[sneak]

I don't think it's mindboggling at all. It makes perfect sense that lawmakers would not make laws that negatively affect lawmakers.

I also think that the amount of nonpublic information that congresscritters have access to is substantially overblown. The fact that they can pass laws affecting the industries is a bigger lever, in my view.

[tharne]

I guess what surprises me is how nakedly unethical it is. I'm not shocked that people in positions of significant power would use that power to enrich themselves unfairly. I am shocked at how little effort they make to hide it.

[seanp2k2]

Because we’ve seen so many times that there are no consequences for this. Some people might get a bit mad, but it’s not like there are huge protests demanding change or cohorts voting out politicians who partake. If all politicians across the political spectrum also support it, what choice do people have at the polls?

[klipt]

Isn't "inside knowledge of upcoming new laws" a kind of non public information?

[shadowgovt]

... but it's a pretty big lever. And they don't even have to pass the laws; a person in position of authority can shock a market with a credible threat to take an action.

Such a tool was actually used to disrupt a rice panic once. Without releasing any surplus, an announced joint intent to release surplus drove speculators out of the market. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/04/142016962/the-...

[tharne]

I remember Hillary Clinton doing that in 2016 with a single sabre-rattling tweet about the pharma industry.

[throwaway0a5e]

Obama made some suggestions about normalizing relations with Iran and all the defense stocks went crazy though nothing ever came of it

Politicians suggesting things impacts the market all the time.

[CapitalistCartr]

One feeds the other. Their position of power is the reason people tell them so much. Given their returns, either members of The Congress are more brilliant than any Wall Street fund manager, or they're cheating.