Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-10/ossoff-is-right-about-stock-trading-ban-for-u-s-lawmakers[/url]

Attempt to bar federal legislators and their family members from buying individual stocks.

[QUOTE]And the Supreme Court remains oddly removed from stricter ethical guidelines and transparency, even though all of the justices either trade stocks, cash in on problematic book deals or accept pricey travel packages and expensive gifts.[/QUOTE]

Can't count on the Supreme Court for this either. We have scary unprecedented levels of corruption. I'm a realist who accepts that some level of corruption in government is never going to go away, but are we too far gone?

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;14515594]I'm a realist who accepts that some level of corruption in government is never going to go away, but are we too far gone?[/QUOTE]


No shit, Sherlock.

And until humanity figures out a way to readily identify psychopaths and sociopaths with 100% certainty before letting them be assigned to positions of power, this cycle will continue indefinitely. And even then the psychos will just influence said positions from the outside. It would essentially take the ability to medically cure psychopathy, of which there is no known cure.

Good luck.

The only solution in the world we currently live in is reduced government and by extension, reduced government influence.

Bitcoin fixes this.


Psychopaths make up to 1% of the population. That is an INSANELY high number. Which means there are probably at least a couple that post here, maybe more.

To put that in perspective, that means that there are probably 3 million or more psychopaths walking around in the US today. 3 ****ing MILLION of these crazy ****ers. Holy shit. And guess where the psychopath capital of the U.S. is? You guessed it... Washington DC.

[url]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/23/washington-dc-the-psychopath-capital-of-america-218892/[/url]

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/MpTfqj9P/psycho.png[/IMG]

Republicans will oppose it because it goes against making more money for already rich people.

[QUOTE=Lakers Legend#32;14515738]Republicans will oppose it because it goes against making more money for already rich people.[/QUOTE]It'll have bipartisan opposition.

[url]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-opposes-banning-stock-buys-by-congress-members.html[/url]

[QUOTE]House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed at the idea of banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from owning shares of individual companies.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;14515752][B]It'll have bipartisan opposition. [/B]

[url]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-opposes-banning-stock-buys-by-congress-members.html[/url][/QUOTE]

yup. anything that threatens the gravy train will.

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;14515594]
I'm a realist who accepts that some level of corruption in government is never going to go away, but are we too far gone?[/QUOTE]

"Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too."

Marcus Aurelius

...good on ossoff for going up against pelosi and at least putting this bill in the spotlight. it'll at least get the media heads talking... to what extent though who knows.

it's funny how we give credit to politicians for something that should be a given in the first place.

[QUOTE=diamenz;14515868]"Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too."

Marcus Aurelius

...good on ossoff for going up against pelosi and at least putting this bill in the spotlight. it'll at least get the media heads talking... to what extent though who knows.

it's funny how we give credit to politicians for something that should be a given in the first place.[/QUOTE]For sure. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows it won't get passed, but since votes are public it really draws a line in the sand. Ossoff committed career suicide here.

No surprise, but it's very popular among voters.

[QUOTE]Three in four voters support banning lawmakers from trading stocks: poll[/QUOTE][url]https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voters-support-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks-poll[/url]

I wonder how much they care about what the people think.

The stock market’s not gonna be around forever.

People on the inside will know when its time is coming before people on the outside.

At some point Congress will cash out and leverage the ethics narrative. And then a few years later, there will be some major catastrophe that turns the public against the stock market as a general concept (probably some kind of major climate change scare or something) and the stock market will be abolished with the support of the common simpleton who is just anxiously lending his voice to the crowd after being shaken up by a big fear episode.

And around and around we go.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE;14516215]The stock market’s not gonna be around forever.

People on the inside will know when its time is coming before people on the outside.

At some point Congress will cash out and leverage the ethics narrative. And then a few years later, there will be some major catastrophe that turns the public against the stock market as a general concept (probably some kind of major climate change scare or something) and the stock market will be abolished with the support of the common simpleton who is just anxiously lending his voice to the crowd after being shaken up by a big fear episode.

And around and around we go.[/QUOTE]Are you saying the Dow Jones won't be around forever or the stock market as a general concept?

[QUOTE=Shogon;14515708]No shit, Sherlock.

