The country was founded by people who thought taxation without representation was worth fighting a war over, but also thought it completely obvious that they didn't mean representation for poor people (imagine! Poor people with a say in government!), so denied them the franchise. And of course there was the whole thing where it was legal for some folks to own other folks.
But taxation (of rich people) without representation (for rich people)? Oh, intolerable! Better go to war over that injustice. Pay some poor people to kill each other over it (then forget to pay the bill, naturally).
250ish years later and rich people only de facto run the government, rather than de jure. Progress, I suppose.
Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in late 1700's America? I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had both wealthy and more middle class members.
> Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in late 1700's America?
The Tea Act was (among other things) intended to, and probably did, lower the price of tea in America. It hurt smugglers and tea importers.
> I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had both wealthy and more middle class members.
Any non-landowners who participated (were there many?) got had, then, since they couldn't vote under the original constitution and state laws at the time. They also didn't get a say in the drafting of the constitution or in ratifying it (I mean, obviously, who wants them stinking up the place?)
"But they got representation—just not the right to vote, or to run for many offices" Sure, but that's awfully close to an argument from the other side of the Atlantic, that rich British citizens in America didn't find convincing when it was applied to them:
[EDIT] All I'm saying is, we're a country the founding principle of which is basically "it's not who your parents are that make you worthwhile—it's having money". That was the fundamental disagreement between the Colonies (that is: the people who drove us to war, and who formed the government afterward) and Britain. Given our veneration of that founding, it's unsurprising that a country still operating under a constitution drafted by slavers and drug smugglers would tend, perhaps even more than other places, to be run by particularly scummy rich people with little shame about the shady ways they make their money.
Google tells me that Rick Scott from Florida is the richest at a net worth of $260 million. Which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't all that wealthy.
You seem to be confusing make per year, and total net worth, unless you are suggesting that at 260 million net worth he would have had to make at least 10 million a year or some such.
Yes, deeply suspicious, I was trying to split the difference and not get political. I think it’s terrible. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own, trade, or have anything to do with the stock market. I always heard a rumor that members of Congress are always richer when they leave than when they entered. That should really piss Americans off, but it doesn’t depending on which party is in power, and which party that person subscribes to.
I have no issue with them owning a handful of broad ETF's like the SPY. Other than that they shouldnt be placing bets on specific parts of the economy they clearly have influence over.
I think they should be able to own an investment portfolio, but while they are in office (and perhaps after, if they engage in lobbying) it should be in a blind trust.
I don't know details but in general the portfolio would be managed by a trustee, probably with a certain goal specified in advance (preservation of capital, growth, blended, etc.) the key is that the owner of the assets has no control over or knowledge of the specific investments once the trust is formed.
I don't know if a rollover into a blind trust has to involve a complete liquidation to cash to start off. That would make sense, since then there could be no assumptions about which securities the trust held.
I disagree entirely. Markets are more effecient when these high information actors are allowed to interact with it.
That said, it should be far more transparent.
I do think there's dirty play here, but I think you can't realistically prevent the ownership of equity instruments by politicians. You could demand they be held in blind trusts; you could demand they be able to be long-only on broad-based mutual funds; you could make demands that they announce their trades 3 trading days before enacting them.
I think you can't realistically (and shouldn't) block them from owning equities entirely though.
You don't need to block them having anything to do with the stock market; you just need to eliminate the presence and appearance of dirty play.
But taxation (of rich people) without representation (for rich people)? Oh, intolerable! Better go to war over that injustice. Pay some poor people to kill each other over it (then forget to pay the bill, naturally).
250ish years later and rich people only de facto run the government, rather than de jure. Progress, I suppose.