h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The Clintons net worth was about $1M in 1992. It's more than a
100 times that today -- beating a general market investment in
the market by 10X -- that's one hell of a return.
Seems like the best bet on a successful politician is that they
are going to
do better than the market -- would be
great if citizens could
benefit from that directly.
Bill, Inc
https://www.washing...adaa0048_story.html
[theircompetitor, Oct 27 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Right now it seems they're all snatched up by private equity. |
|
| |
That "snatched up" better not be a pun :) |
|
| |
Make Politicians Go Pubic would be better again. |
|
| |
Bonking Bill has Prior Art* on that ... |
|
| |
Hmmm...sounds meaningful, but I was worth ten dollars in '92 and I'm worth a grand today. I think scale is part of the issue. |
|
| |
my comparison is versus investing in the overall stock
market, not inflation, I think the stat is valid |
|
| |
Can you please clarify for me what the idea is? Am I going to be able to buy shares in a politicians personal financial gains? |
|
| |
Will it be any less stratified than the stock market? No one appears to be willing to sell me the one share of Microsoft I can afford. |
|
| |
Riding a politicians coat tails into financial gain has been done already. Unless the common man can play ... |
|
| |
You could always just place a bet on the politician
getting elected. Trump odds are shortening, so be
quick. |
|
| |
I have been thinking about how to make this work:
1. Mirror investments: requires transparency which might
not, due to NDAs etc, be possible; issues with non-
repeatable investments (e.g. real estate transactions);
impossibility of mirroring earnings
2. 50/50 split - income and capital of politician is split in
half, one remaining with the individual, the other going
into a fund of some sort, in which the public can invest:
setting foot in politics halves your net worth; issues re
jointly owned assets (e.g. IP or real estate not being
readily saleable, allocation of risk on disposal of assets)
3. Nationalise the bastards: confiscate all their assets
and send them off to the salt mines. |
|
| |
The main issue is that - supposition and guesswork ahead
- HNW individuals will make more of their investments in
off-market opportunities, being that they have the
connections to find out about those opportunities, and
this cuts across the comparison with the listed markets,
because it is not like for like. |
|
| |
So, 1) won't work, 2) nobody in their right mind would agree to, and 3)won't work. |
|
| |
Too bad, I was hoping that this insider tip would lead to increased prosperity for me. |
|
| |
[theircompetitor], you're pretty clever. Do you have any ideas that can help the guy at the other end of the spectrum? |
|
| |
The answer is FAANG, minus the N, if the question
is about stocks |
|
| |
Chelsea worked at either a brokerage or an investment banking firm for a while. perhaps she clued in William and Hillary. |
|
| |
Since when did kids tell their parents ANYTHING ? Yeah, whatever .
. |
|
| |
Better corrupt than crazy, yes. But we're now set up for
impeachment unless either 1) she loses, or 2)
Republicans
lose the House. Mind you, I don't think she will lose, and
I
don't think the Republicans will actually succeed in
replacing her (they may not actually want to since
they'd
instead attack her for next four years). But I can't see
how
Ryan keeps his job if she is not impeached. |
|
| |
As an aside, I wonder how many people would make that
statement about Nixon (better corrupt...) if there was
somehow a similar situation. |
|
| |
Yet another monetary game to devalue what a 1$ means. |
|
| |
Wait, I thought it was Hilary claiming the Don didn't declare?
So who is IT now? |
|
| |