Why gamble on stocks when you can legislate a sure thing?

I believe this is the longest title of all of our podisodes. But this is a legitimate question. In 2020, Haulin’ Josh Hawley tried to introduce a bill to limit the stocks that can be traded by members of congress. (Quick note that in 2012, the STOCK Act did make it into law, and from what I can tell, is pretty much ignored). This bill didn’t make it into law, but there’s currently buzz in some state legislatures trying to do something similar (notably New York) in order to stem corruption.

At the time of this writing, members of congress make more than double the median income for a family in the United States. And, any member of congress who last more than 5 years get retirement at the age of 62, and any who last longer than 20 years get a pension. It’s a pretty sweet retirement plan, when all is said and done. So why, oh why, the need for stock trading?

But, say what you will, there’s an underlying thread here that must be discussed: in what conditions and situations should the United States dictate what its private citizens may own? It seems easy enough to say “members of congress shouldn’t trade stocks”, but given that stocks are actually ownership, what does that say about the right to property?

We discuss all of this and more in our latest podcast episide: why gamble on stocks when you can legislate a sure thing?