This is how a caste system works. People is not judged based on their actions but their relationship to power.
Not at all. In a caste system a lower caste person will get attacked if he (or especially she) has any success at all. Whether or not what they did was legal or not does not factor into the equation. First priority is that the highest up dalit is lower than the worst drunkard brahmin, even if they have to kill them.
That's absolutely not what Wikipedia says. There was indeed a horrible massacre, but why do you feel the need to falsify the reasons?
What part of this paragpraph are you having a hard time with?
I already specified:
There were too many successful black men
As my concern, because you made up this reason. How does your paste show this as the reason? Why are you ignoring the reasons in the Wikipedia article, which are clearly listed, including a timeline, and just making a reason up?
The sad part is, there is no need to embellish or make up things here, the event was horrible. There is no need to falsify reasons.
Why are you presenting your imagined reasons as fact?
It is very simple.
In the history of revolution, there is never (except in elementary school) all that much weight put on the singular act which instigated the final result. The conditions in place (Jim Crow laws, Southern pride, etc.) lead up to a final moment which our monkey brains like to point to as the cause but in reality there is a simmering cultural froth which could boil over in any number of ways: it just happens that one of the ways is what's described in the Wikipedia article, but it could have started many other ways. All of our understanding about the experience of being Black in the US during that time helps to contextualize the extreme and disproportionate outburst of violence by the White population as racially motivated, serving under an ideology best described as ur-"Great Replacement Theory".
In simpler words, the destruction of Black Wall Street is not without precedent, indeed this was merely one of the more famous and complete examples of destroying the wealth that Black people enjoyed, if only briefly due to the hate of those visiting violence upon them.
"Don't feed the trolls". They absolutely do know what they're doing.
Go read a book about it, and then if you still want to, you can tell us why this interpretation is wrong.
Racism is a complex phenomenon not limited to the simplistic view "they don't like black people". This representation is doing a disservice when some truly racist people are then justifying their actions and beliefs by saying "I cannot be racist, I'm friend with the garbage man who is black: he is a good black man, is polite to me and stay at his place. So, if I'm not racist, what I'm doing is just legitimate".
In the context of Tulsa, it is difficult to believe that the frustration of racist people seeing black people more successful than them has not contributed to the situation. It seems very natural and logical (and that's even the core of "white supremacy": it clearly states that white people deserve a better position in the social hierarchy than black people: white supremacy framing is all about how some classes are reserved to white people and not black people), and if you are claiming that it is not the case, you are the one with the burden of the proof.
While you have a point on raising that racism should not be reduced to only a class issue, you should have raised that as a precision around the discussion instead of presenting it as if racism has absolutely nothing to do with class and class sentiment.
To take back your parallel, what you do can be seen as: "A person entered a bar and was raped" (what you say) vs "A woman entered a bar and was raped". While nobody here claims that men cannot be raped, there is social phenomenon that create a gender imbalance, and it is important to not reduce the situation to "it has nothing to do with gender and the social norms around it".
In the rest of your comment, you, yourself, are doing a lot of interpretations. The fact that someone noticed that a class factor may have had an impact does not mean that they or all readers will conclude that it is the only way racism can happen (that is a huge stretch: if they know what happened at Tulsa, they very probably know a lot of other cases where the "only due to class" theory does not hold up). Same for "victim blaming": the fact that they were successful were obviously not used to excuse the massacre or pretend that somehow it was the black people's fault, the context is clearly to condemn the white racist people (and the success of the black people seems to be presented as an obvious additional factor on the racists, as it is obviously unfair to pretend that some people don't have the right to be successful).
I think the first comment was not totally perfect and would have been 100% fine if they would have simply added "class was one of the factor". But I think your reaction has way more problems and does a bigger disservice by reducing racism to a framework that can easily be instrumentalised by real racist people.
The black community resisted the lynching and stood up for the poor bastard they wanted to murder. Their prosperity as a community and individually gave them the fortitude to fight back.
