I agree that ETFs are pretty expressive and they can absolutely select into ETFs that directly correlate with their pet policies. But stock movements are often correlated across different sectors, so this would curb the most egregious carve-outs and concentrated benefits that politicians can confer on certain companies. Like an ETF made up of electric cars etc. would still generally correlate with economic growth. 

I used to eat overnight oats everyday (rolled oats + milk in the fridge, left overnight) but now I can't stand the texture. Hot oatmeal is too mushy for my liking. I haven't found a recipe online that doesn't involve a) oats + heated water or b) oats + liquid overnight or c) lots of sugar (aka granola). Do you have any oatmeal recipe/suggestions?

A better rule would be to only allow congressmen to invest in ETFs so they can't push for policies that favor certain firms and hurt others. The rule would still create incentive alignment -- they should be making policies that increase growth, which would be reflected in the S&P500 etc.

very cool explanation! I played the piano for more than a decade and this finally explains why I often think electric pianos sound slightly funny. It's all in the tuning lol.

Complexity also arises when you have weak preferences, and think that others' preferences might be stronger than yours. So you're more "flexible" relatively, but there's no good way of calibrating the strength of their preferences without repeated interactions. 

Advice about drafting without concern for whether it's defensible is helpful; as someone who wants to do good work, it's hard to not be sucked into "what if this is wrong" or "what if this is a dumb take."

Maybe I haven't found a long-lasting fire yet, but I lose interest in a lot of things after a few days or a month. And a big part of losing interest is because I think that many other people are far ahead of me, and the field has become saturated. Maybe doing shorter projects helps with this?