alt Hacker NewsWell it’s pretty benign if they aren’t making different decisions on laws based on existing holdings. That’s just insider trading which is a tax on the shareholders.
Bribery or anything else that affects their lawmaking decisions is significantly worse because the impact is so much larger.
Replies
clevergadget • today at 2:32 PM
if they are actively avoiding making decisions based on how it would directly impact them? o,O
AnimalMuppet • today at 2:31 PM
If.
But there is a third option: They are making decisions based on what will move something the most - doesn't matter what, and doesn't matter which way, and doesn't matter for how long. Then they invest in that thing a bit before the decision becomes public that moves that thing.
How can you be certain that policymakers won't make decisions that help their trading instead of their constituents? The incentive is already there, and the whole thing is legal, too.
Don't get me wrong, I think campaign donations or even more explicit bribes are a huge problem, too, but it is already insane to me that you would ban and prosecute "ordinary insider traders" and just let lawmakers do whatever. If presidents have to give up peanut farming, then asking for congressmembers to be utterly decoupled from stock trading decisions is only fair and sensible in my view.