It wasn’t “because they were rich”. It was because they had agency and dared to stand for their rights as a community. For a person who believes that the color of your skin makes you an inferior or superior human, that is an unforgivable affront.
"The massacre began during Memorial Day weekend after 19-year-old Dick Rowland, a black shoeshiner, was accused of assaulting Sarah Page, a white 21-year-old elevator operator in the nearby Drexel Building.[25] He was arrested and rumors spread that he was to be lynched. Several hundred white residents assembled outside the courthouse, appearing to have the makings of a lynch mob. A group of approximately 50–60 black men, armed with rifles and shotguns, arrived at the jail to support the sheriff and his deputies in defending Rowland from the mob. Having seen the armed black men, some of the whites who had been at the courthouse went home for their own guns. There are conflicting reports about the exact time and nature of the incident, or incidents, that immediately precipitated the massacre.
According to the 2001 Commission, "As the black men were leaving, a white man attempted to disarm a tall, African American World War I veteran. A struggle ensued, and a shot rang out." Then, according to the sheriff, "all hell broke loose."[26] The two groups shot at each other until midnight when the group of black men was greatly outnumbered and forced to retreat to Greenwood."
Instead, you assert it was a mob that assembled to lynch a young man who was arrested for assault after he stepped on the foot of or grabbed the arm of a white female elevator operator when he tripped in the elevator. I guess they got out of hand when there was resistance to their murdering the kid.
Why is that distinction so important to you?
"After an all-night battle on the Frisco Tracks, many residents of Greenwood were taken by surprise as bullets ripped through the walls of their homes in the predawn hours. Biplanes dropped fiery turpentine bombs from the night skies onto their rooftops—the first aerial bombing of an American city in history. A furious mob of thousands of white men then surged over Black homes, killing, destroying, and snatching everything from dining room furniture to piggy banks. Arsonists reportedly waited for white women to fill bags with household loot before setting homes on fire. Tulsa police officers were identified by eyewitnesses as setting fire to Black homes, shooting residents and stealing. Eyewitnesses saw women being chased from their homes naked—some with babies in their arms—as volleys of shots were fired at them. Several Black people were tied to cars and dragged through the streets."
---
"One kid groped another kid" is an insufficient explanation of this kind of violence and looting.
I did not offer any explanation, I stated that wikipedia does not offer the one that was claimed here.
The cause of this riot was not Tulsa. It might have happened anywhere for the Negro is not the same man he was thirty years ago when he was content to plod along his own road accepting the white man as his benefactor. But the years have passed and the Negro has been educated and the race papers have spread the thought of race equality.
Specifically, 'black wall street' was a specific area of rich black people, yet this statement says "the cause of this riot was not Tulsa". And "It might have happened anywhere". If it "might have happened anywhere", it therefore has nothing to do with being the unique high-wealth of this area.
When you find yourself drawing parallels between your own arguments and those of contemporary white supremacists asserting that the attitudes of local whites were not at all to blame, it's perhaps a good idea to reconsider...
Delving into "you're a racist if you don't agree with my take on this event" is a very, very scummy and morally bankrupt thing to do. Especially since you're literally making up that comparison, for nothing I've said indicates I absolved anyone of anything at all. In fact, I've been asserting that whites of the time didn't need a special reason, like wealth, to do what they did.
People asserting that wealth was required to cause this tragedy, are actually giving excuses as to why it happened. Racism doesn't require that.
because there's an ideology that must be upheld for the agenda
People were murdered and homes and businesses destroyed by a white mob because they were black. How is that anything but white supremacy?
> There was no Wall Street. It was just like any high street.
It was one of the wealthiest black communities in america at a time. “Black wall street” was a nickname, not a literal description of a stock exchange.
> It was triggered by an attempted rape.
No, it was triggered by an attempted lynching of a black man. Or if you want to be more specific, because the community there stood up to protect the arrested man. It was triggered by a black community stopping a lynching.
Your assertions are an ahistorical revisionist fantasy.
Source: lazybones
Similarly over the last few decades the number of medical doctors who have immediate family who are also doctors has grown.
