Tim Cook called Pelosi to warn her against disrupting the iPhone with antitrust

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jun 24, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #22

joshuamorton wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn't. If your goal was to make investing while in congress less appealing, you'd pass laws, yes, but also pay people more. AoC had made the point before that if you make congressional pay too low, it becomes only feasible for the already-wealthy to maintain a political career. Also note that being a congressperson has weird extra expenses, you usually need to have two homes, one in DC and one in your home…

Because when people pass a certain wealth threshold they just say, "that's enough money, I am satisfied."

Post by solveit » Thu, Jun 24, 2021, 3:57 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #32

solveit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other[1], so you're stuck in a bit of a catch-22. [1] You can't crack down on on public servants questionably but not clearly criminally making money on the side if everyone that's supposed to…

I think you can crack down on even the appearance of corruption without paying huge salaries. I don't see why not. The two concerns seem orthogonal to me. I think we should crack down on even the appearance of corruption in judges, prosecutors, FBI agents, etc. Does that mean we need to pay each of them so much that they are effectively unbribe-able? Finally, it seems very strange to answer clear-in-aggregate corrupt…

Post by solveit » Thu, Jun 24, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

mangodrunk wrote: post #34

solveit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other[1], so you're stuck in a bit of a catch-22. [1] You can't crack down on on public servants questionably but not clearly criminally making money on the side if everyone that's supposed to…

Unfortunately people are greedy. I don't think there's a generous salary that would cause them to not want more. They could be making $50M a year, and they would still want more. I don't know what the solution would be, perhaps your suggestion isn't too bad and a good start.

Post by carlivar » Thu, Jun 24, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #21

cdot2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pelosi doesn't get paid enough is a surface of the sun level hot take.

It really isn't. If your goal was to make investing while in congress less appealing, you'd pass laws, yes, but also pay people more. AoC had made the point before that if you make congressional pay too low, it becomes only feasible for the already-wealthy to maintain a political career. Also note that being a congressperson has weird extra expenses, you usually need to have two homes, one in DC and one in your home…

Post by ben940830298432 » Thu, Jun 24, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

mangodrunk wrote: post #34

solveit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other[1], so you're stuck in a bit of a catch-22. [1] You can't crack down on on public servants questionably but not clearly criminally making money on the side if everyone that's supposed to…

Unfortunately people are greedy. I don't think there's a generous salary that would cause them to not want more. They could be making $50M a year, and they would still want more. I don't know what the solution would be, perhaps your suggestion isn't too bad and a good start.