32 ms·

Pelosi defends stock trading by lawmakers. ‘We are a free-market economy’

• jnmandal 5y ago
  At this point, the country is run by a gerontocracy, and they are blatantly grasping at the last scraps of their grift as the ship goes down. It's sad to see -- really pathetic.
  • 3glkjlkjgr 5y ago
    Most of our politicians should be shot.
  • disambiguation 5y ago
    It's amazing these people keep getting voted back in too.
    • rootusrootus 5y ago
      It's the same old problem. Everyone hates Congress, but loves their own Congressman. And tribal politics being what it is, nobody wants to throw away their vote on a third-party because they're worried that will cause The Other Side to win.
      • DoctorOW 5y ago
        I mean that's literally true though. Every election in the foreseeable future will pretty much always be won by one of the two parties. As the parent comment points out they've got millions of dollars put in to generating tons of outreach. Do you honestly believe an internet comment is comparable?
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
    • bmeski 5y ago
      Your plane will likely crash if you don't toe the line. edit: Tow => toe
      • gruez 5y ago
        the phrase is "toe the line"
        • bmeski 5y ago
          oof. thank you lol.
    • tablespoon 5y ago
      > It's amazing these people keep getting voted back in too. It's a two-party system, you have to vote for one of them! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYsZUMuj0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYsZUMuj0M, The Simpsons S8E1 - Treehouse of Horror VII - Kang and Kodos Or more accurately, they've gotten really good at getting people to focus on hating the other guy or getting wrapped up in partisan BS.
      • gorwell 5y ago
        How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries.
        • tablespoon 5y ago
          >> How many times are we going to fall for `This is the most important election of our lives!`. It's always about choosing the lesser evil. Every time. And then nothing changes. > Andrew Yang has the right idea. We need to break the duopoly by implementing Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Primaries. Those sound like a technical solutions to a social problem.
          • lawrenceyan 5y ago
            Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief.
            • tablespoon 5y ago
              > Why can’t technical solutions help to simplify/ease the social problem? It’s clearly not the only thing required, but it would provide some major relief. They can be part of a more holistic solution, but here they were presented as the solution. And if you only have half a solution, it may turn out to be half of the wrong one.
    • mitigating 5y ago
      If I have a choice between someone who used insider trading to make money and someone who lied about election fraud, a direct attack on democracy, I choose the least evil (or best of) the two people. I wish there was a third party system.
      • jaywalk 5y ago
        The fact that you felt compelled to say what you just did (which is patently absurd) is why our democracy is failing.
    • spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Most people vote against the other other guys. I don't think anybody really wants Pelosi or Biden but they just look at the alternatives. It's a sad state of affairs that you can only choose between two bad choices.
  • brodouevencode 5y ago
    gerontocracy: Government based on rule by elders.
  • jeffbee 5y ago
    [flagged]
    • throwaway75787 5y ago
      It's her sanctimony that settles it. Claiming to be righteous in the face of Trump/Republicans' sins (and believe me, I have no special love for that). Similar with people like Hillary acting like they are owed the election. Meanwhile people in the heartland are pissing in bottles, hoping to get another dollar per hour, and getting killed by tornadoes because they are not allowed to leave their shift at the warehouse. While she's defending grift to earn millions more. It's filthy. So this is how we go out, not with a bang but with a whimper. So much for "all men (and women) are created equal".
      • devmunchies 5y ago
        > It's filthy. So this is how we go out, not with a bang but with a whimper. agree. and we just have to watch >So much for "all men (and women) are created equal" created equal != retain equal value
    • dntrkv 5y ago
      What do you find gross about that? That there are people suffering while others are well-off? That rich, powerful people are friends with other rich, powerful people? Not seeing how that makes Pelosi particularly "gross."
      • jeffbee 5y ago
        > That there are people suffering while others are well-off? See, you got it in just a single guess. Good job!
        • dntrkv 5y ago
          How does that make Pelosi particularly gross? That applies to any person that’s well off.
  • therealdrag0 5y ago
    What's wrong with a gerontocracy and how does that relate in any way to stock trading?
    • pixelatedindex 5y ago
      Folks who are over 60 years of age should not be making and setting rules for an entire country to follow. When you're that old, you're stuck in the past and the laws don't move forward with the public. Think of how many times you've to explain to your grandparents how "things are different now". A gerontocracy doesn't directly relate to stock trading, but this old woman is saying very absurd things.
      • thehappypm 5y ago
        This is ageism, folks.
        • raxxorrax 5y ago
          This descriptor is idiotic, although the assumption that 30 year old senators would fare better on corruption accounts is as well.
      • spaetzleesser 5y ago
        I agree. I am in my 50s and I can barely relate to the world my younger colleagues in their 20s live in. I can't even imagine how far people in their 70s and 80s are removed from the reality of younger people. They shouldn't make any decisions for the future of a country.
  • oh_sigh 5y ago
    Just wait...the geriatrics will die soon enough as they necessarily do, and then all of the resources they've squirreled away will be inherited by their heirs who have even fewer scruples or talents than their parents.
• backtoyoujim 5y ago
  Pelosi's criticisms of Trump's egregious financial abuse of power in the office of the President of the United State looks a lot more hollow now.
  • onemoresoop 5y ago
    I don't think they look hollow, there was financial abuse. The media narratives made it look like he was the only one which is blatantly false. Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks who have different agendas but share the same destructive traits.
• CalChris 5y ago
  The post-Watergate Ethics In Government Act [1] requires blind trusts for certain executive officials. It should apply to Congress as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act
• subsubzero 5y ago
  Having congress not trade stocks does not inhibit the free market economy. In facts it makes it even more free by not allowing people in government with inside information to make money off of and manipulate the market to their liking. I've said it on so many of my other comments but no member of congress should be allowed to trade securities(or their immediate family members).
• GuB-42 5y ago
  And who is going to draft a law preventing lawmakers from trading stock? Generally, lawmakers have some kind of immunity to prevent conflicts of interest like these. But for the same reason the usual laws don't apply to them, the usual "free market economy" shouldn't either. But who is going to stop them?