Social and economic class in the US is increasingly set in stone and hereditary.
It's set up heavily tilted so you have to be rich, or dirt poor enough for a sob story, or a desired minority. Even if you do volunteer a lot and are middle class, you probably didnt know anyone that could help you into the most prestigious positions. A middle class person of equal aptitude would likely go into something like engineering or law which have fewer class-signalling non-academic purity tests.
And just generally, socioeconomic mobility has decreased in the US across the population.
But...why? Why not just let in the applicants that have the best grades?
A more cynical view is that the governing boards want a way to pick and choose who they let in. So they create "holistic" application systems to get "360 degree view of the candidate".
MCAT seems more relevant, though. According to Claude: "Roughly 0.1% or fewer of test-takers score a perfect 528 in any given year — typically only a few dozen individuals out of the ~120,000 or so who sit for the exam annually." So it should work fairly well for them to sort by MCAT and take however many they have (or expect to have) room for.
See also: "Cultural fit" when hiring.
The actual solution is to increase the number of slots for training doctors to match the huge number of qualified applicants. It makes even more sense given that there is a shortage of doctors and health care costs are astronomical.
I live in Ontario and we're there. 40% of Waterloo students had above a 95% average in high school. The average GPA to get into UofT med school is 3.94/4.00 GPA.
What has happened as a result is students killing themselves and each other. If you fail one test in any course, you cannot move to the next level.
So, if you go on the UofT subreddit there's endless stories of pre-med students sabotaging each other. Faking friendliness, destroying notes, etc etc. This is arguably rational because the pool is small and there's little to gain by studying harder if you already have a perfect GPA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UofT/comments/1sbu811/had_no_idea_t...
You don't want this type of person as a doctor. They will sabotage others because that is how they got ahead in the past. In a medical environment that kills people.
Training more doctors is just never an option for some reason.
Don't build systems that reward amoral psychopaths.
So there is a low ceiling, and if they instead used MCAT or something with a higher ceiling (where, apparently, the number of perfect scores is about 50 per year—in America, presumably lower in Canada due to population size), then studying harder would benefit them. That seems like a much better outlet for competitive urges.
But also, how small is the pool of qualified applicants? If there were something like "they're going to take n people from your school, at which there are 30 plausible candidates", then sabotaging one might conceivably be worthwhile. But if the pool is—well, Google says 3,000 medical students get accepted each year in Canada (and the qualified applicant pool is presumably at least somewhat larger), and sabotaging one person is extremely unlikely to help you personally. (This is one case where it's good that the expected-value "benefits", of sabotaging person X, are widely distributed among thousands of medical candidates, and thus it's a "free-rider problem" where no individual candidate has a strong motivation to do the work.)
Is there some multi-stage thing where they pick 10 people from each high school, or 30 from a town, or something? Or is there major grading on a curve, or a big benefit for being the top person in your classroom of 15? That seems like how you would get real incentives for this backstabbing behavior. Otherwise, I can't see how it's rational (even to a complete sociopath), and would have to chalk it up to individual miscreants and possibly some kind of culture that encourages it in other ways.
Yes. UofT even has "down curves" where your mark is lowered to ensure the correct distribution.
So train more doctors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#R...
Wow. 1997: https://www.baltimoresun.com/1997/03/01/ama-seeks-limit-on-r...
> “The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians,” the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. “The current rate of physician supply — the number of physicians entering the work force each year — is clearly excessive.”
> The groups, representing a large segment of the medical establishment, proposed limits on the number of doctors who become residents each year.
> The number of medical residents, now 25,000, should be much lower, the groups said. While they did not endorse a specific number, they suggested that 18,700 might be appropriate.
But maybe that's a free market fantasy. Who knows.
Or the alternative. Government-owned everything healthcare - facilities, hospitals, med schools, doctor practices. Doctors only work for the government.
The current system is neither here nor there and is designed for maximum profit.
Sounds like we need more spots for these people to go
Military academies are more of a upper class thing though.
