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

301–310 of 382 posts

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

#301

Post by drdaeman »

techdragon wrote: post #225
hazmazlaz wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is so great that it amazes me that we have so few pro-society incentives for competent and well intentioned individuals to serve on the highest governing bodies. If I could wave a magic wand and change things, here's what I would do: 1. Increase pay for senators…

I'd cut those numbers in half, 5x and 2.5x and the pension at half pay... Over a Million a year for a few years is a great way to bank up a "set for life if I'm smart with my money" stockpile (at least it has been until now, and may continue to be for a little while) and so you want it a little lower to avoid a constant churn of people charging at the gates for a shot at that money. Otherwise totally agree. I'd even…

I don't think even this would work, unless, you know, we start exiling politicians to Mars or something like that, where they'd be completely out of touch with the society that they were in.

Sure one can (theoretically, this is just not going to fly in practice because those who are already in power won't let it happen) prohibit direct employment and other official forms of affiliation, but it would be hard to prohibit receiving gifts, talking with good friends, getting invitations and so on. Yes, you can list such things, and let judges review it, but humans are creative and there always will be loopholes.

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

#302

Post by larkost »

bobthepanda wrote: post #248
granfalloon wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wouldn't! That's the downside. Or maybe not a downside -- there could be an even stronger incentive for politicians to get stuff done. Since voters would have to make their decisions based entirely actual results, and not an individual politician's voting record, the politicians might have a stronger incentive to build coalitions and influence other politicians' votes. My half-baked point is that the harm of vot…

That doesn’t really work though, people vote for their rep, not some amorphous party blob. On the other hand, it gives pols plausible deniability that they aren’t getting bought out.

I should point out that places like Germany do vote for the party, not the person for positions like Parliament. In each region the parties submit slates of people they would put into the positions if they got all of the votes, and then once people vote they get a proportionate number of their slate into actual offices. There are lots of details here, but it is a system that works.

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

#303

Post by [deleted] »

wkimeria wrote: post #251
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'm originally from Kenya. We used to have a joke "If it happens in Africa it is called corruption. If it happens in the US it is called lobbying". I remember seeing a chart of how much money a Senator had to raise every week for their next race and it was stark bonkers (and this was in the 90s, before Citizens United). I just checked and the figure is even worse now. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of…

[deleted]

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

#304

Post by washadjeffmad »

granfalloon wrote: post #219
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 like the idea of "blind" or anonymous congressional voting. It feels counterintuitive, but donors might be less willing to "buy" votes if they can't confirm that they're getting what they pay for. And a representative who has accepted lots of corporate money might feel safer "betraying" those donors. I think representatives would still feel pressure to vote in line with the interests of their constituents and get r…

In firing squads, one rifle holds a blank to preserve the possibility in the hearts of the shooters that theirs was not the shot that killed.

I imagine blind voting would also serve to assuage the worries of legislators. If only we knew what each worried about.

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

#305

Post by bshoemaker »

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…

Yet another thing Democrats fight against and Republicans support

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

#307

Post by mrandish »

wkimeria wrote: post #251
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'm originally from Kenya. We used to have a joke "If it happens in Africa it is called corruption. If it happens in the US it is called lobbying". I remember seeing a chart of how much money a Senator had to raise every week for their next race and it was stark bonkers (and this was in the 90s, before Citizens United). I just checked and the figure is even worse now. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of…

> Money in politics is the root of most of what ails the U.S political system

I disagree that money is the root. Money is still one level above the true root, which is what the money is needed to buy: "Re-election." Thus, an alternative, though unconventional, solution is single-term limits. Once elected to any national public office, you can never run for that or any other elected office again. One and done.

This idea is not without it's share of potential problems, but I think that's true of any potential solution that has a chance of actually working. After thinking it through, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the "single-term" set of potential downsides over the others.

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

#309

Post by lolsal »

hazmazlaz wrote: post #205
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 agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is so great that it amazes me that we have so few pro-society incentives for competent and well intentioned individuals to serve on the highest governing bodies. If I could wave a magic wand and change things, here's what I would do: 1. Increase pay for senators…

I'd propose the increase be tied to minimum wage, even if the multiplier is huge: salary = 200,000 x 7.25, or whatever the math and numbers work out to be.

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

#310

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

Banning trading individual stocks is not the same thing as banning investing. A blind trust isn't a problem for a huge number of fortune 500 company executives.
Post reply on HN