And until humanity figures out a way to readily identify psychopaths and sociopaths with 100% certainty before letting them be assigned to positions of power, this cycle will continue indefinitely. And even then the psychos will just influence said positions from the outside. It would essentially take the ability to medically cure psychopathy, of which there is no known cure.

Good luck.

The only solution in the world we currently live in is reduced government and by extension, reduced government influence.

Bitcoin fixes this.


Psychopaths make up to 1% of the population. That is an INSANELY high number. Which means there are probably at least a couple that post here, maybe more.

To put that in perspective, that means that there are probably 3 million or more psychopaths walking around in the US today. 3 ****ing MILLION of these crazy ****ers. Holy shit. And guess where the psychopath capital of the U.S. is? You guessed it... Washington DC.

[url]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/23/washington-dc-the-psychopath-capital-of-america-218892/[/url]

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/MpTfqj9P/psycho.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]Finally took a bit of time to sit down and read it. It's interesting, and I agree mostly with your points my only question would be on the logistics(for example how do we transfer to an alternative universal currency without making the wealth gap worse). But I agree, perfect world would be small govt, small businesses and a universal currency backed by the people themselves.

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;14516288]Finally took a bit of time to sit down and read it. It's interesting, and I agree mostly with your points my only question would be on the logistics(for example how do we transfer to an alternative universal currency without making the wealth gap worse). But I agree, perfect world would be small govt, small businesses and a universal currency backed by the people themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm about to be all over the place with the post, so bare with me.

You're never going to fix the wealth gap. There will always be people that are more able and talented than others. That is the harsh reality of life. And those people that are the most talented are the ones that should have the most resources, as we all benefit from it. Imagine a world in which Elon Musk has the same amount of money as myself... we'd all be worse off for it. Easily. Because I'm a dumb**** compared to that guy with most topics and general intelligence level. Not crypto, I wipe my ass with his knowledge there, but I digress, lol. Now, I realize you are just calling for a more narrow gap and not to close the gap, but the general idea remains the same. Unless we get to the point where we're comfortably modifying genetics during the insemination/incubation phase of humans, I don't think there's much to be done. But that aside, given today's laws of nature, I can't imagine a world with a "fixed wealth gap" that is as innovative as it currently is. People are self driven and self focused. To fight against this is to fight against something that makes us human. Everything that everyone does is out of self interest whether consciously realized or not. If you limit the ability of individuals to be ambitious, you limit and stifle innovation.

On top of all of that, human beings are wired to compare their situations to others. Most human beings, especially in America, live infinitely more comfortable lives than they did hundreds and thousands of years ago and yet it's arguable that people have never been unhappier than they are today for reasons that most of them probably can't properly articulate and can't identify. Even if we create some "utopia" where we have self repairing and self manufacturing robot slaves that do all work for us, a large number of people will always look to those that have more and be unhappy with their current situation.

But indeed, there are problems where companies that were once great corner the market and eventually get taken over by leeches that bleed it dry until it dies and we all suffer for it in the mean time because of said company's realm of influence before its eventual and deserved demise as a result of dropping off. What to do, what to do? I think you have to take the power of the money supply out of the hands of government or any central body so that special interests can't run things behind the scenes and that these companies go out of business faster.

Bitcoin is our best shot at creating as "fair" of a world as nature will allow in its current form, in my not humble opinion. It will reduce the size of federal government to be the will of the people and nothing more over time and it will cut politicians off at the knees that keep the system going in certain directions for special interests. Unfortunately, I find it highly improbable that I will live long enough to see this. But I hope that within a generation, it will come to fruition.

If there is a solution to the problem of people being unhappy with their level of wealth(because this is always relative to others... as I said, we live more comfortably than we ever have), I assure you I am far too stupid to think of it.

[QUOTE=Shogon;14516345] I'm about to be all over the place with the post, so bare with me.