So the richest, most prestigious schools where legacy admissions are a gateway to the upper classes, will keep the policy.
Affirmative action was gutted by SCOTUS when Biden was president. Not that it was popular before. California of all places rejected it by 56-44 margin in 2020.
e.g. my buddy whose grandad was a lineman and later a telephone company manager, and dad was a mechanical engineer, and he ended up SRE / devops
That's a pretty wide net. What percentage of the total population has a military connection in that many degrees?
"‘Absurd Corruption’: Disgust as Eric Trump Brags About Scoring $24 Million Pentagon Deal" - https://www.commondreams.org/news/eric-trump-pentagon-contra...
The claims are that different outcomes in income, occupation, education, marriage, etc can result in changes in a person's "class." But even in the statistically insignificant number of Horatio Alger stories, did the person's class really change? Did Eliza from Pygmalion change classes or just learn how to "code switch?"
The only difference I can detect is that "class" allows members to move between groups and "castes" do not; however, all the outcomes are identical. So they are absolutely synonymous in most peoples eyes.
Most Americans share a delusion of perpetual glory days like a former star high school football quarterback with the refusal to accept factual reality that their country isn't uniformly excellent and is terrible in many ways including being extremely superficial, corrupt, dangerous, unhealthy, unhappy, paranoid, over-reacting, immature, selfish, unfair, disinformed, and unequal.
The word "power" is so ironic in human cultures:
It's the people with the guns (and muscles) that have the literal physical power. They could shoot the aristocrats dead if they wanted to.
The aristocrats' "power" is make-believe like the rest of their papers and numbers: The various psychological barriers which dissuade the gun-bearers from ever reaching the "want to" part.
See, e.g., Iran's IGRC. Counterexamples: China, Russia — and the U.S.?
Putin did it better; he kept the military weak and aggressively managed the risk via the FSB.
The problem you have is these elected kings. Not just any king, pretty specifically the majority of the powers enjoyed by George III in the 1790s. The fact that you still have this, unreformed over 200 years later and still think that somehow your constitutional system is modern, is a matter for despair. Get yourselves a proper parliamentary system, with maybe a head of state as a figurehead.
As far as reforms, we need more to be sure, but there's at least the 22nd Amendment, formalizing the two-term tradition that Washington initiated and FDR abrogated into a hard limit, that means Trump can't legally keep power past 2028.
What a poorly thought out and questionably motivated take. It will no doubt be well received here.
In any case, reconstructing out legislature to copy european stuff isn't gonna change anything if the legislature still sees fit to vest so much power in the executive.
Yeah, no coup is happening here. Our military is built around civilian control via the White House. That ain't changing any time soon. Ignoring the various uses of force above, when the generals were called before Hegseth to bend the knee, all but one of them did.
Ironically I was watching Nuremberg last not and is is schocking how close some of the leaders of this country are to characters like Hermann Göring, or Hitler himself in talking points. They are certainly populists but the language they used is MGGA (make german great again) so to speak. And factually that were not particular that good at it either most of Germans recovery is really due to the liberal government that pass laws that built the Autobahn were laws not by the Nazi party. They certain jumped on them and accelerate them but effective governence is not really for the populist
They just finally had to fire their SecNav because reality butted heads with their ideological conclusion was that business experience was more conducive to military success. Unfortunately for their very-much-not-military-led plan, SecNav probably needs a bit more user experience from time in Navy leadership to successfully work within that labrythine bureaucracy.
No, he staged those demonstrations to win the election.
There is absolutely no picture evidence of any damage to his ear.
What matters is not raw power, it’s balance. The power of one guy with guns is kept in check by the power of other guys with guns who stand to benefit from the status quo. The aristocracy’s game is to play with this balance to make sure that no other rival force emerges. They do not need any actual physical power themselves to play it.
Indeed. Then, there’s a revolution and heads start rolling. But again, this does not happen when power disappears; it happens when the balance changes, e.g. when a significant chunk of the army sides with a part of the people.
