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

Treason in the Futures Markets

paulkrugman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#51

Post by jfengel »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #30
jfengel wrote: post #9

"Treason" seems a bit much. We put a very high bar on that term because it comes with the most serious consequences. The fact that nobody seems particularly surprised by it suggests that the damage is long since done.

You don't think starting a war apparently to distract the media, then lying about peace talks solely to drain money from the markets is treasonous? How about when combined with all the tariffs, which seem designed to be market levers and/or just vindictive acts? Pushing businesses to the edge, plunging people into poverty, so your cronies and you can drain money from the stock market? Or taking bribes using crypto? O…

I was referring just to this bit of profiteering.

For the administration as a whole... Honestly, as disgusted as I am, I can't think of a case where a significant fraction of the country looked at a treasonous action and said "yeah, I'd vote for that again".

When his supporters turn against him he will be impeached. Until then, it's just the suicide pact called the Constitution.

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#52

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

stephbook wrote: post #13
the_gipsy wrote: post #10

Excuse my ignorance, but why can't this be traced? It's not crypto wallets, why is there no transparency here?

It can be traced, but the people who could and should be tracing this have been told not to. Even if they found the culprits, what's a judge's verdict against a presidential pardon?

If the culprits have been pardoned, they'd still be able to be sued by people who lost out during those trades.

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#53

Post by jfengel »

technothrasher wrote: post #14
jfengel wrote: post #9

"Treason" seems a bit much. We put a very high bar on that term because it comes with the most serious consequences. The fact that nobody seems particularly surprised by it suggests that the damage is long since done.

We (the US) put a high bar on it because the Crown was using it as a way to attack political enemies and we didn’t want to follow suit. It is such a high bar in this country that it is effectively dead law, as nobody has been tried for it since soon after WWII, and very very few people have been convicted, and of those several had their convictions overturned. The current administration does, however, throw the term…

The Constitution put a pretty high bar on a lot of things. They put an enormous thumb on the scale of the status quo, which benefits some and harms a lot of others. Especially since the proponents of the status quo get to now put their hands on their hearts and say "gosh, I'd like to fix that injustice, but the holy Constitution means I just can't."

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#54

Post by jfengel »

kasey_junk wrote: post #49
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think starting a war apparently to distract the media, then lying about peace talks solely to drain money from the markets is treasonous? How about when combined with all the tariffs, which seem designed to be market levers and/or just vindictive acts? Pushing businesses to the edge, plunging people into poverty, so your cronies and you can drain money from the stock market? Or taking bribes using crypto? O…

Treason means something very specific in the US, intentionally. It’s one of only a couple of criminal acts defined in the constitution. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” So no. None of those things is treason. This administration throws the word around loosely, like many authoritarian regimes, but the foun…

I do feel as if threats to apply the crime of treason while are, if not treasonous, crimes themselves. Threats are a criminal act, and there is a long precedent to disallow "I wasn't really gonna do it" as a defense.

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#55

Post by derwiki »

-warren wrote: post #20
jfengel wrote: post #9

"Treason" seems a bit much. We put a very high bar on that term because it comes with the most serious consequences. The fact that nobody seems particularly surprised by it suggests that the damage is long since done.

Agreed. War Profiteering [0] is probably a better term. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

Smedley Butler - War is a Racket. Good quick read.

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#56

Post by jfengel »

derwiki wrote: post #55
-warren wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. War Profiteering [0] is probably a better term. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

Smedley Butler - War is a Racket. Good quick read.

It is. But usually there's at least a fig leaf of an excuse. Nobody can even say what it is we're doing, much less why.

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#57

Post by giaour »

kubb wrote: post #12
giaour wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $580MM transaction described in the article is already 1,000 times larger than the alleged congressional insider trading by Paul Pelosi that caused Sen. Hawley to introduce the PELOSI act.

Honestly the PELOSI act is a step in the right direction, and should be extended to include all kinds of cryptocurrency and real estate. Also the president and his extended family should be included in it. The only problem is in the name. It's clearly just to score political points. I'd be surprised if it gets approved.

There are more recent versions with better names, like the Restore Trust in Congress Act[0], and one introduced a few days ago to ban congresspeople and the president (as well as their immediate family members) from betting on prediction markets[1].

I can only imagine the GP mentioned the PELOSI act (which, as I recall, was cosponsored by Nancy Pelosi and blocked by Republicans) because it was designed to be partisan messaging.

[0]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5106...

[1]: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/25/congress/la...

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#58

Post by the_gipsy »

sonzohan wrote: post #31
the_gipsy wrote: post #10

Excuse my ignorance, but why can't this be traced? It's not crypto wallets, why is there no transparency here?

It's not that it can't be traced, the author is stating it won't be traced because high-ranking government officials are selling those secrets. This is actually not new in this administration. Last year the president posted on social media telling people to buy stocks a few hours before he announced tariffs ( https://apnews.com/article/trump-truth-social-djt-tesla-musk... ). The bigger problem isn't whether or not it…

I should have been clearer, why can't this be publicly traced?

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#59

Post by 627467 »

jfengel wrote: post #56
derwiki wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smedley Butler - War is a Racket. Good quick read.

It is. But usually there's at least a fig leaf of an excuse. Nobody can even say what it is we're doing, much less why.

If having a fig leaf of an excuse really better? Its not like the acts or methods being now clearly observed now are anything new. Its just they aren't disguised

Re: Treason in the Futures Markets

#60

Post by libertine »

DLA wrote: post #42
libertine wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I'm finding it hard to believe this is a real comment. How's this a coincidence? Trump has boasted about this, that's the point we're in.[0] They're announcing in a newsletter a fund raising where they will share national secrets with donors.[1] This is literally people paying to get access to privileged information, in a fund raising for what? Like it's openly being said that if you pay enough money, y…

[flagged]

At least open the video lol he literally said it's an individual who made money lmao:

"This is Charles Schwab. It's not just a company... It's actually an individual... He made 2.5 billion today. And he (points at another individual) made 900 million".

Now the contents of the newsletter: "you'll receive my private national security briefings..."

It's like a low effort trolling, so I'll just flag and disregard your comment.

Post reply on HN