• Bostonian 5y ago
  Owning individual stocks encourages lawmakers to think about how their legislation affects businesses, which is a good thing. I think stock trades should be disclosed online the same evening that they are placed, so that the information that senators and congressman are acting on is quickly disseminated.
  • benttoothpaste 5y ago
    Right. Lawmakers should follow the regular insider trading rules. They should be considered insiders for all their trades.
    • willcipriano 5y ago
      I'd do it the other way around, I expect senators to abstain if they even have a whiff of conflict of interest.
  • jstrodd 5y ago
    > how their legislation affects businesses Especially the businesses they own shares of...
  • KoftaBob 5y ago
    You could say the exact same thing about decision makers at a public company, and yet they're barred from trading their company stock on information that wasn't public at the time of the trade.
  • pdonis 5y ago
    > I think stock trades should be disclosed online the same evening that they are placed That's not the normal insider trading rule. The normal insider trading rule is that you cannot trade on inside information at all. > so that the information that senators and congressman are acting on is quickly disseminated. The way to do that is to disseminate the information before making any trades, so everyone has an opportunity to decide whether they want to trade on it.
    • 5y ago
• pibechorro 5y ago
  As long as people like her are powerful we are not. The US has long stopped being a free market. Too big to fail guaranteed it.
  • me_me_me 5y ago
    USA was never pure free market, the whole principle of check and balances is at odds of free market ideology. If you dont regulate market you get raw sewage in your rivers the next day its allowed. Anyway, just imagine if the thin line of law that is currently barely stopping rich at the moment, just stopped applying all of the sudden... Count to ten... pooof... And we all hail our beloved King Bezos the first, and the return of feudalism.
    • mcv 5y ago
      Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market, as long as the same rules apply to everybody. In fact, externalising your costs by polluting rivers could be considered anti-free market, because you're letting others pay for your costs. It's no different from theft. Insider trading, however, is anti-free market, because you're relying on an information disparity to gain an advantage.
      • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market" Free market is like the shroudinger's cat, everyone has a different idea of where it is. In the other thread people were claiming that having a central bank is anti-free-market, but it's unclear how interest rate should be set and money supply be created and regulated.
      • peterangular 5y ago
        > Regulation isn't necessarily opposed to a free market In fact, it's required for any market to exist in the first place. Without regulation the concept of ownership goes out the window. "Free markets" would look like anarchy... and exactly as you lay out in the river analogy it would be utter chaos with everyone acting in their best interest like "damn the consequences!" - it's human nature. Sorry if I'm coming off as abrupt here - I'm aggressively agreeing and building on your point... IMO the markets require regulation when all is said and done. People who point to a "free market" often do so to shield themselves from the same regulations/rules that are designed to keep the markets afloat just like Pelosi has done here. It's gotten to the point that the words "free market" are almost always a sign of a bad faith argument.
• AndyMcConachie 5y ago
  They're just unrepentent criminals at this point.
  • jasonlotito 5y ago
    But they aren't. They aren't breaking the law. Unless you want to call yourself a criminal.
    • publicexecution 5y ago
      Well, actually they are breaking the law, dumbass.
• abbassi 5y ago
  It was always like this. Fairness in class society is a illusion!
  • mantas 5y ago
    Assuming that „classless“ society would be fair..
• isoblvck 5y ago
  are we ? awful lot of rent seeking and cronyism in this "free market" outside of a few fringe auctions there has never ever been a competitive market ever.
• 19f191ty 5y ago
  Sure, but if the regulators of that economy have a built in conflict of interest then that free market can't be sustained for long.
• thrwy_918 5y ago
  "We are a free-market economy" is simply not a defense of congress members being able to trade individual stocks with no restrictions. Free-market economies still take measures against insider trading, still place limits on how and when high-ranking executives can trade company stock. Placing restrictions on how congress members can trade, when they have access to material non-public information, is totally compatible with a free-market economy. This is not a defense, it's a dismissal.
  • dsizzle 5y ago
    They do have to report their positions. Not sure if that's a "restriction" per se, but that is something that insiders have to do as well, and it's something retail traders do not have to do. If they are using insider information so effectively, anyone is free to copy their moves, no? EDIT: That they only report 45 days after the fact is indeed a significant difference from company insiders and severely limits how well someone could profit by following along.
    • rootusrootus 5y ago
      How quickly do they have to report their investment activity? If it's not immediate, then no, anyone is not free to copy their moves.
    • pfortuny 5y ago
      Their moves are known ex post facto.
    • voisin 5y ago
      Not sure about congress but for corporate insiders and major investors the reporting is quarterly so likely not as useful if trading on inside info (which tends to disseminate faster).
    • hef19898 5y ago
      Having worked for a couple of publicly US-listed companies, when you have access to material data you had to adhere to strictly defined trade windows, among a load of other things. Being in Supply Chain, with obvious access to forecasts and inventories, I always fall under insider trading rules. Why law makers would be exempt is beyond me.
• cryptica 5y ago
  I don't think anybody believes that we still have a free market. IMO, based on the current unfree market, politicians should not be allowed to trade stocks and it should be illegal for any large corporation to fire employees for any reason (except maybe by majority vote).
• ceejayoz 5y ago
  > But when asked whether lawmakers and their spouses should be prohibited from trading stock while in Congress, Pelosi said, “No,” adding that “this is a free market.” I get iffier on this when you regulate family members. Children? Siblings? Parents? You'd be forcing a good number of Congressional spouses to retire if you implemented this without a gradual implementation. I'd like to see lawmakers subject to similar restrictions as other insiders; having to openly plan their stock sales/purchases at least several months out. If you want a more actively managed portfolio than that, hire a financial firm to run a blind trust for you.
  • kradroy 5y ago
    For spouses I don't see a problem. In the US spouses cannot be forced to testify against one another in court. So (also) barring a spouse from benefitting from insider trading seems a fair trade-off.
  • BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"You'd be forcing a good number of Congressional spouses to retire if you implemented this without a gradual implementation." Call me jaded, but boo-hoo, so be it. The power and privileges that come with being so close to someone in power surely make up for the loss of being able to trade stocks.