> Their security is through obscurity
Not at all. They can be very blatant about it. Look at Iran for example. Or Russia. Everyone knows who controls what, there is nothing obscure about it.
- someone
The vast majority of people don't want to take the bet of a tiny chance of doubling their lot in life for the downside risk of literally being tortured and dying and probably ruining the life of any loved ones.
Most people aren't degenerate gamblers.
The workaround is organization. With sufficient organization, you can start to drag the tiny chance to a slightly bigger chance, and slightly reduce the downside risk maybe.
Some parts of American society are absurdly bad at organizing, and basically gave up 60 years ago.
Lord Varys: Three great men sit in a room: a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other two. Who lives, who dies? Tyrion Lannister: Depends on the sellsword. Lord Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods. Tyrion Lannister: He has a sword, the power of life and death. Lord Varys: But if it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey? The executioner? Or something else? Tyrion Lannister: I've decided I don't like riddles. [pause] Lord Varys: Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2070135/characters/nm0384152/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/503606-oh-i-think-not-varys...
If he had had the means of letting all or maybe just a relevant and important enough cadre of aristocrats know the inside information, he would have surely not been prosecuted. I know this from first hand knowledge.
It may seem the same or like a distinction without a difference to some, but that is really how things work and why he was prosecuted, not because he profited, but because he did not let others in on it and they really want to discourage that behavior, hence his flogging and his public flogging at that. And yes, if you get the sense that it’s like organized crime, then yes, that is and long has been how the US government and many other governments have functioned for a long time now. It’s what also makes them so easily controlled by the US. It could have easily also been swept under the rug while still sending a signal within the system, but it wasn’t and we were all told about it.
And that is how the ruling parasites really get rich, none of that hard work and smarts stuff; those are the stories told to keep the peasant cattle voting for the slaughterhouse, dreaming of the wide open pastures of also becoming rich by working hard.
Fraud, cheating, lying, manipulation … that’s the name of the American dream game.
I again apologize to anyone who feels what and how I say things is “flame bait” or a personal attack, it’s simply just how I speak and like to challenge people’s comfortable assumptions. Feel free to dismiss what I say of you disagree with me. No offense intended and no flaming or whatever necessary, it’s just people speaking to each other or not. We’ll all be fine if we keep talking, even if you don’t like what others have to say or want to control how they say things.
I’d argue that the level of corruption we’re seeing, not just in the USA but all over the Western world, hasn’t risen to a level that warrants revolutionary action.
> nobody seems to care
And it would seem that the masses tend to agree.
We are much much better off tolerating this level of corruption than we would be attempting a revolution.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how fat the fat cats are so long as the general population’s standard of living doesn't go backwards too far too fast.
Still, as I bet you could agree when not aguing semantics, its inexusable for people to declare we should accept corruption
50% of revolutions in the past 200 years have been non-violent, and the non-violent ones have a much higher success rate. Even for violent revolutions, most aren't brutal. When there is brutality, it's usually because the pre-existing conditions were already brutal.
For most revolutions, the state needs to be unable to maintain control over it's populace. The ones where it can still maintain control is where it gets bloody.
To say nothing of the processed food and automobile industries.
takes notes
Nah, life would be better if a cleptocrat couldn’t find his way into power.
I'd say that either way the population will not rebel. If the government is smart they'll just pay for the populations Netflix, burgers and beer. It's enough to keep people passive.
Well, given that people are behaving more and more violently towards said fat cats I think it's clear we're starting to reach a breaking point and people are caring. It wasn't too long ago that I saw people cheering on LinkedIn when that healthcare CEO got got, so if people are willing to put their professional profiles at risk you have to imagine it's far worse behind closed doors.
Personally I really dislike living in interesting times and greatly prefer advocating against corruption rather than letting things slide until they get a lot worse.
The reason for those price increases is those countries don't have massive fuel stockpiles. The west does have big stockpiles, and they're artificially suppressing the price of fuel by releasing those stockpiles and hoping the special operation is over before their stockpiles run out. Because if prices shoot up now, people will realize just how truly disastrous it all is and actual consequences for various governments may be had, so the only option is to kick the can down the road and hope it somehow resolves itself.
