Liberal in Investment Banking?

It seems that many people working in finance, especially in investment banking, tend to be conservative and Republican. There are a lot that are liberal on social issues but it seems that most people are fiscally very conservative and favor small government.

My question is, how many people in investment banking have liberal or moderate economic views (favor Clinton tax rates, believe in financial regulation, favor social safety nets, believe in an activist Fed, believe in Keynesian stimulus, etc)? Obviously one shouldn't discuss politics on the job but sometimes it's inevitable. What potential problems, if any, could arise on the job for someone with that type of viewpoint? What about for an Obama supporter?

 

You'll probably be ostracized so I would suggest not discussing politics at the office if you are a liberal or just "faking it till you make it" as a Republican.

My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.
 
aempirei:
You'll probably be ostracized so I would suggest not discussing politics at the office if you are a liberal or just "faking it till you make it" as a Republican.

check out the donation lists to democrats or indies...you'd be surprised who's on there and maybe be able to form a bond most wouldn't dare.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
 

My PM votes Democrat and claims to be a liberal but is the most conservative person I know. I'm not sure how this is relevant to any conversation but given his emails today I figured I would voice this for my own enjoyment only.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 
BlackHat:
My PM votes Democrat and claims to be a liberal but is the most conservative person I know. I'm not sure how this is relevant to any conversation but given his emails today I figured I would voice this for my own enjoyment only.

There are many Democrats among the ranks of founders and senior executives of prominent HF and PE firm are Democrats. I know that the founding members of Blackstone are big time democratic donors, as are most Bain Capital executives. Even Romney didn't become a Republican until he started running for office. David Burke of Yucaipa used to be very good friend with Bill Clinton and a big time Democrat donor as well, as are many senior guys of Oaktree, to name just a few firms that come to mind.

In fact the alternative investment industry used to overwhelmingly support Democrats until the Obama administration started to "use them like pinatas" .

I think HFs and PEs support of the Democratic Party is grounded on pragmatism. Most of their biggest LPs are public, union run pension funds. If Republicans have their ways and transform all the public pension plans into 401 K style contribution plans then the fund managers would take a huge it.

Under the current system, the pension funds are under tremendous pressure to generate additional returns to meet their ballooning obligations. Hence the continuous record inflows to the HF industry despite overall unimpressive performance over the last few years. Their wows have been a huge boon to the alternative investment industry.

Too late for second-guessing Too late to go back to sleep.
 
BlackHat:
My PM votes Democrat and claims to be a liberal but is the most conservative person I know. I'm not sure how this is relevant to any conversation but given his emails today I figured I would voice this for my own enjoyment only.
He sounds like a friend of mine - he's a total guilty Democrat.

OP, I don't care much for politics, but I have a hard time understanding how some people can demonize wall street and others in the financial community and then seek a job in the very same sector. It seems like a conflict of values. Plus, I don't like anyone that demonizes those working in finance. I just wish the Huffington Post realized that without the financial community, everyone in this country would be fucked.

My understanding is that any group of people who can fully support OWS can go fuck themselves because they have a very loose understanding of reality.

 

There are a fair amount of Democrats on Wall Street. Generally, the social conservative crap doesn't fly. You won't meet many bibble thumpers. That's right, i said bibble.

I worked for a guy who was a hardcore neocon and pretty religious, I'm pretty much a moderate democrat and we definitely bumped heads once in a while. That said, we got along great and our debates were fairly enjoyable. In general, though, I try and keep the politics stuff quiet.

 

You might do very well working for Suze Orman.....

Seriously, best to keep those political discussions to as minimum. But I think that you will find that some of your co-workers are doing a similar thing, just agreeing to not cause problems at work. Most people just can't afford to be an idealist at work.

My office is a mixed bag, politically speaking, and we get into the shit throwing all of the time. But we are definitely an exception to the rule. Most people just know better than to involve politics at work. Unless you have a specific situation where some idiot is constantly disrupting the whole office, just roll with it.

 

Why is macros capitalized? Why is it even there?

"Facilitated the requirements for..."? Huh?

The next bullet needs to be completely rewritten ("conducted due...").

I'm going out now so I can't come up with anymore suggestions for you, but if you quote me in a response I'll save it and check it out tomorrow. Also, I'm like seven beers deep right now.

 
turtles:
Why is macros capitalized? Why is it even there?

"Facilitated the requirements for..."? Huh?

The next bullet needs to be completely rewritten ("conducted due...").

I'm going out now so I can't come up with anymore suggestions for you, but if you quote me in a response I'll save it and check it out tomorrow. Also, I'm like seven beers deep right now.

I was going to tell you to stop drinking even before I knew you were drinking. Wish I was with you bud

 
Best Response

The general rule of thumb for non-politicians: Sex, religion, and politics make for bad public conversation if you're not extremely interesting. End of story, no one cares what you think. Get a life.

The ones here who can't seem to shut the fuck up and do their job are ALWAYS the republicans. I can't tell you how fucking obnoxious it is, and honestly, I'd like to crack half of them in the back of the skull: YOU DON'T WANT RULES OR TAXES WE FUCKING GET IT SHUT THE FUCK UP NO ONE DOES BUT THAT'S LIFE. When I bother at all, I'll argue either side of a debate (1) to show them how stupid they are and (2) shift the focus back onto the task at hand. There are plenty of libs/dems but they often understand that they are the functional equivalent of a republican social worker, and aren't as vocal. There are a few belligerent liberals here, but they're the same people that are NYC based Red Sox fans or who

Realistically, I lean a bit left but support a large amount of ideas/ people all over the political spectrum when they're doing the right/smart thing. I've become more conservative lately (I'm getting old), but am still appalled at the totally one sided reality some of the hard liners live in: these are people with jobs, important ones, and they seem to have vital critical reasoning skills that they can't/won't use. Ultimately, I think there are a lot of people here who parrot the shit that upper management and the shareholders/investors want to hear because realistically we're just employees at a company...nothing more, nothing less, and the people who run/own this industry.........well, look at who you're dealing with. What do you think they're going to vote?

Get busy living
 
UFOinsider:
The general rule of thumb for non-politicians: Sex, religion, and politics make for bad public conversation if you're not extremely interesting. End of story, no one cares what you think. Get a life.

The ones here who can't seem to shut the fuck up and do their job are ALWAYS the republicans. I can't tell you how fucking obnoxious it is, and honestly, I'd like to crack half of them in the back of the skull: YOU DON'T WANT RULES OR TAXES WE FUCKING GET IT SHUT THE FUCK UP NO ONE DOES BUT THAT'S LIFE. When I bother at all, I'll argue either side of a debate (1) to show them how stupid they are and (2) shift the focus back onto the task at hand. There are plenty of libs/dems but they often understand that they are the functional equivalent of a republican social worker, and aren't as vocal. There are a few belligerent liberals here, but they're the same people that are NYC based Red Sox fans or who

Realistically, I lean a bit left but support a large amount of ideas/ people all over the political spectrum when they're doing the right/smart thing. I've become more conservative lately (I'm getting old), but am still appalled at the totally one sided reality some of the hard liners live in: these are people with jobs, important ones, and they seem to have vital critical reasoning skills that they can't/won't use. Ultimately, I think there are a lot of people here who parrot the shit that upper management and the shareholders/investors want to hear because realistically we're just employees at a company...nothing more, nothing less, and the people who run/own this industry.........well, look at who you're dealing with. What do you think they're going to vote?

