zeitgeist57 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 P O P C O I N https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/gm-aims-stop-selling-gasoline-vehicles-2035-carbon-neutrality-pledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimTaylor751647545500 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 This sure isn't sketchy or anything. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/01/10280347/nancy-pelosi-tesla-stock-investment-politicians-ethics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickey4271647545519 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 P O P C O I N https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/gm-aims-stop-selling-gasoline-vehicles-2035-carbon-neutrality-pledge You want to copy the article so the rest of us can read it, without having a subscription? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 They all do and have done it forever. This practice should have been stopped forever ago but hasn't. Oh wait, it has for the private individual, it's called insider trading. The gov't makes it own rules and that's why people want to be in washington...it's not for us but for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Oh wait, it has for the private individual, it's called insider trading. Um, no. Congress is still accountable to all the same rules and regulations the private sector is concerning stock trades. Insider trading is trading that occurs based on non-public information. Congress is still accountable for insider trading (remember this from a few months back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal) Pelosi's trade is based on public information, but she has influence over future events which creates an environment that promotes market manipulation. Not illegal, but I agree not entirely ethical for a politician to be engaging in. It's not partisan, they all do it as do heads of private companies and also plenty of private citizens, and the only accountability is when they manipulate the market in a deceptive way or a behavior that is misleading as to actual value of the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Kerry...I feel they know what's going to occur before it does and they can shape policy. This makes them SO more dangerous than just your normal insider trading. Again, both sides profit from it...it is truly a bipartisan agreed practice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Congress is still accountable for insider trading. Congress isn't accountable for shit, don't pretend otherwise. Did anything happen to those folks or did the DOJ just quietly close their investigations? I think we all know the answer. I don't think that specific trade of Pelosi's is indicative of insider trading (Tesla stonks go up, who knew), but it's also ridiculous to think that the disclosure rules are anything other than a fig leaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Kerry...I feel they know what's going to occur before it does Sometimes. Most of what congress does is a matter of public record so sometimes what they know we know at the same time. there are occasions where they get information that is classified, or in advance of the public, but as we saw in 2020 - they get caught for it. If there is one thing the Trump administration taught us as a whole - it is that almost everything that goes on at the Federal level is on public display and there are very few places to hide anything. and they can shape policy. ^^^^This. This right here is the issue and why it is a moral quandary. Think of it like Pete Rose: In theory they are betting on themselves and if they win we win, if they lose we lose - kinda like how pete rose always bet on his own games for him to win. But the environment it creates might lead a lesser person to bet against themselves and throw the game (they win we lose), which is why the no gambling rule exists in baseball, and why the no stock trading rule should exist for people holding public office. This makes them SO more dangerous than just your normal insider trading. Again, both sides profit from it...it is truly a bipartisan agreed practice What makes them dangerous is the office. When a CEO does it, it is a ethic conflict to his fiduciary duty to the company, shareholders, employees, etc...but that is mostly a small subset of the population. When a member of congress does it, their ethical conflict is with ALL OF AMERICA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Back to the topic at hand, I don't buy for a second that this has anything to do with a "carbon neutrality pledge". BEVs are simply going to make ICEVs economically unviable in the very near future. I see that the pledge excludes heavy duty pickups (2040) which I'm assuming includes a base model Silverado, and probably excludes all commercial trucks for all time. But I guess we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 I see that the pledge excludes heavy duty pickups (2040) which I'm assuming includes a base model Silverado, and probably excludes all commercial trucks for all time. But I guess we'll see. 'Merica: where in response to alt fuel vehicles a certain segment of the population trades the ICE sedan for a ICE 4 door pickup. Feels like the most American things ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 LOL. Yes, that's absolutely the future, soccer moms driving around in HD 2500 3-row "work" trucks. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickey4271647545519 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Back to the topic at hand, I don't buy for a second that this has anything to do with a "carbon neutrality pledge". BEVs are simply going to make ICEVs economically unviable in the very near future. I see that the pledge excludes heavy duty pickups (2040) which I'm assuming includes a base model Silverado, and probably excludes all commercial trucks for all time. But I guess we'll see. 1/2t through 1t are generally considered light duty trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 28, 2021 Report Share Posted January 28, 2021 Congress isn't accountable for shit, don't pretend otherwise. Did anything happen to those folks or did the DOJ just quietly close their investigations? I think we all know the answer. I don't think that specific trade of Pelosi's is indicative of insider trading (Tesla stonks go up, who knew), but it's also ridiculous to think that the disclosure rules are anything other than a fig leaf. Well Able to be held accountable and actually held accountable are two different things. Mace is saying there isn't a law, but there is. You are saying that they aren't accountable because the DOJ couldn't find enough evidence to charge with a crime (likely because the DOJ had been hobbled by the Executive administration appointments), also true but not always true. Under a different administration things might be different. As for accountability, Kelly Loeffler lost her seat, in part because of a campaign run by her opponent pointing out this, so at least in the court of public opinion one person was held accountable even if the DOJ failed to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted January 29, 2021 Report Share Posted January 29, 2021 Kerry stop it..it wasn't just the previous administration..it took obama 4 years to sign a law to attempt to stop it. This article shows that pelosi was at it then as she was recently, so just stop it. https://represent.us/action/insider-trading/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted January 29, 2021 Report Share Posted January 29, 2021 Time to start planning for my next career Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted January 29, 2021 Report Share Posted January 29, 2021 Time to start planning for my next career Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted January 29, 2021 Report Share Posted January 29, 2021 Kerry stop it..it wasn't just the previous administration..it took obama 4 years to sign a law to attempt to stop it. This article shows that pelosi was at it then as she was recently, so just stop it. https://represent.us/action/insider-trading/ Yes Congress has a big insider trading problem, and it goes back to the time of the civil war. And for a long time the history of it is actually kind of fascinating. The modern "insider trading" issue stems from a poorly worded section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which outlined that insider trading laws required a breach of fiduciary responsibility, and a member of congress was interpreted as having no fiduciary duty to anyone in their official capacity. Simply put, if a congress person was passed insider information outside of their role in the government, and they acted on it, they could be tried and convicted for insider trading, but if they got the same information through their official channel in their role in congress they were not insider trading because disclosing that information to a public official was considered making the information "public" The STOCK Act in 2012, which was long overdue, put an end to the interpretation and made insider trading illegal, but you must remember that insider trading is very limited. It doesn't cover the ability to influence future events, it only covers knowing information that the public doesn't know that could have an affect on future stock price. The DOJ also has to be able to actually build a case that they can take to trial against the congressperson before they take action, suspicious circumstances are not enough. It's no easy feat, and less so with a DOJ that has seen as much turmoil, resignations, and fresh appointments as it experienced under the trump administration. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-scandal-is-whats-legal-senators-stock-selloffs-before-the-coronavirus-crash-likely-cant-be-proven-as-insider-trading Congress people are investigated all the time for insider trading, and some are even convicted. in 2019 Chis Collins (R-NY) was tried and convicted of insider trading under the STOCK act. So there is some teeth to the law, even if they are blunt teeth. I am not saying Pelosi, or any other member of congress hasn't traded on inside information in the past, I'm sure they have. But the cited example in the link about tesla stock isn't necessarily insider trading. In some ways it's worse because it is legal for a congress person to trade stock in an industry they have influence over and that is the larger problem. It's not enough to say "the normal laws don't apply to them", they do for the most part. Because of their position we should expect and demand that the restrictions go further than the laws that apply to everyone else. one thing we can be proud of as ohioans, is that our own Sherrod Brown introduced a bill to do just that - take it further. It died a death in bill obscurity because without the public outcry there wasn't traction for it in congress, but at least there are some who are trying. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL19540.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted February 1, 2021 Report Share Posted February 1, 2021 It is what it is. I've been hearing stuff that was in line with this for a while but thought it was just wild rumors, now this confirms it. Schumer said in 2019 he wanted no ICE cars made after 2035 and them to be totally outlawed by 2040, we're halfway there with this. There's a racer that's a big wig a Georgia Power and this was brought up this weekend. Mind you, his company would profit huge if all cars were electric, his response to this was "good luck, capacity isn't even close, the government won't pay for what it takes to make it work, and the EPA won't let us do what we need." This is going to be an epic fuckshow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillbot Posted February 1, 2021 Report Share Posted February 1, 2021 All while punishing those that can't afford the new tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.