Asia is in a particularly bad situation, because even for countries that do have stockpiles, they get basically all of their oil from Iran, the UAE, east coast of Saudi Arabia, etc. Now they have no oil. America can pretend it's a 4D chess move and now those countries will buy American oil and make their economy great again. But the thing is America isn't selling any additional oil to Asia. But America is 100% dependent on cheap things made in Asia, things that are built with plastic made from middle eastern oil and powered by electricity generated from middle eastern oil and shipped on boats running on middle eastern oil. All these things take months to show any effects to Americans and Europeans, so until then, it's just a game of burying heads in the sand until the situation suddenly explodes.
We’re looking at fuel shocks, downstream the agricultural, fertilizer, and food shocks are gonna cost untold anguish and many lives. Farmer suicides and famines, as the start of a destabilizing wave.
1) for the second time in my adult life I have to ask aloud how shit Dick Cheney was saying on 60 minutes ca 1993 escaped the notice of the entire US military and its commander in chief
2) the obvious lack of a post-strike plan and confusion about how mountains and waterways work make it hard to pin down how elementary and remedial the eff-ups here really are, so incompetent and indifferent
There is no we to prevent any revolution occurring once corruption or "mere" wealth distribution unsustainable discrepancy are passing some thresholds, after which it simply will feedbackloop exponentially.
Pauperization that allows some party to have chip exploitable labour too frightened to have strong collective claims is also building the social structure of bloody revolution as masses feel like rushing into brutality is the only viable left option.
The police and intelligence are well paid to keep an eye on all kinds of signals. Unless the situation reaches a point they cant pay the cops any voilence will be shut down fast, because over time they have become quite good at it. Just like we have become good at running gigantic boilers without them exploding. Even poor states are good at it. Because anyone running a farm, factory, depending on banks, telcos, ports, power grid etc are all very dependent on the state to keep the lights on. More efficent they get the more dependent they are on external structures staying in tact to stay afloat.
The world today is a much more complicated place, full of interdependcies(as covid showed us), than what it was when revolutions were seen as the solution to anything.
So Organizing and Voting still remains the easier way to cause change as tempratures rise. Thats the control and feedback mech.
Believe it or not, wealthy people plan ahead to protect their hoard and they have had several decades since Gandhi to figure out how to neuter peaceful protests that threaten their status.
Worker's compensation in real terms has been almost flat for the last 50 years, 50 years which have seen the largest increase in productivity in recorded history by far. I'm surprised this is still not enough to you.
We, today, are better not attempting revolution because revolutions are painful. But we are also on a downward slope which will eventually reach below a threshold where 2 things happen: their* life will be much worse off than any revolution, but also they will no longer be able to mount a revolution.
I've lived through a violent revolution. Not knowing what's happening, not knowing what tomorrow brings, while getting shot at are all terrifying. I can genuinely say that most of what came after was better. A few paid a high price for the several generations that came after to mostly have it better.
I am not advocating revolution, just doing what it takes to change course. Even voting appropriately could do it.
*I say they because it might not happen in our lifetime. But we are selling our kids' futures for our current comfort. They'll be the ones really paying our debt.
A certain amount of corruption is normal - as Doctorow pointed out, all complex ecosystems evolve parasites. It's much better to have a democracy with some corruption than a police state that enforces its laws perfectly.
Now, when people realise the current state of their democracy and how it reflects the needs of the people, then they'll start considering bringing out the guillotines.
Just look at something like Office Space. Just twenty seven years ago, it was a satire of the indignities and disrespect of work life. Today, the movie's work environment would be incredibly cushy.
What level of corruption would warrant revolutionary action? How much more corrupt can you get than sending forces into combat in a war of choice that disrupts the global economy and kills thousands to win a bet on a crypto platform and shift the news cycle away from accusations of rampant pedophilia among the elite and the lack of prosecution thereof?
