9 ms·

Certainly hope it passes! Though with a high enough security clearance I'd imagine you could make a killing just going long/short on index funds, so I don't kn

Certainly hope it passes! Though with a high enough security clearance I'd imagine you could make a killing just going long/short on index funds, so I don't know how effective this would be at curbing the behavior. What we really need is all assets of elected officials held in blind trust, bar none, no exceptions, I think. Though I'm no hedge fund wizard and I'm sure there's a loophole to exploit there as well.

SoftTalker 4y ago
> What we really need is all assets of elected officials held in blind trust, bar none, no exceptions. Yes absolutely. I would also add: - Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with a maximum age. - Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office.
- jrd259 4y ago
  Why the age cap? Is there a evidence that elderly are statistically more likely to be corrupt than the young? Or perhaps you think we (I'm 66) have suffered significant cognitive decline?
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      This is a credible take and I would love see more discussion about this.
    - robocat 4y ago
      Don’t target some bigoted stereotype. Target the problem of corruption. You can as easily argue the opposite: older people can be more conscientious because they have less to gain and less to lose. Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person? I suspect you have based your “fact” on sampling bias - we don’t get good visibility metrics on young corrupted politicians (not so many young politicians, not so much time for them to have been caught making egregious errors). Disclaimer: middle-aged engineer type.
      - 411111111111111 4y ago
        > Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person? How many people in their tweens to 40th have ever filled the roles they were talking about? That's the only timeframe this argument would make sense to me. I really can't see their comment as bigoted as you claim. There really is a strong selection bias with people filling these roles at that age and them behaving like that. That's doesn't mean that people in that age braket are always corrupt, but people that have been in these roles for extended periods of time generally are corrupt.
        alanwreath 4y ago
        So, maybe erase the age consideration of the argument and target the number of terms instead.
      - jwarden 4y ago
        Agree, in almost all times and cultures I have read about or experienced, respecting your elders is a big deal. It is only in the last decade where it seems that attitude has flipped in popular liberal culture.
        heavenlyblue 4y ago
        Yeah especially with arranged marriages where your mum decides who you will marry.
    - jjav 4y ago
      > Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity. Representatives, whether young or old, never face the consequences of their actions because they exist in a separate system from the rest of society. They have special health care, private schools, and so on.
  - abeppu 4y ago
    The US at the federal level has other mandatory retirement ages, where the most similar role affected is the Foreign Service, but also pilots, air traffic control, and law enforcement. Many states have mandatory retirement ages for judges. One can easily argue that the risks if a senator undergoes cognitive decline are potentially just as serious as if a diplomat or judge has the same problem.
  - taude 4y ago
    Most publicaly traded corporations have age limits for their c-suite, probably for good reason. Why shouldn't government?
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      Sears is a private corporation. They can organize how they see fit. The government is an open, public institution built by and for the people. Each decision regarding who can participate in this government must be met with the utmost scrutiny.
  - pcl 4y ago
    I’d argue that Lord Acton was correct when he said that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Age limits are an easy (but slow) way to defeat the loopholes and issues with term limits, and make sure that those exercising power do not end up in that position for too long. Sure, a 65-year-old age limit would exclude some candidates who get into politics at a later age, or who are uniquely gifted. But there are plenty of examples from across the political spectrum of people who should perhaps move on to write their memoirs instead of running for that nth term.
  - sequoia 4y ago
    I think there's a few reasonable reasons. I think 65 might be too low, I'd probably go with 70, but one reason is just to make room for new legislators which is good both to get new ideas & perspectives in from time to time, and also to ensure our government isn't excessively skewed towards the perspectives of older people. The average age of a senator is 64.3 years[1]– the average age! Average age of US citizens is 38.8 years. I don't think this needs to be exactly the same & I think it's good for senators to skew older as wisdom accrues with age, but this doesn't simply mean "older is better." Mostly I think it would be good to build the next generation of leaders periodically. Senate seats are and congress are zero-sum, the next person can't get into that seat until someone else gets out, and those "years as a legislator" are important to operate effectively. 1: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text=Senators%2C%2064.3%20years.&text=The%20overwhelming%20majority%2C%2096%25%2C,Congress%20have%20a%20college%20education https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text....
    - nswest23 4y ago
      Why not just term limits then so people don't see this as a permanent career path.
      - louky 4y ago