    • ViViDboarder 5y ago
      If you’re not in house leadership, salaries are around $174,000. Depending on where someone is in their life (children in college, mortgage, etc) this may not be enough to be a single income earner in a family. Not saying that family members should have unfettered abilities to trade, but having to use something like a trading plan or announcing trades prior or even just (gasp) enforcing insider trading laws against them, would be terrific.
      • TigeriusKirk 5y ago
        That's 86th percentile for US household income. They can make do. Welcome to public service.
• more_corn 5y ago
  The crime is insider trading. They have information the rest of the market does not. This is already against the law. If we really care about the law we need to enforce it even when the rich and powerful break it.
  • FredPret 5y ago
    It’s a crime for corporate insiders under certain circumstances. What she’s doing is perfectly legal, even if clearly immoral.
    • monocasa 5y ago
      Insider trading has been illegal for congressmen and women for almost ten years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
      • FredPret 5y ago
        I stand corrected. Now let’s hope they enforce the Stock Act.
  • ludamad 5y ago
    "Insider trading is about theft, not fairness". Many sophisticated traders have proprietary information on their positions. The key is the conflict of interest
    • elliekelly 5y ago
      I disagree. It is about fairness to some degree. Insider trading undermines the integrity of market. Which is why Pelosi's statement here is so absurd.
      • ludamad 5y ago
        I'm quoting Matt Levine, who is in turn summarizing the state of US law. That's not my personal philosophy, ftr
• infocollector 5y ago
  Not sure if these family connections of Pelosi are widely known : https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/01/gavin-newsoms-keeping-it-all-in-the-family/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/01/gavin-newsoms-keep...
  • ceejayoz 5y ago
    You'd have to be fairly delusional not to expect these sorts of connections to arise. Arnold Schwarzenegger married into the Kennedy family; their dating pool is largely other highly-connected political folks. Same reason celebrities largely date other celebrities.
  • publicexecution 5y ago
    After Pelosi is executed Newsom should be next. Hair Gel NAZI FUCK!
• pirate787 5y ago
  This issue a symptom of the underlying problem --- the activist US government influences outcomes in every market -- indeed the feds pick the winners and losers in many markets through spending, tax benefits, and regulations. The true reform is to limit the size and scope of the government and return it to being a neutral referee of the private sector.
  • BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"The true reform is to limit the size and scope of the government and return it to being a neutral referee of the private sector." In principle yes, but this really does seem like an impossibly idealistic goal. We would practically have to repeal the last 150 years of American government, probably more, to get back to semblance of this ideal. It would also require a fundamental cultural shift in how the citizenry views the role of government. From my perspective the younger generations yearn for more government intervention, not less. You would have to undo that mindset through multiple decades of influence.
    • tastyfreeze 5y ago
      I agree. The only way I see such reform happening in less than a generation is an Article 5 convention. A convention can strip the government of all unconstitutional power it has acquired and make amendments to attempt to prevent the same power creep that has occurred over the last 150 years. One thing I think our Constitution needs is an explicitly protected right of nullification. That adds an additional check on passed laws for when multiple branches of government are aligned with the same faction. We are currently seeing some states practice their implicit right of nullification and it is beautiful.
• arbuge 5y ago
  I think she should simply resign at this point. Yes, we're an free-market economy, or at least an imperfect approximation of that. No, that doesn't mean insider trading is ok. And since lawmakers are privy to information that can materially move stocks, and is not always generally known to the public, they should definitely qualify as insiders.
  • mitigating 5y ago
    Just her? Not every other lawmaker?
    • arbuge 5y ago
      Perhaps there should be others (GOP Sen Richard Burr particularly comes to mind after last year's incident), but at this point it seems to me she should be the first to go. She's the speaker of the house. With greater power comes greater responsibility, to set a good example in this case, rather than to reinforce bad behavior. Changes comes from the top, and the buck stops there.
• rootusrootus 5y ago
  Shouldn't be that hard to solve, IMO. Congress members should be required to rebalance their portfolio into index funds for the duration of their term. Family members should be subject to insider trading regulation, and the congress member considered an insider.
  • lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Define family member. Also, everyone in the US is already subject to insider trading regulations.
    • elliekelly 5y ago
      This is a solved problem. Employees of RIAs have the same trading restrictions. The SEC's adopting release[1] of the RIA Code of Ethics requirements gives a pretty good overview of how it works in the "Personal Securities Trading" section. Each RIA firm has their own policy implementing the rule but here's an example of how family is typically defined from a random firm's policy I found via DDG: > “Immediate Family” generally means any relative by blood or marriage living in the individual’s household, any domestic partner or other minor child residing in his or her household and, whether or not living in the individual’s household, any other relative with respect to whose investments the individual has influence or control. [1]https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2256.htm#P72_13634 https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ia-2256.htm#P72_13634
      • mitigating 5y ago
        If that's the case then I would just tell my friend insider information that helps him then wait for him to tell me info as well.
        • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
          And I can steal my neighbour's bike from the common bike room, both could land you in jail if it's ever discovered. This is not some kind lf 'goctcha, i am so smart', all accountants, bank employees and traders are subject to these industry-standard restrictions.
• unethical_ban 5y ago
  It seems so obvious. I work for a publicly traded company. I am only allowed to purchase stock in the company during certain windows, and IIRC, only in certain amounts. I can't trade or play with options related to the stock at any other time. When I worked for a bank (in IT, but still) there was plenty of training on not making trades on non-public knowledge. --- On one hand, I understand how a blanket ban on stock trading would seem harsh, but it seems there is no alternative given the feckless enforcement of existing insider trading regs in Congress. They should all be offered a series of mutual fund options with different growth/risk targets, kind of like 401k packages, and that be that. Pelosi saying "it's a free market" is a non sequitur. It's angering and embarrassing that she is so incompetent or brazenly dismissive of real concerns. I really hope that we get just enough "clean" politicians in the near future to drive popular will towards more transparency and regulation on the topic.
  • rootusrootus 5y ago
    > I work for a publicly traded company. I am only allowed to purchase stock in the company during certain windows, and IIRC, only in certain amounts. I can't trade or play with options related to the stock at any other time. I assume you are an officer at the company in question? I've never heard of a general restriction on employees buying stock in their own publicly traded company, aside from specific employees in certain positions.