Age limits (for Congress/Judiciary/Presidency) would be a much more targeted fix. Past ~75 you just don't have enough years left to be at risk of being affected by the things you're implementing. Dying in office of old age should be a deeply shameful way to go.
In what world does it make sense that Israel controls our government? Only in the world where you think that Israel controls our banks etc.
Let's keep this conversation tied to evidence before launching attacks that are based on prejudice.
Yeah I don't really see how that is an argument that current corruption isn't too extreme.
> Age limits (for Congress/Judiciary/Presidency) would be a much more targeted fix.
Would it? There are plenty of corrupt people in office younger than 75, to say nothing of the countless unelected people in close proximity to power. Only 42 out of 535 members of congress are over 75. On the supreme court, Alito only turned 76 3 weeks ago, and the only other justice over that threshold is Thomas who is 77. Trump was under 75 for his entire first term. Biden, Trump, and Reagan are the only presidents who have ever been in office over the age of 75. Such an age limit would do basically nothing to change the composition of government. While there may be compelling reasons for such an age limit like ensuring mental acuity, it is not a remedy for corruption.
The cost of insider trading mostly get passed to the rich. The reason why insider trading is illegal isn't that it's particularly morally wrong as much as it disincentivizes participation in the markets.
Too late for that hypothetical.
It's just that the problem is not the trading or betting side, the problem is the information producing side.
E.g. imagine he placed a bet that Maduro would get shot in is left eye and die.
Same goes for the congress. Them making money is by far a smaller issue compared to the havoc they can cause trying to make a few bucks on their crazy bets.
If the laws are not enforced or selectively enforced you live in a nascent fascist state, not a democracy, what you need is a return to the rule of law, not the abolition of it.
Then ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS. That solves good part of it.
Talking about any other solutions will have to wait for govt that's not crooked. It doesn't need revolution, it needs to not have criminals at helm
Until the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Collateral Debt Obligations were regulated differently in different states. Some said it was insurance, and thus regulated it like insurance. Some said it was gambling and banned it outright. Instead, regulation was handed to a toothless new agency who got little funding for enforcement and the rest of the world got the 2008 financial crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizatio...
Is there much difference between picking a horse at the track or a stock on an exchange?
Getting some bills passed does not equate to adequate legislative capacity.
Insider trading is already illegal (this case proves it). If the problem is under-enforcement, then I agree that better enforcement is the fix.
Banning gambling is a completely separate intervention addressing a different activity, and clearly wasn't required to bring charges in this case.
The tendency of governments to create new laws instead of enforcing existing ones is how we end up with absurdly complex legal systems and the loopholes that come with them.
Personally I think the system shouldn't be so easily overloaded.
does that include the stock exchange?
And tax capital gains at a rate inversely proportional to how long the shares were held. E.g., 90% if held less than a second, 10% if held over 10 years.
But there are plenty of other stock-based bets they already do make to trade on confidential info.
They should be allowed to hold an ETF with fully locked contribution schedules. Anything more is corruptible.
(Also, if congress critters’ wealth was coupled to the index instead of specific interests, maybe we’d get less pork overall.)
Very few people feel impacted by that. If you consider bombing Iran was going to happen anyway because distractions are needed, the money made by the whale that consistently predicts the movements of the current administration is a relatively small thing compared to starting a war for no good reason.
One possible solution is to make all trades public and traceable to the person who made the decision and the people who benefit from that.
So, two things. First, she's made quite a bit more than a few million dollars. Second, she's been an example of being a "suspiciously good trader" for years and years and years. Has anything happened to her? Republicans talk about her and do nothing about it. Democrats say it's a conspiracy theory. The behavior has quite clearly been normalized.
Nowadays super riches run the show and even the illusion of democracy is gone.
Another thought: many political elites are probably waiting and pushing for Trump to fail to take over. It is us who are going to suffer.
The 10 best performing historical congress people stocks are all republican,a ll men, all funded by lobbys like heritage foundation...