        One issue I've seen raised is committee assignments meaning power often are by seniority, so that also would have to change. Unlikely.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    To cycle in fresh perspectives, and limit the power that can come from decades entrenched in office. People like Pelosi or McConnell are so powerful in part because they have been in office forever, have a network that is both deep and wide, have lots of people who owe them favors, etc. If you set a maximum age plus a lobbying ban, that enforces an end to that at some point. I'd be in favor of a two-term limit personally, for many of the same reasons. If it's good enough for the President it should be good enough for other offices. I don't think political office should be a lifetime career. It attracts too many power-seeking, controlling personality types. We don't need those people around forever. Too many people in office have no private sector experience at all, yet they are making the rules that the rest of us live by.
    - landemva 4y ago
      They are powerful in part because there are so few of them that the lobbyists can bear hug them. Let the House of Reps again grow with population and there would be too many Reps for lobbyists to control so each individual Rep would have less influence. We have a census to grow the numbers in the House, but they passed a law to stop that. "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." "Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787." https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Pr...
  - nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
    Because legislators should have at least as much skin in the game of what happens in the future as the average person. Gerontocracy has not led to good outcomes, historically. And yes, as people age, they do tend to suffer cognitive decline. You may be the exception, but as a rule it's still a factual statement.
    - raydiatian 4y ago
      By “skin in the game”, do you mean legislators should be allowed to hold & trade securities while in office? Because having insider trading information gives you an edge up, and thus less skin in the game than everyone else.
      - nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
        No, I mean the older you are, the less invested you are in the long term consequences of your actions, personally. An 85 year old senator only needs to care about the consequences of their actions 20 years on in a very abstract, moral sense, as they are very unlikely to have to experience them personally.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >- Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office. I'd rather see a lifetime vow of poverty, where officeholders were forbidden to derive any income at all other than their pensions.
- bena 4y ago
  Yes. Let's violate the first amendment, that should be fun. The term "lobbying" is essentially slang. Lobbying is just the name we give to the act of paying someone to petition the government for a redress of grievances on someone else's behalf. So to ban someone from lobbying for any amount of time is essentially banning them from petitioning the government. Which is forbidden by the Constitution. It's a way more complicated issue than "ban lobbying".
  - awinder 4y ago
    There are all kinds of existent laws and regulations on former elected officeholders allowed lobbying activities, many of the toothier ones at the state level but there’s still a 2 year cool off at the federal level for congress. They’d run afoul of 1A protections if there was indeed an unfettered right to be paid to lobby on the behalf of others.
- TrueSlacker0 4y ago
  - Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with a maximum age. Match it to social security age.
- andersonvom 4y ago
  I don't know about age limits, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have term limits (both consecutive and total)
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  I wouldn't impose mandatory retirement age on congressmen, but think there should be a age limit for the presidency and committee chairs. I think this is not particularly controversial. What people hate but I strongly believe in is that we should pay people a stipend to run for office. And we should pay congressmen and senators more than we do. And give them a full years salary when they leave office. Seriously guys producing webshit for FANNG companies are making more than their congressman.
8note 4y ago
Raise capital gains taxes on elected officials to 70%? That way the tax payer can still get the payout
huijzer 4y ago
> killing just going long/short on index funds Going short is always a bad idea. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. In other words, you can win at most 100% while you can lose more than 100%, so why make such a bet.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  It's not true that you can make at most 100% once you take into account leverage. But I agree with your general point that shorting is much harder than longing
- foobarian 4y ago
  If you knew your spouse is going to announce an interest rate hike the next morning, shorting might be a relatively safe bet. And it's not like an index fund will move more than a few points at a time anyway.
iwillbenice 4y ago
Regarding the security clearance, while you are not technically wrong in theory, in practice things are heavily compartmentalized at an individual human level by "need to know" practices. It kind of opened my eyes to how much a maze the IC is regarding classifications and data restrictions. We may both have TS clearances, but I may have access to wayyyy more crazy stuff than you do, based on what I am officially working on. However, on paper we may have the same levels of "trust" from the system's perspective.

