[astrange]

> And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p.

No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine.

Insider knowledge doesn't reliably beat passive investing and why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.

[mmooss]

> why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.

There are many discussions long before you see anything on C-SPAN, and some are top secret.

[epoxyhockey]

Their staffers are in the discussions and do you know that they leak information like sieves. A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?

[mmooss]

> Their staffers are in the discussions

I'm sure they are in some discussions, I'm sure both staffers and elected officials are in others, and I'm sure elected officials have some without their staff.

> A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?

There are those, of course; the incredulity you typed isn't evidence otherwise. But I was referring to top secret discussions that affect businesses; for example, the armed services committees have secret meetings about things that greatly affect companies in the defense industry.

[HaZeust]

There's literally TS/SCI for several departments, including the DOL, to get post-priced strike prices and costs for options before market open. And no, the prices you see before market open and saying, "Yeah! I can see that too!" is not the same. That's PRE-priced in.

[outer_web]

Taking "time in the market beats timing the market" a bit to the extreme, I think.

[pton_xd]

> No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine.

There's no conspiracy in acknowledging that politicians sometimes use their influence for personal gain, when it's convenient. That's just human nature.

[sksxihve]

How is acknowledging that politicians have insider information a conspiracy?

[jatora]

I dont think everything is a conspiracy, but it is obvious corruption is rampant in US politics, and who in their right mind would think that that stops at leveraging special committee insider knowledge for personal gains?

[astrange]

No, that isn't obvious. You just think that because you believe that thinking this makes you cooler.

[jatora]

Hmm. Good argument. Look into how the revolving door works, or citizens united and it's after-effects... if you're interested in even just the bottom of the barrel to get your feet wet on the topic.

[astrange]

Like I said, you're making everything about money in a basic way you can easily imagine.

One thing that happens if you actually watch election results here is 1. the left candidates have more money and 2. it doesn't help.

[jatora]

You should actually make an argument for your case if you care to, rather than streaming baseless assumptions and dangling random comments.

[mrguyorama]

Then why do they suck so bad at it? Why is Pelosi not a billionaire if they have such easy access to privileged info? Why do they barely do any better than anyone else?