Hookup Strange Bedfellows

Odd Couples Hookup For and Against the Shared FATE Stock Trading Act

Whether Envy, Spite, Sloth, Greed —or- Self-sacrifice, Nurture, Tough-love or Self-love, the heart wants what it wants. Welcome to Politically Strange Bedfellow Wednesday. Every week, we dish on the odd couples For and Against this week’s solution. Who’ll hook up this week?

This Week’s
Political Flap

Congress passes favorable or unfavorable laws, tax breaks, grants, and awards federal contracts, which can affect the long-term value of an industry or sector.

Congress knows what bills will become law, and they can trade stocks based on this knowledge.

The problem is, in the private sector, this would be illegal.

The solution is to get the Social Security fund in on the action.

The Shared FATE Stock Index would allow the Social Security Fund to invest up to 25% of its assets in these long-term trends to assure long-term liquidity.

But even better, what if Members of Congress could only trade US stocks held long-term in their retirement accounts, with no calls or puts?

The Social Security Fund could track that, and we’d all win.

You can track Members of Congress stock trades at Capital Trades, Senate Stock Watcher, and Quiver Quantitative.

What’s
Shared Fate?

The Shared FATE Stock Act would limit Federal Actors Trading Equities (FATE) to their retirement funds, and all those US company investments would comprise the Shared FATE Index. Stocks historically outperform bonds by 2x.

The Social Security Fund could invest 25% of their assets in the Shared FATE Index. This would likely solve the impending illiquidity of the Social Security Fund and assure a more comfortable retirement for all Americans, not just former Congress members. In other words, Congress and retirees would share the same retirement fate.

Why
Care?

When lawmakers and citizens share the same retirement fate, there’s a stronger incentive for wise, long-term policy choices. It’s not just governance; our nation’s future financial security is at stake.

SPOILER
ALERT

If you’d prefer to role-play this week’s puzzle, first, now would be a good time to swoop over to PolicyKeys.com. You can read about this week’s political flap in our Monday Puzzle Drop. Tuesday, we broke the ties on all the roles that were too hard for POLI THE AI to call.

Now, with tongues firmly in beaks

Odd Couples
Leaning In Favor
of Shared FATE


Planet First Democrats (11) & Republican Hawks (3)
  • The Attraction: Both are concerned about the future—Democrats for the planet and Hawks for national security. They see Shared FATE as a way to invest, one for greener industries and the other for defense.
  • First Fight: Planet First Democrats worry about military spending overshadowing environmental needs, while Republican Hawks are concerned about diverting too much focus to green initiatives.
  • Makeup Kiss: They find a middle ground in green tech that also boosts national security—like renewable energy that lessens dependence on foreign oil.
Caregivers (5) &
Gun Owners (31)
  • The Attraction: Caregivers want a healthier Social Security system, and Gun Owners see Shared FATE as a safeguard against greedy politicians.
  • First Fight: Caregivers are uneasy about the gun lobby’s influence, while Gun Owners worry about healthcare taking a larger share of the American pie.
  • Makeup Kiss: They agree that a stable economy benefits healthcare and the right to bare arms.
Urban Full-time (5) &
Landlords (31)
  • The Attraction: Urban full-timers seek job stability, and Landlords want reliable tenants. Shared FATE promises both.
  • First Fight: Urban FTs are concerned about rent hikes, while Landlords worry about their local economy.
  • Makeup Kiss: They find harmony in policies that offer job security and increased property values.
USA Made (3) &
Importers (31)
  • The Attraction: Both see Shared FATE as a way to boost the economy—locally and globally.
  • First Fight: USA-Made advocates are wary of cheap imports, while Importers fret over protectionism.
  • Makeup Kiss: They unite over the idea that Social Security can bolster the domestic economy and demand for imported goods.

