301–310 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We only need to find 0.00013% of the US population Maybe we should use sortition then instead of elections? What could be more democratic than random average people (meeting some criteria) taking a turn at the wheel?
I agree, I have long thought sortition might be the right answer. Right along with leveraging modern technology to reset our representative-to-citizen ratio to something like the constitution originally prescribed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this presupposes the lie that the government is by, of, or for the (majority of the) people. This is a closed system, and most are not allowed anywhere near the control room. It, including these trades, is working as intended.
> It, including these trades, is working as intended. You can view the US in a lot of cynical ways but it was not created as a vehicle to allow the wealthy to continue to gain wealth at the expense of the poor. Insider trading between congressmen using their posts to fleece the public was never an intent of the government.
I mean the American revolution was spearheaded by wealthy land and slave owners who were tired of taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also as a regular fintech worker, I have to get internal approval from my employer for anything I do. Why can government representatives trade willy nilly without any oversight?
Do you actually "have to"? How would they know if you don't? Basically, is it an honor system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I speak for a lot of people that while I agree with you in principle, the sudden interest in this idea in Republican circles after the prior administration's absolute mockery of conflict of interest and self-dealing laws seems hypocritical.
Can you provide any sources for your claims that prove Trump administration personnel directly profited off any supposed self dealings? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass bc you are a lib? Also, who else specifically do you "speak for"? This article isn't even about self-serving decisions that may benefit politicians down the road...it's about politicians who are actively using politician-privy inside infor…
This is getting tired. If you are interested in his cronies’ self dealings just look it up. They did all of these things and more but also did them more explicitly. Which is a bit more honest in a way I guess?
But the worst part about 2017-2020 was the way he cozied up to enemies of democracy, undermined democracy himself and made a point of sowing and igniting division.
Back to the article, this behaviour is despicable and should be punished for everyone, D or R.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just require them to announce their trades publicly 24 hours in advance. And let them manage their own finances. All these shenanigan's would disappear.
Why not just prohibit members of Congress of owning stock? They are some of the most powerful people in the world. Why is it so much to ask that a Senator or especially Representative serving in the most powerful legislative body in the world just take a cash position for 2-6 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever the behind-the-scenes truth, I think the appearance of conflicting interests is a problem regardless. For a lot of elected offices and high public service positions, I think their wealth should be put into a blind trust, one constrained by law to buy broad, boring things like index funds. That would surely be a problem for some individuals. But I don't think it's a systemic problem. We only need to find 0.00…
Just require them to announce their trades publicly 24 hours in advance. And let them manage their own finances. All these shenanigan's would disappear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you cash out the options when the IV spikes when swings up.
So, back to the original question: wouldn't OTM options make more sense in their position?
This is captured in the concept of Delta one of the “greeks” which is a parameter in the black scholes equation and solution that tries to measure the pricing movement of the option relative to the price movement of the stock. Owning stock has a delta of 1. ITM options have a delta closer to 1 but not exactly 1, OTM options have a delta closer to 0, but not exactly 0. ATM options of a delta around .5.
> For example, Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. Her husband buys deep ITM TSLA and AAPL calls that day. December 23rd, she is suddenly for stimulus again, with those same companies ralling 5%, giving her an instant +30 return. > Congressman Gottheimer is absolutely an incredible options trader. He’s been selling calls at peaks on $MSFT all 2021, & seemingly buying back the contracts on dips. This in blocks…
> Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. This is not true. It’s very odd to see the kind of right-wing conspiracies based on outright fabrications spread on HN as literal truths. Here is an article from December 22 were Pelosi is calling for more stimulus: www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/22/trump-calls-covid-relief-bill-unsuitable-and-demands-congress-add-higher-stimulus-payments.html Here is her direct tweet dated 12/…
maybe on that one point, but the fact the democrats trade way more on the markets is not a conspiracy theory, it's an outright conspiracy.
why are you defending these people? because they're democrats on paper?
> On a whole, Democrats seem to love tech and Republicans seem to love oil and gas.
But I hadn't really thought about the wide-reaching implications until now; perhaps its more than a coincidence that the current cryptocurrency bull run really took off shortly after Biden won the presidential election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me, but here's a provocative hypothesis I spent three minutes thinking through. Couldn't you say that speculating with insider information on public markets can be a way for public officials to make a lot of money without marrying themselves to any particular interests? In that case, couldn't it be potentially a mechanism we can exploit for good? Disclaimer: not American, no strong opinion on these peo…
Sure, speculating on insider information on public markets is a great way for anyone to make a lot of money. It's also highly illegal, although there does seem to be some fairly prominent views that allowing insider trading would actually help get relevant information priced into the public markets. But even if you're one of those proponents of insider trading, surely this is clearly different and worse than that, be…
You are right that if the officials actually cared about companies, it would not make sense. I was thinking more like hedge fund-like cold speculation. As people guessed correctly, the point is to make the job very appealing but with little ties to powerful interests. Of course is not a serious scheme, but I'm amused by the concept I guess.