You're never going to fix the wealth gap. There will always be people that are more able and talented than others. That is the harsh reality of life. And those people that are the most talented are the ones that should have the most resources, as we all benefit from it. Imagine a world in which Elon Musk has the same amount of money as myself... we'd all be worse off for it. Easily. Because I'm a dumb**** compared to that guy with most topics and general intelligence level. Not crypto, I wipe my ass with his knowledge there, but I digress, lol. Now, I realize you are just calling for a more narrow gap and not to close the gap, but the general idea remains the same. Unless we get to the point where we're comfortably modifying genetics during the insemination/incubation phase of humans, I don't think there's much to be done. But that aside, given today's laws of nature, I can't imagine a world with a "fixed wealth gap" that is as innovative as it currently is. People are self driven and self focused. To fight against this is to fight against something that makes us human. Everything that everyone does is out of self interest whether consciously realized or not. If you limit the ability of individuals to be ambitious, you limit and stifle innovation.

On top of all of that, human beings are wired to compare their situations to others. Most human beings, especially in America, live infinitely more comfortable lives than they did hundreds and thousands of years ago and yet it's arguable that people have never been unhappier than they are today for reasons that most of them probably can't properly articulate and can't identify. Even if we create some "utopia" where we have self repairing and self manufacturing robot slaves that do all work for us, a large number of people will always look to those that have more and be unhappy with their current situation.

But indeed, there are problems where companies that were once great corner the market and eventually get taken over by leeches that bleed it dry until it dies and we all suffer for it in the mean time because of said company's realm of influence before its eventual and deserved demise as a result of dropping off. What to do, what to do? I think you have to take the power of the money supply out of the hands of government or any central body so that special interests can't run things behind the scenes and that these companies go out of business faster.

Bitcoin is our best shot at creating as "fair" of a world as nature will allow in its current form, in my not humble opinion. It will reduce the size of federal government to be the will of the people and nothing more over time and it will cut politicians off at the knees that keep the system going in certain directions for special interests. [/B] Unfortunately, I find it highly improbable that I will live long enough to see this. But I hope that within a generation, it will come to fruition.

If there is a solution to the problem of people being unhappy with their level of wealth(because this is always relative to others... as I said, we live more comfortably than we ever have), I assure you I am far too stupid to think of it.[/QUOTE]


[URL="https://www.patreon.com/TofP"]https://www.patreon.com/TofP[/URL]

[QUOTE=Shogon;14516345]I'm about to be all over the place with the post, so bare with me.

You're never going to fix the wealth gap. There will always be people that are more able and talented than others. That is the harsh reality of life. And those people that are the most talented are the ones that should have the most resources, as we all benefit from it. Imagine a world in which Elon Musk has the same amount of money as myself... we'd all be worse off for it. Easily. Because I'm a dumb**** compared to that guy with most topics and general intelligence level. Not crypto, I wipe my ass with his knowledge there, but I digress, lol. Now, I realize you are just calling for a more narrow gap and not to close the gap, but the general idea remains the same. Unless we get to the point where we're comfortably modifying genetics during the insemination/incubation phase of humans, I don't think there's much to be done. But that aside, given today's laws of nature, I can't imagine a world with a "fixed wealth gap" that is as innovative as it currently is. People are self driven and self focused. To fight against this is to fight against something that makes us human. Everything that everyone does is out of self interest whether consciously realized or not. If you limit the ability of individuals to be ambitious, you limit and stifle innovation.

On top of all of that, human beings are wired to compare their situations to others. Most human beings, especially in America, live infinitely more comfortable lives than they did hundreds and thousands of years ago and yet it's arguable that people have never been unhappier than they are today for reasons that most of them probably can't properly articulate and can't identify. Even if we create some "utopia" where we have self repairing and self manufacturing robot slaves that do all work for us, a large number of people will always look to those that have more and be unhappy with their current situation.

But indeed, there are problems where companies that were once great corner the market and eventually get taken over by leeches that bleed it dry until it dies and we all suffer for it in the mean time because of said company's realm of influence before its eventual and deserved demise as a result of dropping off. What to do, what to do? I think you have to take the power of the money supply out of the hands of government or any central body so that special interests can't run things behind the scenes and that these companies go out of business faster.

Bitcoin is our best shot at creating as "fair" of a world as nature will allow in its current form, in my not humble opinion. It will reduce the size of federal government to be the will of the people and nothing more over time and it will cut politicians off at the knees that keep the system going in certain directions for special interests. Unfortunately, I find it highly improbable that I will live long enough to see this. But I hope that within a generation, it will come to fruition.