Actually, based on your postings and comments, you do like more rules and taxes. I seem to remember you voicing your support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act earlier today. I know you want to make it seem like some of the more conservative folks are unreasonable crybabies, but you should consider being more evenhanded and truthful- it will go further than using caricature and CAPS.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
 
rls:
you do like more rules and taxes
if they go towards supporting the ends I seek, then yes, I'll favor them. If a company/deregulation does, I'll go for that. I simply have no patience for people who reason and make decisions based on placing ideological concepts over concrete realities.
Get busy living
 

People need to realize that most of the super wealthy that are "liberal" or "Democrats" are that way for one of two reasons primarily:

1) They're doing it to look good (Warren Buffet, et al. I can personally vouch for WB, he is conservative) 2) They feel overwhelmingly guilty about their wealth, which comes in two forms of its own a) They inherited b) They didn't work particularly hard for it

Not a science, so I'm sure anyone can throw a million examples at me that contradict it, but of my group of friends and co-workers, this fits pretty well.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 
BlackHat:
People need to realize that most of the super wealthy that are "liberal" or "Democrats" are that way for one of two reasons primarily:

1) They're doing it to look good (Warren Buffet, et al. I can personally vouch for WB, he is conservative) 2) They feel overwhelmingly guilty about their wealth, which comes in two forms of its own a) They inherited b) They didn't work particularly hard for it

Not a science, so I'm sure anyone can throw a million examples at me that contradict it, but of my group of friends and co-workers, this fits pretty well.

3) Desire bread and circus action so the commoners don't revolt.
 
BlackHat:
People need to realize that most of the super wealthy that are "liberal" or "Democrats" are that way for one of two reasons primarily:

1) They're doing it to look good (Warren Buffet, et al. I can personally vouch for WB, he is conservative) 2) They feel overwhelmingly guilty about their wealth, which comes in two forms of its own a) They inherited b) They didn't work particularly hard for it

Not a science, so I'm sure anyone can throw a million examples at me that contradict it, but of my group of friends and co-workers, this fits pretty well.

I'll add one more: The democratic party supports policies which creates / supports a market for their products.
 
BlackHat:
People need to realize that most of the super wealthy that are "liberal" or "Democrats" are that way for one of two reasons primarily:

1) They're doing it to look good (Warren Buffet, et al. I can personally vouch for WB, he is conservative) 2) They feel overwhelmingly guilty about their wealth, which comes in two forms of its own a) They inherited b) They didn't work particularly hard for it

Not a science, so I'm sure anyone can throw a million examples at me that contradict it, but of my group of friends and co-workers, this fits pretty well.

Or money isn't important to them
 
futurectdoc:
Newspeak:
It seems that many people working in finance, especially in investment banking, tend to be conservative and Republican. There are a lot that are liberal on social issues but it seems that most people are fiscally very conservative and favor small government.

That's called Libertarianism

No, this is Libertarianism Ron PaulJackie Chan
 

Just don't talk about politics at work. Focus on making cash and getting out of the office. Besides, Dem or Republican, both just want power. Each party just uses a different uninformed group to do their bidding.

Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama. No bankers were arrested, TBTF was established as accepted practice and Bush's policies were maintained. When you think about the clowns protesting shit or the people who really believe in liberal policies, those are not the people who have any power. They are the foot soldiers that the people in power use to gain influence, power and money.

 
craigje1992:
I'm pretty sure most of the bankers at Rothschild, at least the more senior ones, hold liberal economic views.
GivEn the bank made its original big score in the European bond business, this makes sense. Plus, it's a family business
Get busy living
 

Just keep your views private. Also I didnt know actvist federal reserve was a liberal position.

You get some democrats but they tend to be Blue Democrats who are nixon/eisenhower conservative but not reagan conservatives.

Either way both parties recieve contributions from literally the same banks, same lobbyist attending both conventions so you shouldnt have too many problems

The most anti establishment corporation is probably Ben and Jerrys who supported ows.

 

I could be wrong, but do the rest of you guys see a trend in younger bankers towards libertarian views? I'm about as libertarian as you can get without actually being libertarian, and I run into a lot of people my age and younger with similar views. Not as many true conservative/liberal polarized people in the younger age cohort it seems like. Anyone seeing that?

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 
BlackHat:
I could be wrong, but do the rest of you guys see a trend in younger bankers towards libertarian views? I'm about as libertarian as you can get without actually being libertarian, and I run into a lot of people my age and younger with similar views. Not as many true conservative/liberal polarized people in the younger age cohort it seems like. Anyone seeing that?

Very true; I'm the same and a lot of my finance friends are.

kyleyboy:
Or money isn't important to them anymore

Fixed that for ya

 
Nabooru:
BlackHat:
I could be wrong, but do the rest of you guys see a trend in younger bankers towards libertarian views? I'm about as libertarian as you can get without actually being libertarian, and I run into a lot of people my age and younger with similar views. Not as many true conservative/liberal polarized people in the younger age cohort it seems like. Anyone seeing that?

Very true; I'm the same and a lot of my finance friends are.

kyleyboy:
Or money isn't important to them anymore

Fixed that for ya

You literally beat me to it. SB for you.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 

Some people might have an item on their resume that says "Managed regional fund raising effort for presidential campaign to elect John Kerry."

Then people agonize - do I show it, do I not? Obviously a position of leadership, high profile race, raising money, all of this is a good thing. Non-democrats might look at that resume and immediately react viscerally.

 
Restructure This:
Some people might have an item on their resume that says "Managed regional fund raising effort for presidential campaign to elect John Kerry."

Then people agonize - do I show it, do I not? Obviously a position of leadership, high profile race, raising money, all of this is a good thing. Non-democrats might look at that resume and immediately react viscerally.

This is wht you put on your resume.

"Managed regional fund raising effort for a presidential candidate." That could have been George Bush, John Kerry, Gene Amondson, Michael Badnarik, Ralph Nader, etc. See it keeps it anonymous.

If you are/were part of your school's Student Democratic Society you write: "Member of Student Political Organization.

My roomate joined both and put both on his resume. He was always the smartest person in the room who carried the big stick but kept the quietest. He would say, conerning are you a political affliation, that the smartest people were in the middle which allowed them to agree and disagree with every opinion which they did not like. To be a staunch anything enought o say you rather be deemed a racist than a liberal is kind of sad.

 

Unless you choose to "flaunt it" (although I don't know why anyone would choose to flaunt such a designation, given the choice I'd prefer to be deemed a racist rather than a liberal), noone really cares.

 

but to answer your question - no. I was in a smiliar boat and just kept everything off my resume (this was also on the advice of a recruiter). BTW, campaign donations are public information - so I used to try and find yout of the person I was interviewing with made any donations and to whom - then go from there.

 

If you smell like Patchouli and are smoking weed in your interview.

Beside from that, no will will know or care. You'll grow up once you get here. Everyone is a liberal in college.

-------------- Either you sling crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot
 

Being a liberal is fine. Card-carrying member of Socialist International, well, you wouldn't be here if that was the case. Being liberal doesn't necessarily make you an anti-capitalist by any means.

 

Of course its not a disadvantage. Wall Street actually gave more money to Democrats than Republicans last year. Many banks are already kissing Sen. Clinton's behind.

And no one cares about your political views anyway. Its a job, and for the most part political discussions are avoided anyway. I would have no problem putting political fundraising on a resume. If you are really sensitive about it, write "for a prominent presidential candidate" so you at least get credit for what you accomplished.

 

Haha MDR, good article. What I really don't understand in all this is why nobody ever looks at other countries in the world before coming up with such non-sense crap ideas. I mean you only have to look to Europe to see that all this welfare stuff is a really, really bad idea. The article actually points out EXACTLY some of the problems that Europe is having as a result of their out-of-control welfare system. I seriously hope that the US will never become like Europe...but with Obama likely winning the election, it certainly looks that things are heading that way. Sad times ahead... Sorry yesman...I am not an Obama fan as you can tell...but I just couldn't resist replying.

 

My mom and dad (not I) make over $250,000 and will pay more in taxes. When I asked my dad how he could support Obama, he said, "I will gladly do so if it means that children could get health care" Hate to say it, but he has a point.

