Given the volume and profitably of tech trading by members of Congress (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26821601) I have ZERO confidence that any useful legislation will come of it. It will just be a bunch of earnest and disingenuous theatre by the very people profiting from a bunch of companies who make Microsoft circa 1995 look like a kitten.
For my part, I think the fundamental business model of profiting from user engagement (where screen time is money) is toxic, and we can’t fix anything until we find a way to effectively eliminate it.
Obama's campaign manager said that Facebook flat out told them "we're on the same side" when they allowed them to abuse the same API Cambridge Analytica did.
There’s two ways to look at donations from companies. When you donate to a political campaign in the us you need to write down your employer. So one way to look at it is by looking at where eg all the donations from people employed by Google went (big surprise: democrats, but also, the kind of democrats who have safe seats and policies to rein in big tech companies).
Another way to look at it is to look at the PACs run by tech companies. These are paid into by employees (often they may sign up to give some small amount of their pay automatically, and then forget about it), but they tend to make donations in the companies interests (mainly to an assortment of politicians with an aim to be balanced in some way) and do not lean massively towards democrats, or even towards politicians that align with the companies’ stated values (I’m talking about values that tend to be pro-immigration or pro-lgbt for example here). Two big tech companies that don’t have a PAC are Apple and IBM. Microsoft has one that disappears for a few months when employees start complaining about it (but it doesn’t ask for its donations back from politicians which it can do with likely success)
It's a little misleading to quote that without the context. The "98%" number is referring specifically to personal donations by the CEOs of tech companies (out of those who donated politically to someone at all) in the 2020 presidential election, not to political contributions from the companies they run.
Shorting is much more legally risky. SEC basically doesn’t view shorts as investors, and that has interesting outcome.
The don’t care if you illegally cause stock to go up, and you profit from it, as other investors also profit.
But causing stock to go down opens you to much higher liability, for hurting investors. And if you profit of it via short, you’re in much more legal risk.
Do they? He got financial slap on his wrist, didn’t have to admit to any wrong doing, kept absolute power in the company, ignored any corrective actions of the settlement, and continues to pump stock on weekly basis, to a place that made him one of the richest people in the world. And in the free time he’s pumping other meme investments, just for fun.
SEC vs Musk is perfect example of how powerless/not interested in pumping stock schemes regulators are. Until stock start to go down, then they get more power.
CEOs say all the time that the stock is too low (musk was weird for saying high). They can express an opinion. They can’t make a false material statement of fact
Fair point, but there’s less predictability (both in timing and valuations) on the way down. It’s also harder to disguise the insider nature of shorts based on upcoming legislation.
On top of that, these companies spend millions on lobbying and have SO MUCH INFLUENCE among DC insiders that reform doesn’t have a chance. It’s more corrupt than anything Hollywood ever made about Big Oil.
I’m not sure, but I think we have to start with Congressional reform. I don’t generally subscribe to the notion that legislating should be a lucrative, lifelong profession.
I think term limits, pay reduction, and abolishment of the Congressional pension would be an excellent start. It would eliminate some of the career aspects of legislating while forcing lobbyists to regularly deal with new people, somewhat limiting their influence.
However, getting this would require Congress to vote on something that’s against their own interest.
I think Congressional term limits would be one of the easiest fixes for the current state of affairs. Overturning Citizens United and repealing the 17th would be great steps too. However, I think we should pay Congress people at least $1M/yr. Pay them like Fortune 100 CEO's. Make it so they don't even CARE about playing games with insider trading. If we want to run this capitalist country like the capitalists we think we are, then scrap the notion that Representatives were supposed to be farmers that went and represented their districts for a couple of sessions, and then went back to work. Pay them in a way that attracts truly talented people, instead of the usual suspects who have just enough intelligence to recognize that they have just enough EMOTIONAL intellect to handle the campaigning and the backroom dealings. Of course, then we get into the argument about whether the average Fortune CEO is really any more talented than the average representative, but you get the idea.
The tone of this is a little hard to read, so forgive me if I've misread anything.
I mostly agree with the other changes, except for increasing pay as a means of eliminating the motivation to play games. If there's one thing we've seen play out over and over, it's that excesses and greed just beget more greed. Look at the number of executives, financial managers, and politicians who already had vast wealth yet STILL engage in shenanigans. Furthermore, the job of legislating is an elected one, which means it will always go to those who are best able to convince the most people to vote for them (frequently by promises and pandering), not those who will do the best job. Now, I don't think legislators should get pauper's pay, but I also think we should do what we can to limit it's use as a career path for power and wealth.
I have no problems with capitalism. If the market has healthy competition and the referees (regulations and the courts) are fair and transparent, capitalism is good. Unfortunately, many of those elements have gotten worse in recent decades. We regulate more than ever, but it's the small businesses who suffer the burden and have no real voice in DC.
Capitalism done right means that I'm not upset by Wal-Mart's success, as it's kept in check by other companies like Amazon and Target. If you think anybody is invincible, take a look at what happened to Sears, K-Mart, and Toys-R-Us. Capitalism done wrong means that big companies use regulations and unfair referees to keep out competition. The power wielded by FAANG today dwarfs anything Microsoft ever had.
The people you want running the country aren’t likely people who are willing to get paid minimum wage too.
You want the best? Usually have to pay more. People in congress are barely paid anything as far as the private market goes. (<$200k/yr and that’s while having to live in two places and frequently travel between them) Considering how many have law degrees and other professional degrees, being a congress person certainly is a step down in terms of certain income. They just make up for it with should be illegal forms of market manipulation. (And other things)
I don't want legislators who think they're "running the country". That's the first problem. Rulemaking should never be construed with "running".
Secondly, I've never had any illusion about trying to attract "the best" in Congress. It's an elected position, both the House and Senate, and so it will merely attract those with aspirations of power and wealth who are good at campaigning. Oftentimes we also get people who forge a decades-long career by leveraging the access to power and influence they have in such a position. This last part is toxic, and won't be fixed by increasing pay.
Very nice to see to genuine interest on HN in solving our Democracy's problems, instead the general cynicism, apathy and self-interest we all too often see. But to be fair, I think it's first important to realize that we are discussing historical forces. The kind of movements that we all read about in school, are happening now. And I think when we look at history we'll see that social forces strong enough to reform empires have always started in the marginalized communities. Our role here is to become active participants, on a day-to-day basis, in these communities and aid them, both technically and morally, in building -- and here is the key concept -- decentralized quasi-autonomous [1] communities. No amount of reform, sorry being a cynic, will "fix" Washington and its relationship with "corporate capitalism". The Supreme Court settled this question, campaign money is "free speech". [2] But we can build new social structures in the gaps. It happened about 2,000 years in empire built in Rome. Why not today?
For my part, I think the fundamental business model of profiting from user engagement (where screen time is money) is toxic, and we can’t fix anything until we find a way to effectively eliminate it.