I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
Doctors regulate doctors.
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
Doctors regulate doctors.
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.
Uh yeah. Im sure that's the reason. So you think that's unique to the States? You think a board of medicine should be overseen by people without a medical degree? Perhaps a political officer would be a good choice.
I couldn't disagree more with all of you on this point. Public service should not eliminate your ability to participate fairly in the economy. There's a reason people have to file their reports, to prevent the 'conflict of interest'. The fact that they filed these reports and now we know shows the system is working properly.
But they aren't participating fairly, are they now? Filing reports hasn't prevented conflict of interest, has it now? The system isn't working properly, is it now?
With great power comes great responsibility. And with great responsibility comes sacrifice. - Peter Parker
Presumably the other 530 members, plus all the members of the judiciary are, but you seek to take away their right to participate fairly because of the actions of these four. That's the solution for which I have a problem. The conflict of interest rules, SEC regulations and required filings are designed to ferret out these bad actors, and it appears in this case, it worked. Yet the solution be propositioned here is to take away the opportunity to be honest and earn in the stock market because of these four. That's fundamentally wrong in my book. Four people out of 535 (only using Congress) and yet we jump to a radical solution for the other 99.3%. Makes no logical sense.
Who is taking away the opportunity? They want to invest in stocks, stay in the private sector. Easy way to avoid conflict of interest.
You want to be a public servant. Take away the conflict of interest. No stocks for you.
See you just took it away... because of the .07%. Its irrational. And that's before calculating the judiciary. It's a foolish choice to have a person make. You want the best and brightest in government.
there are plenty of capable people
I want to remove the opportunists. They are doing more harm than good. It's easy risk/reward.
Yeah agreed. Remove them using the existing process. Somehow I think everyone is forgetting these people were caught. The system worked, it didn't fail. Many, and I would venture to say most (at least judges and senators) are taking a pay cut to serve.
This is closing the barn door after horses got out. Obviously not stopping the problem. And now the damage has already been done.
If the solution is to pay judges and senators more. That's fine. The highest paid public employees in nearly every state is a college bball or football coach. That's fucked. Pay our public servants those millions.
.07%. Hardly a crisis to the republic. So wait a minute, now you're talking about state employees. You're also saying state legislators and judges should also not be able to participate in the stock market? In my state, they make 18k a year. So you double their salary, then at 36k who needs investments right?
You want to encourage the best and brightest to be public servants? Poverty wages doesn't seem like the way to do that. Seems reckless.
.07% How much stock was sold? Let me in on that action!
State legislators in Virginia are not full time. It's like 2 months of work.
And don't forget, there will be restitution of the gains plus fines and possibly jail time.
So they can get a second job? Or a pension fund? Or a money market? Or Treasury Bills? There are lots of other options to help public servants retire that don't involve conflict of interest.
I get company stock. My company does well, so do I.
Tie their retirement income to the economy. Economy does well for everyone, so does the legislator. Crash the economy, no retirement for you.
I’m tired of judges of circuit judges crashing the economy.
Don't be lazy.
Circuit courts never hear cases that involve private companies? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there?
Don't like it? There's always private law practice.
They have ethical obligations to recuse in many situations.
So the honor system? That's your solution?
...cute...
Been that way since inception of our common law system. There is also a cute organization called the Bar too.
Lawyers regulating themselves. What could go wrong?
Doctors regulate doctors.
Which explains why our health care system is perfect and has absolutely no issues whatsoever.
Uh yeah. Im sure that's the reason. So you think that's unique to the States? You think a board of medicine should be overseen by people without a medical degree? Perhaps a political officer would be a good choice.
How about medical professionals shouldn't have their retirement funds tied up in pharmaceutical companies?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
1. They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. 2. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. 3. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. 4. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
1. Because history and human nature has set a track record of people in positions of power abusing it for personal gain when they can, or are allowed to. Especially in politics. So much so that it is often accepted by the general public as part of the job. Remove the temptation. Won’t necessarily stop it, but it creates some level of accountability.
2. Senate ethics investigations are a joke, and those found to be in violation ever receive more the a finger shake. History also shows that people in positions of power are seldom seriously punished for financial crimes.
The worse case case for any of these people if guilty will be a monetary fine that will be a fraction of what they cleared and/or they resign from their elected position and end up on the board of directors of a corporation or in an office on K Street. So there isn’t a lot of incentive to not be tempted to act in the manner they’ve been accused of.
