Surely it’s quite easy to police though if they have to publicly provide their holdings.
Wouldn’t take the twitter police more than 5 mins to notice Timmy boy holding shares in Palantir handing out more government contracts to them at above market value.
I do appreciate that in the current climate of politicians it’s a positive, I just think we’re accepting such a low fucking bar in every country these days that something like this is seen as exceptional. It’s a sad state of affairs.
My thought exactly. Makes me wish his name was first on the ticket.
I’ll take it though.
That isn’t even what financially illiterate even means. The Governor of Minnesota from quick research makes around 120k USD. Over double the average in the state (from quick research). I don’t think he’s struggling on a personal level.
But it is exceptional even outside the realm of politics.
The fact that he has NONE of those listed investments is uncommon.
To add to that there’s an insinuation that his lack of investments makes him unqualified for VP.
The people of Minnesota seem to like him and that state does well from a financial perspective relative to it’s neighboring midwest states.
Yeah most people I know have racehorse interests. 
…you are from Baltimore. Just sayin.
Yes maybe you’re right there, but it’s not financially sensible or positive to have none of those. So outside of politics I would criticise it.
I mean that’s a very subjective opinion.
Regardless, why would that matter negatively to a voter or even anyone outside of Tim Wolz himself?
It’s like saying someone else having tattoos is not positive. I suppose it’s an opinion.
The entire finance industry would disagree. Diversifying your wealth to be less susceptible to any particular economic measure is sensible. However, he can do whatever he wants and people can have their opinion.
As for the rest this is dragging on cos you can’t decide if you want a political element to this fact or not. In reality it means fuck all either way to a voter, never said otherwise. Do you think it’s a positive for a voter?
Given the context of U.S. politics and the influence of the finance industry over political representatives yes!
Hell yes because every other politician has an ulterior motive for why they’re running for office. Usually to get rich.
The guy below was really astute about his financial investments.
Some people just have a nice sustainable income that funds their lifestyle and are happy with that. Aside from playing the lotto I’d pretty much put myself in this category. I’ve a few hundred in some shit coins and maybe they’ll skyrocket some day but if not, who cares.
I wouldn’t hold it against a politician if they had investments but all other things being equal if i had to choose between one with and one without id be going for the one without. The less conflicts or potential conflicts a politician has is a big plus or selling point for me.
Yep. Some people are genuinely happy with their income and it’s enough for them to get by and I don’t really see a problem with that.
It’s also about what you want and for a lot of people. It isn’t a lot. My mum just wanted a property back home in Jamaica for herself, her kids and grandkids. Achieved that and is pretty satisfied with her life overall.
I don’t think it means anything to the average American voter tbh.
Senior political figures on both sides have clearly used government information to gain an advantage in the market. Congress isn’t full of trading gurus.
If it was that big a deal something would have been done about it by now.
The stolen valour attack line is far more damaging for Walz
Well exactly then we’ve gotten to the point, you want to make this a positive from a political standpoint but at the same time ask why something like this matters to voters.
It’s either neutral or you can accept that people may find it negative whilst you find it the opposite.
Meanwhile the main point I was making is that politicians are so far in the toilet that we can’t trust them to have investments and act with integrity in a public role. That’s the level we’re at and it’s shambolic.
I don’t think many people would fall outside of this category or at least most aim to be in that position, but we’re not here criticising Tim for not getting in at the bottom of the bitcoin boom and making himself a millionaire.
The two points we were discussing:
Back to your point, I would hope most people in society can get to that sweet spot which is relative to them.
I have reached a perfect equilibrium for myself between time spent at work and the money I earn, more would never make me cry but I’m not willing to give up more of my freedom for it. The more people who can find that satisfaction the better. However, I still won’t keep all my spare money sat in a single place, I think it’s prudent to keep it in different options so I’m not fucked by interest rates, banking crisis, housing/stock market crash etc.
Trump had an emergency press conference. Possibly an attempt to get everyone’s attention after Harris/Walz have had the limelight this week.
In summary: Does anyone remember that Father Ted “Golden Cleric” awards speech? Yeah, a bit like that.
Pretty much word for word
So the debates happening then