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

Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–238 of 238 posts

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#231

Post by harry8 »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #195
munchler wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm scathing about Josh Hawley because he encouraged a coup against the US government, not because he's some sort of "outsider".

imo, even more egregious than this is Josh Hawley's incessant needling, pestering, leading, talking over, and ultimately ignoring every single person he has ever questioned as part of a congressional hearing. He asks people leading questions, then when they start to give a legit answer he just talks over them in an attempt to make them look like they couldn't answer the question. Conservatives eat that dumb shit up.…

Yeah it's terrible isn't it? Don't fall for the base accusation that it's "them from that side that do it." Did you see Matt Taibbi testifying. Plaskett & Wasserman Schultz showing us what they are?

The point is this is the kind of BS (and you're 100% right, it is awful) that you have to put in the "less important" basket if you want to get anything reformed ever.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#232

Post by harry8 »

harry8 wrote: post #42
plim8481 wrote: post #26

Never thought I'd see the day Kirsten Gillibrand and Josh Hawley would co-author a bill

This kind of thing, outsiders from both sides of government joining to try to get something done is the only way you will ever get any reform. Also why the insiders from both sides will be so scathing about outsiders on the other side and claim they are literally $evil_person_from_history

Look how easily this was derailed from a wildly popular reform bill that you probably want to people hating on Hawley. You do have to admire Pelosi, she and the hundreds like her in power really do have us and get our support despite what we /know/ they are very deftly. How is Feinstein doing nowadays?

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#233

Post by Xorakios »

neilv wrote: post #50

I would love for all lawmakers to be limited to market index investing. Say, asset allocation (other than their home and a Washington pied a terre) of 50% US stocks index, 20% non-US stocks index, 30% US bonds index. No stock-picking. No sector-picking. No real estate other than through the indexes. No private company ownership. No trusts. No circumvention. Alignment with ordinary people's retirement funds seems grea…

Or just US treasuries.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#234

Post by HWR_14 »

carlmr wrote: post #230
HWR_14 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, Nancy Pelosi is interesting. She entered Congress 36 years ago. If she put $3MM in the S&P index when she joined Congress, and never touched it, it would be worth $108.66MM today. If anything, that's a clear argument she isn't insider trading. I always assumed she was a huge inside trader making a ton of money. Meanwhile, her husband is a VC, and probably makes a good deal of money for them as well.

>and never touched it, Didn't she touch it though? A lot of people would be multimillionaires if they only put money in and never took money out. The question is, with what she did invest, and the money she did take out, would she still be that wealthy.

I have no idea if she touched it. Her husband makes a lot of money and she makes a good amount as well.

Also, that's the lower bound by what people estimated she had when she entered congress and close to the upper bound of what she would be worth today.

But it's entirely possible that someone in the SF area with a SV husband beat the S&P without resorting to insider trading on public markets. Heck, the house she bought has probably beaten the S&P.

To reiterate, I always assumed she was insider trading. These numbers are making me question that.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#235

Post by Xeamek »

digdugdirk wrote: post #208
Xeamek wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in. Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a…

There's definitely alternatives. Just as an example - Require every campaign to fund all expenses and advertising from a single campaign account, and limit funding sources to individual people with a personal contribution limit per candidate. Heck, limit the actual campaign period to the 3-4 months before the election while we're at it. No more super bowl campaign ads? That sounds like a great system to me.

But that can by bypassed super easily. Sure, you might not get adds of type "vote X" anymore. But then I will just sponsor a "documentary" about all the ways that Y screwed the country over. Or even more directly, why X KS a great politician.

As for single account, again: will your forbid other "individuals" to make any political contributions that might or might not influence standings of a given candidate? Verry quickly you start playing cat and mouse game, and at the same time, heavily infringing on freedom of expression

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#236

Post by carlmr »

HWR_14 wrote: post #234
carlmr wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and never touched it, Didn't she touch it though? A lot of people would be multimillionaires if they only put money in and never took money out. The question is, with what she did invest, and the money she did take out, would she still be that wealthy.

I have no idea if she touched it. Her husband makes a lot of money and she makes a good amount as well. Also, that's the lower bound by what people estimated she had when she entered congress and close to the upper bound of what she would be worth today. But it's entirely possible that someone in the SF area with a SV husband beat the S&P without resorting to insider trading on public markets. Heck, the house she bou…

My point is rather, if she had invested all her money back then and if she never used any of it she would have a similar amount of money now without insider trading.

Most people don't lump sum in the market like that, it probably ignores the taxes she would have to pay if she took the money out now, and most people use some of the money in the meantime.

I'm just saying if you lived a good lifestyle, the money is already mostly taxed, and you didn't invest everything all-at-once, and you still have the amount of money you would get with lump-sum and never touch S&P, you're doing far far better than the market.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#237

Post by carimura »

Xeamek wrote: post #86
digdugdirk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Is this the other side of the argument? If so, it really helps frame just how messed up this system is.

No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in. Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a…

Well the problem is a) size of congress hasn't kept up with growth of country, and b) there are a lot more wealthy people.

So basic supply and demand means more competitive seats, more expensive races, more pricing out anyone attached to the reality of living an average citizens life in this country.

I don't have an alternative proposal at the moment but step 1 is identifying the issue.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#238

Post by DontchaKnowit »

harry8 wrote: post #231
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imo, even more egregious than this is Josh Hawley's incessant needling, pestering, leading, talking over, and ultimately ignoring every single person he has ever questioned as part of a congressional hearing. He asks people leading questions, then when they start to give a legit answer he just talks over them in an attempt to make them look like they couldn't answer the question. Conservatives eat that dumb shit up.…

Yeah it's terrible isn't it? Don't fall for the base accusation that it's "them from that side that do it." Did you see Matt Taibbi testifying. Plaskett & Wasserman Schultz showing us what they are? The point is this is the kind of BS (and you're 100% right, it is awful) that you have to put in the "less important" basket if you want to get anything reformed ever.

Yeah im a conservative, but the republicans have got some special variety of stupid in congress. Liberals too but its a different variety.
Post reply on HN