3. It’s good that you know you don’t want to be a public servant. It’s not for everyone. I’m a state government employee. I work with people who should get out and go to the corporate world and make the money they believe they are entitled to. I think I do ok financially, but i’ll never clear $100K a year. I’m fine with that. I enjoy serving the people of MN. I get to do cool things.
4. Maybe for some folks it has nothing to do with money. Maybe some feel a desire to give back to their country and serve. Maybe for others they find the power the goes along with the position to be appealing. Working in a government position that lets me interact regularly with both state and federally elected and appointed officials, I’ve encountered both.
This has strayed far of the track of the stock market. Anyways, my funds got kicked hard. Should have bought the VIX (or got some of that classified intel that others got).
As a state employee, do you think you should be barred from equity trading? I’m guessing not since you’re lamenting not getting into a vix. But why shouldn’t all employees be barred. Let’s take a state thrift regulator, or say a CFPB examiner, or one from the OCC. They can tip the scales more than a senator. They have th empower of regulatory fines, MOUs, MRAs. They can revoke licenses, they can delay them. They can have a more direct effect on a Corp than any senator and there is ZERO oversight on most of them. And they can choose to ignore certain infractions too. Why wouldn’t your rational extend to every state and fed employee?
First, there is a giant difference between being an elected/appointed government official and a government employee. One difference is that I don’t receive classified briefings regarding national security issues.
As a state employee I’m barred from all kinds of things such as holding a second job (I have to disclose my intent to get a second job, fill out disclosure forms, and the job is reviewed for conflicts of interest), joining a board for an organization, or running for and holding an elected office position.
if I use my position in an adverse way that violates the law or is ethically questionable, I lose my job. That means I lose my income, healthcare for my family, possibly my pension, and will never be able to work for the state again, unless I manage to run and be elected to the legislature. Should I engage in any of the activities you mentioned I will most likely be charged with a crime and sit in jail. Citizens generally don’t approve of state employees engaging in fraud, bribery, or other forms of corruption.
As for my investments, as a state employee I’m given few investment options: mutual funds and Roth IRA, plus a pension. As to owning individuals stocks, I have a very small amount of my personal money invested. It’s more of a hobby/learning tool to learn more about the markets. Even in this the majority is in index etfs. Again, I have no access classified national intelligence and would face significant consequences for using my job for personal gain, so the incentive to do so isn’t there.
i think I’ve made my position clear. Let the thread go back to its original topic.
Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?
Me too . The time for politicians getting a pass at profiteering through financial institutions needs to come to an end. What better time than now?
Agreed. Once you become an elected official, or receive an appointment to federal position, you should have to divest from owning stock in individual corporations. Mutual funds are fine.
So a circuit judge should never again be allowed to purchase stocks? I can tell you that I wouldn't take the appointment. The median annual pay of a federal judge is $133k. That's a helluva lot less than they would make as a white shoe attorney. Now we want to hamstring them in other ways? Sorry, I think everyone is being far too narrow minded and over reacting to this situation.
While they are holding that appointment or office, no. They are choosing to become a PUBLIC servant, not a servant to themselves by being able to have the potential to put their thumb on the scale for personal enrichment. Retire from the post, be removed, or retire, feel free to buy stocks again. Until then, mutual funds and IRAs.
Also, most people who find themselves in a position to be nominated or appointed to federal positions have generally made a name for themselves in private practice or academia. It’s not like someone fresh out of law school is getting these appointments.
1. They're only a servant to themselves if they break the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand? There are laws and rules. 2. These four likely broke the law, but they will have both senate ethics investigations and likely SEC investigations too. 3. No fucking way would I ever be a judge, run for legislator, congress, etc. if I had to liquidate my equities and never be able to purchase while in office. Not for those salary levels.
And the bolded makes the point I'm making. For judges, entering the federal bench is a pay cut because they aren't law clerks and junior staffers. They are senior partners and such. 4. They are making a financial sacrifice by taking the life time appointment.
1. Because history and human nature has set a track record of people in positions of power abusing it for personal gain when they can, or are allowed to. Especially in politics. So much so that it is often accepted by the general public as part of the job. Remove the temptation. Won’t necessarily stop it, but it creates some level of accountability.
