5 ms·

Bipartisan group, unveil bill to ban Congress/lawmakers from owning stocks

35 points by fairytalemtg 3y ago

chiefalchemist 3y ago
> Ocasio-Cortez said the "ability to individually trade stock erodes the public's trust in government." Actually, it's worse than that. It erodes trust in the entire system. Not only can they trade on privileged information, they can use their power to influece industry, markets, etc. Random example: for-profit prisons. Have a handful of representatives benefitted from stock trades and the privatization of prisons? Probably. But that's nothing compared to the cost of the sociopolitical damage caused by The Prison Industrial Complex that those representatives enabled. Look how many politicians leave office for jobs that pay 10x more. We're told it is for their future influence. But how often is it for served-special-interests job well done? Let's not be naive. And while we're on the general subject, how is it the SC doesn't have a formal code of ethics?
- mythrwy 3y ago
  How about book deals and overpriced speaking tours after they leave office? There are so many ways potential bribery is legal. It seems so few good people want to be politicians. I wouldn't want to do it at all for instance (and not claiming the following necessarily applies to me either), but we need objective, rational, honest, intelligent, visionary, compassionate people to make decisions. Instead (it seems to me) we get foolish influence peddlers for the most part. Maybe they don't start off like that but it seems to be where the road often leads. Perhaps this is just part of the human condition, but I sure hope for better.
  - jen20 3y ago
    To a point, this mirrors "leetcode" in technology: those who can pass the "interview" of an election campaign are almost universally poorly suited to the job.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Obama left office and days later spoke on Wall Street for $400k. That's a days "work", more than his yearly POTUS salary. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39710529 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39710529
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I agree with your overall point, but I'd like to correct a pet peeve of mine. Private prisons are insignificant. The total government spending on private prisons at all levels is less than 1% of the government run prisons' payroll. Almost nobody is imprisoned in a privately run prison in the USA. (Private immigration detention is more significant) Private prisons are a distraction from the real privatization issue in the prison system: public prisons outsourcing services to private companies. Nearly every prisoner in the US has to pay a private company a large amount of money to talk to their family. This is despite the fact we know that improving communication between prisoners and their family significantly decreases the risk they'll commit crimes once released. Rather than have the prison pay a fee to the company the company pays the prison a kickback from their profits, corrupting the incentives. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Additionally, it's not just the first-order expenditures that are of interest: it's also the second-order loss from genpop of otherwise economically productive people further depressing the gains we could make as a public (measured in GDP or whatever else) as well as the third-order issues around stable housing/families and the effects those arrangements have on future (our childrens') productivity.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    But that 1% - money not people - does how much sociopolitical damage? It leeds to how many damaged individuals? How much does it contribute to the need social support programs (i.e., the unemployable need SNAP, etc.)? Seperates how many fathers from their families? Fractures communities? And so on... The cost to society is significantly more than that budget figure. "U.S. incarcerates more than any other nation: report" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-prison-idUSN2862169320080228 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-prison-idUSN286...
    - iudqnolq 3y ago
      I hate private prisons. But we've nearly won the battle against them already. And they're a convenient way for a lot of people to pretend that the whole public system isn't rotten to the core. > does how much sociopolitical damage? It leeds to how many damaged individuals? How much does it contribute to the need social support programs... Compared to publicly run prisons it leads to much much less damage > The cost to society is significantly more than that budget figure. Absolutely. But it works to compare them: the social cost of private and public prisons is probably roughly proportional to their budget. > "U.S. incarcerates more than any other nation: report" A huge problem I agree. But not one that would be fixed by getting rid of private prisons.
joegibbs 3y ago
This should be coupled with a massive increase in salaries for politicians - a lot of people think they should be paid less because they do a poor job. I think it's the other way around - they do a poor job because they aren't paid enough. Politicians are the most influential people in any given country. If the salary alone becomes a good incentive for people to go into politics, you'll get less ideologues, more people who would otherwise go into the private sector, less of a disconnect between their status and their wealth and less of an incentive to take corrupt deals, since they're already independently wealthy.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  You'll also get less rich representatives. Right now the salary is insufficient to support a single person living comfortably reasonably near the workplace. Lots of them have roommates. And you'll notice the reps who say things like "if we can't work we should voluntarily suspend our salary" are the ones with significant other revenue sources.
- jen20 3y ago
  The salary of politicians should be tied to the median wage of the country at some multiple. Align their incentives with those who have to live with them.
NeutralForceUsr 3y ago
This is the only good thing that ever came from AOC.

