5 ms·

> There's a middle ground somewhere in there I'm sure The parent commenter pointed out the middle ground: > I think only allowing congress members to buy and

• Uvix 1y ago
  That’s not a middle ground; index funds are profitable based on the country’s success, not the trader’s. And you don’t get that same dopamine hit as gambling. They’re the smarter place for people to put their money but I wouldn’t consider them a comparable product.
  • willvarfar 1y ago
    Perhaps Congress have a way of influencing the country's success in a way that Uvix can't? If congress has to bet on the overall economy instead of e.g. spotting that riot gear providers goes up when country goes down, that would be a good thing?
  • marcusb 1y ago
    Yes, it is a middle ground. The extreme positions here are "no equity ownership, directly or indirectly" and "no trading restrictions at all." Allowing index fund purchases is squarely in the middle of that continuum. Additionally, your description of how people purchase and make money on indexes funds is incomplete at best. Really, it's just factually incorrect in that it presumes a certain purchase strategy. People do short-term, dopamine-inducing trades of index funds all the time. But, I don't think elected representatives should be able to do that, either. At the very least, successful short term trading - directly or through an advisor, of an individual security or a fund - creates the appearance of impropriety.