House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#51

Post by nostromo » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work.

If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy.

So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a rounding error. Those families then use the power from being in office to enrich their families even more.

One solution could be to double or triple pay for US representatives along with banning stock trading and things like "speaking fees."

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#52

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #39

tootallgavin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election.No one is asking them to give up all income streams outside of their jobs, just to stop trading individual stocks. Senators have a LOT of knowledge about things that will effect stock prices that is outside of the public realm. Trading on that knowledge is a clear violation of public trust.

> just to stop trading individual stocks

Why?

Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life.

Insider trading is already illegal.

Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if the public does not know it too can invest where their politicians have invested.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#53

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #34

tootallgavin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

> So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Am I mistaken? I thought most political position are paid positions. Currently north of $150,000 USD for members of congress, I think?

And so how do these members of congress pay for staffing, research, etc? with just 150K per year?

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#54

Post by oneoff786 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Stock trading bans are huge detriments to rich people and minor detriments to poor people. 170k is frankly a lot of money. Sure, it could be more. I don’t think it’s all that necessary though.

Something that makes it hard for rich people to represent poor people without losing some wealth seems great to me.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#55

Post by devmunchies » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

I could get behind something like this. If you are re-elected, it would raise your salary.

At the very least, I don't see a problem with blind trusts or only investing in broad index funds and in a specific trading window. Politicians should be able to invest for retirement like everyone else.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#56

Post by encryptluks2 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

ckardat123 wrote: post #47

tenpies wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not common knowledge? Pelosi is a fantastic fund manager. If she weren't a politician she would crush almost every fund manager out there. You really have to be a die-hard Democrat to even pretend that it's a coincidence. See: https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/pelosi

The comment above is plainly false though. Pelosi's sale of Nvidia was timed incredibly poorly, if the goal was to avoid short-term price movement around the CHIPS Act news. $NVDA is up about 8% in the two days since the sale.

Up 8% now, down 15-20+% in the near future. Hm... would you rather sale now if you have a heads up that the CHIPS act is going to stall and affect the price, which is correlated to others in the industry, or wait until is down more?

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#57

Post by Sevii » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#58

Post by brianwawok » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Lawmaker pay is a rounding error.

Clearly we can't pay lawmakers $0 and expert high effort + no corruption.

is there any proof of any way that saying pay from 170k a year to ??? 1 million USD? a year would have any impact on the problems?

Do countries with less corrupt lawmakers pay more than the US? I doubt that...

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#59

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #35

tootallgavin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

Politicians don’t receive money directly from lobbyists and donors. Doing so would be a violation of rules against taking bribes. Lobbyists and donors give money to campaigns, which require untold sums of money these days, and a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party. As to their actual personal means of a congresspersons wealth, they’re paid fairly h…

> Politicians don’t receive money directly from lobbyists and donors. Doing so would be a violation of rules against taking bribes.

> a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party

I agree, trading stocks is an easy, relatively passive way of doing this.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#60

Post by AlgorithmicTime » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

Sevii wrote: post #57

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

We should let them own a house in their constituency, at least.

I'm open to disallowing real estate speculation.