alt.hn

4/1/2025 at 5:53:35 PM

Is Doge Securities Fraud?

 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-doge-securities-fraud

by ioblomov

4/1/2025 at 7:09:06 PM

> There’s a reason I write about “everything is securities fraud” all the time. It is weird to filter US political and legal life through securities fraud; it is weird to try to find ways to fit political disagreements into the framework of securities fraud. I mean, it’s fine when my readers email me about it — I sort of ask for it! — but it’s weird when actual politicians survey their range of potential actions and think “ah yes securities fraud lawsuit.” I wrote last year that “the thesis of ‘everything is securities fraud’ is that US law is somehow more responsive to financial-market claims than it is to other, substantive claims.”

by legitster

4/2/2025 at 4:42:05 PM

> the thesis of ‘everything is securities fraud’ is that US law is somehow more responsive to financial-market claims than it is to other, substantive claims.

Seems utterly plausible. Financial-market claims feel rather likely to arise much more often, relatively speaking, among rich people than poor.

by CRConrad

4/1/2025 at 7:05:47 PM

https://archive.is/NFiEq

by goles

4/1/2025 at 7:16:21 PM

As a condition of bringing his newsletter to Bloomberg, Matt Levine made it a requirement that people could still sign up to get it delivered to their inboxes for free:

https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/money-stuff

I cannot recommend it enough - after all these years it's still a daily treat to read.

by legitster

4/1/2025 at 7:21:48 PM

It's good, and funny, and does a great job of simplifying financial complexity down into small morsels of understandable content.

Now that he has a podcast, I would like someone to generate an AI reader in the style of his voice so I can listen to it when driving.

by bb88

4/1/2025 at 7:27:27 PM

I would like Matt Levine to choose how his personal voice and style are brought to the market

by mistrial9

4/1/2025 at 6:14:29 PM

D.O.G.E. may actually be all other kinds of fraud.

by actionfromafar

4/1/2025 at 6:15:59 PM

Yes, plus others. It is to enrich Trump and as a side effect to trickle some down to tech bros.

by jmclnx

4/1/2025 at 7:11:09 PM

pros -> bros

by amelius

4/2/2025 at 2:06:37 PM

Thanks, I fixed it. bros is what I meant :)

by jmclnx

4/1/2025 at 5:54:41 PM

[dead]

by KingLancelot

4/1/2025 at 6:22:52 PM

I don't know how valid the article is, but speaking of securities fraud, I now read that DOGE is interested in the "Sudden Wealth" of so many congresscritters. I'd be interested in that as well.

by smallmouth

4/1/2025 at 7:08:26 PM

> I now read that DOGE is interested in the "Sudden Wealth" of so many congresscritters. I'd be interested in that as well.

Of the top 10 wealthiest people in Congress, seven are Republicans. Let me know when DOGE decides to look into them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the...

#2 got some of his wealth from Medicare fraud, even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

I suspect the main goal is to avoid a Democratic repeat of the "outright buy votes" approach Musk has taken.

by ceejayoz

4/1/2025 at 7:21:01 PM

Conservatives also want to see them look into rich Republicans. Get all the fraudsters, both sides.

by noworld

4/1/2025 at 7:29:50 PM

I look forward to their investigation into Trump's cryptocurrency and SPAC antics, then.

(lol)

by ceejayoz

4/1/2025 at 8:11:36 PM

If that was actually the case Trump would have lost the primaries. Or they'd all be writing their Congressmen to impeach him yesterday. Trump is literally the most corrupt President in the history of our country. He makes most other politicians seem honest and clean by comparison

by rat87

4/2/2025 at 1:46:28 AM

As long as the acting president can pump their own meme coin with no repercussions, the chances of any non-partisan actions are zero.

by ratg13

4/1/2025 at 7:45:10 PM

If they cared about fraud, they would not voted for Trump nor supported Musk.

Conservatives don't mind fraud, they admire it. As long as it comes in the right wing packaging.

by watwut

4/1/2025 at 6:29:29 PM

Of so many democrat congresscritters.

Really if they were interested in helping out the systemic issues, the right would be supporting bills that remove the ability of congresscritters to trade individual stocks. This has been attempted over the years, a great example is S.3631 in 2022 or S.1171 in 2023. It would be amazing to get it codified rather then witch hunting that's going on now.

by unsnap_biceps

4/1/2025 at 7:23:22 PM

Restricting the rights of those with the power making the rules never works.

Its best to just accept a certain level of corruption so its at least out in the open. It is and always will happen, in fact its part of the very foundation of power structures and cannot ever be removed. All laws will do is increase the layers of deceit making it even more difficult to see why bad things are happening.

