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

341–350 of 382 posts

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

#341

Post by bobthepanda »

larkost wrote: post #302
bobthepanda wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They vote for both party and person in MMP. Voters submit both a party list preference and a candidate preference.

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

#342

Post by closeparen »

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…

Campaigns need money because voters choose to be governed according to TV ads. This choice certainly frustrates elite nerds like HN readers and Larry Lessig. But it's tough to call it any less legitimate than other exercises of democratic power. To be governed by the people is to be governed by the decision-making heuristics natural to the people. In politics inclusive of everyday people, policy is going to play a minor role. That's how people are.

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

#343

Post by krapp »

unethical_ban wrote: post #206
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. That sounds great. I agree in principle. However, I believe the parent is asserting that in practice, the kinds of people who are competent and able to effectively manage a large organization are the kinds of people that can make a lot of money in the private sector, and thus on…

>I believe the parent is asserting that in practice, the kinds of people who are competent and able to effectively manage a large organization are the kinds of people that can make a lot of money in the private sector, and thus only go into public office if it is lucrative anyway.

So pay them less in the private sector as well. Our willingness to accept people hoarding unlimited wealth and power because "capitalism" while seeking to limit government as much as possible is a perverse incentive that's leading the US to becoming an oligarchy. If we're not willing or able to raise the quality of life for the poor, then bring everyone else down a notch or two.

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

#344

Post by Tiktaalik »

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 thing is though is that the Senators aren't the people that really need to be top talent, it's the bureaucrats that actually implement the legislation and policies that needs to be top talent. Those are the people that should be being paid CEO level salaries because they're the ones that are genuinely running the massive organizations.

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

#345

Post by kelnos »

brianwawok wrote: post #58
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…

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...

Another commenter here claimed that in Singapore, they pay 3x the national median salary. Singapore is not my cup of tea government-wise, but they are viewed as one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Certainly that's not solely due to how they are paid, but I'm sure it factors in.

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

#346

Post by kelnos »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #286
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…

Paying them more wont change the types of people that are drawn to politics. Power corrupts regardless of the salary. The only way to fix corruption is to make it illegal and prosecute it ruthlessly.

That sounds unrealistic. How do you make corruption illegal when the people who benefit from corruption are the ones who have the power to make it legal? At the very least, they get to decide which cases to pursue.

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

#347

Post by mrandish »

mushbino wrote: post #325
mrandish wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

This is why the revolving door exists. Do what we want and we'll give you a high paying job afterward. There are former congressman currently making $3 million a year as lobbyists as soon as they leave office.

There are already voluntary (but expected) commitments from cabinet members not to engage in lobbying for five years (I think, may be more) after leaving office. I would make these commitments rules and extend them to all legislators, while in exchange adding a nice yearly stipend in the years immediately after office and dramatically increasing legislator pay during their one term (>$1M/yr).

There's only 535 of these roles and as their employer (a voter), I'd much rather have them directly over-compensated by us voters than indirectly compensated by special interests. I think it's fair (and a good deal for voters) to basically buy an "exclusivity" agreement from our elected representatives by paying them openly to contractually commit to not monetize their influence or relationships after leaving office.

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

#348

Post by undersuit »

JamesBarney wrote: post #326
dr_dshiv wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much are politicians paid —and how does their salary affect corruption? It might not be a popular opinion, but perhaps we should double the wages of US Representatives (they currently make $175k—not a lot in Washington DC). Is paying US representatives $350k worth the money? First, a bigger financial cushion for representatives might reduce financial corruption. Second, a bigger salary might attract more talented…

I think we should pay them more. I just think getting better candidates would be much more influential than the reduction in corruption. Most corruption isn't someone dropping off a bag of money. It's an organization donating a bunch of money so they can put somebody intelligent charming and attractive in front of the senator who is going to have a really good argument why certain provisions are good for their consti…

I think we should pay all of our politicians more. Some state politicians are essentially volunteer positions. How are we supposed to get younger candidates into politics if you need to be not reliant on an external job that may not approve of your political activities?

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

#350

Post by ericmay »

tootallgavin wrote: post #262
ericmay wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc. Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... So…

> Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions... Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped. > So the issue we elected…

Sorry, I'm just not following your point of view here. You said these things:

> I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc.

And I just explained that we are voting on these things and that disallowing politicians buying individual socks was one of the things that you categorized and that we are voting on.

So if you are arguing that we "vote in issues, etc." I'm just pointing out we do vote on issues and this is just one. So you either have to agree with what you said (and then agree with that I said), or refute your own comment. Your choice. There's no alternative to this scenario here.

> Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.

Then you propose no solution and expect things to just get worse indefinitely, without barriers, and for all of time. Which is kind of pointless and non-productive. Should we not have laws against murder or rape just because that begets more law enforcement?

Post reply on HN