35 points by fairytalemtg 3y ago

> Ocasio-Cortez said the "ability to individually trade stock erodes the public's trust in government." Actually, it's worse than that. It erodes trust in the entire system. Not only can they trade on privileged information, they can use their power to influece industry, markets, etc. Random example: for-profit prisons. Have a handful of representatives benefitted from stock trades and the privatization of prisons? Probably. But that's nothing compared to the cost of the sociopolitical damage caused by The Prison Industrial Complex that those representatives enabled. Look how many politicians leave office for jobs that pay 10x more. We're told it is for their future influence. But how often is it for served-special-interests job well done? Let's not be naive. And while we're on the general subject, how is it the SC doesn't have a formal code of ethics?

mythrwy 3y ago
How about book deals and overpriced speaking tours after they leave office? There are so many ways potential bribery is legal. It seems so few good people want to be politicians. I wouldn't want to do it at all for instance (and not claiming the following necessarily applies to me either), but we need objective, rational, honest, intelligent, visionary, compassionate people to make decisions. Instead (it seems to me) we get foolish influence peddlers for the most part. Maybe they don't start off like that but it seems to be where the road often leads. Perhaps this is just part of the human condition, but I sure hope for better.
- jen20 3y ago
  To a point, this mirrors "leetcode" in technology: those who can pass the "interview" of an election campaign are almost universally poorly suited to the job.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Obama left office and days later spoke on Wall Street for $400k. That's a days "work", more than his yearly POTUS salary. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39710529 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39710529
iudqnolq 3y ago
I agree with your overall point, but I'd like to correct a pet peeve of mine. Private prisons are insignificant. The total government spending on private prisons at all levels is less than 1% of the government run prisons' payroll. Almost nobody is imprisoned in a privately run prison in the USA. (Private immigration detention is more significant) Private prisons are a distraction from the real privatization issue in the prison system: public prisons outsourcing services to private companies. Nearly every prisoner in the US has to pay a private company a large amount of money to talk to their family. This is despite the fact we know that improving communication between prisoners and their family significantly decreases the risk they'll commit crimes once released. Rather than have the prison pay a fee to the company the company pays the prison a kickback from their profits, corrupting the incentives. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html
- uoaei 3y ago
  Additionally, it's not just the first-order expenditures that are of interest: it's also the second-order loss from genpop of otherwise economically productive people further depressing the gains we could make as a public (measured in GDP or whatever else) as well as the third-order issues around stable housing/families and the effects those arrangements have on future (our childrens') productivity.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  But that 1% - money not people - does how much sociopolitical damage? It leeds to how many damaged individuals? How much does it contribute to the need social support programs (i.e., the unemployable need SNAP, etc.)? Seperates how many fathers from their families? Fractures communities? And so on... The cost to society is significantly more than that budget figure. "U.S. incarcerates more than any other nation: report" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-prison-idUSN2862169320080228 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-prison-idUSN286...
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    I hate private prisons. But we've nearly won the battle against them already. And they're a convenient way for a lot of people to pretend that the whole public system isn't rotten to the core. > does how much sociopolitical damage? It leeds to how many damaged individuals? How much does it contribute to the need social support programs... Compared to publicly run prisons it leads to much much less damage > The cost to society is significantly more than that budget figure. Absolutely. But it works to compare them: the social cost of private and public prisons is probably roughly proportional to their budget. > "U.S. incarcerates more than any other nation: report" A huge problem I agree. But not one that would be fixed by getting rid of private prisons.

joegibbs 3y ago

This should be coupled with a massive increase in salaries for politicians - a lot of people think they should be paid less because they do a poor job. I think it's the other way around - they do a poor job because they aren't paid enough. Politicians are the most influential people in any given country. If the salary alone becomes a good incentive for people to go into politics, you'll get less ideologues, more people who would otherwise go into the private sector, less of a disconnect between their status and their wealth and less of an incentive to take corrupt deals, since they're already independently wealthy.

iudqnolq 3y ago
You'll also get less rich representatives. Right now the salary is insufficient to support a single person living comfortably reasonably near the workplace. Lots of them have roommates. And you'll notice the reps who say things like "if we can't work we should voluntarily suspend our salary" are the ones with significant other revenue sources.
jen20 3y ago
The salary of politicians should be tied to the median wage of the country at some multiple. Align their incentives with those who have to live with them.

NeutralForceUsr 3y ago

This is the only good thing that ever came from AOC.