alt Hacker NewsIf you want stock trading by congressional representatives (or government officials more broadly) to be banned, I don't think it matters whether they actually beat the market.
The best argument against stock trading is that even the appearance or potential for impropriety of this kind violates the public trust and undermines faith in our governing institutions.
Being an elected official should come with borderline draconian limits on how you are allowed to spend your money.
Replies
I think we tend to have a very different perception of Representatives' job requirements than what they do. To them, their job is (a) an obedient voter and speaker for their caucus, (b) a superstar fundraiser for their caucus, and (c) a broker-at-large of power and funds. Probably in reverse order of ambition, as well.
There is overwhelming bipartisan support for banning public officials from stock trading, such as this recent survey:
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/items/6dbca567-f940-4897-bde1-02610...
> Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting stock-trading in individual companies by Members of Congress (86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%, independents 81%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%, independents 82%) according to an in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.
Yet there is barely any movement to do anything about it. A pretty blatant failure of democracy in the US
Yes part of the problem is the "invisible" part which is more about what policy changes get enacted that wouldn't be if investors weren't part of market? Or what potential regulations -- that might be in the majority's interest -- are not being enacted...
Like, there's legitimate reasons to believe that real estate is as f*cked here in Canada as it is because a large % of members of parliament are either landlords or closely associated with them or at least feel beholden to the property market and realtors as a constituency. Policies which punish housing market inflation are simply inconceivable to them because of their intrinsic biases. Regardless of whether they themselves are "cashing in", or whether they're doing better than the average real estate owner, they still don't represent the general public
Or, put it another way: the foxes are in charge of the hen house.
We need draconian laws to curtail some people's rights?
uh, but then only people who actually wanted to make a positive impact would do it...
[dead]
Is there any risk this just filters out any sensible people from ever wanting to be a politician and selects for the wrong type of person entering those jobs