4 ms·

If you read past the headline to just the first bullet point, you don't even have to go past there: > The Federal Reserve announced sweeping new rules for its

If you read past the headline to just the first bullet point, you don't even have to go past there: > The Federal Reserve announced sweeping new rules for its top officials Thursday, banning trading in individual stocks and bonds. The top officials of the Fed. not congress people. The comments thread here is making me wonder if all HN comment threads are made up mostly of posters who haven't read beyond the headline.

gigatexal 5y ago
The Fed is setting the example here that congress should follow but won’t cuz it’s already too corrupted by representatives with conflicts of interest.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
I certainly don't read the article most of the time. The comments here are more interesting than the post. They're what I come here for. Besides, it's nearly certain that any important information will be directly quoted here in a comment.
MatmaRex 5y ago
You should assume that no one read the article. I certainly did not before coming to read the comments (although I have enough restraint to not comment myself on the substance of it when I do that). For better or worse, the title and the link is just a discussion prompt. The guidelines all but state that you're not expected to read it before commenting: > https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." In this case, someone should probably edit the title.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The guidelines all but state that you're not expected to read it before commenting: No, noting that accusations of not reading the article are never positive contributions to the discussion is not even in the neighborhood of advocating not reading the article. You can even point out that the article addresses a concern, as that is a useful contribution to the discussion.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > noting that accusations of not reading the article are never positive contributions to the discussion is not even in the neighborhood of advocating not reading the article. That depends on whether you believe that accusations of not reading the article tend to cause people to read the articles.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > That depends on whether you believe that accusations of not reading the article tend to cause people to read the articles. No, what it is fairly charcsterized as it was upthread does not depend on that. Whether you agree that it is generally good advice might depend on that, or more generally what the net effect of tolerating such accusations is on the tone and tenor of discussions. Having experienced online discussions in many fora since the 1980s, I tend to agree that accusations of not reading doing more harm than good, like most collateral attacks on presumed motive, background, or other reasons for a post you disagree with rather than addressing and supporting the substance of the disagreement directly.
buu700 5y ago
I was noticing the same thing. Got confused at the comments talking about Congress and thought maybe I'd missed something.
baby 5y ago
dang, title should probably be changed :o
_3u10 5y ago
This is perfect policy, the Fed affects macros not individual stocks so it sounds like the government is doing something when it’s ensuring that Fed officials are only investing in indexes / macros which is where Fed policies are likely to affect markets the greatest. In startup parlance the fed is the rising tide.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- landemva 5y ago
  Federal Reserve is not the government, and it's employees are not government workers. The Fed is a private cartel owned by large banks, which the government uses like a contactor to implement the setting of interest rates and purchasing of government debt.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    It is part of the government. Its not “owned” by anyone, similar to a non-profit. It was created by the Federal govt. It’s board of governors are employees of the govt. Similar to most major corporations the “ownership” is highly nuanced. It’s roughly equivalent to three share classes, the govt has the shares that pay dividends and most of the voting shares. Chartered banks hold some shares that have some voting rights, roughly equivalent to holding shares in a credit union. In some ways it’s a trust. As the beneficiary is the govt but it appoints a trustee and officially doesn’t own it. Defacto it’s owned and operated lock stock and barrel by the govt.
    - mraudiobook_com 5y ago
      Are the share holders ever individuals?
silexia 5y ago
I think that this is a fantastic start, but I agree that this should be extended to Congress and the president and the supreme Court. If we are to trust our leaders, We need to know they are working in our interest and not some random companies.

gigatexal 5y ago

The Fed is setting the example here that congress should follow but won’t cuz it’s already too corrupted by representatives with conflicts of interest.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

I certainly don't read the article most of the time. The comments here are more interesting than the post. They're what I come here for. Besides, it's nearly certain that any important information will be directly quoted here in a comment.

MatmaRex 5y ago

You should assume that no one read the article. I certainly did not before coming to read the comments (although I have enough restraint to not comment myself on the substance of it when I do that). For better or worse, the title and the link is just a discussion prompt. The guidelines all but state that you're not expected to read it before commenting: > https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." In this case, someone should probably edit the title.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The guidelines all but state that you're not expected to read it before commenting: No, noting that accusations of not reading the article are never positive contributions to the discussion is not even in the neighborhood of advocating not reading the article. You can even point out that the article addresses a concern, as that is a useful contribution to the discussion.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > noting that accusations of not reading the article are never positive contributions to the discussion is not even in the neighborhood of advocating not reading the article. That depends on whether you believe that accusations of not reading the article tend to cause people to read the articles.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That depends on whether you believe that accusations of not reading the article tend to cause people to read the articles. No, what it is fairly charcsterized as it was upthread does not depend on that. Whether you agree that it is generally good advice might depend on that, or more generally what the net effect of tolerating such accusations is on the tone and tenor of discussions. Having experienced online discussions in many fora since the 1980s, I tend to agree that accusations of not reading doing more harm than good, like most collateral attacks on presumed motive, background, or other reasons for a post you disagree with rather than addressing and supporting the substance of the disagreement directly.

buu700 5y ago

I was noticing the same thing. Got confused at the comments talking about Congress and thought maybe I'd missed something.

baby 5y ago

dang, title should probably be changed :o

_3u10 5y ago

This is perfect policy, the Fed affects macros not individual stocks so it sounds like the government is doing something when it’s ensuring that Fed officials are only investing in indexes / macros which is where Fed policies are likely to affect markets the greatest. In startup parlance the fed is the rising tide.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
landemva 5y ago
Federal Reserve is not the government, and it's employees are not government workers. The Fed is a private cartel owned by large banks, which the government uses like a contactor to implement the setting of interest rates and purchasing of government debt.
- _3u10 5y ago
  It is part of the government. Its not “owned” by anyone, similar to a non-profit. It was created by the Federal govt. It’s board of governors are employees of the govt. Similar to most major corporations the “ownership” is highly nuanced. It’s roughly equivalent to three share classes, the govt has the shares that pay dividends and most of the voting shares. Chartered banks hold some shares that have some voting rights, roughly equivalent to holding shares in a credit union. In some ways it’s a trust. As the beneficiary is the govt but it appoints a trustee and officially doesn’t own it. Defacto it’s owned and operated lock stock and barrel by the govt.
  - mraudiobook_com 5y ago
    Are the share holders ever individuals?

silexia 5y ago

I think that this is a fantastic start, but I agree that this should be extended to Congress and the president and the supreme Court. If we are to trust our leaders, We need to know they are working in our interest and not some random companies.