If there is a solution to the problem of people being unhappy with their level of wealth(because this is always relative to others... as I said, we live more comfortably than we ever have), I assure you I am far too stupid to think of it.[/QUOTE]

Obviously theres always going to be some kind of wealth gap, you're right that some people are more talented and/or driven than others. I dont think anyone is saying that Jeff Bezos should have the same amount of money as you, but most sane people would agree that theres something wrong with Bezos making himself one of the richest people on the planet while he has tens of hundreds of thousands of employees earning $15/hr or less as they work hellish 12hr shifts in his warehouses.

The current level of wealth inequality in this country is obscene and unsustainable, and if we continue to let the ultra-rich gorge themselves on this nations wealth, the US is going to lose its middle class and this country is going to end up looking like Brazil or Mexico.

Shogon suffers Bitcoin Derangement Syndrome.

[QUOTE=Nanners;14516746]Obviously theres always going to be some kind of wealth gap, you're right that some people are more talented and/or driven than others. I dont think anyone is saying that Jeff Bezos should have the same amount of money as you, but most sane people would agree that theres something wrong with Bezos making himself one of the richest people on the planet while he has tens of hundreds of thousands of employees earning $15/hr or less as they work hellish 12hr shifts in his warehouses.

The current level of wealth inequality in this country is obscene and unsustainable, and if we continue to let the ultra-rich gorge themselves on this nations wealth, the US is going to lose its middle class and this country is going to end up looking like Brazil or Mexico.[/QUOTE]Well said. It's a huge problem when the top 1% is so powerful that they're influencing lawmakers.

And speaking of Bezos:

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-16/amazon-s-new-factory-towns-will-lift-the-working-class[/url]

"Hey it's ok you're only making $3/hr after we take rent, utilities etc out of your check because you no longer need a car to get to work either!" Next thing you know Amazon is paying in company script.

[QUOTE=Nanners;14516746]Obviously theres always going to be some kind of wealth gap, you're right that some people are more talented and/or driven than others. I dont think anyone is saying that Jeff Bezos should have the same amount of money as you, but most sane people would agree that theres something wrong with Bezos making himself one of the richest people on the planet while he has tens of hundreds of thousands of employees earning $15/hr or less as they work hellish 12hr shifts in his warehouses.

The current level of wealth inequality in this country is obscene and unsustainable, and if we continue to let the ultra-rich gorge themselves on this nations wealth, the US is going to lose its middle class and this country is going to end up looking like Brazil or Mexico.[/QUOTE]

You're making an emotional argument and not a rational one and furthermore you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about and this just emphasizes the fact that most uneducated people, high school educated people and even college educated people in America don't know a ****ing thing about our monetary system and think that it's all just going to shit because of unregulated greed, lmao. The US is losing the middle class because of the federal reserve & reckless monetary policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Mark Zuckerberg or capitalism. It's a downright travesty that you actually believe this bullshit propaganda that gets pushed like opportunistic psychopathic leeches like Elizabeth Warren and AOC.

Jeff Bezos is worth 188 billion. Now keep in mind that was acquired and built over time, almost 28 years to be exact and obviously he makes more now than he used to and I'm well aware it's a little more nuanced than this, but let's go ahead and divide that 188 billion by 28 years. Any one of his employees would have squandered this wealth and not built the company up to where it is now, but let's even forget that for a second. That works out to 6.7 billion per year up to this point.

Amazon employs 1.3 million people.

If Jeff Bezos gave back 100% of 6.7 billion to 1.3 million people evenly, that works out to $5100 per person annually. Casting aside the fact that different employees within Amazon contribute different amounts to Amazon itself and thus this is not fair to them and casting aside the fact that this destroys Bezos' motivation entirely, you, in theory, should quickly see that this is not going to make a substantial difference in most peoples' lives. Yes, $5100 is a lot of money especially to poor people and yes it will help out if everything around them remained static, there is no doubt, but the overwhelming majority of them are just going to squander it and they're going to continue on exactly how they have been and more importantly, things won't remain static. The goalposts for all goods and services will move.

