The video you're about to listen to is very recent comments from aoc kind of showing a little bit of. I guess confusion well to her no confusion, you're about to hear it from herself a little bit of disdain for her fellow, i guess, colleagues in congress and what they're doing with trading and to her. It is no mystery why they are not willing to really uh. I guess listen to the public on this particular issue, really a mystery to me why it's difficult to pass an enormous amount.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a majority of members of congress hold and trade individual stock. I don't know the actual numbers, but it is a very large degree, and you know the key here is that it's not to say that you can't have a retirement fund or a college savings account or a blind trust, a blind trust. A mutual fund, an index fund - these are vehicles of investments that are broad, that individual members of congress don't have direct control over, but even last year there was at least 75 members of congress that held individual stock in johnson, johnson, moderna and pfizer, and we're talking About in the last one to two years, and so that is where we should be drawing the line - i am a member of congress. Members of congress have access to very sensitive security clearances.

We have access to very detailed tailored briefs. We our job, is to try to anticipate and legislate for what we see is coming and we should not have the ability to both have access to that information and be able to hold and trade individual stock, and that's really what this is about. It's about our ability to direct and hold trades in individual stock, with access to the sensitive information that the public has given us now. I really do like the sentiment of what she's saying here, and this is no political commentary for me if you like, oc aoc great, if you dislike her okay cool, that's your opinion as well.

I'm not here to change your opinion on aoc, i'm here to specifically talk about government and trading and congress, and all that and similar to the article we were looking at of okay. We want them to not trade stocks, and it seems like this is being. I guess once again uh kind of microphone from her of like individual stocks, but that's not it folks. That's really not the solution.

We saw this, so they keep talking about like etfs and overall indices. What no! No! No! No! No - and this is, i think, the issue of where maybe someone takes the mantle for a particular fight, but doesn't really understand the nuances of what's going on. Even with this, we see shady things going on, just, for example, the federal reserve, right before they announced one of the most insane policies of quantitative easing. Ever we saw very well-timed trades of them switching from bonds right over to stocks and a lot of those stocks were actually exposure to the overall economy.

Another example in february of 2020 right before everything went kaput in the stock market. You had people in congress who obviously were coming out of meetings talking about how bad this virus was, and the public wasn't really privy to that yet and they were selling everything, including their exposure to the s p 500 to the nasdaq 100 to the russell 2000. So right here i don't know, i don't know if this solution of like hang on, like okay, they can still trade the overall market. They still get information that has a huge impact on the overall market and i see how it's a little bit different from like individual companies.

I get that, but is it really that different, like they're, going to get information on? What are they doing with the build back better program? Is that going to get passed not passed? What's the fed doing? There are various large macro economic decisions and events that even if you're, not playing individual companies, you can still be privy to information that is going to have a huge impact on the overall stock market and they can trade on that. So i understand the sentiment of where she's coming from and i agree with her, but there was some i guess little asterisk marks that i would make and be like okay. We need to think about this a bit more and that's why i'm saying potentially a solution here is okay. Well, no training whatsoever; okay, blind trust! You have no touching, no training done solid or the other one is let them do what they want, but make it.

So they have to announce it and has to be publicly filed at least a day before the trade happens, and they have to follow it through. So it's almost like a special congress government brokerage where it's announced it goes public and then 24 hours later. The trade is executed, something that is publicly available to all of us, whether they want to do it with indices etfs, this industry, that industry, individual companies - i don't care it's more of this transparency thing and if you give them that leeway of still trading etfs, i Don't know how much that's still like: that's not that transparent. They can still be training on information that i would define and remember i'm not a lawyer, not legalese that is insider trading.

So that's my thoughts once again to reiterate i'm on board with the sentiment that she's really carrying here, but i think it needs to be a bit more specific and maybe um a bit more informed about like okay. How can some of these tools be used because she might just not have had the person explain to her that hang on etfs and overall indices? There still is potentially some complications there, but hey shout out to aoc. It seems like in this particular fight she's on the side of retail, which, obviously i am a big fan of.