 

If all you liberal financiers believe we should spread the wealth and give more to those less fortunate than us, WHAT THE FUCK IS STOPPING YOU???

You have access to all your personal wealth. GIVE IT THE FUCK AWAY! Make a difference in this world, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll do some good for someone who needs a break. Just keep your filthy dick-beaters off of MY wallet.

It's the same problem I have with all these drug warriors. Sure, I hate drug dealers as much as the next guy. If you want to spend your life and your money chasing them down and putting them in jail, my hat's off to you. Just don't steal MY money for your pet project.

You don't have to look any further than that lowlife Biden to see the true colors of all these Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do limousine liberals. He made over $2.5 million in personal income over the past ten years a gave a whopping $3,700 of it to charity. But he'll be the first motherfucker to tell you that paying more taxes is your patriotic duty.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, D.C. would be in ashes. It's all a moot point though. We've already fallen too far. The socialists have won and it is only a matter of time until the U.S. is another 3rd World banana republic.

 
Edmundo Braverman:
If all you liberal financiers believe we should spread the wealth and give more to those less fortunate than us, WHAT THE FUCK IS STOPPING YOU???

You have access to all your personal wealth. GIVE IT THE FUCK AWAY! Make a difference in this world, you'll feel better about yourself and you'll do some good for someone who needs a break. Just keep your filthy dick-beaters off of MY wallet.

It's the same problem I have with all these drug warriors. Sure, I hate drug dealers as much as the next guy. If you want to spend your life and your money chasing them down and putting them in jail, my hat's off to you. Just don't steal MY money for your pet project.

You don't have to look any further than that lowlife Biden to see the true colors of all these Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do limousine liberals. He made over $2.5 million in personal income over the past ten years a gave a whopping $3,700 of it to charity. But he'll be the first motherfucker to tell you that paying more taxes is your patriotic duty.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, D.C. would be in ashes. It's all a moot point though. We've already fallen too far. The socialists have won and it is only a matter of time until the U.S. is another 3rd World banana republic.

Amen. Although I'm not sure we've completely fallen too far...I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Ron Paul had run as an independent (where he could pull tons of Democratic votes...). I think I might spend the next 4 years writing to him begging for one more go at it in 2012...although it's probably naive to think that only 4 years of Obama can convince enough people that socialism doesn't work (clearly, Europe's not proof enough).
 

The progressive income tax is a relic of the past that is grossly unfair in modern america. today, those who earn the most on average work the most- this definitely wasn't the case 20-30 years ago, and I'll be damned if im going to bust my ass week in week out so the government can take half my paycheck and use it to keep soy bean farmers' heads above water or to give some 9-5 motherfucker a handout. the government does need to get serious about fiscal policy but raising taxes on people who already pay too much isn't the answer.

between this country's weak economic outlook, cowardly and ineffectual congress, and swing towards protectionism and leftism, i can't imagine sticking around too much longer. once nancy pelosi revives smoot-hawley i'll start packing my bags.

 

I believe -

-poor people should be taxed more and if they do not pay then beat the shit out of them. -Corporations that take "social responsibility" should be taxed heavily. -Corporations should be allowed to fire any employee anytime without giving any reason whatsoever. -Workers who go on strike should be taxed more. -Farmers should be made to pay more interest on the loans they borrow. -No citizen, in a given fiscal year, should pay an income tax that is more than 10000 times the lowest income tax paid by any citizen in that fiscal. -All people who are rich ... should be given heavy tax discount. -People should be allowed to marry anyone including - elephant, do, cat, camel, person with same sex, multiple other people (polygamy) etc.

And many more.

 

Yesman,

It would appear you are the "lone voice crying out in the wilderness". I don't see a lot of your fellow liberal financiers answering your rallying cry. Perhaps they're all doing Peace Corps work this week.

Or perhaps they don't exist.

Don't feel bad, though. At least you got a shout out in my last post:

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/early-debate-prediction-socialist…

Looking forward to further debate.

Uncle Eddie

 

liberal" in terms of economic policy has a somewhat different meaning- akin to capitalistic (e.g. liberal vs. social). This term was used in politics in the past, but in the US it has become aligned with leftwing policies such as a creation of welfare state--- the exact opposite of its original meaning (and meaning to many outside the US).

thus a financier that is anything but a liberal financier would be an oxymoron.

 

I'm with you yesman.

I'm pretty disheartened that many of the arguments on here pretty much boil down to the rich keeping as much of their money as possible. I think it's hard for some people to understand the disadvantages that many people begin life with. The Horatio Alger story is becoming farther and farther removed from the American reality. I was lucky to have parents who were not only wealthy, but instilled a sense of hard work in me. I am perfectly honest with myself when I say that I wouldn't have gotten to an ivy league school without their motivation and other advantages given to me.

Ideally, I think everyone wants government to play as small a role in public life as possible. But this notion of privatized philanthropy is just not capable of giving the bottom half of our country the standard of life someone living in the richest country in the world should lead, with healthcare and adequate education as a bare minimum.

To those who believe this redistribution of wealth to the poorer people discourages them from working, you probably have spent little time with true working class people. There are very few people happy to live in the bottom fifth of the nation. For every "welfare queen" there are dozens of people receiving aid who actually want to work and simply aren't able to.

 

Well said. Add me to the list yesman and Jay Buhner are on.

Jay Buhner was sweet:
I'm with you yesman.

I'm pretty disheartened that many of the arguments on here pretty much boil down to the rich keeping as much of their money as possible. I think it's hard for some people to understand the disadvantages that many people begin life with. The Horatio Alger story is becoming farther and farther removed from the American reality. I was lucky to have parents who were not only wealthy, but instilled a sense of hard work in me. I am perfectly honest with myself when I say that I wouldn't have gotten to an ivy league school without their motivation and other advantages given to me.

Ideally, I think everyone wants government to play as small a role in public life as possible. But this notion of privatized philanthropy is just not capable of giving the bottom half of our country the standard of life someone living in the richest country in the world should lead, with healthcare and adequate education as a bare minimum.

To those who believe this redistribution of wealth to the poorer people discourages them from working, you probably have spent little time with true working class people. There are very few people happy to live in the bottom fifth of the nation. For every "welfare queen" there are dozens of people receiving aid who actually want to work and simply aren't able to.

 

One of the main reason for this phenomenon is that democracy has become a means to exploit rich and feed poor (poor means - lazy people who think that money is bad or money has nothing to do with happiness).

Rich believe that someday Govt. will come and take their money away (under the auspices of helping the poor) and that is the risk that they are trying to mitigate here.

We need perfect and absolute property rights. Which means if I own a piece of property then no govt (not even god) should have the authority to take my property away from me. This should be perfectly guaranteed no matter what the circumstances are.

One argument that my friend extended to me was that - if you do not share your so amassed wealth then poor people will invade you and take it away someday. I said to him - you answered your own question - why rich people store wealth.

 

in my experience, it's a myth that wall street is conservative. wall streeters just want more money so they vote republican. but there's no ideology involved. they generally won't come up with pseudo-intellectual arguments against taxation and "big government" like right-wingers on this forum do. they will just say "me want more"...end of story.

the reality is that education level is positively correlated with liberalism and wall street is highly educated. most guys on the street are fairly liberal on the majority of political issues. but at such high levels of income, rich guys who are fairly liberal will still vote exclusively on the tax issue and even self-identify as republican. btw this mostly describes senior dudes. most junior bankers probably voted for obama.

 
ReadLine:
So- hypocrite?

Not at all, but perhaps prone to delusional, idealistic faith in the common good.

As a matter of fact, I agree with some of the same things you mentioned (idea behind OWS, (income) tax disparity), but the circumstances we are faced with (read: real life) dictate that not everyone acts in the interest of other people. That said, it becomes fairly obvious that just as the "rich" are "greedy," the "poor" are "jealous."