This is also disregarding the fact that he has ALL of the liability and the overwhelming majority of the risk if Amazon fails! "Regular" workers just go find another job and continue to live their lives but he ends up ruined.

This all ties in with and parallels the idea that raising the minimum wage is a good thing and disregards the fact that a rising minimum wage prices the lowest skilled people out of the market entirely and even worse than that? Is arguably the biggest driver of inflation period.

Let's say you run a successful burger joint that people enjoy... and minimum wage goes from $10 an hour to $25 an hour. Your payroll expenses have gone up and in addition to that, obviously, the demand for your product at the current price is going to rise as [I]everyone[/I] now has more money. So guess what happens? You raise your prices out of necessity. Oh man! But I thought paying people more would help right? Haha. [I][B][U]This trickles into literally every single good and every single service over time that doesn't have its cost reduced by unrelated factors such as technological advancements and increased competition, etc.[/U][/B][/I]

Also, by the way, the people that were making more than minimum wage before the wage hike are now going to seek out jobs that pay more and as much in proportion to minimum wage than they were making before otherwise the government essentially just gave them a pay cut, and basically in a few years or a decade or whatever everyone is going to end up exactly where they were before. And these people are the ones that get hit the hardest as companies struggle to adjust and keep up with rising inflation.


Look, I'm not saying we don't have some greedy pricks at the top that live in excess, but this subject is a lot more nuanced than retards like AOC would have you believe. And on top of all of that, for you to believe that the middle glass is going away because of these top guys is just one of the most saddening things I've ever read on this website.

Ideally, these guys would give back a lot more than they do on their own free will. That is the ideal outcome. Trying to regulate their wealth away will not be a net positive for us overall. It will be a huge detriment and yet another step towards a full collapse.

I forgot one more thing about the complaining about billionaires thing...

STOP USING THEIR PRODUCTS.

If you find their wealth so abhorrent and the wages they pay their workers to be disgusting, STOP USING THEIR SERVICES. STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS.

But you won't stop using their services, because you don't care. Pretty standard bullshit out of people with left leaning world views.

Both Nanners are Shogon are half correct. Nanners is correct in that there is a worsening wealth divide and if the issue is not dealt with there will be consequences. Shogon is correct in that the wealth divide has little to do with people like myself or my friend Jeff. The problem is much deeper than that. In the US 10% of all adults are now millionaires. We have millionaires all around us. But on the opposite end of the spectrum we have the same happening only in a negative capacity. The poor are getting poorer. Home prices and rent are more out of reach than ever.

The consequences to this growing wealth gap we are happening already. It's the Great Resignation.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14517124]Both Nanners are Shogon are half correct. Nanners is correct in that there is a worsening wealth divide and if the issue is not dealt with there will be consequences. Shogon is correct in that the wealth divide has little to do with people like myself or my friend Jeff. The problem is much deeper than that. In the US 10% of all adults are now millionaires. We have millionaires all around us. But on the opposite end of the spectrum we have the same happening only in a negative capacity. The poor are getting poorer. Home prices and rent are more out of reach than ever.

The consequences to this growing wealth gap we are happening already. It's the Great Resignation.[/QUOTE]

And employers are finding out first hand that federal and state minimum wage means absolutely nothing because people are unable/unwilling to accept their shitty pay because they literally will not be able to survive on it.

Well, there's a lot going on here right now because a shit ton of people retired early due to COVID concerns, but the pay standard has shifted right beneath employers' collective feet and some of them have yet to catch up, hence all the job vacancies. This is part of the free market at work.

Minimum wage on federal and state levels be damned, the standards have changed because of inflation.

[QUOTE=Shogon;14517082]The US is losing the middle class because of the federal reserve & reckless monetary policy.[/QUOTE]

so what policy exactly? what are we spending so recklessly on that's causing this decline in the middle class?

[QUOTE=diamenz;14517508]so what policy exactly? what are we spending so recklessly on that's causing this decline in the middle class?[/QUOTE]
He is speaking of what he calls "just printing up money". The covid bailout spending of trillions of dollars like the Trump Cares Act adding huge amounts of money to the supply. And he is correct that's part of the problem but he is overlooking several things.

