Kansas Crimson

How is it absurd? Every decision they make can have consequences for industries and companies. It's a conflict of interest and is the very definition of insider trading.

49 members of Congress have violated a law designed to stop insider trading and prevent conflicts-of-interest

https://www.businessinsider.com/congres ... ing-2021-9

$200 fine lulz

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 11:27 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:25 am I think it’s a conflict of interest. We shouldn’t have to ask ourselves whether the ones making the rules are also breaking the rules.

Despite illy’s attempts to zing me, I think he actually did a good job of making my point for me.

Lawmakers are privy to all sorts of confidential information, and they shouldn’t be able to leverage that for their own personal gain. How is that a free market?

Pelosi’s been a congresswoman for years, always earning under $200k in salary, yet somehow she’s worth almost
$200 mil.

This isn’t the best analogy, but - would you be cool playing basketball if one of the players on the opposing team was also a ref?

Then create some good old American jobs and hire a group of people to set up better rules surrounding stock trades by members of Congress and to monitor that those rules aren't broken. It's absurd to not allow them to invest their money in stocks.

This is one where enforcement of existing laws (with teeth) would obviate the need for new rules. However, Congress itself has oversight on how well they being overseen. It’s way worse than the fox guarding the hen house. Even “blind trust” rules are routinely violated. Yes, prohibitions on trading is a drastic measure but it is necessary based on activities of Congresspersons. They have two choices: prohibitions on trading or jail time.

Yea. Particularly in Merica, maybe a ban on trading is too extreme.

But still. In a country of 330 million folks, you’d think we could find a few who had enough good faith and reverence for public office enough to value just that more than the chance to trade stocks, but alas.

Here’s your friendly reminder that Jimmy Carter sold his family peanut farm so as to avoid any potential conflicts of interest with the office of President.

A peanut farm.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:42 pm A peanut farm.

Are you suggesting ownership of a peanut farm and access to financial markets are similar?

LOL at all these liberal pussies. Y’all are just mad that some of us on the other side of the isle are smarter and know how to game the system.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:53 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:42 pm A peanut farm.

Are you suggesting ownership of a peanut farm and access to financial markets are similar?

No, not really.

One shares confidential information with, and is subject to policies and regulation imposed by, the very lawmakers who also turn around and seek personal gain from trading in as much; and the other is a peanut farm.

I’m not sure you got the point there.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:03 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:53 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:42 pm A peanut farm.

Are you suggesting ownership of a peanut farm and access to financial markets are similar?

No, not really.

One shares confidential information with, and is subject to policies and regulation imposed by, the very lawmakers who also turn around and seek personal gain from trading in as much; and the other is a peanut farm.

I’m not sure you got the point there.

Then they should be monitored and enforcement should be strict/severe. There are paper trails for stock trading.

Do you think they should have to keep their money in shoe boxes?

No.

But I do think some good faith and reference for public office should trump the opportunity for personal gain, if there’s even the slightest chance of conflict of interest.

Do you think a lawmaker writing policies that affect say, big pharma, should be able to then buy or sell stock in Pfizer later that day?

Or that a lawmaker should be able to personally invest in the MIC then vote to go to war?

Scratch those questions, since you already said you’re for monitoring and strict enforcement.

But since that monitoring and enforcement are apparently ineffective at preventing such conflicts and toothless in severity, what do you otherwise suggest and why guillotines?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:15 pm
Do you think a lawmaker writing policies that affect say, big pharma, should be able to then buy or sell stock in Pfizer later that day?

No I don't. And that's why that is already illegal and could land them in jail if caught.

It could.

But why doesn’t it?

I’ll guess the answer is something similar to “after thorough and exhaustive 30 minute investigation into amateurism violations, Duke clears Duke of any wrongdoing”

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:19 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:15 pm
Do you think a lawmaker writing policies that affect say, big pharma, should be able to then buy or sell stock in Pfizer later that day?

No I don't. And that's why that is already illegal and could land them in jail if caught.

Exactly. IF CAUGHT. Do you know who decides who gets caught, or ensures that the guilty get caught? The other thing these bastards do is make sure that there one guy enforcing the rules for 535 people and he has a staff of one and $50 budget to do the enforcement.

I’ll believe that the system is working when ten congresspersons are in jail

Check out that business insider link. They’re doing some big story on it this week, with apparently a bunch more info about to drop tomorrow.

The penalty for insider trading is $200 fucking dollars. If they even assess a penalty. I’ve been fined more for traffic tickets.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:36 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:19 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:15 pm
Do you think a lawmaker writing policies that affect say, big pharma, should be able to then buy or sell stock in Pfizer later that day?

No I don't. And that's why that is already illegal and could land them in jail if caught.

Exactly. IF CAUGHT. Do you know who decides who gets caught, or ensures that the guilty get caught? The other thing these bastards do is make sure that there one guy enforcing the rules for 535 people and he has a staff of one and $50 budget to do the enforcement.

I’ll believe that the system is working when ten congresspersons are in jail

Makes more sense to fix that system than to ban them from financial markets.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:42 pm Check out that business insider link. They’re doing some big story on it this week, with apparently a bunch more info about to drop tomorrow.

The penalty for insider trading is $200 fucking dollars. If they even assess a penalty. I’ve been fined more for traffic tickets.

I find it hard to believe the maximum penalty is a $200 fine.

Did you check out that business insider link?

Or just quote the post suggesting you do without actually doing it?

Illy doesn’t read bro. There’s a whole thread about that.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:52 pm Did you check out that business insider link?

Or just quote the post suggesting you do without actually doing it?

Did you even read it / understand it?

Is it a $200 fine for insider trading or is it a $200 fine for not reporting stock trading activity?

It's not my responsibility to read your links, but it'd probably be a good idea for you to at least read them.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:45 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:36 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:19 pm
No I don't. And that's why that is already illegal and could land them in jail if caught.

Exactly. IF CAUGHT. Do you know who decides who gets caught, or ensures that the guilty get caught? The other thing these bastards do is make sure that there one guy enforcing the rules for 535 people and he has a staff of one and $50 budget to do the enforcement.

I’ll believe that the system is working when ten congresspersons are in jail

Makes more sense to fix that system than to ban them from financial markets.

What part of ‘they won’t fix the system because it’s in their best interest not to’ do you not understand?

In some bigger picture, it’s a bummer that the republic ever found itself in this pickle.

I’d say “vote them out” and blah blah blah, but among other issues, that requires too many temporarily embarrassed millionaires to recognize the problem to begin with.

What’s that adage about how empires only last 250 years or so? And usually are victims of their own corruption and greed as much as anything?

Or better yet, that one joke: what’s the biggest difference between the Roman Empire and the Merican empire?

Rome had better roads.