But the face of insider trading becomes a democrat and a woman
Its sooo diffcult to guess why it happened
It’s hardly her face. After so much plastic surgery, it’s arguable it’s not even her own anymore.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Chuck Schumer is the whip of the party, as mentioned she isnt even top 10 in performance, her party didnt legalise the activity, other members are aggresive in their pursuit of insider trading information (MTG was part of the most committees during her tenure, but she skipped almost all votes after that, she just wanted the scoop adn then bolted) ...
So why her?
The most common excuse is "well people demand more of dems because everyone knows republicans are crooks", which doesnt explain why more senior leaders, ex presidents etc are the ones hounded instead of her.
how ever surveys by lobbys like the ones owned by the Koch brothers show which politicians people find unlikeable. Unsurprsingly many are unremarkable women, just like Nancy, which makes them easy targets for public campaigns in favour or against.
If you name the most talked about politicans of the past 20 years, outside of the pres (Obama, Biden, Trump) you get mostly women (Sarah Palin, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, MTG, Kristi Noem, Laurent Bobert) that is not a coincidence and it explains why no one could pick Schumer, who is senior leadership, in a police line up but can tell you the many dogs Kristi killed
Which is ridiculous because the entire thing was largely fabricated by the media for those juicy clicks. It was a "half truth" story that hinged on the public's general ignorance of derivatives trading.
While she acquired Nvdia shares days before the bill passed, it was entirely coincidental, because she had put in for those shares over a year prior. Craziest of all, which the media would never fucking say, is that she lost money on the trade.
Nancy Pelosi's most infamous insider trade is one she lost money on. It's one of the core stories I use as an example of how shamelessly misleading the media is. Destroying the country for ad views.
Not for ad views. Fox News does it demonstrably for political purposes, and the "Clinton News Network" has been bought and now joins them.
Bezos didn't buy a popular newspaper for a little extra money. Twitter doesn't work the way it does for profitability purposes.
It’s that there isn’t an Attorney General who would dare attempt raise a case against the hand that feeds them.
At the moment the US is just Big Poland (PiS era).
He’s only stealing from the US military if the DoD is taking the other side of prop bets on US military operations on polymarket. Which… I mean maybe it’s a reasonable insurance strategy? US military bets that they’re gonna screw up a raid on Venezuela, then either everything goes well and they end up with a successful operation, or it all goes to hell and they wind up winning a consolation cash prize. Hedging operational success by taking the over on casualty estimates… dark.
Ignoring the moral argument, it isn’t all that clear to me that this would actually be a crime for a legislator under US securities law. It may be that new laws would be required to be able to punish legislators for this kind of behaviour.
> The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Explanation:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-2/...
As for insider trading:
> The law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading, by members of Congress and other government employees.
When the people feel everyone is corrupt without any evidence then the next step is getting actual corrupt leaders like Trump's government and soldiers like this that feel corruption is standard behavior
Perhaps one of the silver linings we eventually get from current happenings is meaningful anti-insider trading legislation, with criminal penalties, timely reporting, nonpartisan enforcement. In principle that legislation could happen as soon as 2/2027. Or perhaps not.
"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" [1]
[1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bov...
The main difference between the two is that betting on the date of a classified op indirectly reveals classified data that can tip off an adversary and cost lives.
That's not to say the behavior isn't extremely slimey but they are acting within the law. Your comment doesn't mention the executive branch and the various crypto "ventures" going on, like the Whitehouse dinner for investors of $TRUMP coin of which we have no idea who invested or what they got from it.
Senate and congress are both elected. Their re-election is effectively jury nullification.
The people do not care about the crimes.
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
But when's the last time you had $300 million in your personal budget to spend on advertising to a specific human being to improve your personal income?
When's the last time you got a call from an actual politician begging you for money and "support"?
US congress members spend the vast vast majority of their time on the phone begging a list of rich people for a piss of nickles to fund advertising for their next election. There's always a subtle threat of strings attached.
Both the prince and pauper are forbidden from sleeping under the bridge.
No one likes insider trading especially when it's done by politicians, but let's not pretend they're the same