Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Squidworth89 t1_isu45gl wrote

Reply to comment by Attackcamel8432 in Stop The Corruption by sillychillly

You're missing the point.

You need to be able to invest in equites in order to retire.

Bond yields are nothing.

If you want good people in office you shouldn't disincentivize them.

−17

Attackcamel8432 t1_isu4os9 wrote

Or a pension... normal people investing for their retirement is a relatively new thing.

11

Squidworth89 t1_isu58o3 wrote

Pensions are getting rarer and rarer.

Shouldn't be... but is the reality of it... they're only failing because the companies/government entities didn't properly fund them in past decades and unions got gutted.

2

Attackcamel8432 t1_isu5rjs wrote

True enough. You aren't wrong about incentives for lawmakers, but they definitely have to be the right ones.

2

Squidworth89 t1_isu6z1l wrote

Not so much for the lawmakers but for those looking to try to be one...

Do they have decent salaries? Yes. Are those salaries huge? Not by DC standards.

I personally would be hard pressed to ever run for office if I couldn't invest in equities. Social security is a joke. Bond yields are terrible. I've never been offered a pension. Have no choice but equities.

There should be reform but most pushing the narrative "it's insider trading rawr rawr rawr!" don't grasp the subject matter beyond the headline.

Plus... there's many far more important things we keep kicking the can on...

0

MaineHippo83 t1_iswoao2 wrote

You keep failing to realize that you can invest in equities and prevent corruption.

Mutual funds and/or blind trusts

2

Squidworth89 t1_isx8fo8 wrote

Those are terrible alternatives.

1

MaineHippo83 t1_isxbho1 wrote

Disagree. It's what most americans are invested in and a safe long term investment strategy. Look up bogleheads.

Most people will not beat the market over the long term.

1

Squidworth89 t1_isxdcpc wrote

Boggleheads is a very basic community. Haven’t been there in prolly a decade. I’m assuming they haven’t changed much.

1

Friendly-Seaweed-250 t1_isu4pnv wrote

You have a smooth brain and a taste for licking boots

11

Squidworth89 t1_isu5g24 wrote

That's all you've got?

Feel free to educate yourself on the matter and try again. Or continue living in ignorance... I hear it's bliss.

−5

GoggleField t1_isu75gu wrote

There are ways to invest in equities without taking advantage of insider knowledge. It's not one or the other. You could certainly make the point that Golden is over generalizing, but the intention is a good one.

9

Squidworth89 t1_isu8r3a wrote

Yeah you can use index funds or mutual funds...

But imo those are trash. I do feel there will eventually be an index fund bubble (they buy indiscriminately, and eventually that'll artificially inflate certain things that will eventually have to pop). And mutual fund managers are really not that good at managing funds.

For starters they could simply enforce the reporting requirements... which they really don't.

Intention is debatable. It does nothing for the people. To me it's simply pandering for votes. There's far more important matters out there.

−2

TarantinoFan23 t1_isuj6n2 wrote

You're insinuating that this is literally the only legislation Golden is working on?

2

Squidworth89 t1_isukmme wrote

I'm insinuating the only real purpose behind this legislation is for him to score political points at home as he panders for votes in the upcoming election.

−1

TarantinoFan23 t1_isum99f wrote

What is the difference between legislation that has broad support and legislation that is just to score political points?

3

Squidworth89 t1_isumz7n wrote

Something that actually matters...

This one means nothing for you and I.

Address basic rights for women, or lagging wages, or the terribly broken medical system and maybe he'd deserve those votes.

But pandering on misunderstood and inflated word salad... he might as well be a MTG who does equally as much nothing in office.

1

Laeek t1_isu9p5c wrote

So let them invest in index funds. Less than one percent of Americans are active traders. Active trading isn't necessary for financial security, and the thing people have issue with is "insider trading" (used colloquially) like members of congress buying stock in specific American chip manufacturers before they vote to give the industry a subsidy.

Plus members of congress get a pension and lifetime health insurance, in addition to a generous salary while in office. You're either making your argument without knowing how members of congress are compensated or you're being disingenuous.

3

Squidworth89 t1_isuh6g2 wrote

You guys cannot even keep your definitions straight.

The "Less than 1%" you're referring to is day trading. That has nothing to do with the conversation.

Just because someone buys stock in specific companies doesn't mean it's insider trading, or day trading, or whatever else ppl come up with.

They get a decent salary while in office for DC. Not something I would give up access to stocks for.

−2

lucianbelew t1_iswvb90 wrote

Oh. I get it. This is a parody of someone so profoundly stupid that they can't imagine common sense provisions like allowing for investment in target date funds or blind trusts.

Well done! You almost had me there.

1

Squidworth89 t1_isx8iek wrote

Target date funds are a rip-off sold to the ignorant.

Blind trusts… who blindly gives up control of their funds?

1

lucianbelew t1_isxaelm wrote

Excellent twist on that parody of a profoundly stupid human being. Keep it up if it makes you happy!

1

Squidworth89 t1_isxanad wrote

You should try actually educating yourself on the subject matter at hand. You wouldn’t be so bitter about it if you grasped the basics.

1