So just as a fraction of asshats make the Street look bad with reckless maneuvers in the office (and out), there is a proportional fraction of the non-finance industry population who is merely concerned with making sure that no one makes more money than they do. "If I can't afford a BMW, you'd better be sure no one else will, either."

in it 2 win it
 

Romney, someone who is not even part of the workforce, paid over $3MM in taxes last year. Most Americans won't even make close to that in their LIFETIME, and you want him to pay more because he doesn't deserve to do what he wants with his own money? I really don't understand the mind of a liberal, and that's why they are sparse on Wall Street.

 
BTbanker:
Romney, someone who is not even part of the workforce, paid over $3MM in taxes last year. Most Americans won't even make close to that in their LIFETIME, and you want him to pay more because he doesn't deserve to do what he wants with his own money? I really don't understand the mind of a liberal, and that's why they are sparse on Wall Street.

Really? You don't understand the rationale behind those who are capable of paying more without hurting pay more than those who aren't as capable? I can understand disagreeing with it in practice but at least be honest with yourself.

 

I'd avoid telling anyone at work that you're a die hard liberal. Most people working on Wall Street are Republicans/Conservative. I've actually spoken with someone that used to run a brokerage floor who said he would never hire someone who had different political views than he did (die hard Republican.) Although, he was pretty old school and might even have one up on Eddie. He got to BSD status without a high school degree.

You might not legally be able to discriminate based on political affiliation, but people still do it.

Competition is a sin. -John D. Rockefeller
 

My old boss was a big time liberal and let everyone know it. So, no, you won't be the only liberal.

Most people in finance aren't really that 'political'. Almost everyone dislikes high tax rates on wall street, but on most other issues, people run the gamut, in my experience.

 
SirTradesaLot:
My old boss was a big time liberal and let everyone know it. So, no, you won't be the only liberal.

Most people in finance aren't really that 'political'. Almost everyone dislikes high tax rates on wall street, but on most other issues, people run the gamut, in my experience.

I love it. Rich enough to be a Democrat. Lol.

But I do agree most people are very business oriented and won't let politics get in the way of business. However, you always do run the risk on running into someone like the the person I described before, which is why if anyone asks me a political question in finance and I'm unsure of their political affiliation.

Competition is a sin. -John D. Rockefeller
 

OP, quit throwing monkey shit, and come up with a coherent argument as to why you're right and I'm wrong. If you can't do that, then let's just say I won't be surprised. I haven't met an intelligent liberal yet.

 
BTbanker:
OP, quit throwing monkey shit, and come up with a coherent argument as to why you're right and I'm wrong. If you can't do that, then let's just say I won't be surprised. I haven't met an intelligent liberal yet.

Why does it have to be a matter of being right or wrong? Are you unwilling to accept the fact that different people believe something else is best? I simply can't grasp how someone can be so certain about something that there really is no right answer to.

Saying you've never met an intelligent liberal is more an extreme example of confirmation bias than anything else.

 

First, I didn't throw "monkey shit" at you or anyone. Second, you asked me to explain where you go wrong (in my view).So here it is:

Romney, someone who is not even part of the workforce, paid over $3MM in taxes last year. Most Americans won't even make close to that in their LIFETIME, and you want him to pay more because he doesn't deserve to do what he wants with his own money? I really don't understand the mind of a liberal, and that's why they are sparse on Wall Street.

By that logic, nobody should pay more in taxes then what the poorest Americans?

Just because I worked myself to death from grade school through college to get a good job, that means I have to pay for some idiot who couldn't take initiative with his retirement savings? People will eventually adapt to taking care of themselves, and the ones who truly need help will get it through charities.

You worked hard for yourself. You knew the payoff and the return (minus taxes). And US taxes are very low historically so you weren't deceived.

Second, this may be hard for you to believe, but you didn't achieve what you did by yourself. You born into the right family/system/environment. Unless you were an orphan who grew up homeless without any federal assistance, worked jobs to pay for college without going to a subsidized public university or with federal aid, and (perhaps with a time machine) created a lucrative financial industry to employ yourself with backed by dollar hegemony.

Third, you can't run a country based on charity. People are inherently greed....duh.

I fail to see how raising taxes, raising government spending, and government intervention in the private sector help us in the long run. There's probably some logic behind the fact that young people tend to lean left, and old people tend to lean right. Older people know better. You can say the same about the poor leaning left, and the wealthy leaning right. The wealthy tend to have better educations and better jobs, while the poor have lesser educations and are jobless or underemployed. I think these are fair assumptions as to why being a conservative is probably the lesser to two evils.

If you fail to see how raising taxes, gov. spending and government intervention helps in the LR- then open up an economics textbook. It's not a simple matter of this is good policy and that is bad. There are certain cases where raising taxes/spending/intervening is important.

Suffice to say, the US government has a big hand in creating US success. I know this sounds like a scandalous thing to say. But without the government we started in 1776- we might still be a backwards cotton producing agriculture state up into the 20th century. Hell, the US financial services industry wouldn't be a worlwide behemoth without Nixon's Bretton Woods. US Oil companies wouldn't be huge without BW and petrodollar agreements. And US tech industry would be catching up to Japan if DARPA hadn't invented ARPANET-> Internet. You honestly think there would be an American google, apple or microsoft otherwise? The US government

Next, gov spending: Keynes. Next, government intervention: Yes, markets fail. Yes, government intervention is necessary. Case studies number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Now- about your logic that wealthy/old = right-wing and young/poor = liberal, thus right-wing is right. That's true. It's also true that old people are wealthier. And yes, wealthy people scorn at paying higher taxes than the poor. For most people, this is the extent of their political philosophies. But by your logic, you should also consider that people in academia (all ivy league universities even, which have plenty of wealth- even my alma mater Penn despite Wharton being there) are predominantly liberal. As are most bastions of public intellectualism.

 

I'll never understand people who advocate for higher taxes. It isn't as if those higher taxes will go to welfare, food stamps or something useful. Liberals (people who generally push for higher taxes) bitch about defense spending, homeland security, etc. Well where do you think the tax dollar go to ?!

You want to help the lower class, donate your money and time. Help kids, be a mentor, donate to local charities, whatever. Higher taxation is just a cop out. I am sorry, but if you are too lazy to do something yourself or make a decision and donate your money then you don't really care. Put a little effort in if you want to help someone and you just might make a difference .

And I am sure most people on Wall Street are pro choice, ok with gay rights and are not really Christian. So they would lean Democrat. This is what happens when you have Wall Street located in New York City. I'd guess that most people in finance are probably fiscal conservative since they have a general understanding of finance. So fiscally, they would be conservative.

And OWS? Really. Get real. Bunch of kids who freely chose their majors, schools and took out loans. They also have a bunch of options to repay them. But instead they are angry and want to act like little kids. OWS didn't organize, come up with a central theme or do much of anything. Pretty sad actually. Had they had a coherent point they might have been know for more than just shitting on a cop car.

 

Socially liberal & Economically liberal are different thing

Take the 'political compass test' to see where you are compared to other people.

Barry O has become more authoritarian (less land of the free) while neither seem willing to take on the Unions with a mixture of 'labour rights' laws and taking them head on.

 

Less government and minimum taxation is the optimum environment. The US government has played an important part in the success of this nation because of law, security and infrastructure. What a government is created to do. Unfortunately, what a government should do and what politicians end up doing are two different things. You cannot cheer government without realizing that this same government has grown without limit, got us into countless wars and wasted billions, if not trillions of dollars.

Now this is where the name calling usually starts. People who push for more taxes and government start blaming all the bad things on the other side, as if a totalitarian, liberal run government would increase in size and tax revenue, thereby creating a eutopia. Same with the zero government people.