Odd Couples
Leaning Against
Shared FATE


Activists (32) &
Materials (18)
  • The Attraction: Activists worry about ethical investment compromises, while Raw Materials focuses on the pendulum swing on greening the country.
  • First Fight: Both waffle on the short-term losses versus longer-term gains.
  • Makeup Kiss: They agree that they don’t trust politicians to make suitable investments with their retirement.
Federal Payroll (2) &
Billionaires (10)
  • The Attraction: Both groups are financially savvy and see the potential drawbacks of Shared FATE.
  • First Fight: Is over which one of them should manipulate the economy the most?
  • Makeup Kiss: They find common ground in advocating for the status quo, looking forward to the next time they can bump into each other.
Insurance (18) &
Rural Professionals (18)
  • The Attraction: Both see Shared FATE as a potential risk to their industries.
  • First Fight: Insurance companies worry about detrimental regulations, while Rural Professionals fear being made obsolete.
  • Makeup Kiss: They agree that a Shared FATE gives the government too much control of the economy and their relationship.
Free Press (4) &
Social Media (26)
  • The Attraction: Both are platforms for public opinion and see Congressional stock trading as a hot topic.
  • First Fight: Free Press worries about advertiser loss, while Social Media focuses on drama to peak user engagement.
  • Makeup Kiss: They decide that Shared FATE blurs the lines between the public and private sectors too much. Now, they’ve started finishing each other’s sentences.

Super Nonpartisan Score for the Shared FATE STOCK Act

POLI* predicts VAST SUPERMAJORITY support. Our editors were a bit less convinced. We predict a 69% ±5% (13 roles) STRONG SUPERMAJORITY of roles in this country to support the Shared FATE Stock Act, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy. 

90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% NEAR CONSENSUS
75% -79% VAST SUPERMAJORITY
67% – 74% STRONG SUPERMAJORITY
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority

By Contrast

SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.

The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual. *POLI THE AI.

PolicyKeys
is based on the
Four Kinds of Love 

Self-sacrifice is giving of oneself with no expectation of reciprocation. Think of a firefighter rushing into a burning building. 

Nurture is helping someone grow into their potential and keep up their momentum. Think of a coach, a parent, or a mentor. 

Tough-love is being able to invest in the personal pain of watching someone learn from their mistakes. Think of a boss, teacher, or a loved one drawing a line in the sand. 

Self-love isn’t narcissism. It’s knowing you can’t love another until you care for yourself. Think about putting on your oxygen mask in an airplane before helping someone else. 

It’s ironic how much hate there is arguing about what kind of love should dominate public policy. The Golden Rule barely holds on to be worthy of the US Public Policy Leaderboard. What’s your mix of the four kinds of love on your best day?

The Four Dark
Political Emotions

Envy in Politics

  1. Consumers: Jealous of affluence, they buy cheap counterfeit goods that hurt others, playing by the rules.
  2. Workers: Envious of others’ status in meetings, argue endlessly over trivial decisions, wasting everyone’s time.
  3. Professionals: Chasing perfection, they may push for rigorous industry standards that, while well-intended, can make products too expensive.
  4. Owners: Coveting government influence, some call for privatization of liberty, causing less justice for others.

Spite in Politics

  1. Consumers: Upset with corporations, some call for tough rules, forgetting that this can increase costs for professionals and themselves.
  2. Workers: Angered by imports, want trade barriers, overlooking trade wars that hurt other workers, consumers, and the economy.
  3. Professionals: Unhappy with industry shifts, some cling to old ways, missing the chance for growth and innovation that owners can bring.
  4. Owners: Annoyed by unions, some move their businesses overseas, neglecting local workers and weakening demand for their own products.

Sloth in Politics

  1. Consumers: Unhappy with product quality. Some abstain from political action, allowing inferior companies and poor regulations to persist.
  2. Workers: Dissatisfied with wages. Some avoid labor unions, missing an opportunity for change.
  3. Professionals: Aware of flaws, some stick with the status quo, risking harm to consumers and their livelihoods.
  4. Owners: Comfortable in their lifestyle, they don’t reinvest in their businesses to increase capacity and profits.

Greed in Politics

  1. Consumers: Drawn to low prices, some buy imported goods that risk local jobs.
  2. Workers: Attracted to job security, some back grandfather clauses harming new hires.
  3. Professionals: Eager for profits, some cut every corner that annoys those who play by the rules.
  4. Owners: Focused on the bottom line, some advocate for lower safety standards, risking worker well-being.

Love
Extremes

When taken too far, each political strength is prone to a political weakness.

Self-Sacrifice – Envy: Individuals who prioritize the needs of others might be prone to envy, as they may feel overlooked or undervalued compared to those they’re helping.

Nurture – Spite: Those who nurture and care for others may be more susceptible to spite when they perceive harm or injustice being done to those they care about.

