Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

seekingalpha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 382 posts

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

#131

Post by groby_b »

seibelj wrote: post #124
hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

It's not just an unpopular opinion, it also shows an utter lack of critical thinking.

Do those with more resources owe them to chance, or did they do actual work?

Of those who worked for more resources, how did they achieve those resources? Are those ways actually in any way beneficial to society at large, or are they not replicable across wide swaths? Or are they possibly deliberately not beneficial to the country, but to those with resources?

Is it possible that growing wealth is easier if you already have access to wealth, merely by having that access?

Why do you think people with more resources actually know what they are doing? There is plentiful evidence to the contrary. (See e.g. Enron)

There is nothing inherent in a free market that means people with more resources are somehow more qualified to lead a country. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but if you'd like to make that point, you'll need to go well beyond a simple declaration of faith.

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

#132

Post by jwkane »

seibelj wrote: post #124
hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

Is it reasonable to assume that the wealthiest people are more interested in optimizing society for what is best for the country as a whole or optimizing it so they can acquire more wealth/power? How often are those two possible optimizations in conflict?

I think it is an unpopular opinion for two primary reasons. There are inherent conflicts of interest. Being good at one thing (often being really good at being born with the right parents) does not necessarily correlate with decision making on behalf of society at large.

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

#133

Post by rhcom2 »

seibelj wrote: post #124
hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

So a plutocracy

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

#134

Post by deltarholamda »

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…

The fix for this was in the founding documents. We just jacked it up over the years.

Congress passes laws. They aren't supposed to pass a vague law and then hand over the actual rule-making to unelected government bureaucracies.

The House is the people's house. Each Representative represents some relatively equal number of constituents. The Senate is the States' house. The state legislatures sends senators. The Senators represent the interests of their State.

We jiggered with this, and this is how rich people and corporations can influence so much of what goes on. The original system encourages accountability.

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

#135

Post by okasaki »

_8j50 wrote: post #84
Sevii wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Better Idea: $300k base and a performance bonus up to 100% more based on sponsored laws and an additional 100% for passed laws with an extra 100k for no votes missed or abstained. So a perfectly performing congressperson gets a mil.

How about 2M per year, but at the end there's a vote and if you have less than 50% approval you have to give it back?

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

#136

Post by hedora »

twblalock wrote: post #123
hedora wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leav…

Nobody sane would take that deal.

Which part? If you get elected to the Senate, you and your kids are set for life.

Do you really want people greedier than that running the country?

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

#137

Post by pessimizer »

vasco wrote: post #120
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

> You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career. Why? I mean you just say that as if it's some universal truth. I don't see how focusing on civic duty is any better as a way to find good candidates than optimizing for high achieving people looking for lucrative fields to work on. I don't know which would yield better results…

You don't see how a desire for public service would suit someone in public service better than the desire to get rich?

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

#138

Post by pessimizer »

listless wrote: post #119
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…

"few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work." Is there any data to back that up? Because it seems to me like people are falling all over themselves and saying all kinds of crazy shit just to get into office. It looks to me like we have the opposite problem - certain kinds of people CRAVE this power and attention and will do anything to get it.

I agree. Seems like they spend more than one (or two) orders of magnitude more than the salary of the job to get the job.

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

#139

Post by pessimizer »

hedora wrote: post #94
brianwawok wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Manchin has made it clear he will happily (and literally) burn the entire planet down for $5M/year. If lobbying is legal, than bribes should be too. I'd chip into the "Pay Manchin a ransom of $50M to not do $50T of damage to the planet" fund.

> If lobbying is legal, than bribes should be too.

Also selling your vote. Then we can at least choose the pol who sends the biggest check.

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

#140

Post by DIARRHEA_xd »

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates…

The notable exception to this, of course, is Trump's primary AND general elections.
Post reply on HN