Our inflation issues come from much more than "just printing up money" it is really being caused by a perfect storm of situations.

People getting wealthy off the stock market leads to them buying things at high prices which leads to retailers charging more.
Labor shortages leads to charging more.
Limited supply from the supply chain issues leads to prices rising. This one is a big factor.
People were able to save during the pandemic because no student loans, rent forgiveness, etc. This led to them buying things beyond their means.

It is a confluence of issues happening all at once.

Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14517905]He is speaking of what he calls "just printing up money". The covid bailout spending of trillions of dollars like the Trump Cares Act adding huge amounts of money to the supply. And he is correct that's part of the problem but he is overlooking several things.

Our inflation issues come from much more than "just printing up money" it is really being caused by a perfect storm of situations.

People getting wealthy off the stock market leads to them buying things at high prices which leads to retailers charging more.
Labor shortages leads to charging more.
Limited supply from the supply chain issues leads to prices rising. This one is a big factor.
People were able to save during the pandemic because no student loans, rent forgiveness, etc. This led to them buying things beyond their means.

It is a confluence of issues happening all at once.

Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.[/QUOTE]

this is interesting.

[url]https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/[/url]

[IMG]https://www.americanactionforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2.png[/IMG]

quantitative easing aka socialism for the rich?

[URL="https://www.ft.com/content/cbed81fc-3b56-11e9-9988-28303f70fcff"]Is Ben Bernanke the father of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Not in the literal sense, obviously, but in the philosophical and political sense.[/URL]




[QUOTE]As we mark the 10th anniversary of the bull market, it is worth considering whether the efforts of the US Federal Reserve, under Mr Bernanke’s leadership, to avoid 1930s-style debt deflation ended up spawning a new generation of socialists, such as the freshman Congresswoman Ms Ocasio-Cortez, in the home of global capitalism.

Mr Bernanke’s unorthodox “cash for trash” scheme, otherwise known as quantitative easing, drove up asset prices and bailed out baby boomers at the profound political cost of pricing out millennials from that most divisive of asset markets, property. This has left the former comfortable, but the latter with a fragile stake in the society they are supposed to build.

As we look towards the 2020 US presidential election, could Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s leftwing politics become the anthem of choice for America’s millennials?

But before we look forward, it is worth going back a bit. The 2008 crash itself didn’t destroy wealth, but rather revealed how much wealth had already been destroyed by poor decisions taken in the boom. This underscored the truism that the worst of investments are often taken in the best of times.


Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email]licensing@ft.com[/email] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at [url]https://www.ft.com/tour[/url].
[url]https://www.ft.com/content/cbed81fc-3b56-11e9-9988-28303f70fcff[/url]

Mr Bernanke, a keen student of the 1930s, understood that a “balance sheet recession” must be combated by reflating assets. By exchanging old bad loans on the banks’ balance sheets with good new money, underpinned by negative interest rates, the Fed drove asset prices skywards. Higher valuations fixed balance sheets and ultimately coaxed more spending and investment. However, such “hyper-trickle-down” economics also meant that wealth inequality was not the unintended consequence, but the objective, of policy.

Soaring asset prices, particularly property prices, drive a wedge between those who depend on wages for their income and those who depend on rents and dividends. This wages versus rents-and-dividends game plays out generationally, because the young tend to be asset-poor and the old and the middle-aged tend to be asset-rich. Unorthodox monetary policy, therefore, penalises the young and subsidises the old.

When asset prices rise much faster than wages, the average person falls further behind. Their stake in society weakens. The faster this new asset-fuelled economy grows, the greater the gap between the insiders with a stake and outsiders without. This threatens a social contract based on the notion that the faster the economy grows, the better off everyone becomes.

What then? Well, politics shifts.

Notwithstanding the observation often attributed to Winston Churchill about a 20-year-old who isn’t a socialist not having a heart, and a 40-year-old who isn’t a capitalist having no head, polling indicates a significant shift in attitudes compared with prior generations.

According to the Pew Research Center, American millennials (defined as those born between 1981 and 1996) are the only generation in which a majority (57 per cent) hold “mostly/consistently liberal” political views, with a mere 12 per cent holding more conservative beliefs.

