5 ms·

Even a hundred dollars is enough to make people feel an irrational protective attachment to the company. Shit, even buying a company's product has been known t

Even a hundred dollars is enough to make people feel an irrational protective attachment to the company. Shit, even buying a company's product has been known to make people treat that company like part of their tribe. Insult Apple in another thread if you want to see a demonstration of this. Or insult the Harley Davidson company at a biker bar.

JamesianP 4y ago
Making rules that avoid triggering irrational behavior is rather hopeless by definition though. For all we know a regulator once dated someone who worked at a company and the bad breakup makes them spiteful against the whole organization. The solution there has to be oversight to identify when a regulator is misbehaving. Though I'm fine with limiting their ownership to zero for purely rational reasons. A few thousand bucks worth of loss/gain might still sway small borderline decisions.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't seriously propose that regulators looking at Apple should be forbidden from owning Apple devices; that's too impractical even though it would otherwise be a good idea. For practical reasons I'd give a pass to indirect investment through mutual funds/etc too. But forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? I think that's very reasonable.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? Once the investigation starts, absolutely. But forcing a regulator to sell their $10k stake in Apple prior to investigating them creates its own weird incentives.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      "You must do something with personal financial consequences if you want to start investigating Apple" isn't a workable improvement.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    yes I was referring to stock ownership too, and only rational behavior. A phone probably won't change measurably in value from a regulatory decision, but $15k of stock certainly could.
  - yibberish 4y ago
    we certianly need some way to separate the role of the regulator, from the person doing that job.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> Even a hundred dollars is enough to make people feel an irrational protective attachment to the company. But anyone with stock investments at this scale is already seeing their portfolio swing a couple hundred dollars on the regular. Regulators also have far more to lose in their career (paying potentially millions over the multi-year course of their tenure) by making the wrong decision than they would by swinging their portfolio a couple hundred bucks on a given day. We can't realistically demand that all public regulators abstain from investing in, for example, an S&P 500 index fund that holds several percent of Apple stock. If the job came with a requirement that the job holder couldn't invest standard index funds, anyone who knows anything about investing and financial planning would avoid the job at all costs. There has to be a compromise. You can't demand absolute zero financial interest in things like index funds over the mere chance that someone might make an irrational career-harming move to swing their portfolio a couple hundred bucks.
pb7 4y ago
You don't even have to buy anything. Insult Linux in a forum full of tech nerds if you want to see a demonstration of this.
- kornhole 4y ago
  Linux users love to insult Linux. That is what drives its improvements.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    Germans love to complain about Germany, but if someone else does it... This is pretty typical behavior, actually. I grew up Mormon, Mormons complain about people making polygamy jokes about them but also make polygamy jokes themselves. It's an in-group vs out-group thing: we can make those jokes.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Or insult the Harley Davidson company at a biker bar. Mentioning Toyota's EV situation on HN is a little more relatable for this crowd.
- dieselgate 4y ago
  Genuinely curious what you mean by “Toyota’s EV situation” in this context, is it intended to be related to their hydrogen development or something?
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    They're trailing, hard, because they dumped a bunch of time/effort/money into hydrodgen and also didn't want to self-compete with their hybrids. Don't go around saying this too loud though. There's lots of fanboys around these parts and they tend to consider discussion of this topic unwelcome.
    - dieselgate 4y ago
      Thank you very much for the follow up
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Buying things that you're going to display as part of your personal image sounds like a much more relationship intensive activity than buying stock imo

JamesianP 4y ago

Making rules that avoid triggering irrational behavior is rather hopeless by definition though. For all we know a regulator once dated someone who worked at a company and the bad breakup makes them spiteful against the whole organization. The solution there has to be oversight to identify when a regulator is misbehaving. Though I'm fine with limiting their ownership to zero for purely rational reasons. A few thousand bucks worth of loss/gain might still sway small borderline decisions.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
I don't seriously propose that regulators looking at Apple should be forbidden from owning Apple devices; that's too impractical even though it would otherwise be a good idea. For practical reasons I'd give a pass to indirect investment through mutual funds/etc too. But forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? I think that's very reasonable.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > forbidden them from buying any amount of AAPL directly? Once the investigation starts, absolutely. But forcing a regulator to sell their $10k stake in Apple prior to investigating them creates its own weird incentives.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    "You must do something with personal financial consequences if you want to start investigating Apple" isn't a workable improvement.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  yes I was referring to stock ownership too, and only rational behavior. A phone probably won't change measurably in value from a regulatory decision, but $15k of stock certainly could.
- yibberish 4y ago
  we certianly need some way to separate the role of the regulator, from the person doing that job.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> Even a hundred dollars is enough to make people feel an irrational protective attachment to the company. But anyone with stock investments at this scale is already seeing their portfolio swing a couple hundred dollars on the regular. Regulators also have far more to lose in their career (paying potentially millions over the multi-year course of their tenure) by making the wrong decision than they would by swinging their portfolio a couple hundred bucks on a given day. We can't realistically demand that all public regulators abstain from investing in, for example, an S&P 500 index fund that holds several percent of Apple stock. If the job came with a requirement that the job holder couldn't invest standard index funds, anyone who knows anything about investing and financial planning would avoid the job at all costs. There has to be a compromise. You can't demand absolute zero financial interest in things like index funds over the mere chance that someone might make an irrational career-harming move to swing their portfolio a couple hundred bucks.

pb7 4y ago

You don't even have to buy anything. Insult Linux in a forum full of tech nerds if you want to see a demonstration of this.

kornhole 4y ago
Linux users love to insult Linux. That is what drives its improvements.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Germans love to complain about Germany, but if someone else does it... This is pretty typical behavior, actually. I grew up Mormon, Mormons complain about people making polygamy jokes about them but also make polygamy jokes themselves. It's an in-group vs out-group thing: we can make those jokes.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>Or insult the Harley Davidson company at a biker bar. Mentioning Toyota's EV situation on HN is a little more relatable for this crowd.

dieselgate 4y ago
Genuinely curious what you mean by “Toyota’s EV situation” in this context, is it intended to be related to their hydrogen development or something?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  They're trailing, hard, because they dumped a bunch of time/effort/money into hydrodgen and also didn't want to self-compete with their hybrids. Don't go around saying this too loud though. There's lots of fanboys around these parts and they tend to consider discussion of this topic unwelcome.
  - dieselgate 4y ago
    Thank you very much for the follow up

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Buying things that you're going to display as part of your personal image sounds like a much more relationship intensive activity than buying stock imo