Maximum Progress is a Substack on economics, technology, and policy, with posts on copyright, demographics, insider trading, and regulatory reform.
Commenters cite it in debates on copyright history and congressional insider trading, using its posts as sources to argue for or against specific points.
You're completely misunderstanding me.
You don't have to be a frequent trader to make a lot of money insider trading, you do have to make very high confidence (i.e. risky) trades though. A single one of those will stand out, not the frequency. Unless you're a habitual options trader or something, such trades will instantly be a huge red flag.
>The OP specified "members of the US Congress" as his group of interest. However, I think that yours "it is atypical to be engaged in insider trading that does not involve high frequency of trades" is just incorrect.
My bad, I missed that. I suspect it's inherently harder to investigate members of congress for anything, but I also suspect that there's far less illegal insider trading happening by members of congress than people often suggest. I'm not sure there's really any very good evidence that congresspeople are beating the market, someone tried to look at the numbers here https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/congressional-insider-trading
It was the other way around. See eg https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-and-the-end-of-copyright - "In 1843 alone 14,000 new works were published in Germany, close to the publication rate today in per capita terms." .. "Publishers knew that once a manuscript was out in public it could be cheaply copied by other printing press owners, so instead they sought out new manuscripts in pursuit of a first mover advantage on publishing. In addition, they created fancy special editions for wealthy customers to differentiate their product from what other printers could easily copy with mass market paperbacks."
All economic development initiatives face an uphill challenge if the underlying macro conditions aren't right.
The solution for the UK, the EU and Canada is simple but politically anathema: cut taxes
A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines.
The study is quite rigorous too:
https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/tax-cuts-and-innovation?r=2xrvu