Fact is government is a tool for power and people, being flawed and greedy, use government as well as capitalism in a manipulative way. So more government wouldn't solve the problem, it would just create its own. Exactly as it has done now.

 
If only there was some mechanism that enabled you to give more money to the government. Maybe some electronic payment system or piece of paper you could sign and they would receive funds from you, the person who wants to give, and not from me, the person that thinks the government burns it on bureaucracy and blackhole spending areas.

In my earlier post I ridiculed someone's suggestion of charity replacing government spending. Saying we can't rely on charity because people are inherently greedy.

Actually, I would argue that professionals in the financial industry own more of the wealth to government influence than almost any other industry. So really, we're lucky there aren't significant taxes specifically for wall street.

Less government and minimum taxation is the optimum environment. The US government has played an important part in the success of this nation because of law, security and infrastructure. What a government is created to do. Unfortunately, what a government should do and what politicians end up doing are two different things. You cannot cheer government without realizing that this same government has grown without limit, got us into countless wars and wasted billions, if not trillions of dollars.

Now this is where the name calling usually starts. People who push for more taxes and government start blaming all the bad things on the other side, as if a totalitarian, liberal run government would increase in size and tax revenue, thereby creating a eutopia. Same with the zero government people.

Fact is government is a tool for power and people, being flawed and greedy, use government as well as capitalism in a manipulative way. So more government wouldn't solve the problem, it would just create its own. Exactly as it has done now.

When someone else claimed they don't know how tax increases and government spending could help in the long run- I said it's not a matter of one policy being right all the time. That's not what I believe. I'm convinced by the view of most top economists and the renewed research in the "fiscal policy multiplier"- which is gauging how much spending cuts hurt in a recession and how much spending INCREASES hurt during high growth (yes- I do believe there is such a thing as too much government spending crowding out private investment- but no- the data suggests we are very far from there). Actually, I honestly think if the stimulus program were 3x the size we would have lower unemployment today and better prospects.

Yes, I do believe that taxation for wealthy Americans is historically very low and should go back up - and not just to increase government revenue (though that's a part of it) - it's also because I think a very high level of wealth/income inequality (highest since the Gilded Age) is inherently bad for us socially and economically. But no, I don't want everyone to be equal.

The LAST thing I want to say is "X is better always". I'm saying I'm a liberal because that's what I believe our current situation calls for.

 

I support taxation when it has a defensible goal and a provable result. The problem we have nowadays is people use taxation as some form of punishment tool or a way to right a wrong. Just like this argument to increase taxes on the rich simply to balance out inequality.

The goal should be equality of opportunity, not results. As for opportunity, things are relatively fair in this country. Hence why we are the destination for immigrants and educate large portions of the world. It is very easy to have a comfortable, middle class life. You just need to not get arrested, have kids until you are older and graduate high school.

Now yes, some schools sucks and there are tons of things we can improve, but a lot of the problem boils down to bad choices. Until the government figures out a way to stop people from making bad choices we will always have this mess.

And when you start taxing XYZ simply because you think it is unfair that someone has too much of whatever, you ruin the goal of government and what taxation is for. We all pay in for the common good. Rich pay the absolute lion share of all federal income tax. This isn't even up for debate. Now no one is saying we should balance the government on the backs of the poor, but to say that the rich aren't paying their fair share is nuts. If by fair share you mean nearly all the tax while 50% pay zero, well then we have a very different view of the word fair.

 
I'll state again, you believe in HIGHER taxes for rich people, even if it affects you. Do you currently donate more of your income to the government that they take through taxation, by gifting it? If not, why not? You'd support a (10)% tax increase, but do not send that money off yourself. I see a logical contradiction here.
I already explained this in the OP and my reply to you.

Having the government rely on charity won't work because everyone is inherently greedy, including myself. I admit I am greedy too. That's why I work at an asset manager instead of Random House.

But like I said in the OP, my greed is relative. I don't feel bad if everyone else who is similarly affluent has to pay more taxes- because then relative to my peers I won't get poorer. (And my greed doesn't apply to becoming "less rich" than the working class).

 
ReadLine:
I'll state again, you believe in HIGHER taxes for rich people, even if it affects you. Do you currently donate more of your income to the government that they take through taxation, by gifting it? If not, why not? You'd support a (10)% tax increase, but do not send that money off yourself. I see a logical contradiction here.
I already explained this in the OP and my reply to you.

Having the government rely on charity won't work because everyone is inherently greedy, including myself. I admit I am greedy too. That's why I work at an asset manager instead of Random House.

But like I said in the OP, my greed is relative. I don't feel bad if everyone else who is similarly affluent has to pay more taxes- because then relative to my peers I won't get poorer. (And my greed doesn't apply to becoming "less rich" than the working class).

and if everyone was as greedy as everyone else, we'd all have the same amount of stuff. Asking greedy people to be less greedy, or less greedy people to be more greedy. Which seems more likely?

 

So we all agree people are greedy. So could someone tell me where we are going to find these altruistic individuals to run the government? Cause if people are greedy and the government is run by these greedy people (as it is now) wouldn't increased taxation just be used to make someone else greedy and not really help the poor?

Answer me that riddle and I might support increased taxation.

 

TNA: No, absolutely not. I do not want taxation to be a punishment for success.

Like I said, taxation is historically low especially for high earners. But more importantly, I AM concerned about income and wealth inequality. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Like I said, before, in the US, it's the highest in the Gilded Age. Right now its not a huge problem other than minor social unrest, i.e. OWS and anti-1% movements. But continuing on the trend (e.g. extending Bush tax cuts) means a problem very soon economically and socially speaking. Increasing Wealth/Income Inequality is strongly tied with A. lower economic growth through lower productivity, lower domestic demand and distorted credit markets and B. decreasing democracy (already happened significantly). There is much research on this.

A short discussion with respected experts with a few conflicting viewpoints: http://www.economist.com/economics/by-invitation/questions/how_does_ine…

 
So we all agree people are greedy. So could someone tell me where we are going to find these altruistic individuals to run the government? Cause if people are greedy and the government is run by these greedy people (as it is now) wouldn't increased taxation just be used to make someone else greedy and not really help the poor?

Answer me that riddle and I might support increased taxation.

Yes, government is run by greedy people. That's why we have to pay schoolteachers decently to attract decent educators, or pay for police pensions, or pay similarly for a myraid of government jobs.

However, no, government salaries are highly regulated for that reason. (It's called the General Schedule- which regulates the salaries of the vast majority of white collar gov. employees). And the government engages in the same labor market as private firms- paying no more than it has to.

Now, is there likely to be more waste in government compared to the private sector? Yes. But not as much as I think you expect. Typically, government budgets for specific departments and programs are just as strict as the private sector. And though there is no profit incentive- there are career incentives and sometimes election incentives.

But I think your central argument is 'how can I assure that my taxes go to things I find productive' and the answer is you can't and moreso- it'll sometimes go to things many of us find unproductive. That's a cost, but one worth bearing to an extent because there is no alternative.

 

Ok, not disagreeing. But I think the why is more interesting. Once you hit a certain level of wealth (savings) it just gets easier to accumulate more. The old axiom, it takes money to make money, is true. So how to you impact this inequality?

You could increase taxation on capital gain and investments. You could increase tax rates on the upper income individuals. But how does that really help inequality. If you took from the rich and then handed the poor a block of cash you would do this, but taxing the rich more only takes them down a notch.

And what is going to be done with that money? Investments in infrastructure? I'd support that. But that will also just benefit big business and the rich. Basically everything benefits the rich more than the poor.

I suppose you could provide national scholarships to low income students, thereby providing human investments for free to the poor, but how is that going to really impact inequality if the poor are studying something not in demand or are marginal students because they didn't have life long benefits of wealth?

