5 ms·

As corrupt and captured as the SEC is, even they wouldn't let that kind of thing fly.

by ralph84 5y ago

titzer 5y ago
Unless you are a member of the US Congress.
- gumby 5y ago
  Members of congress make those rules that can override the SEC (much as they do for their own health care). It’s not obvious what the right thing is. On one hand it’s important to remove conflicts of interest. On the other hand I wouldn’t run for congress* at all if it meant giving up my portfolio (not just giving up control for a while but actually, especially as I have a relatively high percentage in private companies that couldn’t meaningfully be put in trust). * don’t worry, there are other reasons why this wouldn’t happen.
  - titzer 5y ago
    > I wouldn’t run for congress at all if it meant giving up my portfolio No offense, but I think that would be working as intended. You can't serve two masters. It's the very definition of a conflict of interest.
    - gumby 5y ago
      Don’t worry; no offense taken. I think it’s important to recognize that there’s a dynamic tension in the system. Typically, people have expertise in a domain through their experience in it. People who worked in the oil industry know more about oil exploration than, say, I do. Rules I would make about the oil industry would be uninformed, and would likely be terrible. Yet you can’t have 100% self regulation or you end up with regulatory capture. People are complicated and these are hard issues. In my experience few people show up intending to be completely selfish about their activities.
      - titzer 5y ago
        While I get your point about tension, I actually don't think these are hard issues, it's just that our current attitudes have shifted so much. Just watch the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." A different era, to put it mildly. Public servants should be expected to put personal considerations (and the considerations of their buddies, colleagues, industry) aside, and focus on the good of the society that elected them. That is clearly no longer a universally held attitude. Instead, we've suffered a whole generation of capitalist inculcation that holds as its core value that "enlightened self interest" is all that is necessary to drive society forward (and to be honest, the enlightened part has been pretty much dropped these days). Nothing matters if representatives are endless "positive-summers" who feel that their own good benefits society's good, no matter what they do. They'll believe (all the way to the bank) that they are doing honest good. They are that deluded. I blame the shift towards this on Ayn Rand and her ilk. > People are complicated and these are hard issues. In my experience few people show up intending to be completely selfish about their activities. Intentions don't matter as much as actions. The norm in Washington is self-serving, and the watchdogs and anti-corruption mechanisms have corroded and are breaking down. Corruption has taken over, and the system is rotting. The only thing that can fix it is going back to the rules, not the intentions. Consequences change behavior, and those require a functioning system that fights corruption and a dedication to keeping that system functioning. Instead, neither rules nor attitudes seem to matter these days.
        gumby 5y ago
        Mr Smith Goes To Washington was a hit film because it described an ideal nobody believed existed. The situation you described is as old as the republic, and probably for all of human history. The American revolution itself succeeded through bribery in Whitehall.

As corrupt and captured as the SEC is, even they wouldn't let that kind of thing fly.

titzer 5y ago

Unless you are a member of the US Congress.

gumby 5y ago
Members of congress make those rules that can override the SEC (much as they do for their own health care). It’s not obvious what the right thing is. On one hand it’s important to remove conflicts of interest. On the other hand I wouldn’t run for congress* at all if it meant giving up my portfolio (not just giving up control for a while but actually, especially as I have a relatively high percentage in private companies that couldn’t meaningfully be put in trust). * don’t worry, there are other reasons why this wouldn’t happen.
- titzer 5y ago
  > I wouldn’t run for congress at all if it meant giving up my portfolio No offense, but I think that would be working as intended. You can't serve two masters. It's the very definition of a conflict of interest.
  - gumby 5y ago
    Don’t worry; no offense taken. I think it’s important to recognize that there’s a dynamic tension in the system. Typically, people have expertise in a domain through their experience in it. People who worked in the oil industry know more about oil exploration than, say, I do. Rules I would make about the oil industry would be uninformed, and would likely be terrible. Yet you can’t have 100% self regulation or you end up with regulatory capture. People are complicated and these are hard issues. In my experience few people show up intending to be completely selfish about their activities.
    - titzer 5y ago
      While I get your point about tension, I actually don't think these are hard issues, it's just that our current attitudes have shifted so much. Just watch the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." A different era, to put it mildly. Public servants should be expected to put personal considerations (and the considerations of their buddies, colleagues, industry) aside, and focus on the good of the society that elected them. That is clearly no longer a universally held attitude. Instead, we've suffered a whole generation of capitalist inculcation that holds as its core value that "enlightened self interest" is all that is necessary to drive society forward (and to be honest, the enlightened part has been pretty much dropped these days). Nothing matters if representatives are endless "positive-summers" who feel that their own good benefits society's good, no matter what they do. They'll believe (all the way to the bank) that they are doing honest good. They are that deluded. I blame the shift towards this on Ayn Rand and her ilk. > People are complicated and these are hard issues. In my experience few people show up intending to be completely selfish about their activities. Intentions don't matter as much as actions. The norm in Washington is self-serving, and the watchdogs and anti-corruption mechanisms have corroded and are breaking down. Corruption has taken over, and the system is rotting. The only thing that can fix it is going back to the rules, not the intentions. Consequences change behavior, and those require a functioning system that fights corruption and a dedication to keeping that system functioning. Instead, neither rules nor attitudes seem to matter these days.
      - gumby 5y ago
        Mr Smith Goes To Washington was a hit film because it described an ideal nobody believed existed. The situation you described is as old as the republic, and probably for all of human history. The American revolution itself succeeded through bribery in Whitehall.