2. Senate ethics investigations are a joke, and those found to be in violation ever receive more the a finger shake. History also shows that people in positions of power are seldom seriously punished for financial crimes.
The worse case case for any of these people if guilty will be a monetary fine that will be a fraction of what they cleared and/or they resign from their elected position and end up on the board of directors of a corporation or in an office on K Street. So there isn’t a lot of incentive to not be tempted to act in the manner they’ve been accused of.
3. It’s good that you know you don’t want to be a public servant. It’s not for everyone. I’m a state government employee. I work with people who should get out and go to the corporate world and make the money they believe they are entitled to. I think I do ok financially, but i’ll never clear $100K a year. I’m fine with that. I enjoy serving the people of MN. I get to do cool things.
4. Maybe for some folks it has nothing to do with money. Maybe some feel a desire to give back to their country and serve. Maybe for others they find the power the goes along with the position to be appealing. Working in a government position that lets me interact regularly with both state and federally elected and appointed officials, I’ve encountered both.
This has strayed far of the track of the stock market. Anyways, my funds got kicked hard. Should have bought the VIX (or got some of that classified intel that others got).
As a state employee, do you think you should be barred from equity trading? I’m guessing not since you’re lamenting not getting into a vix. But why shouldn’t all employees be barred. Let’s take a state thrift regulator, or say a CFPB examiner, or one from the OCC. They can tip the scales more than a senator. They have th empower of regulatory fines, MOUs, MRAs. They can revoke licenses, they can delay them. They can have a more direct effect on a Corp than any senator and there is ZERO oversight on most of them. And they can choose to ignore certain infractions too. Why wouldn’t your rational extend to every state and fed employee?
First, there is a giant difference between being an elected/appointed government official and a government employee. One difference is that I don’t receive classified briefings regarding national security issues.
As a state employee I’m barred from all kinds of things such as holding a second job (I have to disclose my intent to get a second job, fill out disclosure forms, and the job is reviewed for conflicts of interest), joining a board for an organization, or running for and holding an elected office position.
if I use my position in an adverse way that violates the law or is ethically questionable, I lose my job. That means I lose my income, healthcare for my family, possibly my pension, and will never be able to work for the state again, unless I manage to run and be elected to the legislature. Should I engage in any of the activities you mentioned I will most likely be charged with a crime and sit in jail. Citizens generally don’t approve of state employees engaging in fraud, bribery, or other forms of corruption.
As for my investments, as a state employee I’m given few investment options: mutual funds and Roth IRA, plus a pension. As to owning individuals stocks, I have a very small amount of my personal money invested. It’s more of a hobby/learning tool to learn more about the markets. Even in this the majority is in index etfs. Again, I have no access classified national intelligence and would face significant consequences for using my job for personal gain, so the incentive to do so isn’t there.
i think I’ve made my position clear. Let the thread go back to its original topic.
I'm not trying to insult you, I'm pointing out that lots of government employees, not just justices and elected officials, have the opportunity to use their positions to influence market prices and/or take advantage of knowledge that others don't have. Yet they are not barred from trading nor has anyone here suggested they should be. There's a clear inconsistency in logic on this front. We should trust certain employees who don't even have to file disclosures, but not elected officials that do. Makes no sense.
Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?
We also know about a bunch of Trump's shit.
People's frustrations are legitimate. A certain class of people are immune to real repercussions.
Look to the 2008, 09 financial crisis for reference. The system needs real fundamental changes.
Fun fact: Kelly Loffler's husband is Jeffrey Craig Sprecher : founder, chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and chairman of the New York Stock Exchange.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
If they would get away with it, how do you know about it?
We also know about a bunch of Trump's shit.
People's frustrations are legitimate. A certain class of people are immune to real repercussions.
Look to the 2008, 09 financial crisis for reference. The system needs real fundamental changes.
I'll buy that argument. Let's see how this plays out before saying these four senators have no repercussions. If a law is toothless, that's a different assessment. The argument that no elected official or judge should be able to buy equities is both extreme and uneven in the declaration. You would have to extend it to every federal employee, and certainly the staffers of all elected officials too. They know everything that is happening.
Put people who break the law in jail. What's truly disgusting is the head of the stock exchange overseeing this meltdown also having no repercussions. I wonder how many people he shared information with? It's truly deplorable.
