Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

Post by passerby1 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

skapadia wrote: post #80

sethammons wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my naive solution: politicians become monks. They go without. They are provided modest housing and budgets. I'm sure there are zounds of issues with it, but I like to imagine servant leaders who go without to do more for the communities they serve.

I've had a similar thought on many occasions, but even then, they will find alternative ways to acquire wealth and power. The clergy of many religions, in aggregate, have a lot of wealth and power, even if the wealth is not directly in their name. No system can prevent humans from exercising their basic instincts, emotions, urges, needs, and wants.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

api wrote: post #84

sakopov wrote: post #15

> For example, Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. Her husband buys deep ITM TSLA and AAPL calls that day. December 23rd, she is suddenly for stimulus again, with those same companies ralling 5%, giving her an instant +30 return. > Congressman Gottheimer is absolutely an incredible options trader. He’s been selling calls at peaks on $MSFT all 2021, & seemingly buying back the contracts on dips. This in blocks…

The fact that high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats can trade stocks at all is criminal. The moral hazard is unbelievable.

Post by devmor » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #130

YinglingLight wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Congressional acts are the most public thing possible Not when said action occurs a week before the Congressional act is announced. Is this HN thread flooded with bots or something? Have never seen this level of sympathy for politicians.

What they said was objectively true, regardless of your opinions for or against the situation.

Post by munk-a » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #125

wpietri wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever the behind-the-scenes truth, I think the appearance of conflicting interests is a problem regardless. For a lot of elected offices and high public service positions, I think their wealth should be put into a blind trust, one constrained by law to buy broad, boring things like index funds. That would surely be a problem for some individuals. But I don't think it's a systemic problem. We only need to find 0.00…

I think this presupposes the lie that the government is by, of, or for the (majority of the) people. This is a closed system, and most are not allowed anywhere near the control room. It, including these trades, is working as intended.

Post by paulryanrogers » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #128

wpietri wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever the behind-the-scenes truth, I think the appearance of conflicting interests is a problem regardless. For a lot of elected offices and high public service positions, I think their wealth should be put into a blind trust, one constrained by law to buy broad, boring things like index funds. That would surely be a problem for some individuals. But I don't think it's a systemic problem. We only need to find 0.00…

I think it's easy to rephrase this as follows: People should not be able to make bets on matters over which they secretly control the outcome. That means any federal official should have their investments behind a blind trust of some sort, no exceptions.