[renewiltord]

Something that people think will happen if you pay a guy a lot of money is that he will then not try to get more money. In fact, Martha Stewart insider traded for a few hundred k. She's worth half a billion.

A question to ask yourself is "How much money would I have to pay Trump as the President for him to not launch a cryptocoin in his name?"

And a similar question is "If we paid the dockworkers to stay home so that we could containerize, would the guys staying home consider themselves striking when we consider automating?"

There is an answer, and it seems that if you pay a guy who had a large appetite for money a lot of money it doesn't diminish his appetite for more money all that much.

    Once you have paid him the Danegeld
    You never get rid of the Dane

[lesuorac]

Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice. The securities fraud (inside trading) charge was thrown out by the judge.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that an individual could mis-remember their dealings of ~49k when they're worth billions.

---

> And a similar question is "If we paid the dockworkers to stay home so that we could containerize, would the guys staying home consider themselves striking when we consider automating?"

Alternatively, if we went back to the optimal point of the Laffer tax curve (roughly 75% for top bracket). Then it doesn't need to be the Port of LA paying people to sit at home, it can just be the government providing paid job training and etc so the workers aren't on the streets when they're fired.

[renewiltord]

<edit>You're right. That's a bad example. Here's a better one.</edit> Michael Mindlin was making millions a year when he was convicted over an insider trade he made $60k in. Really, the idea that if you give the bank robbers more money they'll stop robbing has to be this pervasive belief.

[lesuorac]

Michael Mindlin isn't Martha Stewart. Use him in your example next time.

It's like saying you should wear a rain coat because it's 60 degrees outside. And then when I point out they're unrelated you go "it's also raining". No duh wear a raincoat but you didn't say that at the start.

[jacquesm]

People use Martha Stewart as an example because she's (1) a household name and (2) a fairly large number of people both inside the USA and outside of it are familiar with the case. Mindlin is much less well known.

[lesuorac]

But when you use person as a reference point and then make additional claims a reader doesn't know (i.e. ~100ks for insider trading) and then the reader looks up the details and finds the person wasn't convicted of insider trading and it was also ~50k the rest of your argument starts to lose support.

I think we can agree that Elon Musk is (1) a household name (2) a fairly large number of people globally know him. However, if you want to make an argument about how to move your legs while running he's not the guy to pick as an example.

Like take the original post and just remove the second sentence about Martha. It still works just fine.

[DANmode]

How much do you have to pay the President so obviously better candidates arrive and spend money and effort to secure the office,

vs present situation of it being a pure liability for financial gain, to seek the office.