I feel like we are at a Louis XIV/Marie Antoinette moment. At what point are the people going to have enough?
Put people who break the law in jail. What's truly disgusting is the head of the stock exchange overseeing this meltdown also having no repercussions. I wonder how many people he shared information with? It's truly deplorable.
I feel like we are at a Louis XIV/Marie Antoinette moment. At what point are the people going to have enough?
Put people who break the law in jail should they be tried and convicted with a penalty consistent with the statute and recommended sentencing guidelines. Regarding the head of the exchange, did he do some unusual trading? Or are you just assuming here?
Why are people acting like we get to just make up the rules as we go because we're under a time of stress? This is the time when normalcy and rules are the most critical, yet everyone that is posting seems to want to throw them out of the fucking window.
And I'm not so sure that the top 20% of America who lost money in the market in the past three weeks are a great corollary to the peasants and Jacobins in revolutionary France.
Put people who break the law in jail. What's truly disgusting is the head of the stock exchange overseeing this meltdown also having no repercussions. I wonder how many people he shared information with? It's truly deplorable.
I feel like we are at a Louis XIV/Marie Antoinette moment. At what point are the people going to have enough?
And I'm not so sure that the top 20% of America who lost money in the market in the past three weeks are a great corollary to the peasants and Jacobins in revolutionary France.
"The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." - Yusuf Karsh
Put people who break the law in jail. What's truly disgusting is the head of the stock exchange overseeing this meltdown also having no repercussions. I wonder how many people he shared information with? It's truly deplorable.
I feel like we are at a Louis XIV/Marie Antoinette moment. At what point are the people going to have enough?
Put people who break the law in jail should they be tried and convicted with a penalty consistent with the statute and recommended sentencing guidelines. Regarding the head of the exchange, did he do some unusual trading? Or are you just assuming here?
Why are people acting like we get to just make up the rules as we go because we're under a time of stress? This is the time when normalcy and rules are the most critical, yet everyone that is posting seems to want to throw them out of the fucking window.
And I'm not so sure that the top 20% of America who lost money in the market in the past three weeks are a great corollary to the peasants and Jacobins in revolutionary France.
I'm not arguing that due process should be thrown out. I'm not even saying change the current rules against insider trading. I'm saying use the rules in place to investigate these crooks and throw them in jail when they're found d guilty. The head of the exchange is married to the Georgia woman and yes, is reported to have sold off a bunch of stock when she did. That's not normal at all, and shouldn't be treated as such. I agree with your reasoning. I just believe the guilty outcome is pretty much a slam dunk and would like to expedite the process with wishful thinking.
You laugh right now . . . Wait a few weeks when the real collapse occurs, nobody has any money, family members are dying, and the store shelves are still empty. It's not going to be funny.
You laugh right now . . . Wait a few weeks when the real collapse occurs, nobody has any money, family members are dying, and the store shelves are still empty. It's not going to be funny.
The markets seem to be happy with Trump floating a blood sacrifice.
Which is hilarious as 50% of “Americans” aren’t in and have no direct investment in the casino.
I think I said a few weeks ago that I love Amazon in this. I also like Alphabet although that hasn't done much. But I think their ad revenue won't be as profitable per unit, but still do well. Don't shy away from BAC either. They are taking a beating, but will recover fine.
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
Because the market is fairly sure that a huge stimulus will be passed. Part of that is 4 months of pay for workers who lost income. Taht's a massive stimulus and unprecedented.
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
Because the market is fairly sure that a huge stimulus will be passed. Part of that is 4 months of pay for workers who lost income. Taht's a massive stimulus and unprecedented.
I guess I'm looking at this with a glass half empty approach (for right or wrong) at this moment. With or without the stimulus, there will be economic pain, some of which may already be priced in, but I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with the virus. Hope to be wrong.
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
Because the market is fairly sure that a huge stimulus will be passed. Part of that is 4 months of pay for workers who lost income. Taht's a massive stimulus and unprecedented.
I guess I'm looking at this with a glass half empty approach (for right or wrong) at this moment. With or without the stimulus, there will be economic pain, some of which may already be priced in, but I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with the virus. Hope to be wrong.
The market has priced in a 20% contraction at least. Im not saying it won't go down anymore, but it's getting close to settling. Especially if there's really a four month pay.
