Yes. The reality is (and always has been, really) that we should pay our politicians very well. It would make corruption less appealing and attract a higher level of candidate in the first place. Not to mention open it up to a broader range of candidates.

Unfortunately it’s an enormously unpopular idea.

There are numerous jobs where corruption would make more than the pay. It has to be about oversight and accountability, not paying so much corruption is not appealing.

I'm all for paying politicians well and this has nothing to do with that.

The only way to beat the market over the long terms by trading individual stocks is to either devote essentially all of your time to it or to trade on insider information. We have a strong interest in our politicians doing neither of those things.

What makes far more sense is that our politicians be forced to invest their money in broad base index funds (of stocks, bonds, commodities, or other instruments) and that trading be restricted to 4 or so trading windows a year. That still allows them to get market returns.

If we filter out the people for who market returns are not good enough...I'm okay with that? First of all, if they think that, they are probably delusional. They think can out trade Citadel and Ren Tech to get some part of the minuscule amount of alpha out there in the market? On the off chance they are not delusional, then they should probably go into finance as they'll make a greater contribution there than they will in congress. Or they want to inside trade, and we're obviously ok without that.

For someone who is only in it for the money, how much you think would satisfy their ego?

They will always compare themself to the CEO's or company owners they meet with, it would be expansive to match that. Or more concretely, how much money would be enough for Trump, so he does not do deals, that are mainly beneficial to him and his crowd?