Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
The delay in reporting makes the information somewhat useless. Here is Gerry Connolly's (D, House, Va) recent transaction of Dominion Energy for example. He sold and by the time it is reported the stock already crashed.
Nancy Pelosi's trade of Forge Investments. Notice that by the time it is published it had already started going down.
I did not cherry pick these by any means. I just picked the first sell and buy on the list.
And that's with the delay...
But the more people buy after they buy, the more they make.
No one is "sticking it to the man" doing this, they're making "the man" even more money by following behind them,.
No one using this would be trying to "stick it to the man" by doing this. They're trying to get some scrapes from the man by doing this.
But to fix the problem we need to regulate their trading and get donor money out of politics.
You're talking about a bandaid that stops the bleeding but not infection.
We need a long-term solution
I don't think this is supposed to be a solution to anything, though there is no article to (not) read.
The two party system as it exists today is the solution to voters having a say about these things.
And every cycle they both tighten their hold on voters.
The method described in the post is more like the fish that follow sharks around. They aren't there to stop the shark, they are there to eat.
To stop the shark requires an entirely separate effort
Except the shark is eating fish, and the scavenger fish are eating the scraps from their friends' dead bodies....
I mean, if you really want to go deep on the analogy
Sure, but youre criticizing that this isnt going to fix anything. Its not meant to, its an attempt to also benefit from a rigged system. An entirely separate effort is required to solve the rigging.
Also, even without sharks around fish still eat other fish. This isnt the sharks doing.
even without sharks around fish still eat other fish.
That's kind of like saying school shootings aren't a big deal because we all die eventually...
I dunno man, I don't think you're gonna get this.
I'm saying this is the farthest thing from a solution. It's the opposite of a solution. People doing these investments are increasing the problem.
The phrase "get money out of politics" has been repeated millions upon millions of times in public and private venues and nobody has defined what that phrase means and how to do it. It's vagueness makes it useless. Try "abolish corporate lobbyist bribery" or anything that more specifically points out that you are being taxed without representation because you can never give enough money to ever be heard by your representatives.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean no one else does...
I googled this in 2 seconds...
Is that supposed to be some sort of "own"?
You did not understand the assignment.
Good news!
I figured out why you think no one can explain it.
You linked to one dead campaign that was pledging not to accept campaign contributions and which calls for "meaningful reform" instead of abolition. "Reform" is just repackaging. She lost, btw.
What I am telling you is that the wording is wrong because it's cheap, vague, and ineffective. It's the kind of thing that rednecks say while leaning on their pickup trucks.
Yeah looks like there's at least a week of delay. I would love to see some data about this.
"invested" does not mean profited
The stock market is a scam and should be abolished.
This but unironically for the derivatives. There are a few situations that would warrant exemption from the ban, but 99% of them is just high stakes legalized betting
would that involve getting rid of publicly traded/owned companies? would that in turn mean only one person could own a company and not allow investments?
would that involve getting rid of publicly traded/owned companies?
no
would that in turn mean only one person could own a company and not allow investments?
also no
Then what's the alternative?
Some eutopia idea they will never come close to implementing. Here's a reasonable fix for the stock market.
Have capital gains add to income instead of having a separate tax rate. (Really unlikely) Keep the exception on the first half million.
Remove the duty to investors that publicly traded companies have. (Also crazy unlikely)
Require all shares in a company pay out annual dividends tired to gross profit. Let's say 1% of gross profit must be handed out as dividends. (Unlikely, but not absurdly so)
Institute a 1% per-trade tax paid by the buyer. (Never gonna happen)
Anyway, we're fucked.
I don't understand the reason for #3 - could you explain?
The rest are great - number one is my personal favourite, too, since it would either result in much more money for the government to invest or (if the tax income stays the same) much lower taxes for most people
many stocks are fantasy values, which are disconnected from the actual performance of the underlying company. #3 would reconnect the stockvalue to the company value (my guess)
Yeah pretty much. It would increase the amount of value the stock holds that's directly tied to the performance of the company. Comparatively, then, buying and selling for a profit would be less attractive. Buying and holding would be more attractive.
You'd have to play with the numbers to get it to an "ideal" ratio, and fantasy and speculative stocks would still exist, but it would still help reduce their prevalence.
would that in turn mean only one person could own a company and not allow investments?
you can already own a company with multiple people without the stock market.
would that involve getting rid of publicly traded/owned companies?
you can already have a public company, that is not listed on a stockmarket
Then what’s the alternative?
any of those that already exist.
I guess it would also be possible to image some new implementation of public trading, one that does not enable corruption and white-color-crime so much as the current one. Maybe something with more transparency and public oversight. Keep in mind, that the stock market in the US was implemented by already rich people, who had no incentives to make it fair. All fairness was implemented later as an after thought.
even then, with one person owning a stock or a company, what would stop a person from selling what they considered to be shares why wouldn’t I tell you that you get 100th of only thing if you buy 1/100 of a piece of what I consider to be the value of the company?
No
How would that work?
There's other legal forms aside stock company.
I think you can do it via Quiver Quantatative, but there's some sort of fee structure. https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading
Theoretically, there are reporting requirements and the trades are public knowledge. Don't know where that information lives though.
You can go through publicly available government contracts like those used by FEMA, and see what corporations are getting what money. I like to cross reference the boards of the companies with congressional members and invest in ones where they have Congress people from both isles.
There's a lot of them.....
The problem with this is the delay in reporting. By the time the info is public, the value has usually already changed. Has anyone modeled this with historic information? How does it compare to the S&P500?
The problem with this is the delay in reporting. By the time the info is public, the value has usually already changed
Which is by design, of course. That way congresspeople get the inside track of the trading, helping them profit from their insider information before anyone else knows.
Not at all something that's illegal to do for everyone else, nuh-uh! 😠
How does it compare to the S&P500?
They consistently outperform the market, of course. Like most people engaging in insider trading do.
The politicians doing insider trading are absolutely outperforming the market, but are the people chasing after their scraps once those trades are made public doing better than the S&P500?
Doesn't that app give more power to congress?
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Warren Buffett's reputation makes him as much or more money than his analysis does because so many people just follow what he does, which pretty much ensures that prices will go up after he buys and down after he sells.
This is just automating the process for Congress. Even if they set it up to avoid the reporting delay by having Congress report their trades directly to the app, Congress would still benefit from this. Outside of the occasional adverse events that have a bigger impact than their followers, but they can predict those better by being on Congress.
A tailwind effect in which their transactions are buoyed by pilers on.
We shouldn’t be able to trade municipal securities, they shouldn’t even exist yet here we are.
Seems like a pretty even mix of both parties, the motherfuckers.
No war but the class war.
Make one for blackrock so I can afford to retire.
It’s called “Accessorr-ė”