Elizabeth Warren proposes a bill banning politicians from owning stock

[TreeFrogTrader]

Difficult to endorse when the president doesn’t have to release his tax returns, no?[/QUOTE

Yes, and all of congress should not have to release their tax returns just to get a list of their investments- including speculative. I think I said I supported the investment picture being public for all lawmakers or DC decisionmakers. Rather than banning investments.

Consider taking "yes" and and mostly agreement with you on this as an answer.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

There is a bit of mixing of some issues in this discussion and among the reformer wannabees.

The insider trading issue wherein Congress gets private information that could impact stocks is a separate issue from whether Congressional reps- for example- should be allowed to own securities and investments.

The insider trading issue can be fixed by controlling/establishing set dates when equity transactions can occur. Every six months or so or every two years or whatever. That prevents all the frontrunning of breaking news that they themselves are creating or hearing privately in their closed committee hearings.
Transmission of insider congressional info to family and outsiders being a crime, etc.

Then see what the next issue is after fixing that rather than trying to make everyone who has not been a Department of Motor Vehicle clerk for the last twenty years ineligle to maintain their holdings.

 

[newwurldmn]

There is a bit of mixing of some issues in this discussion and among the reformer wannabees.

The insider trading issue wherein Congress gets private information that could impact stocks is a separate issue from whether Congressional reps- for example- should be allowed to own securities and investments.

The insider trading issue can be fixed by controlling/establishing set dates when equity transactions can occur. Every six months or so or every two years or whatever. That prevents all the frontrunning of breaking news that they themselves are creating or hearing privately in their closed committee hearings.
Transmission of insider congressional info to family and outsiders being a crime, etc.

Then see what the next issue is after fixing that rather than trying to make everyone who has not been a Department of Motor Vehicle clerk for the last twenty years ineligle to maintain their holdings.

It’s not just about insider trading, it’s about lawmakers making policy that personally benefits them in favor of policy that’s good for the country.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

It’s not just about insider trading, it’s about lawmakers making policy that personally benefits them in favor of policy that’s good for the country.

They all have an agenda, and what is best for the country is a sliding scale.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

It’s not just about insider trading, it’s about lawmakers making policy that personally benefits them in favor of policy that’s good for the country.

With disclosure their constituents and opposing candidates can address that as needed and decide where it is an issue for them. Rather than DC deciding what they cannot do and whether they need to completely stay out of that nasty private sector completely.

 

[newwurldmn]

They all have an agenda, and what is best for the country is a sliding scale.

Totally. But there are some very obvious scenarios. Wilbur Ross determining the tariffs on auto parts while owning an auto part company that he didn’t divest when he took a seat in trumps administration.

 

[newwurldmn]

With disclosure their constituents and opposing candidates can address that as needed and decide where it is an issue for them. Rather than DC deciding what they cannot do and whether they need to completely stay out of that nasty private sector completely.

The private sector isn’t nasty. It’s about removing as much self interest as possible. This is a common practice in private industry by the way. If you work at a hedge fund, law firm, or consulting firm your personal investments are severely restricted. They don’t want you doing things that benefit yourself at the expense of the firm or it’s clients. Why should lawmakers be different?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The private sector isn’t nasty. It’s about removing as much self interest as possible. This is a common practice in private industry by the way. If you work at a hedge fund, law firm, or consulting firm your personal investments are severely restricted. They don’t want you doing things that benefit yourself at the expense of the firm or it’s clients. Why should lawmakers be different?

What if - for example- a person comes with the goal of promoting their own self interests as, say, a socialist. Should they be precluded from acting in their own self interest as well- even though it may damage the country?

 

[newwurldmn]

What if - for example- a person comes with the goal of promoting their own self interests as, say, a socialist. Should they be precluded from acting in their own self interest as well- even though it may damage the country?

A capitalist or a socialist may have different opinions on what is right for the country.

But it’s pretty obvious neither are equivalent to a person passing tax subsidies for an industry where he will earn millions. Or someone passing a regulation to make his future employer (in the private sector) happy.

You are smart enough to see the obvious difference.

 

[MoneyMatthew]

Then don't run for office?

This is actually a really good idea.