I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty. To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

by citizenpaul

4/1/2025 at 10:26:48 PM

> I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty. To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

Members of Congress make $174k/year, with the Majority and Minority leaders making $193k, and the Speaker of the House around $223k. They also get various allowances for expenses related to doing their job such as a travel allowance.

They get good healthcare benefits and a pension that vests after 5 years.

Restricting their stock trading while in office is not going to plunge them into poverty.

by tzs

4/1/2025 at 8:56:03 PM

> Restricting the rights of those with the power making the rules never works.

Why use fallacy in argument? It's poor rhetoric and easily ignorable because it's a fallacy.

> Its best to just accept a certain level of corruption so its at least out in the open.

Or maybe it's best to uncover and destroy corruption as swiftly as possible.

> It is and always will happen, in fact it's part of the very foundation of power structures and cannot ever be removed.

Such black and white statements ignore the chilling, strongly deterrent effect of taking-down high-social-status people. In today's world, we hardly see examples of well-connected people being broken and losing their social status by being found corrupt and losing assets. In fact, I would argue there is practically no other way to have an effect on corruption without symbolically and visibly ruining corrupt people.

> All laws will do is increase the layers of deceit making it even more difficult to see why bad things are happening.

Laws should be a means to uncover and punish corruption. If a law isn't serving that purpose, it should be re-written and remade to be effective. Like you point out, laws are constantly under attack by deceit, and it should be the people's obligation to craft laws that can be nimble and adaptive to deceptive attacks from deceptive erosion by corrupted politicians.

> I always think it is weird that so many people that don't work in government have this odd belief that government work should basically be a vow of poverty.

The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

> To pretend that people pursuing positions of power would accept universally that they should be poor is to deny human nature, which never works.

This point you raise is an excellent point and should be the focus of government. It should be codified into law that "we cannot trust ourselves to be uncorruptible, therefore it is necessary for government to demonstrate exemplary denial-of-human-nature via sacrifice, service, and swearing of vow of poverty."

My words can't do this theme justice. It's much larger and existential than simple words. The strife of humanity is the two sides of the existential coin: on one side, you can dedicate yourself to collecting money as a demonstration of your worth/genetics/legacy/etc; on the other side, you can demonstrate your understanding of the moral failures of men and use wisdom to demonstrate your worth/genetics/legacy.

by CrimsonCape

4/1/2025 at 9:03:10 PM

> The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

DC is expensive, they have to maintain two households, and a lot of travel and eating out. That salary largely makes it the realm of the independently wealthy, or at least the well-off.

(It also hasn't gone up in 15 years, IIRC.)

by ceejayoz

4/1/2025 at 9:51:14 PM

>The annual salary of a US Senator is $174,000... you think that is poverty?

You are proving my point. This cherry pick data point always comes up. One of the highest most powerful government jobs which there are a small fixed number of in existence, pays what is barely average for a mid career professional.

The overwhelming majority (state,city,county,federal) of elected positions pays closer to under <$45k a year (it might be less but thats close enough for discussion).Also remember there are far more non federal elected jobs out there. At these rates why would anyone with a logical brain go into politics unless they fully intend to manipulate the system to their own ends? Climbing the ladder till they reach something like senator where they can really stuff their pockets?

by citizenpaul

4/1/2025 at 8:13:07 PM

It shouldn't be a vow of poverty but it shouldn't open corruption shouldn't be acceptable. Instead we should raise their wages a bit

by rat87

4/1/2025 at 9:52:45 PM

Try suggesting that and watch the reaction. Its actually shocking how aggressively against decent pay people are for government officials. It makes no sense to me.

I'm even more shocked by how often people will state that people should do government work as a service to their community. Of course they themselves won't do it because they don't have time with their job and all, someone else should do it....

by citizenpaul

4/1/2025 at 10:40:18 PM

Or let them trade but with one or both of these restrictions:

1. Make them subject to the Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act rule against short swing trades by insiders.

2. Their trades must be pre-announced to the public. Allow others to piggyback on those trades. E.g/, if a member of Congress announces they are going to buy 50000 shares of a particular stock in 7 days, other investors can queue buys of that stock to occur at the same time conditioned on the Congress member actually making their pre-announced purchase.

by tzs

4/1/2025 at 6:49:46 PM

It'd take quite a lot of "willpower" for congress to enact such a law.

by HPsquared

4/1/2025 at 7:14:23 PM

This is certainly a good idea but I would not recommend entrusting fascists even when they have good ideas anymore than I would take a gift from a con artist.

by legitster