Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#441

Post by michaelmrose » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #399

michaelmrose wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The income for a US senator or congressman is already literally exactly at the 95th percentile at 174,000. Making someone wealthy doesn't remove their incentive to gather more wealth it gives them a stake and incentive to be more effectively corrupt.

The number I saw was $300k. But either way, I don't think that's true. Countries with endemic corruption tend to underpay people. E.g., countries where you have to bribe cops and bureaucrats are ones where those people have a hard time making a living on their normal salary. Some people, of course, are infinitely greedy. But most people aren't. E.g., most developers I know aren't maximizing their income fully, and th…

I don't think increasing the pay of lawmakers from 175k to 300k would decrease the corrupting influence of money.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#442

Post by fukmbas » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

Lol this has literally been going on for decades but you guys only seem to care when a certain party is in control

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#443

Post by tootie » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

sakopov wrote: post #15

> 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…

Isn't that completely fake though? Pelosi was pushing stimulus for months. And the negotiations were all very public. Trump and McConnell were holding it up.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#444

Post by bjtitus » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

> House members are outperforming market averages

Some of the specific cases are compelling but it doesn't seem particularly surprising that one year's worth of relatively spectacular returns in many top sectors results in outperforming the market averages.

There are many many people who far outperformed the market averages by the end of 2020.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#445

Post by efnx » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

jwilber wrote: post #336

sakopov wrote: post #15

> 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…

Casually making millions, almost certainly illegally, while her district suffers as one of the nation’s most severe when it comes to income inequality. [0] Every day I become more and more convinced that all politicians are basically the same - chasing self-interests, power, and prestige. [0] https://www.ppic.org/publication/income-inequality-in-califo...

I think this is just one way in which many politicians are the same. This does not mean that they share all the same concerns or have the same plans for the country.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#446

Post by aerosmile » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

A lot of people here are suggesting that politicians should not be able to own any stock. I am sure that we can agree that the talent follows the money. I also assume we can agree that we need the best and the brightest in our government (as opposed to working at FAANG). My suggestion would be to pay good people a million bucks per year and multiples of that on top of it if they meet their campaign promises. I personally wouldn't mind if our politicians made 10x of what they make today, since that way we would hopefully attract more candidates and end up with better talent. Let's just make sure that the money they make is not driven by corporate interests.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#447

Post by wpietri » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #441

wpietri wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number I saw was $300k. But either way, I don't think that's true. Countries with endemic corruption tend to underpay people. E.g., countries where you have to bribe cops and bureaucrats are ones where those people have a hard time making a living on their normal salary. Some people, of course, are infinitely greedy. But most people aren't. E.g., most developers I know aren't maximizing their income fully, and th…

I don't think increasing the pay of lawmakers from 175k to 300k would decrease the corrupting influence of money.

Good thing that's not the only part to what we're discussing then.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#448

Post by BuyMyBitcoins » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

SavantIdiot wrote: post #316

mabbo wrote: post #9

The very people whose job it should be to stop this sort of thing are the ones who are profiting from it. How do you change this? No really, how can we force congress to change the rules so that elected officials can't profit from inside information? Why would they ever vote for such a bill?

You cannot. As long as there are rigged markets and cadres of elites, we can truly do nothing. Sad, really. Not helping the matter is half of the US is below average intelligence and will elect crooks because they say the right things. If only there were more Ron Wydens and AOCs. But you see red states electing nutjobs who barely have high school degrees (Boeber) because they shout the loudest.

AOC won’t be immune to the same pressure that eventually corrupts longtime politicians. She’s just barely begun her second term. I’m certain she’s already begun to make perfectly legal deals and investments that are going to look shady to average people.

Also, one person’s “shouting nutjob with barely a highschool degree” is someone else’s “passionate populist who represents the common people.”

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#449

Post by partiallypro » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #377

partiallypro wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot more to governance than expenditures and safety nets. I'm starting to think we've been in a free society in the west so long that people have simply overlooked the history of large governments stifling industry and life. Limited government is a very big thing in the West, even in countries with very generous social programs.

Could you at least pick one so we can talk specifics?

No, because you already have made up your mind that big government is good and will associate any market friendly economy with big government automatically in your head instead of looking at it on a global/historical scale. So there's no real reason to waste my time.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#450

Post by alexanderdmitri » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 3:41 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #427

klyrs wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree, and I'd like to extend it to their families as well. But... you ask "why not" and the simple reason is that only they could enact such a law. And even when the laws are in place -- Trump ran roughshod over the foreign emoluments clause, and there were zero consequences. Why would the richest and most powerful Democrats set such a precedent, only to have it turned around when they're in power and stand…

Are you advocating that if a relative of mine runs for office and is elected (whether I supported their candidacy or not), I should be prohibited from owning stock?

It could work the other way around, ie if your close relations have stock that may affect your governing decisions and they refuse to commit to re-investing more generally in the event of your election, then you are prohibited from running for office.

Obviously there would be complications, but are you advocating society shouldn't strive to clearly separate governance of the public from private, conflicting pecuniary interests? I can't tell if you're dismissing the problem or saying there's a better solution ...