    • kevinventullo 5y ago
      Both Facebook and Google have these restrictions for every single employee.
      • rootusrootus 5y ago
        So this is a restriction from the company itself, then, not a law?
        • kevinventullo 5y ago
• imchillyb 5y ago
  We are /NOT/ a free-market economy. There is no /freedom/ in our markets. There are plenty of items that are unavailable. There are plenty of restrictions on trade. There are massive tariffs on trade. There are limits on the amount of monies spent or earned. The concept of a free-market scares the politicians in America, and those politicians do everything in their power to prevent exactly that; a free-market.
  • afpx 5y ago
    Which countries would you consider being closest to free-market?
    • Joker_vD 5y ago
      Russia in the 90-ies: everything was up to sale, including human lives, government itself (all three branches), all kinds of property imaginable, and enforcement or non-enforcement of contracts. They're commonly named as "holy nineties" amongst the wealthy people who built their wealth (and managed to survive) during those years: no excessive bureaucracy, all problems could be solved (for the right price) with a single phone call to the right people. Paragon of freedom and efficiency! Of course, the rest of the population who also managed to survive the nineties remember them in much, much less rosy terms... and there were quite some number of those who did not survive, but eh, why care about those losers? As the first Minister of Economy and Finances of Russia himself said, "we're living during the tectonic changes and reforms, and the death of those who were incapable to adapt to the market is an inevitable part of the process".
  • ceejayoz 5y ago
    By those criteria, no free market exists in any significant capacity, and you get into the sort of "Communism would work if people cooperated!" silliness territory.
    • me_me_me 5y ago
      > and you get into the sort of "Communism would work if people cooperated!" silliness territory. What are you on about? Lets run a quick thought test: Are you for or against people selling: - bio-weapons to kids on the street? - heroin? What about sending money to North Korea? What about... you get the point Free-Market means no restriction on market, the magical self-regulation will restrict undesired transactions somehow. What modern economies have are: Open, fair markets, overseen by governments to ensure its fair and open. They are not somehow communist because they regulate and ensure baby milk is free of heavy metals and paint has no lead in it.
• chmod600 5y ago
  That's just a way to twist the issue into a political dig against laissez-faire people. It's not a real defense because she's too powerful to need a defense.
• cestith 5y ago
  Having insiders with information not available to the market is not a free market.
• nathias 5y ago
  Nice let them eat cake moment.
• thrower123 5y ago
  This would be less of a severe issue if congress-critter was merely something you did for one or two terms, rather than a permanent career. The Roman cursus honorum had many flaws, but enforcing an up-or-out mentality that discouraged officials lurking in the same position for forty years was not one of them.
  • nescioquid 5y ago
    > enforcing an up-or-out mentality You win your first election as Quaestor, then you are a senator for life (provided you maintain the minimum property qualification of 2 million sesterces). But to win higher magistracies, there are fewer offices and the competition is more intense. Not exactly up-or-out, but I see what you mean. Especially in an honor-based society, no one wanted to be the perpetually junior senator. But yes, you would not find the same person monopolizing a magistracy for 40 years.
• cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
  It's like Venezuela where the connected-to-the-government people could exchange their bolivars for dollars at a much more favorable rate than everyone else.
  • danlugo92 5y ago
    Also in Turkey and Argentina.
• newaccount2021 5y ago
  if Trump had said this the internet would have gone batshit
• reducesuffering 5y ago
  I give most US politicians the benefit of the doubt. They are usually loathed, but I believe do want to make things better as opposed to enrich themselves. So they can start acting like it. Your job is bigger than yourself now. You are the highest of public servant. The cost of money-motivated grifters and immense distrust from the public is far greater than the cost of losing a few people who would be good politicians but need to live lavishly. Financial transparency above and beyond regular citizens, middle income, middle housing. That's a fair shake. How can you stay in touch with the average citizen when you have three lavish estates?
• analog31 5y ago
  I definitely don't like the idea of insider trading by lawmakers, for all of the reasons that are obvious to everybody. On the other hand, if they put their money in a blind trust, the conflict is still there. My reasoning is that the blind trust will still want to put their money in the "best" investment, and the lawmakers can influence which investment is "best" through policy and legislation. The easiest example that I see is the continued long term growth of the stock and the real estate markets. (Disclosure, I'm invested in those markets too). It's pretty easy to imagine passing stock- and real estate-friendly legislation, which is great for me, but not necessarily great for society as a whole, and not necessarily done by any kind of majority consent. But at least in the case of a blind trust, while you can't eliminate conflict of interest altogether, at least it makes the conflict more transparent.
  • Zigurd 5y ago
    Better than nothing. It would stop corruption by specific companies and industry lobbyists. Election finance reform is needed, too. Representatives should represent people no matter how much or how little money those people have. No system is going to be perfect but there are some obvious departures from the ideal that can be reduced.
• scythe 5y ago
  Fun fact: Nancy Pelosi beats the stock market. She does very well in options trading. https://www.fineprintdata.com/post/pelosistocks https://www.fineprintdata.com/post/pelosistocks A recent example: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nancy-pelosi-buys-tesla-calls-191017279.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nancy-pelosi-buys-tesla-calls...
  • ceejayoz 5y ago
    > The purchases could have been done by Pelosi or her husband Paul, who runs a venture capital firm. I mean, my kids have beaten the stock market over the last two years, largely for the same reason; I put some of their allowance into Tesla shares with them.
    • scythe 5y ago
      Are your kids trading options?
      • ceejayoz 5y ago
        We're not quite there on the financial education, but they're certainly benefiting from Tesla's rise.
• comeonseriously 5y ago
  Wouldn't this mean that it is NOT a free market? If she is somehow privy to information that I'm not and laws don't seem to be able to touch politicians, then I just don't see how this can be a free market.
• francisofascii 5y ago
  Maybe a solution is they have to notify the public a few days before a trade. Pelosi to sell X shares of XYZ company at a price $Z or above.
• notch656a 5y ago
  I agree we are a free-market economy. This means Pelosi has a mandate to eliminate all taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and business regulations as they distort the free market. Practice what you preach.