Fifty-eight per cent of millennials express a clear preference for big government. Seventy-nine per cent of millennials believe immigrants strengthen the US, compared to just 56 per cent of baby boomers. On foreign policy, millennials (77 per cent) are far more likely than boomers (52 per cent) to believe that peace is best ensured by good diplomacy rather than military strength. Sixty-seven per cent want the state to provide universal healthcare, and 57 per cent want higher public spending and the provision of more public services, compared with 43 per cent of baby boomers. Sixty-six per cent of millennials believe that the system unfairly favours powerful interests.

One battle ground for the new politics is the urban property market. While average hourly earnings have risen in the US by just 22 per cent over the past 9 years, property prices have surged across US metropolitan areas. Prices have risen by 34 per cent in Boston, 55 per cent in Houston, 67 per cent in Los Angeles and a whopping 96 per cent in San Francisco. The young are locked out.

Similar developments in the UK have produced comparable political generational divides. If only the votes of the under-25s were counted in the last UK general election, not a single Conservative would have won a seat.

Ten years ago, faced with the real prospect of another Great Depression, Mr Bernanke launched QE to avoid mass default. Implicitly, he was underwriting the wealth of his own generation, the baby boomers. Now the division of that wealth has become a key battleground for the next election with people such as Ms Ocasio-Cortez arguing that very high incomes should be taxed at 70 per cent.

For the purist, capitalism without default is a bit like Catholicism without hell. But we have confession for a reason. Everyone needs absolution. QE was capitalism’s confessional. But what if the day of reckoning was only postponed? What if a policy designed to protect the balance sheets of the wealthy has unleashed forces that may lead to the mass appropriation of those assets in the years ahead?
[/QUOTE]

Another Possible Stock Trading Loophole
Members of Congress would be allowed to continue trading industry funds under the two leading stock trading ban bills in Congress.

[QUOTE]The two leading stock trade-banning bills, in terms of number of cosponsors, are the Ban Conflicted Trading Act (H.R. 1579 and S. 564) and the TRUST in Congress Act (H.R. 336). Both bills would prohibit members of Congress from trading corporate stocks, but they contain the same exemption: they would not apply to widely held investment funds, which is defined in the legislation as a fund that is either publicly traded or composed of assets that are widely diversified, and where the investor does not exert control over the assets held by the fund. So while members of Congress would be banned from trading individual corporate stocks, they would still be allowed to trade products like mutual funds or exchange-traded funds composed of bundles of corporate stocks.

This loophole may undercut what the bills’ sponsors describe as their goals: restricting the conflicts of interest that are presented when members of Congress make decisions that affect the stocks they are trading. While the Ban Conflicted Trading Act and the TRUST in Congress Act would ban members of Congress from trading a stock like ExxonMobil or Chevron, it would allow them to continue buying and selling shares in something like the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund, which is composed of shares in ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and 18 other prominent oil, gas, and energy equipment companies. At least nine House members are invested in that fund, according to a Business Insider database compiling 2020 annual financial disclosure information.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]“But the ideal would be limiting members to the even broader class of funds specified in the Warren/Jayapal bill as ‘widely-held and diversified investment fund.’”

The Warren and Jayapal bill, called the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act, would only allow members of Congress to trade investment funds that “[do] not have a stated policy of overly concentrating its investments” and that “[do] not pose a conflict of interest.” That bill is much less popular among members of Congress—while the Ban Conflicted Trading Act and TRUST in Congress Act each have more than 50 House cosponsors, the House version of the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act has just three co-sponsors so far. Its five Senate co-sponsors include two Republicans, Steve Daines of Montana and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Another bill, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act that was proposed by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), would also ban the trading of industry-specific funds. It has 12 Senate cosponsors, all Democrats, and no House version.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://readsludge.com/2022/03/08/another-possible-stock-trading-loophole/[/url]

:applause: sludge :applause:

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;14517905]Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately the federal reserve (the most powerful institution on the planet) would NEVER allow something like this to happen... BTC poses a direct threat to the fiat central bank currencies, which is no doubt the reason why the US govt is so interested in "regulating" cryptocurrencies right now.

Enjoy your crypto while it lasts... in the not so distant future the only digital currency you will be allowed to own is your local central bank digital currency