4 ms·

> There's no real reason for a lawmaker or their immediate family to be buying individual stocks. You lost me here. Participating in society is okay. Maybe in

> There's no real reason for a lawmaker or their immediate family to be buying individual stocks. You lost me here. Participating in society is okay. Maybe in the case of a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, this could be the case. But an insulated lawmaker is definitely not the way to go. If a lawmaker riuns his financial status via the stockmarket, cool! Elect someone else. > So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that. They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else. Imagine a politician attempting to pass a law banning guns but just before it passes that politician buys a bunch of guns. Or, in 1930s, when an order was given that made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world. > What we want to do is separate "what's good for me" from "what's good for the country" and remove conflicts of interest like that. Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc. Every politician gets elected because what they'll do is "what's good for the country". And then we elect the next politician

ericmay 4y ago
> Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc. Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks. The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on. The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks. The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward. And this is a thing we voted on. > They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else. So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well. While I see where you are coming from with the rest of your post, you're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading, whereas I think there are shades of gray. Frankly, (as you mentioned real estate) the only reason that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level. There are a ton of injustices that still occur. Like buying a property and then voting to change the zoning or something similar.
- tootallgavin 4y ago
  > Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped. > So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks. Some people see this as an issue, others don't. But, I understand that I am messaging in a place that has opinions that are different than mine. However, I owe my livelihood to having read this place as a teenager. So, here I am. I know when I one day run for office, the members of this board, likely, would not vote for me. I still like to exercise my thoughts and ideas in a familiar community. > The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on. That is one ideology. There are many others. Can you think of a honest, good reason that a politician might have to trade stocks? If you can't think of good reason, you're ideology has given you bias against someone (in the same way that it has given you bias for someone else). There many different ways of life, most people think theirs is the best way. > The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks. I don't think this is the best direction to go in. > The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward. We'll see if the policy shifts in this direction > And this is a thing we voted on. Who is we? Not me. > So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well. But if the politicians aren't following current laws, why would they follow new laws? (The law I am referring to is the stock trade disclosure one, but there are others) > You're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading Agreed > Whereas I think there are shades of gray. Agreed, even private citizens have to declare their trades to the SEC once a trade reaches a certain value. > that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level. I disagree, shifts in land value happen for many reasons including legislation. Are these shifts in value as volatile as the ones seen in stock market? The answer, IMO, depends on the time frame. > There are a ton of injustices that still occur. Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.

ericmay 4y ago

> Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc. Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks. The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on. The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks. The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward. And this is a thing we voted on. > They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else. So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well. While I see where you are coming from with the rest of your post, you're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading, whereas I think there are shades of gray. Frankly, (as you mentioned real estate) the only reason that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level. There are a ton of injustices that still occur. Like buying a property and then voting to change the zoning or something similar.

tootallgavin 4y ago
> Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped. > So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks. Some people see this as an issue, others don't. But, I understand that I am messaging in a place that has opinions that are different than mine. However, I owe my livelihood to having read this place as a teenager. So, here I am. I know when I one day run for office, the members of this board, likely, would not vote for me. I still like to exercise my thoughts and ideas in a familiar community. > The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on. That is one ideology. There are many others. Can you think of a honest, good reason that a politician might have to trade stocks? If you can't think of good reason, you're ideology has given you bias against someone (in the same way that it has given you bias for someone else). There many different ways of life, most people think theirs is the best way. > The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks. I don't think this is the best direction to go in. > The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward. We'll see if the policy shifts in this direction > And this is a thing we voted on. Who is we? Not me. > So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well. But if the politicians aren't following current laws, why would they follow new laws? (The law I am referring to is the stock trade disclosure one, but there are others) > You're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading Agreed > Whereas I think there are shades of gray. Agreed, even private citizens have to declare their trades to the SEC once a trade reaches a certain value. > that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level. I disagree, shifts in land value happen for many reasons including legislation. Are these shifts in value as volatile as the ones seen in stock market? The answer, IMO, depends on the time frame. > There are a ton of injustices that still occur. Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.