• joenot443 5y ago
  There was a Twitter account which tracked Pelosi and her husband's stock trades which has since been banned. [1] [1] https://www.theblaze.com/news/twitter-bans-popular-accounts-that-tracked-ghislaine-maxwell-trial-and-nancy-pelosis-stock-trades https://www.theblaze.com/news/twitter-bans-popular-accounts-... (Apologies for the tabloidy source)
  • danuker 5y ago
    Where can I keep track of lawmaker stock market trades now?
    • pixelatedindex 5y ago
      IIRC Quiver Quant does that for you.
    • mdorazio 5y ago
      There are a few sites. For example: https://www.quiverquant.com/sources/senatetrading https://www.quiverquant.com/sources/senatetrading
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• blululu 5y ago
  This is a pretty click bait title. Banning congress people and their families from trading any stock altogether is pretty extreme. There are laws against using material non public information in trades that are clearly being violated and these laws should be enforced and strengthened. An outright ban is a bit of a big imposition. Creating narrow trading windows, or requiring trades to be pre-planned are both reasonable approaches, but the article focuses instead on the most extreme form of restriction and ignores any of the more reasonable reforms.
  • dcist 5y ago
    It's not extreme. Being a politician should not be financially rewarding, period.
    • blululu 5y ago
      Agreed that being a politician should not be financially rewarding. There are lots of policy initiatives that can achieve this end. Using insider information is already illegal, but poorly enforced (probably the easiest step here). Implementing restricted trading windows or insisting that people plan their trades ~3 months in advance is also a reasonable policy that is common practice among senior executives at large corporations. Banning people from trading stocks outright is actually quite extreme in America. Basic things like saving for retirement or buying a home effectively require people to buy and sell stocks. Saying that someone can't own stocks just because their aunt is a congresswoman feels like it is going too far.
• stevespang 5y ago
  How 'bout Insider Trading - - PELOSI ?
• Freskis 5y ago
  This is one of the top stories on Reddit. Some of the top comments on the Reddit story are calling for her death. No moderation. No dissent. Reddit is going to get HAMMERED once it goes public.
  • spaetzleesser 5y ago
    I don't really wish her death but I definitely would like old people like Biden, Pelosi and Clinton go away and not f..k up the country even more. Hopefully they will go away before they die but I am not so sure they have the sense to retire.
  • cwkoss 5y ago
    Nancy Pelosi has done orders of magnitude more harm to our country than many people that have been given the death penalty. I don't wish for her death, but I certainly think we'd be better off if she was no longer in power. Additionally the lack of consequences for her corruption harms public trust in our electoral system.
  • stareblinkstare 5y ago
    For ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/rh7anj/pelosi_rejects_stocktrading_ban_for_members_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/rh7anj/pelosi_rej...
  • piaste 5y ago
    I don't quite understand your comment. You seem upset at the sight of the unwashed masses hollering against the haughty elites, but at the same time you sound gleeful over the prospect of Reddit being punished for insufficiently protecting the feelings of said elite. Is that a correct reading?
    • Freskis 5y ago
      A top comment on one of the most popular websites in the world is calling for the death of a politician based on no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps this is normal to you, but not to me, or any of the advertisers who pay money to advertise on Reddit. If you think that it's normal to call for the death of a politician based on no evidence of a crime, then perhaps other lower-quality websites may be a better fit for you, rather than Hacker News?
• gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
  Yes, we are a free-market. But there are people, like company executives (and high-ranking politicians) who have non-public information that does not belong to them. When congress uses insider knowledge, they are stealing from the ameria, and undermining any semblance of policy integrity. And for that reason, the SEC has 10b-5 plans, which can certainly be critiqued, but at least removes the low-hanging fruit like "we are getting acquired so I'll buy as many shares and out of the money options as I can". Iirc her husband was basically buying fairly far-out (~16-18 months) calls at the onset of the pandemic, and they were expiring around the time of, was it an antitrust hearing? The timing itself was poor, but the expiration didn't seem diabolical. But it was just like, c'mon, I don't even like the anti-trust bent congress is on, but how are you thinking people are taking your goals in good faith when you have any explicit (and intrinsically timed) personal interest in not harming the businesses you are looking into anti-trust action against? The Fed trading ethics thing with Kaplan and Rosengren was also pretty bad. But imo, they made real changes. They restricted a lot of individual trading, and anything they can still trade in, has to be requested 45 days in advance. I think they understood the gravity of what that said about them, and took real steps to remedy. The STOCK Act otoh says Congress and employees have to report within 45 days...
  • erect_gacker5 5y ago
    [dead]
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > STOCK Act otoh says Congress and employees have to report within 45 days Why does advance disclosure prevent insider trading differently from post-trade disclosure? Both permit similar forms of enforcement.
    • throwawayboise 5y ago
      In an era of HFT, 45 days might as well be 10 years.
      • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
• throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  If Rand Paul were saying this nobody would care. But coming from her it reeks of "rules for thee but not for me".
• 3glkjlkjgr 5y ago
  Pelosi should be arrested. She has repeatedly violated the mask mandate in San Francisco (and now California state-wide) multiple times with impunity.
• Ericson2314 5y ago
  Democrats, as usually, seem uninterested in doing much or holding onto what power they've got.
• rich_sasha 5y ago
  I'd have no issue with it at all if they simply followed basic industry standard regulation. Employees of investment companies usually need to adhere to something like this: - Need pre-clearance to trade in a share or ETF, sometimes mutual funds - Once pre-clearance granted, need to trade within a short window of time (say 24hrs) - Minimum holding time of 30 days - Ban on trading any assets/industries that you have close connection to - Regular disclosures of investment portfolio Sure you may find a market for internal tip-offs, but (1) that's already a bit harder, (2) there's a clear record of not only trading, but also intentions, and (3) the minimum holding period makes insider trading less attractive. So a fellow senator gives you a tip that a company might go up 5%. OK, but that's a short-term thing, usually, what's going to happen over 30 days is less clear. Plus covering everyone in the same household.