IMO, taxation of the rich more is just impractical. Everyone in Congress is rich and greedy as we've established. Money = Power, something we can all probably agree on, especially since it has been true throughout history. So how are we going to change anything when everyone is greedy, including the ones in power, the rich and elected all have the money and money = power?

 
ReadLine:
I'm saying I'm a liberal because that's what I believe our current situation calls for.
Oh, so you admit that social and economic liberal policy is unsustainable in the long term. That is all.
 

In the late 1930s, both France and the US still had quite high income inequality- with the top 10% taking 45+% of the income. Both France and the US had a colossal dip in income inequality in the time following WWII. Down to 28-30% or so. Today France is still around 30-32% while the US shot up since the 1980s to 50+% today and increasing.

So, obviously income/wealth inequality isn't a natural absolute (with deregulation and pushes for smaller government it is- but not otherwise).

Frankly, yes - giving the poor a block of cash (obviously not enoughto dissuade them from wanting to be rich) would be effective - except for the moral problems of that kind of wealth transfer. But economically speaking it would work- even Milton Friedman understood this from an economic perspective when he proposed a negative income tax for the poor.

Your other ideas aren't bad either. In India- they have a national test for engineers (with math and science questions)- those who score high enough get to go to one of the IITs (prestigious engineering colleges) for free. I think that would be great in the US. A federal test with top scorers being given generous scholarships based on their W-2's- with poorer or even middle class students being given 100% tuition and stipends.

Really though the point about inefficient majors is a problem of the university system. They have no skin in whether bullshit majors help the country. I don't think there should be more government control over universities to advocate certain majors (I still agree in a free market)- but perhaps a government-funded PSA on projections for future in-demand employment skills advocating certain fields. Better than drug PSAs.

I haven't really thought about it - but ultimately the biggest deterrant is higher taxes on the rich to subsidize positive programs for the poor.

Now- your point about power being entrenched. Very true. And it probably will be slow to reverse. But it can be done or at least stagnated. Certainly, most republicans and some democrats have no interest in this cause. But there are still Senators like Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse. First more people have to demand it. And that will happen organically- albeit perhaps too slowly (as it already has with anti-1% and OWS).

 
ReadLine: I'm saying I'm a liberal because that's what I believe our current situation calls for. BTBanker: Oh, so you admit that Liberalism is unsustainable in the long term. That is all.

1. What liberalism is and what conservatism is is fairly well defined, yes. And given that, there are times during expansionary periods where government spending in crowding out private investment - adding to the budget deficit without even helping growth. And there are times where neo-con military intervention is useful for America's long term goals (Iraq, Libya and now Iran have nothing to do with WMDs or the plight of foreign citizens....). So sometimes I do agree with conservative principles- but its always dependent on the situation- but for general guiding principles- I'm liberal.

2. Note that what makes a "liberal" or a "conservative" is constantly changing. One is always on the left of the other, but they typically move in tandem up and down the spectrum. On a scale from 0-10 with 10 being most conservative, a conservatism at a certain time could be a 9 and liberalism a 7. So if I'm a 4, then you can imagine there is a situation where I could end up calling myself a conservative.

 

Redline, the problem with giving the poor a block of cash is wells established. I mean it is the same reason why people support extended unemployment or government stimulus checks (ala Bush). The poor spend money and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately they buy depreciating assets, not appreciating investments.

So you take wealth (savings) from the rich and give to the poor. They will, by and large, spend that money and be no richer than before. The only way this plan would work is if the government took wealth from the rich and forced the poor to save it. Essentially taking the money, putting it into a savings account and giving it to the poor in name only, but retaining full control.

This is where I think Liberals get tripped up, especially well educated and relatively well off liberals. They don't realize the nature of the people they are trying to help. This is also why immigrants do so well. They come from a culture of savings, owning businesses, being miserable for one generation so the next can do very well.

And the whole tax rates over time comparison is very tricky. Rates go up during times of war when you have a specie currency. This is one of the benefits of a gold standard. You can't have expensive wars without the people paying for them. Now look at Vietnam and the closure of the gold window and finally moving towards a true fiat currency and the growth in debt afterwards, combined with lower tax rates.

 
TNA:
The only way this plan would work is if the government took wealth from the rich and forced the poor to save it. Essentially taking the money, putting it into a savings account and giving it to the poor in name only, but retaining full control
Lol. You mean social security? Even the government is terrible at managing money for the poor, since they can't take any real risk.
 
BTbanker:
TNA:
The only way this plan would work is if the government took wealth from the rich and forced the poor to save it. Essentially taking the money, putting it into a savings account and giving it to the poor in name only, but retaining full control
Lol. You mean social security? Even the government is terrible at managing money for the poor, since they can't take any real risk.

You know what, you just brought up a good point. I wonder if social security is considered an asset for poor people when comparing their wealth to the rich. It should since it is essentially a government forced savings account.

 
Lol. You mean social security? Even the government is terrible at managing money for the poor, since they can't take any real risk.

Wrong Again. That's not how SS works. Common misconception. SS is actually a PAYGO system. Current workers fund current retirees. Currently the system still runs surpluses every year. The total surplus has accumulated into about $2.7T. The management of SS has been terrific and efficient. The problem is Baby Boomers will retire and it will eventually start running deficits every year- eating away at the $2.7T total surplus.

Now, as for taking real risk with SS: The SS Trust fund only invests in securities backed by full credit of the federal government. Meaning government debt. (This is where right-wing distortions of "raiding" social security comes from- SSTF giving over funds in exchange for bonds). Having them take a real risk is an interesting discussion that has been had ad nasueum since I think the 80s. But the obvious implication is that it would involve the US government actually "picking winners and losers" through investment decisions with a multi trillion war chest. That and the fact that a bottom-of-the-barrell safety net ought to be dependable and riskless.

 
ReadLine:
Lol. You mean social security? Even the government is terrible at managing money for the poor, since they can't take any real risk.

Wrong Again. That's not how SS works. Common misconception. SS is actually a PAYGO system. Current workers fund current retirees. Currently the system still runs surpluses every year. The total surplus has accumulated into about $2.7T. The management of SS has been terrific and efficient. The problem is Baby Boomers will retire and it will eventually start running deficits every year- eating away at the $2.7T total surplus.

Now, as for taking real risk with SS: The SS Trust fund only invests in securities backed by full credit of the federal government. Meaning government debt. (This is where right-wing distortions of "raiding" social security comes from- SSTF giving over funds in exchange for bonds). Having them take a real risk is an interesting discussion that has been had ad nasueum since I think the 80s. But the obvious implication is that it would involve the US government actually "picking winners and losers" through investment decisions with a multi trillion war chest. That and the fact that a bottom-of-the-barrell safety net ought to be dependable and riskless.

Pay as you go investment is a nice way of saying Ponzi scheme. And the government has raided SSI. If Social Security was a huge savings account things would be much better, instead the we "lend" to the government with the promise of repaying. So we will essentially have to raise Federal Income taxes to repay the borrowing from the Social Security tax revenues. How fucked up is that.

So I wouldn't call that terrific management, as if managing a ponzi scheme could possibly be terrific in the best of cases. And it is an untouchable system now. It needs some real changes, but no one will touch it because of the repercussions.

 
You know what, you just brought up a good point. I wonder if social security is considered an asset for poor people when comparing their wealth to the rich. It should since it is essentially a government forced savings account.

If anything that would only slightly increase wealth inequality. Everyone is entitled to SS. And how much you get depends on how many years you worked and at what salary (connected to how much SS tax you paid).

Sadly, I'm sure some poor people do consider it and will rely on it. And despite the fact that there was no mismangement and we did prepare ahead for the Baby Boomers by accumulating a huge surplus- it still won't be enough without reform. And that eventually will mean less generous SS in the future.

