publicly traded company, full stop. Congressman, president, sheriff, county commissioner, I don't care. Either you're a public servant or you aren't. My position in the government wasn't even an elected one and I still believe the oath I took is fundamentally incompatible with holding stock.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>My position in the government wasn't even an elected one and I still believe the oath I took is fundamentally incompatible with holding stock. This is interesting, can you expand on why you feel this was at odds with public interest?
- Causality1 5y ago
  Two different ways, in my opinion. The most direct way was the part about serving the people of the United States. I can't do that in a neutral way while actively manipulating the economy, even slightly. The more indirect way is the oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. To me "true faith" means much more than following the letter of the law. By and large, companies big enough to IPO are amoral money machines that do all they can to bypass the laws regulating their behavior and ignore the rights of American citizens, and even getting caught is just a line item on their legal budget. I can't participate in a system like that while bearing true faith to my country and Constitution.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Thanks for the response. While I don't agree that stocks and companies are counter to the public good, I understand how someone could feel this way. How do you personally invest and save if you avoid stocks?
barrenko 5y ago
Really, all of our political problems were more or less solved in ancient Rome.
pwthornton 5y ago
A lifetime ban seems a bit extreme. I can see a ban on activities while in office and perhaps a little after, but a lifetime is a long time in the stock market. US officials should be investing in broad market index funds. It would allow them to still reap the benefits of owning stocks without the conflicts of interests. They should be betting on America, not individual companies. And without insider knowledge, they would have basically no chance of beating — or even competing — with index funds long term.
deelowe 5y ago
That's terribly easy to get around. The rich don't operate as sole proprietorships. Instead, it's a family business with money held in trusts and word of mouth contracts. "Falling out of favor with the family" is a euphemism for violating some form of an agreement. And when you hold public office, there are plenty options to deal with dissenters. Placing restrictions on what investments a person holding public office can hold is a very naive solution. Instead, acting on material nonpublic information is what should be against the law.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>My position in the government wasn't even an elected one and I still believe the oath I took is fundamentally incompatible with holding stock. This is interesting, can you expand on why you feel this was at odds with public interest?

Causality1 5y ago
Two different ways, in my opinion. The most direct way was the part about serving the people of the United States. I can't do that in a neutral way while actively manipulating the economy, even slightly. The more indirect way is the oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. To me "true faith" means much more than following the letter of the law. By and large, companies big enough to IPO are amoral money machines that do all they can to bypass the laws regulating their behavior and ignore the rights of American citizens, and even getting caught is just a line item on their legal budget. I can't participate in a system like that while bearing true faith to my country and Constitution.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Thanks for the response. While I don't agree that stocks and companies are counter to the public good, I understand how someone could feel this way. How do you personally invest and save if you avoid stocks?

barrenko 5y ago

Really, all of our political problems were more or less solved in ancient Rome.

pwthornton 5y ago

A lifetime ban seems a bit extreme. I can see a ban on activities while in office and perhaps a little after, but a lifetime is a long time in the stock market. US officials should be investing in broad market index funds. It would allow them to still reap the benefits of owning stocks without the conflicts of interests. They should be betting on America, not individual companies. And without insider knowledge, they would have basically no chance of beating — or even competing — with index funds long term.

deelowe 5y ago

That's terribly easy to get around. The rich don't operate as sole proprietorships. Instead, it's a family business with money held in trusts and word of mouth contracts. "Falling out of favor with the family" is a euphemism for violating some form of an agreement. And when you hold public office, there are plenty options to deal with dissenters. Placing restrictions on what investments a person holding public office can hold is a very naive solution. Instead, acting on material nonpublic information is what should be against the law.