Tough-Love – Sloth: Someone who employs tough love might feel it’s not reciprocated or effective, leading to a tendency toward sloth—why bother pushing others if it yields no result?

Self-Love – Greed: A focus on self-love could tip into greed, where self-care becomes self-serving to the point of disregarding others.

Politics 4.0
PolicyKeys Values

  1. Be open to private and/or public sector solutions.
  2. Talk about public policies, not public figures.
  3. Score any solution (but leaderboard-worthy first).
  4. Show our work (be transparent).

Methodology

Politics 1.0 is each party wanting to be a one-party system. Then, Politics 2.0 is the two-party gridlock that blocks the silent supermajority from getting what it needs. Next, Politics 3.0 is all the noise from special interest groups trying to influence us to see things their way. Finally, Politics 4.0 ranks solutions with a nonpartisan score and lets the best ideas rise up the leaderboard so people can choose.

The Four Laws of
Public Policy Formation

The First Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with short-term focus will naturally protect their wages, jobs, status, profits, and wealth.

The Second Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with a longer-term focus place bets to make life better, longer, easier, or different.

The Third Law of Public Policy Formation states that the short- and long-term clash causes noise, angst, conflict, and harm.

The Fourth Law of Public Policy Formation is that nonpartisan scoring can rank ideas.

(OPNT) One-Page
Narrative Tool

Uses the following ground truth:

There’s a time to save
and a time to spend,
a time for freedom
and a time for laws.
Where can we agree?”

This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.

A Level
Playing Field

The four sides of the table are…

Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,

Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,

Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and

Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.

Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.

Treasure
Hunt

The Political Parrots have a key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise.

Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.

We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a Parrotopia.

Definition of
Political Parrots

Are you making up your own mind or marching to the beat of a political parrot?

  1. Political Parrots get paid to squawk the same thing over and over again.
  2. They don’t listen if you’re not paying.
  3. They don’t fully understand what they’re saying.
  4. They are charming and sport every color.

We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments. 

You can make up your mind. Where can we agree?

Birds of a Feather
AI

Once the Key Reasons are set, we use the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.

We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that most embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.

The editors break the ties and review all 128 roles for specific reasons to overrule the general AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.

Then, we finish the puzzle by applying the most fitting YES or NO reason per role on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.

SAT9
AI

When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter (Situational Assessment Tool). This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.

The engine for the AI is our One-Page Narrative Tool (OPNT), which we gamified for role-playing at policykeys.com. We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative. Soon, you can use it as your Political Digital Twin and generate a personal public policy advisor report on any PolicyKeys puzzle.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.

Collegiate
PolicyKeys

We seek to partner with a lead university to host a national collegiate PolicyKeys association for political depolarization, innovation in public policy, idea competitions, team competitions, AI upgrades, polling, data science, and journalism. Just respond on social media, @policykeys on Mastodon.

Weekly
Puzzle

new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle 
drops every 
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at PolicyKeys.com.

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question.

The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.

YOU CAN PLAY THIS WEEK’S PUZZLE AT POLICYKEYS.COM.

Cue the
Patriotic Music

Imagine a world not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrot-otopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.

We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—ranking solutions with a nonpartisan score.

Anthem

Where Can We Agree? 
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)

You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.

Fly
higher

Citizen Watchdogs Eye Congress’ ‘Killing it’ Approach to Stock Trading
ABC News

Track Congress Members Stock Trades
Capital Trades

Senators Trading Stocks
Senate Stock Watcher

Look Where Others Don’t
Quiver Quantitative

The STOCK Act
Investopedia

A Primer on the STOCK Act
Open Secrets

78 Members of Congress Have Violated the STOCK Act
Business Insider

I Helped Write the STOCK Act, It Didn’t Go Far Enough
Politico

Do senators and house members beat the stock market? Evidence from the STOCK Act
Science Direct

Examining Stock Trade Reforms for Congress
Cato

STOCK Act Signing
C-SPAN

“Trading” Political Favors: Evidence from the Impact of the STOCK Act
University of California Irvine

Did Politicians Use Non-Public Macroeconomic Information in Their Stock Trades? Evidence from the STOCK Act of 2012
MDPI

STOCK Act 2.0
porter.house.gov

STOCK Act isn’t preventing government officials from benefitting from insider trading
Patriot Ledger Opinion

It takes guts to see things from all four sides of the political table.
[::]


Posted

in

by