I don't understand the rally today. Is it because Trump thinks everyone should roam the streets again? Makes zero sense. We have not come close to peaking with the virus in the U.S. and have not begun to see the real toll it will have on our hospitals. What am I missing here?
Because the market is fairly sure that a huge stimulus will be passed. Part of that is 4 months of pay for workers who lost income. Taht's a massive stimulus and unprecedented.
I guess I'm looking at this with a glass half empty approach (for right or wrong) at this moment. With or without the stimulus, there will be economic pain, some of which may already be priced in, but I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with the virus. Hope to be wrong.
The market has priced in a 20% contraction at least. Im not saying it won't go down anymore, but it's getting close to settling. Especially if there's really a four month pay.
I still feel more of a correction coming. I am also wondering what this slowdown and working from home will do to the future of the workforce for years to come?
I’m having so much fun scalping this market. VERIZON, Disney , Apple , Berkshire etc.... I’m not ready to let my money sit in the market yet. I think we have another leg down coming. But in the meantime, in and out is nice.
I’m having so much fun scalping this market. VERIZON, Disney , Apple , Berkshire etc.... I’m not ready to let my money sit in the market yet. I think we have another leg down coming. But in the meantime, in and out is nice.
So what are you on... about 20 shares of Berkshire?
I focused on JPM and AMZN. I know Chase and they are the strongest bank in the industry. I think they're highly undervalued right now. Amazon is a no brainer. They're unstoppable.
I’m having so much fun scalping this market. VERIZON, Disney , Apple , Berkshire etc.... I’m not ready to let my money sit in the market yet. I think we have another leg down coming. But in the meantime, in and out is nice.
So what are you on... about 20 shares of Berkshire?
I focused on JPM and AMZN. I know Chase and they are the strongest bank in the industry. I think they're highly undervalued right now. Amazon is a no brainer. They're unstoppable.
Haha 20 shares? I wouldn’t bother trading anymore if I had that.
Amazon is the only thing I won’t touch as far as sell. It’s performed remarkably well during this pandemic. It is absolutely unstoppable. I’ll always add on the dips.
Comments
How about medical professionals shouldn't have their retirement funds tied up in pharmaceutical companies?
As a state employee I’m barred from all kinds of things such as holding a second job (I have to disclose my intent to get a second job, fill out disclosure forms, and the job is reviewed for conflicts of interest), joining a board for an organization, or running for and holding an elected office position.
if I use my position in an adverse way that violates the law or is ethically questionable, I lose my job. That means I lose my income, healthcare for my family, possibly my pension, and will never be able to work for the state again, unless I manage to run and be elected to the legislature. Should I engage in any of the activities you mentioned I will most likely be charged with a crime and sit in jail. Citizens generally don’t approve of state employees engaging in fraud, bribery, or other forms of corruption.
As for my investments, as a state employee I’m given few investment options: mutual funds and Roth IRA, plus a pension. As to owning individuals stocks, I have a very small amount of my personal money invested. It’s more of a hobby/learning tool to learn more about the markets. Even in this the majority is in index etfs. Again, I have no access classified national intelligence and would face significant consequences for using my job for personal gain, so the incentive to do so isn’t there.
i think I’ve made my position clear. Let the thread go back to its original topic.
You can't tell me they didn't know better. They knew they would get away with it.
People's frustrations are legitimate. A certain class of people are immune to real repercussions.
Look to the 2008, 09 financial crisis for reference. The system needs real fundamental changes.
I feel like we are at a Louis XIV/Marie Antoinette moment. At what point are the people going to have enough?
Why are people acting like we get to just make up the rules as we go because we're under a time of stress? This is the time when normalcy and rules are the most critical, yet everyone that is posting seems to want to throw them out of the fucking window.
And I'm not so sure that the top 20% of America who lost money in the market in the past three weeks are a great corollary to the peasants and Jacobins in revolutionary France.
Things need to change yesterday. Be well, all.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Don't shy away from BAC either. They are taking a beating, but will recover fine.
That and people are stupid.
I am also wondering what this slowdown and working from home will do to the future of the workforce for years to come?
I focused on JPM and AMZN. I know Chase and they are the strongest bank in the industry. I think they're highly undervalued right now. Amazon is a no brainer. They're unstoppable.