SoftTalker 4y ago

> What we really need is all assets of elected officials held in blind trust, bar none, no exceptions. Yes absolutely. I would also add: - Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with a maximum age. - Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office.

jrd259 4y ago
Why the age cap? Is there a evidence that elderly are statistically more likely to be corrupt than the young? Or perhaps you think we (I'm 66) have suffered significant cognitive decline?
- kodyo 4y ago
  Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    This is a credible take and I would love see more discussion about this.
  - robocat 4y ago
    Don’t target some bigoted stereotype. Target the problem of corruption. You can as easily argue the opposite: older people can be more conscientious because they have less to gain and less to lose. Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person? I suspect you have based your “fact” on sampling bias - we don’t get good visibility metrics on young corrupted politicians (not so many young politicians, not so much time for them to have been caught making egregious errors). Disclaimer: middle-aged engineer type.
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      > Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger person? How many people in their tweens to 40th have ever filled the roles they were talking about? That's the only timeframe this argument would make sense to me. I really can't see their comment as bigoted as you claim. There really is a strong selection bias with people filling these roles at that age and them behaving like that. That's doesn't mean that people in that age braket are always corrupt, but people that have been in these roles for extended periods of time generally are corrupt.
      - alanwreath 4y ago
        So, maybe erase the age consideration of the argument and target the number of terms instead.
    - jwarden 4y ago
      Agree, in almost all times and cultures I have read about or experienced, respecting your elders is a big deal. It is only in the last decade where it seems that attitude has flipped in popular liberal culture.
      - heavenlyblue 4y ago
        Yeah especially with arranged marriages where your mum decides who you will marry.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Older people are less likely to have to face the long term consequences of their corruption and depravity. Representatives, whether young or old, never face the consequences of their actions because they exist in a separate system from the rest of society. They have special health care, private schools, and so on.
- abeppu 4y ago
  The US at the federal level has other mandatory retirement ages, where the most similar role affected is the Foreign Service, but also pilots, air traffic control, and law enforcement. Many states have mandatory retirement ages for judges. One can easily argue that the risks if a senator undergoes cognitive decline are potentially just as serious as if a diplomat or judge has the same problem.
- taude 4y ago
  Most publicaly traded corporations have age limits for their c-suite, probably for good reason. Why shouldn't government?
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Sears is a private corporation. They can organize how they see fit. The government is an open, public institution built by and for the people. Each decision regarding who can participate in this government must be met with the utmost scrutiny.
- pcl 4y ago
  I’d argue that Lord Acton was correct when he said that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Age limits are an easy (but slow) way to defeat the loopholes and issues with term limits, and make sure that those exercising power do not end up in that position for too long. Sure, a 65-year-old age limit would exclude some candidates who get into politics at a later age, or who are uniquely gifted. But there are plenty of examples from across the political spectrum of people who should perhaps move on to write their memoirs instead of running for that nth term.
- sequoia 4y ago
  I think there's a few reasonable reasons. I think 65 might be too low, I'd probably go with 70, but one reason is just to make room for new legislators which is good both to get new ideas & perspectives in from time to time, and also to ensure our government isn't excessively skewed towards the perspectives of older people. The average age of a senator is 64.3 years[1]– the average age! Average age of US citizens is 38.8 years. I don't think this needs to be exactly the same & I think it's good for senators to skew older as wisdom accrues with age, but this doesn't simply mean "older is better." Mostly I think it would be good to build the next generation of leaders periodically. Senate seats are and congress are zero-sum, the next person can't get into that seat until someone else gets out, and those "years as a legislator" are important to operate effectively. 1: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text=Senators%2C%2064.3%20years.&text=The%20overwhelming%20majority%2C%2096%25%2C,Congress%20have%20a%20college%20education https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:~:text....
  - nswest23 4y ago
    Why not just term limits then so people don't see this as a permanent career path.
    - louky 4y ago
