03-15-2007, 10:50 AM
I proposed adding an IMPEACHMENT stock, but I don't like the way the wording was changed from my initial propasal. I think the new wording would make the stock both MORE AMBIGUOUS and MUCH LESS LIKELY to be paid out.
What I originally proposed was that a stock be added that says: "Articles of Impeachment will be INTRODUCED in the House against Bush and/or Cheney", before the ends of their terms.
You've changed this to "Articles of Impeachment WILL BE PASSED" which is a MUCH HIGHER BAR! Any sufficiently pissed off House member could INTRODUCE articles of impeachment (if they have the cojones to do so), but voting on whether or not they would THEN be PASSED, is another matter.
And, this new wording also raises the question PASSED BY WHOM? Passed by the House Judiciary Committee? A majority of the full House? Or would the Articles then have to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate ALSO in order for them to be considered 'PASSED' (and the stock then paid out)? I think it's more ambiguous to say simply 'ARTICLES PASSED', whereas 'ARTICLES INTRODUCED' is unambiguous and easily verifiable.
In my opinion, this stock should be corrected before any impeachment IPO is launched. I suggest changing the language to read "Articles of Impeachment will be INTRODUCED in the House of Representatives against...". (Articles will be "FILED" is another possible wording.)
And I think... ONLY IF such a bill were actually introduced by a member of Congress, should you THEN add other IPOs such as "Articles of impeachment will be PASSED" first by the House Judiciary Cmte, then the full House, then approved by the Senate, etc.
Voting on whether articles (that have not yet been introduced) would be passed is putting the cart before the horse - because we don't know for sure what charges those hypothetical articles might contain.
Voting on whether they will be INTRODUCED over the next 21 months (by any sufficiently pissed-off/brave member of Congress) I think is a much more open question.
The question of whether Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached OR does anyone in Congress have the guts to actually formally charge them with a crime should be a separate one from would there be enough votes in Congress to pass particular charges against either or both.
I thought that "ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE INTRODUCED" would be a good stock, because it would track Bush/Cheney popularity and also measure the degree to which public thinks various White House scandals are heating up (which fits in well with many other stocks such as 'Cheney/Rove/Gonzalez Early' Exit, 'Bush Popularity Falling to 20s', 'Progress in Iraq', etc.).
But... since articles of impeachment have only twice in our nation's 230 yr history passed the House & never passed the Senate, as currently written the two 'WILL PASS 'stocks would be an extreme long shot to be paid out and 2 'WILL NOT PASS' stocks would be a virtual sure thing bet - rather than a more even money bet (i.e. betting on the behavior of Congress & the progress of various White House scandals) as I thought the stock would be. This new wording drastically changes the odds.
One final note: I don't object to you dividing the stock into 2, one for Bush one for Cheney, (although I had origanlly proposed one stock for any articles filed against either)... BUT, I think having 2 for each man (i.e. 'WILL PASS', 'WON'T PASS') is REDUNDANT. The decision to buy WILL or sell WON'T is the same (and vice versa), so I see no reason for 2 stocks.
What I originally proposed was that a stock be added that says: "Articles of Impeachment will be INTRODUCED in the House against Bush and/or Cheney", before the ends of their terms.
You've changed this to "Articles of Impeachment WILL BE PASSED" which is a MUCH HIGHER BAR! Any sufficiently pissed off House member could INTRODUCE articles of impeachment (if they have the cojones to do so), but voting on whether or not they would THEN be PASSED, is another matter.
And, this new wording also raises the question PASSED BY WHOM? Passed by the House Judiciary Committee? A majority of the full House? Or would the Articles then have to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate ALSO in order for them to be considered 'PASSED' (and the stock then paid out)? I think it's more ambiguous to say simply 'ARTICLES PASSED', whereas 'ARTICLES INTRODUCED' is unambiguous and easily verifiable.
In my opinion, this stock should be corrected before any impeachment IPO is launched. I suggest changing the language to read "Articles of Impeachment will be INTRODUCED in the House of Representatives against...". (Articles will be "FILED" is another possible wording.)
And I think... ONLY IF such a bill were actually introduced by a member of Congress, should you THEN add other IPOs such as "Articles of impeachment will be PASSED" first by the House Judiciary Cmte, then the full House, then approved by the Senate, etc.
Voting on whether articles (that have not yet been introduced) would be passed is putting the cart before the horse - because we don't know for sure what charges those hypothetical articles might contain.
Voting on whether they will be INTRODUCED over the next 21 months (by any sufficiently pissed-off/brave member of Congress) I think is a much more open question.
The question of whether Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached OR does anyone in Congress have the guts to actually formally charge them with a crime should be a separate one from would there be enough votes in Congress to pass particular charges against either or both.
I thought that "ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE INTRODUCED" would be a good stock, because it would track Bush/Cheney popularity and also measure the degree to which public thinks various White House scandals are heating up (which fits in well with many other stocks such as 'Cheney/Rove/Gonzalez Early' Exit, 'Bush Popularity Falling to 20s', 'Progress in Iraq', etc.).
But... since articles of impeachment have only twice in our nation's 230 yr history passed the House & never passed the Senate, as currently written the two 'WILL PASS 'stocks would be an extreme long shot to be paid out and 2 'WILL NOT PASS' stocks would be a virtual sure thing bet - rather than a more even money bet (i.e. betting on the behavior of Congress & the progress of various White House scandals) as I thought the stock would be. This new wording drastically changes the odds.
One final note: I don't object to you dividing the stock into 2, one for Bush one for Cheney, (although I had origanlly proposed one stock for any articles filed against either)... BUT, I think having 2 for each man (i.e. 'WILL PASS', 'WON'T PASS') is REDUNDANT. The decision to buy WILL or sell WON'T is the same (and vice versa), so I see no reason for 2 stocks.