Now, the very poor or disabled do receive SSI and SSDI even if they don't qualify for regular SS. But you're talking about 4-5%- the poorest people (I'm sure some of them must be lazy or faking disability- but its so small and the benefits are so small). So it wouldn't make much difference.

 
ReadLine:
You know what, you just brought up a good point. I wonder if social security is considered an asset for poor people when comparing their wealth to the rich. It should since it is essentially a government forced savings account.

If anything that would only slightly increase wealth inequality. Everyone is entitled to SS. And how much you get depends on how many years you worked and at what salary (connected to how much SS tax you paid).

Sadly, I'm sure some poor people do consider it and will rely on it. And despite the fact that there was no mismangement and we did prepare ahead for the Baby Boomers by accumulating a huge surplus- it still won't be enough without reform. And that eventually will mean less generous SS in the future.

Now, the very poor or disabled do receive SSI and SSDI even if they don't qualify for regular SS. But you're talking about 4-5%- the poorest people (I'm sure some of them must be lazy or faking disability- but its so small and the benefits are so small). So it wouldn't make much difference.

SSI benefits are capped, regardless of how much you contribute. So it isn't as if a rich person would have some huge SSI asset compared to normal earners. Things cap out at ~$100K in earnings.

At least it would give low income people some assets. Considering it is a half ass annuity it should be considered for their individual net-worth.

 

Liberal mindset: Some people are born unlucky. The rich are greedy and don't deserve to have lavish lifestyles while there are people starving. The government needs to cover my ass, because I didn't try hard in school, then my parents got a divorce, and it made me sad. Since I didn't try hard in school, I have no financial knowledge, and need the government to tax the rich to pay for my retirement. If only I were smart enough to read a book, I could learn how to make money work for me, but instead, I'm stuck in this rat race until I'm 65. There should be a cap on corporate profits, so that I can feel better about myself when the rich are hurting. It makes me feel good inside when the DOW falls 300 points, whatever that means. Corporations are evil! Anyways, I need to get ready for my shift at WalMart. #Tweeted from my iPhone
Conservative mindset: If we raise the taxes on the wealthy, we will be effectively disincentivising people to work harder to break away from mediocrity. Call it punishment, don't call it punishment. That's how it will be viewed by people who don't want people telling us how to spend our own money. I don't need anyone doubting my ability to play my role in helping those in need. Corporate tax increases will scare away ambitious entrepreneurs, raise prices for the consumer, and force corporations to cut jobs. Unemployment shoots higher and inflation starts to increase, so taxes will have to go even higher to cover the benefits. Those who are unemployed will have no reason to look for a job since they have these great benefits flowing, even though they can't afford anything since corporations are charging an arm and a leg for everything. The average middle class worker will be scared to death to get a raise, because it might push him/her into a higher tax bracket, and when he does, he will no longer be able to pay for his kid's college or save for retirement, because he has to pay for the less fortunate kid's education.

 
BTbanker:
The average middle class worker will be scared to death to get a raise, because it might push him/her into a higher tax bracket, and when he does, he will no longer be able to pay for his kid's college or save for retirement, because he has to pay for the less fortunate kid's education.

Huh? Do you understand how our tax system works? How would being paid more result in less money overall?

Or did you just copy and paste this from somewhere and not actually look at the content?

 
ReadLine:
Meaning somewhere between Obama and Jill Stein. (Not a Mao communist, lol) I even support spirit of OWS.

This could be a very lengthy discussion. But for the most obvious question- it's a matter of not agreeing with a system (e.g. structure of financial services), but still playing it for my own sake.

As for taxes- I'd like to see higher taxes for richer people even if it affects me. My thinking is relative wealth- and I compare myself with other successful people rather than the working class. And I simple believe that the wealthy don't pay their "fair share".

So- hypocrite?

I'm liberal too. I think that a lot of people in finance are liberal socially but are conservative fiscally. However, I don't think it's hypocritical to believe in the importance of highly developed capital markets while also believing that the government should intervene to address market failures and make things slightly more equitable.

For some reason, the discourse in this country presents it as a dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism/communism. But you can harness the power of capitalism and free markets while also implementing smart regulations that prevent against disasters like the past recession. I don't advocate for a lot or a little regulation. I want the right amount of regulation such that market failures are addressed. I believe that Keynesian stimulus makes sense and we should keep a progressive taxation system.

Maybe all of that makes me a liberal but honestly, most of that stuff is supported by mainstream academic economic theory. I can't relate to the super-libertarians in the Tea Party at all that think free markets are always efficient and any government intervention is negative.

Also, call me crazy, but I tend to believe the 97-98% of climate scientists that say climate change is caused by human activity (rather than the people who disagree who are having their research funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers). I also think cap-and-trade is a very smart, market-oriented way of handling the problem. But even Goldman Sachs agrees with that (partly because they want to be involved in the trading system)

But I also agree that access to debt and equity does a lot to grow businesses in the economy, creating jobs and spurring the creation of new products. I also see nothing wrong with investing money to improve your quality of life.

I think the reason that most people in finance are conservative is because they don't want to pay higher taxes. I also am willing to pay higher taxes (and Clinton-era taxes weren't THAT much higher) in order to keep us on a fiscally sustainable path while paying for important public services.

 
Newspeak:
ReadLine:
Meaning somewhere between Obama and Jill Stein. (Not a Mao communist, lol) I even support spirit of OWS.

This could be a very lengthy discussion. But for the most obvious question- it's a matter of not agreeing with a system (e.g. structure of financial services), but still playing it for my own sake.

As for taxes- I'd like to see higher taxes for richer people even if it affects me. My thinking is relative wealth- and I compare myself with other successful people rather than the working class. And I simple believe that the wealthy don't pay their "fair share".

So- hypocrite?


I'm liberal too. I think that a lot of people in finance are liberal socially but are conservative fiscally. However, I don't think it's hypocritical to believe in the importance of highly developed capital markets while also believing that the government should intervene to address market failures and make things slightly more equitable.

For some reason, the discourse in this country presents it as a dichotomy of capitalism vs socialism/communism. But you can harness the power of capitalism and free markets while also implementing smart regulations that prevent against disasters like the past recession. I don't advocate for a lot or a little regulation. I want the right amount of regulation such that market failures are addressed. I believe that Keynesian stimulus makes sense and we should keep a progressive taxation system.

Maybe all of that makes me a liberal but honestly, most of that stuff is supported by mainstream academic economic theory. I can't relate to the super-libertarians in the Tea Party at all that think free markets are always efficient and any government intervention is negative.

Also, call me crazy, but I tend to believe the 97-98% of climate scientists that say climate change is caused by human activity (rather than the people who disagree who are having their research funded by Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers). I also think cap-and-trade is a very smart, market-oriented way of handling the problem. But even Goldman Sachs agrees with that (partly because they want to be involved in the trading system)

But I also agree that access to debt and equity does a lot to grow businesses in the economy, creating jobs and spurring the creation of new products. I also see nothing wrong with investing money to improve your quality of life.

I think the reason that most people in finance are conservative is because they don't want to pay higher taxes. I also am willing to pay higher taxes (and Clinton-era taxes weren't THAT much higher) in order to keep us on a fiscally sustainable path while paying for important public services.

You are (as many do) erroneously conflating libertarianism, a moral philosophy, with some kind of utilitarianism or miscellaneous collection of policy stances. The latter says violence against some, be it slavery murder or theft, is fine if it benefits some others. The former is simply a narrowly defined moral philosophy that submits that the initiation of violent force (thus not self defense) against people and their things is unethical and illegitimate....period. Actions, e.g. violence by one against another, can be evil in and of themselves, despite whatever hypothetical benevolent outcome of the violent action (be it a war, welfare program, or regulation) the utilitarian envisions.

