6 ms·
> The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts. Unless you're going to ban congresspersons to hae wealth-- w
by nullc 3y ago
> The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts.
Unless you're going to ban congresspersons to hae wealth-- where is the money going to go and what distorting effects will that have -- and will it be superior to the problems of (say) having a blind trust that just holds market indices?
- thunky 3y agoI don't see anything wrong with them owning total (US) market indices.
- barbariangrunge 3y agoTake greenhouse gas emissions for example: if we had acted more aggressively in the past, we might have mitigated a lot of the climate change we're seeing today. But it would have impacted the stock market, and every senator/congressperson would have lost money personally by backing those initiatives. So, today, now we have record temperatures as the norm, ie, we're not shocked when every third Tuesday we see a record temperature and extreme weather event
- thunky 3y agoI think that's a stretch. Energy is 4.5% of the S&P. Even if they weren't invested directly in Exxon they would not want to be associated with killing an industry and the jobs that go with it. They could have made money backing green energy just as easily anyway.
- mburns 3y agoIt goes into a blind trust or an index fund. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/349...
- nullc 3y agoIndeed, wtf. the article seems to directly contradict the bill text.
- iancmceachern 3y agoThere are so many different investments other than stocks.
- 7jjjjjjj 3y ago> Unless you're going to ban congresspersons to hae wealth BASED If you care more about personal wealth than the American people you shouldn't be running for public office.