Studies in the USA have sown that members of the Congress and the Senate , no matter the party in question, tended to have returns on investments around 7 percent higher then the rate of return on the market. This was consistent across the board.
A six to 7 percent higher ROI over the market is huge as this year to year and translates to significant wealth growth. (The old rule of thumb as I recall is your investment doubled in 10 years at a 6 percent annual return and this is over and above what the market was returning)
It seems to me they have always been taking advantage of insider information to make these trades.
The real salary of many elected officials, not just in Washington, DC, is information and/or influence. Ain’t a damn thing I can do to change that, except for maybe one at a time…
"The stock trading was bipartisan—27 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and 1 independent
Just asking: Does anyone know who that independent was? Was it Bernie?
Insider trading is just one more activity on the long list of bi-partisan coziness.
As a byproduct of 2-way corporate-pay-to-play-payoffs, is that any surprise?
Here’s more duopoly fun for you:
I could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot someone and not lose any votes.
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and finger-penetrate someone and not lose any votes.
See how it works? Both sides do it so who cares?
The Independent was Justin Amash…3 transactions - $17,003-$80.000
When you open the article click on link “uncovered” in 2nd paragraph…then scroll down to bottom and click on “See the report of the stock transactions”. You can read all the names including Pelosi’s. Come to think of it I don’t remember seeing Diane Feinstein’s name. Diane has been mentioned in previous articles.
It’s a simple fix. If you win elected office and have ANY stocks, you sell them off before taking your oath of office. Period.
That’s a better solution than the blind trust, the mere concept of which was destroyed by the the Trump regime. Blind trusts have been the “trusted” means of allowing office holders to participate in the markets, but why should they be allowed to screw around in/with “the market” they are supposed to be regulating?
Green pond stuff .
You (we) elect handmaidens of wall street capitalist and expect?
Thank you so much for your information and excellent reply. I did not think it was Bernie and glad to read it was Justin Amash.
CD has done a stand-out job on this story from day one, imho. Leading the way. In this latest they finally gave up on trying to make it look like a GOP thing, for which I am most grateful.
heightening suspicions that elected officials in charge of the federal response to the pandemic have opportunistically cashed in on it
My only suggested edit: I would say “confirming suspicions…”
and still people believe that begging this kind of person–the kind to put a country on hold while they try to get richer–is susceptible to moral appeals to their humanity and goodness?
it’s rotten and it’s over. there’s no easy fix for this, and likely no fix at all.
ordinary folk have a simple but distressing calculation to make: do we hide and hope someone else does what needs to be done? Or do we risk our necks trying to do it ourselves?
Oldest problem in the political change book.
But there are literally no examples of regimes this corrupt and diseased ever fixing themselves. Zero. So there’s your odds on one side of the calculation.
But what’s your solution to the problem of there being no fix? You reality-based people are too depressing!
Same deal with that Planet of the Humans movie. No solution, just “consume less” – is that supposed to be a solution? Changing our way of life? We call that a non-starter.
the historical solution is the same as it’s always been: you rebel.
and you usually lose. at least early on.
real change is hard and lethal. always has been. yet, it still happens because it has to. sorry it’s depressing. I’d rather we be ruled by the sane and decent, too. But we’re not. The ball’s still in our court as it has been for a very long time.
Could it be that we may have a shortage of lamp posts given the number of politicians and wealthy that have profited from this disaster and who endanger the public even more for personal gain?
Why was this published? The article presents no new conclusions. I learned nothing from this relative to previous reporting. If we had a baseline for trading along with some data on variability, then we could draw a conclusion about whether congress-critters engaged in unusually high trading during the pandemic. But no such data are presented. The author does not even raise the issue. The table of data linked to the article does not reveal the content of any of the trades, only a the number of transactions and a disturbingly wide range of numbers for the value.
Thank you, I tend to overlook.
Let me save you some time
Here’s the link to the PDF of the report listing each of them and the amounts
and here is a screen print of the pdf
Thanks for asking. In my humble opinion, Gibbs (and not Zehner, by the way) errs in distracting from their central issue of growth by getting slightly hung up on population, in one brief section. Otherwise the movie is absolutely perfect, according to me.
It’s almost impossible to address growth head-on without mentioning population – as population growth is one of the consequential kinds of growth. The most consequential is growth in carbon emissions, which is linked to wealth, not population.
Over-population is a problem for which I’ve long felt Mama Earth held a solution in the works, which she’d unveil for us any day now. Since she’s got it handled, and she’s apparently super-pissed at human beings right now, we can make ourselves look monstrous by cheering on the carnage, you see? (While Pestilentrump plays deep ecologist: culling the human herd.) Recent events have not dislodged my conviction that focusing on population is an ill-advised distraction from growth.
Written slightly later, in the wake of coronavirus, the script of Planet of the Humans would surely have lightened up on the population concern.