Willard vs. Obongo

Hey everyone,

This is my first post! So I hope I actually get a few people who reply.

So everyone knows that the elections are coming up in just a little bit. As a Republican, it's really undeniable that Romney is looking to cut rates as much as possible for everyone- but in particular, big business. Trickle down economics, whether right or wrong, has been the economic policy of the reds for 30 years now, and according to what Mitt Romney says, it looks like if he is elected president, we're going to see more of supply siding.

Now despite the fact that most of the people on this forum is comprised of people mostly living/currently residing in the northeast (typically strong Obama), there is a large amount of Romney support. As bankers, traders, etc etc, we all know that from an individual standpoint, Romney is the better of the two candidates, as he will foster the kind of environment that would benefit us monkeys:

-lowering individual taxes
-lowering corporate taxes
-destroy dodd-frank etc
-trickle down economics
-More money to business, more hiring of SAs and FTs

No matter what way you look at it, whether or not he's actually a legit guy, Romney would probably help us make more money/ do better in the field of work.

However, let's say if we were considering things from a holistic perspective- for the good of the country, not just ourselves on an individual level. Do you guys REALLY agree with Romney's tax plan? Or do you think it's serves disutility to the country on the whole. Opinions?

 
Mitt Romney:
Romney would probably help us make more money/ do better in the field of work.
In the short term, maybe. However, the landscape of the business is changing and taxes are really only part of the problem. There might be a spike in activity, but realistically, he's going to be thinking primarily in terms of what worked in the past and not necessarily the future.
Mitt Romney:
Romney's tax plan ... do you think it's serves disutility to the country on the whole.
It's not addressing what the country actually needs and will be counterproductive given a backlash to his polities will guarantee a more extreme left wing backlash down the road. For anyone who thinks that the current administration is 'extreme', take a look at how the REAL left rejects him. The other thing is this: Reagan did what was needed 30 years ago. Taxes are of course an issue, but look at what happened to the democratic party 30 years out from FDR: they got Carter. He was an idealist who served a very important purpose of calming a country that was beginning to tear itself apart, but his ideas on the economy and foreign affairs were not effective. It's the same with the GOP: they're just all comparing themselves to Reagan and trying to fit policies around a reality that's changed substantially. Most likely, the next 'great' president will be strongly accomodative to both parties, and although that's difficult to see given the time horizen and hyper partisan pre-election environment, the days of 51% of the vote getting any meaningful system upgrades accomplished are long over. I hate to sound all holistic, but the next generation of presidents are going to have to be more focused on the good of the country as a whole in order to get a shot at the White House....the partisan politics as we know them are increasingly falling by the wayside in light of all parties recognizing similar priority levels in certain areas, aka THE DEBT. Romney and Obama are both partisans, so I'm not going to comment here on who I think will will, but I will speculate a decade or two ahead:

Ultimately, the financial industry is going to pare down a bit in the post-financialization period, don't expect a boom for quite some time. Also, restructuring America's budget is going to require another president altogether: I am hopeful but realistic about anyone being able to reduce the deficits and encourage accelerating growth for the forseeable future. The last decade and the the resulting recession took a severe toll on the economy and also the general level of confidence in the markets. Remember that the recession started and the debt doubled under the tenure of a 'conservative', and the GOPs rhetoric has become severely disconnected from reality. The dems too are running up the debt, but they have not made finances a large rhetorical priority until relatively recently, so it's not easy to pin them down on this issue at the moment...but this will change.

Ultimately, a set of somewhat younger or at least outsider politicians...both democratic and GOP...will be needed by 2016/20/24. The current set of operatives are far too entrenched in debates that have lingered since the 60's and 70's, as well as becoming increasingly mired down by partisan constraints. Fresh thinking is going to be needed by those who aren't so beholden to the establishment of thoughts and money. We live in an age where young voters and digital media are a very relevant factor, so that has to be considered as well. Obama isn't quite as entrenched, but many of his advisors are, and I see his legacy being defined more in terms of restoring stability to the system than encouraging growth. It may come, but I've been following this stuff pretty carefully for 15+ years and my best guess is that a whole new set of faces in Washington are needed before systemic overhaul is going to happen.

Sometimes it's really an issue of waiting for a generation to die off....

Get busy living
 

Here's an example of why the current system is likely going to overhaul itself, and it's only one example on one issue:

There's a major priority that neither party has seriously addressed: student debt. The origins of the debt aside, this will be a HUGE drain on the next generation, and the current set of politicians didn't build their careers or mindsets with this reality accounted for, so they are somewhat out of touch. Look for a moment at a relatively simple set of concepts. The simplest way of dealing with the student debt issue is: (1) the government buys out the bulk of student debt and assumes the responsibility of administering it, not unlike they did with bailing out the banks.
(2) force reform in college expenditures and accreditation and be more selective with subsidized funding, and actively promote the profitable and culturally vital areas

Or some variation therof

Theoretically speaking, it's entirely possible but such an effort would take either (1) very aggressive action on the part of one party or more likely (2) cooperation between all in Washington. That an entire generation is largely putting a large chunk of their first 5 to 25 years of income towards servicing a type of debt that wasn't much of a factor in previous eras hasn't even been acknowledged beyond a pretty rudimentary discussion. Should have and could have beens are irrelevant but the debate is mired firmly in the past.