• _sword 5y ago
  On the sell side, you and your spouse are heavily regulated so that neither can hold individual stocks, can’t touch anything where you may possibly have material non public info, have mandatory holding periods, and any mutual funds or ETFs must be sufficiently diversified. And that’s only part of the trading regulations and requirements. I can’t even buy a Dow Jones tracking ETF. The fact that Pelosi and the rest of congress can trade ahead of their own decisions is laughably corrupt. Make them have the same kinds of trading requirements a 1st year banker has.
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > On the sell side, you and your spouse are heavily regulated so that neither can hold individual stocks This is not uniformly true. There are various blackouts and pre-clearance requirements and monitoring. But not every bank bans individual stock trading.
    • _sword 5y ago
      All of the large investment banks do at this point as far as I am aware. The core point I aim to make, however, is that it’s hilariously unfair that a 22 year old PowerPoint monkey with relatively little knowledge and almost no market influence has infinitely more conflict of interest oversight than members of congress.
      • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > infinitely more conflict of interest oversight than members of congress Last I checked, their every trade isn’t made public in an online database.
        • _sword 5y ago
          That’s a fair point. Banker’s monitored trades and accounts are on record internally and usually tracked by their firm’s surveillance software. Not public though thankfully.
• avgcorrection 5y ago
  This is Pelosi’s “and yet she persisted”.
• 0xI337 5y ago
  Oh, I see… a free market economy is good when it benefits the aristocrats, bad when it can be used for political talking points to garner votes. Got it.
• mountainofdeath 5y ago
  When I worked for a finance adjacent firm, not even a firm that handled money, my compliance policy was super strict even by industry standards and I was a lowly Sr. SWE. The reasoning I was given was to not never even provide a hint of impropriety or using data ahead of our customers. Reputation was everything. The blanket company-wide policy was as follows. Certain departments had rules on top of this. 1. Limited to general stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, etc. No derivatives allowed (options, etc.). Even private stock or private options from my prior require required a review from compliance when I started. 2. No selling for a gain within 30 days of the purchase date on ANY security. Selling for a loss was allowed at any time. 3. All brokerage accounts had to be linked to their compliance portal. An automated compliance check pulled your statements weekly and would open a ticket with compliance if anything looked to violate policy. If your brokerage was not supported electronically, you had to submit monthly paper statements. I don't see why Congress shouldn't be subject to similar rules, especially those on finance committees.
  • chernevik 5y ago
    Limiting Congress and staff to ETFs and mutual funds seems reasonable.
    • AmericanChopper 5y ago
      On the right committees I think you could probably do pretty well knowing when to buy SPY puts.
  • seniorivn 5y ago
    there is no need for common sense rules if you have a working highly competitive democracy Any politician would know that doing anything that can be interpreted as a shady buisness would end their political career for good. Like that time Joe Biden stole autobiographycal speech from British politician. It ended his campaign at the time, but had little to no effect on his career overall
  • DavidPeiffer 5y ago
    >The reasoning I was given was to not never even provide a hint of impropriety or using data ahead of our customers. Reputation was everything. One bit I took away from grad school was the strict standards around conflicts of interest. The big concept was "Disclose and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety." The avoidance of impropriety is a much higher standard, and unfortunately it's all too common to see that standard not applied in government. "Rules for thee, not for me" mentality.
• dekhn 5y ago
  Is it reasonable to request lawmakers to not trade stocks simply because they are in a position to affect stocks? If we do disallow lawmakers from trading, won't that act as a disincentive to some possibly good politicians who also happen to be using the market? Currently members already have to report their positions in advance so it's very unlikely any congress member is actively trying to manipulate the market for their own benefit (it seems like in that case you'd just quit congress and be a successful business person?)
  • cwkoss 5y ago
    Congress should be able to own broad indexes and trade them very slowly. They shouldn't be allowed to buy huge options on companies based on nonpublic information.
• JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  Lots of confusion in this thread. Members of Congress cannot legally trade on insider information, and haven’t been able to since 2012 [1]. The law was amended in 2013 to limit public disclosure by some tens of thousands of senior government officials. But it did not remove the non-public information trading restrictions from anyone. And it retained the full force of the STOCK Act for members of Congress. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
  • publicexecution 5y ago
    and yet they do anyways
  • dundarious 5y ago
    The joke "someone's trying to kill you? Don't be ridiculous, that's illegal" comes to mind. "Corruption" by any rational standard is largely legalized in the US, and even where it is prohibited, it is not enforced. For example, the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal.
• democratscumz 5y ago
  San Francisco is a complete shithole.
• dionian 5y ago
  There is a reason Twitter deleted the NancyTracker twitter account. This was one of the only few blogs I could find which explains what happened: https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-bans-nancy-pelosi-stock-tracker/ https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-bans-nancy-pelosi-stock-tr...
• nradov 5y ago
  It's ironic how Pelosi uses free markets to justify her own slimy trading activities, while simultaneously pushing legislation that would shift us more towards a socialist economy. That takes real chutzpah.
• sabhiram 5y ago
  The issue here is the futile attempt to tease apart power and money. Those with power, seek to acquire money for when they lose power. Those with money, seek to acquire power for when they lose money. If consultants at large firms are prohibited from trading specific shares, it does not make sense for folks who literally make the law to do so.
• NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Many people here are complaining, but i also think that's why they let the companies go without much regulation. Just enforce them to enclose their stock purchases the same day and make it illegal to trade based on knowledge like insiders. If they trade in insider information, this will be known when laws are made. Normally records are available of many things. No, the world is not perfect.
• davidhyde 5y ago
  If you work at an investment bank or hedge fund you typically have to apply for approval before trading personally (or someone connected to you like a spouse or partner). That applies for each and every trade you make. This is not an unfair request to make of your employees because it limits potential insider trading as well as conflict of interest trades. Not to mention the unfair advantage an employee could have by using expensive data feeds from the bank.
  • chernevik 5y ago
    Banks and funds have compliance departments which track which companies are clients/positions. You _might_ create a similar apparatus for Congress, but tracking which companies are subject to a particular law would be complicated and error-prone. Better to limit them to general positions like ETFs and mutual funds, as others have suggested.
