4 ms·

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion tha

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion that they did become multi millionaires without inside information. It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. "Representative Nancy Pelosi has made up to $12.5M off of Microsoft stock so far this year. This is almost 100 times her salary as a member of Congress. " I love this graph https://twitter.com/QuiverQuant/status/1680973761560846338 https://twitter.com/QuiverQuant/status/1680973761560846338

psychlops 3y ago
Inside trading is legal for them so isn't really a bad word. I see no reason why they can't trade stocks as long as they are required to publicly disclose their trades a week before the purchase is made, not after.
exabrial 3y ago
> It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. Other way around, every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. EDIT: ==== Other comment says a week, I'm good with that
- psychlops 3y ago
  Really if they simply became subject to the same rules as everyone else that has sensitive insider information, the problem would be solved. Those who work in the investment industry are subject to strict rules.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. If you know in advance what position someone is going to take, then, logically they have already taken the position (otherwise, how would you know with certainty what position they're going to take?. This isn't mere wordplay; the practical consequence is that even if you knew in advance how they would vote on a particular decision (maybe you're definition of "position they plan to take"), you should assume they have also already made other steps to take advantage of that public knowledge. If my reasoning is correct, then I don't know that your proposal would make too much of a dent in the (safe to assume) "insider trading" that's happening. So I think a better policy would be to be ban trading altogether for these folks, because that would also disincentivize people from pursuing these careers for extreme profit.
  - tzs 3y ago
    The above comments are talking about positions in stocks, not positions on issues. In finance a position is having ownership of something. For example right now I do not own any Apple stock so it might be said I do not have a position in Apple. If I were to buy Apple stock that would be taking a position. What then is being suggested above is that Congress members and Executive members have to make public trades they are going to do 24 hours before making those trades.
carimura 3y ago
I'm certainly not advocating for our ruling class but also consider that the cost to run and win a senate seat is something like $15M and a house seat over $2M (and that was data from a few years ago and only took averages, not the top races which were dramatically higher). And they are full time jobs that require an enormous amount of personal ambition (which is usually tied to wealth) so one can argue even being in congress prices out anyone NOT a "multi-millionaire".
- digdugdirk 3y ago
  ... Is this the other side of the argument? If so, it really helps frame just how messed up this system is.
  - Xeamek 3y ago
    No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in. Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a lot to campaign for high positions in country as big as the US. Actually, in any country.
    - digdugdirk 3y ago
      There's definitely alternatives. Just as an example - Require every campaign to fund all expenses and advertising from a single campaign account, and limit funding sources to individual people with a personal contribution limit per candidate. Heck, limit the actual campaign period to the 3-4 months before the election while we're at it. No more super bowl campaign ads? That sounds like a great system to me.
      - Xeamek 3y ago
        But that can by bypassed super easily. Sure, you might not get adds of type "vote X" anymore. But then I will just sponsor a "documentary" about all the ways that Y screwed the country over. Or even more directly, why X KS a great politician. As for single account, again: will your forbid other "individuals" to make any political contributions that might or might not influence standings of a given candidate? Verry quickly you start playing cat and mouse game, and at the same time, heavily infringing on freedom of expression
justrealist 3y ago
This is not a good graph. Trade volume is a function of how actively you trade, not total wealth gained, lost or held. Day-traders have massive "trade volume" relative to those who hold large index funds.
Workaccount2 3y ago
How the hell would Pelosi have insider information on Microsoft that made it run? Everyone here knew about Openai, ChatGPT, and Microsoft since day 1.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Nancy Pelosi is married to a fund manager. Most congressional returns underperform the market.

psychlops 3y ago

Inside trading is legal for them so isn't really a bad word. I see no reason why they can't trade stocks as long as they are required to publicly disclose their trades a week before the purchase is made, not after.

exabrial 3y ago

> It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. Other way around, every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. EDIT: ==== Other comment says a week, I'm good with that

psychlops 3y ago
Really if they simply became subject to the same rules as everyone else that has sensitive insider information, the problem would be solved. Those who work in the investment industry are subject to strict rules.
andsoitis 3y ago
> every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. If you know in advance what position someone is going to take, then, logically they have already taken the position (otherwise, how would you know with certainty what position they're going to take?. This isn't mere wordplay; the practical consequence is that even if you knew in advance how they would vote on a particular decision (maybe you're definition of "position they plan to take"), you should assume they have also already made other steps to take advantage of that public knowledge. If my reasoning is correct, then I don't know that your proposal would make too much of a dent in the (safe to assume) "insider trading" that's happening. So I think a better policy would be to be ban trading altogether for these folks, because that would also disincentivize people from pursuing these careers for extreme profit.
- tzs 3y ago
  The above comments are talking about positions in stocks, not positions on issues. In finance a position is having ownership of something. For example right now I do not own any Apple stock so it might be said I do not have a position in Apple. If I were to buy Apple stock that would be taking a position. What then is being suggested above is that Congress members and Executive members have to make public trades they are going to do 24 hours before making those trades.

carimura 3y ago

I'm certainly not advocating for our ruling class but also consider that the cost to run and win a senate seat is something like $15M and a house seat over $2M (and that was data from a few years ago and only took averages, not the top races which were dramatically higher). And they are full time jobs that require an enormous amount of personal ambition (which is usually tied to wealth) so one can argue even being in congress prices out anyone NOT a "multi-millionaire".

digdugdirk 3y ago
... Is this the other side of the argument? If so, it really helps frame just how messed up this system is.
- Xeamek 3y ago
  No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in. Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a lot to campaign for high positions in country as big as the US. Actually, in any country.
  - digdugdirk 3y ago
    There's definitely alternatives. Just as an example - Require every campaign to fund all expenses and advertising from a single campaign account, and limit funding sources to individual people with a personal contribution limit per candidate. Heck, limit the actual campaign period to the 3-4 months before the election while we're at it. No more super bowl campaign ads? That sounds like a great system to me.
    - Xeamek 3y ago
      But that can by bypassed super easily. Sure, you might not get adds of type "vote X" anymore. But then I will just sponsor a "documentary" about all the ways that Y screwed the country over. Or even more directly, why X KS a great politician. As for single account, again: will your forbid other "individuals" to make any political contributions that might or might not influence standings of a given candidate? Verry quickly you start playing cat and mouse game, and at the same time, heavily infringing on freedom of expression

justrealist 3y ago

This is not a good graph. Trade volume is a function of how actively you trade, not total wealth gained, lost or held. Day-traders have massive "trade volume" relative to those who hold large index funds.

Workaccount2 3y ago

How the hell would Pelosi have insider information on Microsoft that made it run? Everyone here knew about Openai, ChatGPT, and Microsoft since day 1.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Nancy Pelosi is married to a fund manager. Most congressional returns underperform the market.