Increased ecnomic activity is definitely a part of this as well, but it's really a huge act of denial to absolve one's self as a politician of actually confronting this issue. Obama is one of the few presidents in history to have had to deal with substantial student debt but even his blue chip post graduation employment as a lawyer somewhat distances him from seeing what many people deal with. I look at guys like Paul Ryan, Cris Christie, and a whole host of new democratic upstarts that either paid their way through school or borrowed to gain access to the workforce. Given our parents' and grandparents' generation vote stuanchly in their interests, it will be a while before student debt is taken seriously as a political issue. So, we're literally waiting for a new generation of people to step forward and assume leadership on issues such as these....or for younger and more focused people to step forward and win.

Ok, that's enough of this, no more politics until after the election.

Get busy living
 
Best Response
Mitt Romney:
Now despite the fact that most of the people on this forum is comprised of people mostly living/currently residing in the northeast (typically strong Obama), there is a large amount of Romney support. As bankers, traders, etc etc, we all know that from an individual standpoint, Romney is the better of the two candidates, as he will foster the kind of environment that would benefit us monkeys:

-lowering individual taxes -lowering corporate taxes -destroy dodd-frank etc -trickle down economics -More money to business, more hiring of SAs and FTs

No matter what way you look at it, whether or not he's actually a legit guy, Romney would probably help us make more money/ do better in the field of work.

You honestly think the current foibles of the banking industry would be solved by Mitt Romney? Tax rates have virtually nothing to do with BBs current problems and while pushback on Dodd-Frank might help, let's not forget that the current environment is so difficult (for reasons stretching far beyond US executive policy) that IBs have taking dangerous amounts of risk to compensate (see JP Morgan). If anything, cutting spending and taxes at the same time probably won't do much to shrink the deficit or restart the economy. But it's not all that likely Romney/Ryan will cut much spending. There are decades of empirical evidence that show that deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House. The U.S.' debt burden will simply continue to grow and the can get kicked down the road. Not like any president in the near future is likely to see a bull market like Obama just did.
 
GoodBread:
Mitt Romney:
Now despite the fact that most of the people on this forum is comprised of people mostly living/currently residing in the northeast (typically strong Obama), there is a large amount of Romney support. As bankers, traders, etc etc, we all know that from an individual standpoint, Romney is the better of the two candidates, as he will foster the kind of environment that would benefit us monkeys:

-lowering individual taxes -lowering corporate taxes -destroy dodd-frank etc -trickle down economics -More money to business, more hiring of SAs and FTs

No matter what way you look at it, whether or not he's actually a legit guy, Romney would probably help us make more money/ do better in the field of work.

You honestly think the current foibles of the banking industry would be solved by Mitt Romney? Tax rates have virtually nothing to do with BBs current problems and while pushback on Dodd-Frank might help, let's not forget that the current environment is so difficult (for reasons stretching far beyond US executive policy) that IBs have taking dangerous amounts of risk to compensate (see JP Morgan). If anything, cutting spending and taxes at the same time probably won't do much to shrink the deficit or restart the economy. But it's not all that likely Romney/Ryan will cut much spending. There are decades of empirical evidence that show that deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House. The U.S.' debt burden will simply continue to grow and the can get kicked down the road. Not like any president in the near future is likely to see a bull market like Obama just did.

My point wasn't that Romney would solve the problems of BBs, but would more likely create an environment where corporations would fare better relative to the 'middle class'- whatever that means

I'm not concerned with the very poor -Mitt Romney
 
Mitt Romney:
My point wasn't that Romney would solve the problems of BBs, but would more likely create an environment where corporations would fare better relative to the 'middle class'- whatever that means
In relative terms perhaps but considering the point we've reached in terms of inequality, I'm not sure how sustainably we can stretch that. Long-term greedy is what we really need.
 

Nulla ut dolorum qui. Eos voluptas maxime fugit aut eaque veniam id. Perferendis non a quis est qui.

Incidunt ducimus maxime aut est iusto aut. Veritatis eum magni perferendis mollitia omnis excepturi qui quis. Eum nam nihil porro adipisci. Maxime cupiditate tempore ut odio praesentium laudantium non mollitia.

Quia repellendus debitis adipisci accusamus est atque natus. Aut tenetur provident tempore similique aut. Qui distinctio est recusandae ad quibusdam deserunt maxime.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (145) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”