      One issue I've seen raised is committee assignments meaning power often are by seniority, so that also would have to change. Unlikely.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  To cycle in fresh perspectives, and limit the power that can come from decades entrenched in office. People like Pelosi or McConnell are so powerful in part because they have been in office forever, have a network that is both deep and wide, have lots of people who owe them favors, etc. If you set a maximum age plus a lobbying ban, that enforces an end to that at some point. I'd be in favor of a two-term limit personally, for many of the same reasons. If it's good enough for the President it should be good enough for other offices. I don't think political office should be a lifetime career. It attracts too many power-seeking, controlling personality types. We don't need those people around forever. Too many people in office have no private sector experience at all, yet they are making the rules that the rest of us live by.
  - landemva 4y ago
    They are powerful in part because there are so few of them that the lobbyists can bear hug them. Let the House of Reps again grow with population and there would be too many Reps for lobbyists to control so each individual Rep would have less influence. We have a census to grow the numbers in the House, but they passed a law to stop that. "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand..." "Representation based on population in the House was one of the most important components of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787." https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Proportional-Representation/ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Pr...
- nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
  Because legislators should have at least as much skin in the game of what happens in the future as the average person. Gerontocracy has not led to good outcomes, historically. And yes, as people age, they do tend to suffer cognitive decline. You may be the exception, but as a rule it's still a factual statement.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    By “skin in the game”, do you mean legislators should be allowed to hold & trade securities while in office? Because having insider trading information gives you an edge up, and thus less skin in the game than everyone else.
    - nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
      No, I mean the older you are, the less invested you are in the long term consequences of your actions, personally. An 85 year old senator only needs to care about the consequences of their actions 20 years on in a very abstract, moral sense, as they are very unlikely to have to experience them personally.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>- Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office. I'd rather see a lifetime vow of poverty, where officeholders were forbidden to derive any income at all other than their pensions.
bena 4y ago
Yes. Let's violate the first amendment, that should be fun. The term "lobbying" is essentially slang. Lobbying is just the name we give to the act of paying someone to petition the government for a redress of grievances on someone else's behalf. So to ban someone from lobbying for any amount of time is essentially banning them from petitioning the government. Which is forbidden by the Constitution. It's a way more complicated issue than "ban lobbying".
- awinder 4y ago
  There are all kinds of existent laws and regulations on former elected officeholders allowed lobbying activities, many of the toothier ones at the state level but there’s still a 2 year cool off at the federal level for congress. They’d run afoul of 1A protections if there was indeed an unfettered right to be paid to lobby on the behalf of others.
TrueSlacker0 4y ago
- Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with a maximum age. Match it to social security age.
andersonvom 4y ago
I don't know about age limits, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have term limits (both consecutive and total)
Gibbon1 4y ago
I wouldn't impose mandatory retirement age on congressmen, but think there should be a age limit for the presidency and committee chairs. I think this is not particularly controversial. What people hate but I strongly believe in is that we should pay people a stipend to run for office. And we should pay congressmen and senators more than we do. And give them a full years salary when they leave office. Seriously guys producing webshit for FANNG companies are making more than their congressman.

8note 4y ago

Raise capital gains taxes on elected officials to 70%? That way the tax payer can still get the payout

huijzer 4y ago

> killing just going long/short on index funds Going short is always a bad idea. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. In other words, you can win at most 100% while you can lose more than 100%, so why make such a bet.

snapcaster 4y ago
It's not true that you can make at most 100% once you take into account leverage. But I agree with your general point that shorting is much harder than longing
foobarian 4y ago
If you knew your spouse is going to announce an interest rate hike the next morning, shorting might be a relatively safe bet. And it's not like an index fund will move more than a few points at a time anyway.

iwillbenice 4y ago

Regarding the security clearance, while you are not technically wrong in theory, in practice things are heavily compartmentalized at an individual human level by "need to know" practices. It kind of opened my eyes to how much a maze the IC is regarding classifications and data restrictions. We may both have TS clearances, but I may have access to wayyyy more crazy stuff than you do, based on what I am officially working on. However, on paper we may have the same levels of "trust" from the system's perspective.