    • davidhyde 5y ago
      Yes, I like that. EFTs, disconnected. Awesome.
• shrubble 5y ago
  'When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.' Quote from Frederic Bastiat...
• tasty_freeze 5y ago
  What if there was a congressional index fund where ordinary people could invest in the same basket of trades that congressmen/women are making.
• actusual 5y ago
  You are a civil servant, why are expecting outsized profit from running our country? Our current political climate attracts folks who are excited to become wealthy and famous from running our country, when we should want people who are excited to run our country.
• wilde 5y ago
  Top beneficiary of policy defends it. More news at 11. Unusual whales has done some fun analysis of this. Given the data, Pelosi’s position is almost uniquely unsurprising. https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/congress https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/congress
• cronix 5y ago
  We put term limits on the Presidential branch, I see no reason why we shouldn't limit the terms someone in congress can serve, and for the same reasons. If we have a free market, why did we pass the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, which put forth that all high-ranking federal officials are required to disclose their financial holdings and recuse themselves from any government business in which they, their families or close associates have a financial interest? All federal officials, that is, except the president, the vice president, members of Congress and federal judges?[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/202 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/202
• publicexecution 5y ago
  I want Pelosi to be executed on live tv.
• clircle 5y ago
  Saw this comment on Reddit, but why doesn't Vanguard or Fidelity create an index fund that tracks these traded commodities? If the information is truly valuable, then it would make sense to package it up and sell it.
• Glyptodon 5y ago
  The wellness of the nation is not the same as the wellness of the markets and it seems clear that leaders should be getting rewarded for one and not the other or a major incentive misalignment exists. Maybe it's time to not just prevent them from trading stocks, probably for a good while after they leave office too, but to also tie their retirement benefits to things like future literacy rates, poverty rates, and other general indicators of national wellness.
• publicexecution 5y ago
  San Francisco is a total shit hole. I hope the Chinese bomb it to fuck and back.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• CountDrewku 5y ago
  Get this walking zombie out of office. Either we need an age limit or term limits.... maybe both. I'm so tired of her and McConnell. They're so far disconnected from serving the people and the needs of this country it's a joke.
• nycjust4me 5y ago
  She represents the total shit hole called San Francisco. Living in San Francisco right now is like living in East Germany. Fuck San Francisco and fuck every politician there.
• samstave 5y ago
  The political squatters have over stayed their welcome among the masses, but they are literally doing the bidding of the super wealthy, all Silicon Valley included. The pelosi, boxer and other California politicians have been raping opportunity out of the WMD scam for the last few decades with private rebuild contracts going to bechtel in the same way the coffers flow freely to defense families… Pelosi is a cancer, as are too many other politicians. We need age limits on Congress. Forced retirement and blocked from lobbying at 65 How much has fauci made during the pandemic, what about the head of the FDA, what about Ahit Pai? All these people are corrupt scum. Their in-office-finances should be 100% public record, based on the history of illegal activity these positions constantly prove to commit.
• cryptonector 5y ago
  Employees of many companies, especially financial companies, are subject to obnoxious restrictions on trading to protect their employers and their employers' customers from insider trading and front running. Congress? They can do what they want w/o any restrictions? When their actions can and do move markets?? That's nuts.
• jedberg 5y ago
  I agree with Pelosi that congress members should not be excluded from participating in the stock market. HOWEVER, they should have to follow the same rules as C-level execs at public companies, except for every company. They should be required to file a sales plan in advance of any sales, and far enough in advance that any investor can front-run them. Then they can trade on insider information all they want, just like CEOs, because it won't matter. This would basically force them to trade long on companies they truly believe in, just like CEOs have to do.
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    True, although that wouldn't help in this special case when they pump cash into companies they planned to invest into. Fair investment rules are one thing but tax payers get shafted in favor of those who trade. Taxes should not provide a casino.
  • choward 5y ago
    > I agree with Pelosi that congress members should not be excluded from participating in the stock market. I disagree completely. They have access to a lot more information that affects the entire market. There are only hundreds of members of Congress and they are payed well and have great benefits. It's not like they're being repressed. What benefit is there to them trading stocks? > This would basically force them to trade long on companies they truly believe in, just like CEOs have to do. Sure, this would prevent them from getting a quick buck but what's going to stop them for being biased with the companies they are long in.
• motohagiography 5y ago
  There was a quip about this along the lines of legislators playing the market was like letting referees make bets on their own games, even while they were being played. In the case of legislators, it's something to tolerate until it gets out of hand, but when their returns are better than professional hedge funds, it undermines the legitimacy of the institution they're employed to operate on our behalf.
• throwaway879080 5y ago
  corrupt to the core
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• dkdk8283 5y ago
  Pelosi is vile, not only in her conduct but what she represents. The sooner she leaves office the better off we all are.
• low_tech_love 5y ago
  They shouldn’t exactly because it’s a free market.
• dragonwriter 5y ago
  First, the claim that we are a “free market economy” is factually inaccurate; a free market is an unrealizable idealized analytical abstraction. We are not such an economy. Second, it is particularly egregious for someone in a leadership position in the legislature which engages in the substantial regulation of the economy which makes it not a free market to make that claim, especially to defend their own (and others similarly situated) ability to act as simultaneous market regulators and participants. Members of Congress should not be permitted to trade stocks personally; they should be required to (as Presidents before Trump for quite a while traditionally have, but have not been—though they should also be—required to) place assets in a blind trust during their tenure in office. I might be able to accept them being allowed to trade personally on one condition: each who wants to do must establish a fund for that purpose, in which any American citizen is free to invest (and liquidate a position in) at any time, with all transaction and administrative costs covered by the fund.
• spaetzleesser 5y ago
  As long as the democrats keep hypocrites like Pelosi around they will never make any progress. She f...ed up the Obamacare negotiations with her super partisan approach. She is just the typical super rich NIMBY progressive who talks one way while at the same blocking any kind of progress that may cost them money or convenience. They talk public schools while sending their kinds to exclusive private schools. They talk about solving homelessness but the only think they do it is to keep it away from their own neighborhoods. Soon we will we have two 80+ people in leadership of a supposedly dynamic and innovative country. WTF? It's really hard to argue for this party in its current state. Not that the other guys are any better but it would be nice to have somebody you actually want to vote FOR and not just against the other.
