you won’t be able to find a judge wo a conflict of interest.
most middle class americans have things like their retirement accounts linked as well; so you wouldn’t be able to find anyone without some sort of conflict like this.
You could find someone whose conflict of interest is a little less intense though. It would be a step in the right direction. This just seems like a deliberate taunt.
Do they? I’ve never seen a company linked to any of the sketchy stock trading that gets reported like with Pelosi. I think you should be allowed to do things like bonds, but ANY stocks should be sold off before taking any office. Having any stock in any sector is the same as having a business in the sector (stocks is part owning), it should all be illegal. The very act of having stocks means your mindset is going to want a “positive” impact on the stock market, not the economic reality of an average citizen (their constituents who voted them to represent them and not the politicians interests).
I’m pretty sure she has a company do that for her. It doesn’t stop the collusion, even if they were banned. I read somewhere most of the insider trading happens on the lower levels of companies and banks, because executives and other people are very closely monitored as well as their family.
Some have to divest completely like government officials, some have to make their trades public, but I don’t think that applies to lawyers/judges, and definitely not everyone that in theory has insider information. You can go find and copy the portfolio of most powerful people.
I think government /executives shouldnt be allowed at all even through a company other than savings/retirement, judges and other position of influence (banks) should divest, and stocks should be left to the people. That’s never going to happen
Judges having a vested interest in their stocks doing well is totally not a conflict of interest nope.
you won’t be able to find a judge wo a conflict of interest.
most middle class americans have things like their retirement accounts linked as well; so you wouldn’t be able to find anyone without some sort of conflict like this.
You could find someone whose conflict of interest is a little less intense though. It would be a step in the right direction. This just seems like a deliberate taunt.
Okay, now take this further:
If our judges all have conflicts of interest then our judicial system is unjust.
As if there could be any doubt. Lol
The people in “power” hire other companies to manage their stocks, it should be the same for all these judges.
Do they? I’ve never seen a company linked to any of the sketchy stock trading that gets reported like with Pelosi. I think you should be allowed to do things like bonds, but ANY stocks should be sold off before taking any office. Having any stock in any sector is the same as having a business in the sector (stocks is part owning), it should all be illegal. The very act of having stocks means your mindset is going to want a “positive” impact on the stock market, not the economic reality of an average citizen (their constituents who voted them to represent them and not the politicians interests).
I’m pretty sure she has a company do that for her. It doesn’t stop the collusion, even if they were banned. I read somewhere most of the insider trading happens on the lower levels of companies and banks, because executives and other people are very closely monitored as well as their family.
Some have to divest completely like government officials, some have to make their trades public, but I don’t think that applies to lawyers/judges, and definitely not everyone that in theory has insider information. You can go find and copy the portfolio of most powerful people.
I think government /executives shouldnt be allowed at all even through a company other than savings/retirement, judges and other position of influence (banks) should divest, and stocks should be left to the people. That’s never going to happen