Statists like you and every other republican/democrat/conservative/liberal/whatever believe the initiation of violent force is ethical, whether they realize it or not - and that is a morally wrong position, in the view of the libertarian.

 
Pay as you go investment is a nice way of saying Ponzi scheme. And the government has raided SSI. If Social Security was a huge savings account things would be much better, instead the we "lend" to the government with the promise of repaying. So we will essentially have to raise Federal Income taxes to repay the borrowing from the Social Security tax revenues. How fucked up is that.

So I wouldn't call that terrific management, as if managing a ponzi scheme could possibly be terrific in the best of cases. And it is an untouchable system now. It needs some real changes, but no one will touch it because of the repercussions.

No. It's hasn't raided the SSTF (I assume that's what you meant from SSI). SSTF has a mandate requiring it to invest in bonds with the full backing of the US Government. You're in Finance. You should know that there is no conceivable way that the Government will default on these bonds selectively.

And no, it is not a ponzi scheme. It was not meant to deceive or take advantage of anyone. And there was an effort to build up a huge surplus to dampen the effects of changing demographics. To call it a ponzi scheme is intellectually dishonest.

SSI benefits are capped, regardless of how much you contribute. So it isn't as if a rich person would have some huge SSI asset compared to normal earners. Things cap out at ~$100K in earnings.

At least it would give low income people some assets. Considering it is a half ass annuity it should be considered for their individual net-worth.

The question was would this effect wealth inequality. The answer is no. If anything it would increase it in a very slight way (honestly almost negligible though). And I don't want to sound like a braggart- but I'm certain I know more about the economics of SS than you do.

Democrats become Republicans when and if they finally make money Republicans become Democrats when they lose it

No, the people who change from Democrat to Republican are typically those that make A LOT of money. And consider themselves to be a in a de facto race to be as much "richer" than the middle class as possible.

Liberal mindset: Some people are born unlucky. The rich are greedy and don't deserve to have lavish lifestyles while there are people starving. The government needs to cover my ass, because I didn't try hard in school, then my parents got a divorce, and it made me sad. Since I didn't try hard in school, I have no financial knowledge, and need the government to tax the rich to pay for my retirement. If only I were smart enough to read a book, I could learn how to make money work for me, but instead, I'm stuck in this rat race until I'm 65. There should be a cap on corporate profits, so that I can feel better about myself when the rich are hurting. It makes me feel good inside when the DOW falls 300 points, whatever that means. Corporations are evil! Anyways, I need to get ready for my shift at WalMart. #Tweeted from my iPhone

Correction from a liberal: Some people are born lucky. Everyone- rich and poor are greedy. Lavish lifestyles should exist. Starvation in America should not- even if efforts to stop starvation have to be subsidized by those lavish lifestyles. The rest, though complete horseshit is pretty funny. I lol'd. "If only I were smart enough to read a book" Ironic. "It makes me feel good inside when the DOW falls 300 points" Can you paint a more simplistic picture of what liberal v. conservative is?

Conservative mindset: If we raise the taxes on the wealthy, we will be effectively disincentivising people to work harder to break away from mediocrity. Call it punishment, don't call it punishment. That's how it will be viewed by people who don't want people telling us how to spend our own money. I don't need anyone doubting my ability to play my role in helping those in need. Corporate tax increases will scare away ambitious entrepreneurs, raise prices for the consumer, and force corporations to cut jobs. Unemployment shoots higher and inflation starts to increase, so taxes will have to go even higher to cover the benefits. Those who are unemployed will have no reason to look for a job since they have these great benefits flowing, even though they can't afford anything since corporations are charging an arm and a leg for everything. The average middle class worker will be scared to death to get a raise, because it might push him/her into a higher tax bracket, and when he does, he will no longer be able to pay for his kid's college or save for retirement, because he has to pay for the less fortunate kid's education.

Well you got the con. mindset correct (I think). "IS MY MONEY! (sic)" But, specifically who said anything about raising taxes on entreperneurs or small business during a recession? or even corporations? Now is not the time for that. Now is the time for expansionary policy on both fronts. Spending and tax cuts. (except for income tax cuts for HNW households- which no, do not create jobs.)

I have to laugh at "The average middle class worker will be scared to death to get a raise, because it might push him/her into a higher tax bracket" Can anyone with a basic idea of what a tax bracket is tell me why this is an asinine idea?

 

Ponzi schemes rely on more money coming in to pay out people. It collapses when the inflow of new money cannot keep up with the outflow of money. If that isn't Social Security in a nutshell I don't know what is.

And when you have dedicated SSI taxes being taken out of your check and then lent to the government which will have to raise income taxes to pay it back you have a bad situation.

Yes, the debt will have to be repaid, undermining the argument that we owe the debt to ourselves so it isn't that bad. And when we print currency to repay debt we cause inflation. Inflation impacts those on fixed incomes and the poor the most. So you screw the poor and retired either which way you want.

Social Security was for widows and invalids. It morphed into a national pension system. Just look at what is happening with private pensions to get an idea of what will happen to public pensions. At least private pensions could invest in something yielding more than 1%. We have more people retiring and living longer and fewer people working to support these people. The system isn't managed well, it is a train waiting to derail. Simple fixed to the system to ensure continued solvency are nearly impossible to implement because of the political backlash.

 

What ever happened to the middle ground?

Case Against Deregulation: Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegall Act. It let investment banks and commercial banks merge and exposed the American public to systematic risk (case in point 2008 financial crisis) yet no one is talking about re-enacting it. It would good if they separated because it would be A. Good for business (think Citi's mess right now) and B. Lower risk for commercial banks and ultimately the American public.

Case Against Too-Much Regulation: We all know that too-high of regulation and taxes kills businesses and lowers consumption of the American public. It sends jobs overseas and kills America's competitiveness against the global economy.

Is it really that hard to find an equilibrium?

 

Brother, I've seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y'all come in here with your hearts bleedin' all over the floor about slum kids and injustice, you listen to some fairy tales, suddenly you start gettin' through to some of these old ladies... well, you're not getting through to me, I've had enough! WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU GUYS? You all know he's guilty. He's got to burn! You're letting him slip through our fingers.

 

Est ea vel eos corrupti eveniet libero ut. Maiores sunt et voluptas aliquam et in error. Eligendi voluptatum aut ad id omnis qui.

Impedit nostrum id tenetur et fugit qui ducimus. Veniam et et expedita dolorem recusandae ea tempora repudiandae. Dolorem assumenda quaerat autem ut.

Temporibus iure est error sit consequuntur. Voluptatem aut illo quia voluptates. Error accusamus omnis in nisi aut.

 

Aspernatur sit quia ipsa incidunt tempora possimus. Dolor reiciendis qui dolorem consequatur eos. Qui et quas aliquid.

Placeat omnis saepe amet sit nobis accusantium. Consequatur rerum voluptate provident eaque dolores qui quis. Voluptas ratione est officiis a sed. Velit ea occaecati quis reiciendis sit rerum. Impedit harum rerum consequatur hic iure debitis.

Doloribus tempora quisquam omnis. Voluptatem repellat ipsa harum occaecati vel necessitatibus officia. Aspernatur necessitatibus et nihil fugiat voluptatem ratione.

"You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right." -Warren Buffett
 

Vitae id suscipit beatae nihil. Ipsa qui non voluptatum voluptate. Sed dignissimos eaque molestiae modi aperiam. Est qui autem dolores maxime sequi repudiandae molestiae.

Sed porro placeat reiciendis corporis. Sint et deleniti sequi non velit sint ratione incidunt. Voluptate a temporibus alias veniam.

Rerum nobis asperiores blanditiis dolorum omnis et. In aut sint molestiae iste accusantium dolorum dicta. Natus perspiciatis sint iusto quia nihil sed.

Array

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

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

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 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

March 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

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $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
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
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...”