• jkingsbery 5y ago
  We are a free-market economy. But the free market assumptions are not just allowing for voluntary trades, but also require information symmetry. When one person (or group) has more information, we no longer have a free market.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• cwkoss 5y ago
  The insidious thing about allowing congress to insider trade is that it creates a loophole to bypass campaign finance laws and enables corruption. It would be illegal for a company to pay $1M to Pelosi in a quid pro quo. It's legal for a company to give a stock tip worth $1m to Pelosi as gratuity for favorable legislation. Pelosi doesn't want to remove this mechanism because it's how she solicits bribes and has consolidated her power.
  • Freskis 5y ago
    Is there any published evidence of Pelosi accepting bribes, or are you posting stuff you read on Reddit and Facebook? Hacker News generally has a higher level of discourse, it's not really a conspiracy/Qanon type website.
    • cwkoss 5y ago
      The Pelosi's net worth has been consistently outperforming the market for decades. I think it it pretty naive to assume that's due to her husband being a great trader/very lucky - she's passing information to him for their financial benefit.
• kyleblarson 5y ago
  That they can trade individual equities is absolutely ridiculous. I feel that they shouldn't even be able to trade ETF's or mutual funds.
• nimos 5y ago
  Socialism for thee, libertarianism for me?
• gvv 5y ago
  Two things can be true at once, yes it's a free-market economy and yes profiting from insider knowledge, especially as a lawmaker, should land you in jail.
• tamaharbor 5y ago
  With perks like this, there is no doubt that some would be willing to cheat and lie to remain in power.
• mcculley 5y ago
  We still have tariffs on steel, right? Corn subsidies? The USDA Market Facilitation Program? Bailouts for corporations too big to fail? Welfare labeled "stimulus"? Maybe she means something else by "free-market".
• diveanon 5y ago
  Why does SF keep electing this corrupt hag? Term limits need to be enacted. Corrupt officials like her and Mitch are an existential threat to this country.
• gigatexal 5y ago
  This is so dumb. She is missing the whole point of whey folks are upset. Republican colleagues are making millions trading on information they know before the rest of us. And she's not immune. Her family has been documented making a mint from the markets. She should just put all her money in index funds and win and lose like the rest of the invested country. And her making such statements makes her and the dems no different than the republicans and that will hurt them at the polls but like she cares.
• jefftechentin 5y ago
  People of California, what do you see in her.?.?.? Why keep electing?
• jalane81 5y ago
  Tell that to Martha Stewart.
• MR4D 5y ago
  Cool !! So now she can free CEOs and billionaires from having to disclose their sales and bring them down to the congressional standard. /s I hate hypocrites - regardless of their party affiliation.
• __turbobrew__ 5y ago
  Having an outstanding interest in companies creates a conflict of interest: if you have 10 million in calls on Facebook you might think twice before blocking a Facebook acquisition.
• Salgat 5y ago
  Really makes you wonder what kind of utopia we'd be in if politicians acted fully in good faith.
• abeppu 5y ago
  A number of people in this conversation are fixated on the idea that advanced disclosure allows the market to front-run the congressperson and therefore remove the advantage of inside information. But this still allows lawmakers the other corrupt path of trying to pick policies which benefit the companies or sectors in which they have holdings. Might there be federal efforts to ease housing shortages if members of congress didn't have investment properties? I think for politicians above a certain level, we should go full Rawls. When you leave office, a random citizen from your constituency is selected, your net worth is set to their current net worth, and for a period of k years after leaving office, your income is funded by the public to match the income of that constituent.
  • lukemercado 5y ago
    > I think for politicians above a certain level, we should go full Rawls. When you leave office, a random citizen from your constituency is selected, your net worth is set to their current net worth, and for a period of k years after leaving office, your income is funded by the public to match the income of that constituent. This is a novel idea to me. Are you referring to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/? If so, could you elaborate a bit on the philosophical underpinnings of this idea? My meager googling did not raise anything substantive.
    • abeppu 5y ago
      Rawls wrote a bunch of stuff about fairness and justice, and I won't pretend to have read it all. But one idea he discussed is imagining oneself behind a "veil of ignorance" that conceals the particulars of one's attributes, circumstances, etc. In considering how society is structured, how resources are distributed, what the laws are etc, we should do so without attachment to our own individual utility. So imagine a universe where we were all thinking, rational, disembodied souls before we were born, and as disembodied souls we could debate and together choose how the society we're born into would work -- but we don't individually get to choose who we will be born as. You don't get to know what your race, your gender, your family's income, class, region, etc. How would you want society to be structured? What would you want laws and norms to look like? etc. My claim is roughly that the way to incentivize leaders to actually work for the wellbeing of their constituents is to artificially construct and impose such a veil of ignorance, so that leaders are pushed to improve the wellbeing of as many as possible.
• ur-whale 5y ago
  Standard leftie: all for sharing, especially other people's money, but the buck stops at her money.
• mcguire 5y ago
  "Pelosi has long said she has no involvement in or prior knowledge of her husband’s trading decisions and does not own any stock herself." But does share information from her official duties with him?
• CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I am happy to hear her say that the US is a free market economy. It's dangerous when members of the political left try to out-socialist each other in a race to the bottom, so it's refreshing to hear a statement that rejects that virtue-signalling dynamic. But having restrictions on stock trading, that people voluntarily agree to, as a condition for being allowed to hold office, is perfectly consistent with a free market economy. Holding public office is a privilege, not a right.
• olliej 5y ago
  Free market requires free access to information, congress members by design get access to information that is not available to the rest of the “free” market. So congressional access to the free market is a violation of the entire concept. Either all market relevant information that Congress receives is made completely available to public at the same time as to Congress or Congress cannot have access to the market.
• elzbardico 5y ago
  What I think very annoying in Pelosi is that for all practical purposes she, like the Bushes, embodies the very real existence of a hereditary American Bureaucracy. Politicians grooming their offspring to follow their footsteps should be considered morally wrong. There shouldn’t even need to be a law against it, it should be considered a taboo like incest.