To think that Trump would somehow fuck up the financial industry is pretty insane. He is the most pro-free market/pro-Wall St of practically all the candidates. He worries me with his attitude and how that would affect foreign policy, but his presidency certainly wouldn't hurt Wall St.

 
copper245:

To think that Trump would somehow fuck up the financial industry is pretty insane. He is the most pro-free market/pro-Wall St of practically all the candidates. He worries me with his attitude and how that would affect foreign policy, but his presidency certainly wouldn't hurt Wall St.

Huh? Donald Trump is the least pro-free market of all of the GOP candidates. You're literally exactly backwards. He supports a 35% tariff on foreign goods, higher taxes, opposes immigration, opposes outsourcing.

Array
 

If Bernie Sanders were elected it would spell the beginning of the end for the U.S., not because Sanders could solely run amok, but because it would signify that socialism, a detestable scourge that we fought for more than 40 years after World War II, is now acceptable in America. Some people say, "Well, look at Norway. It's socialist and it's a fine country." Unfortunately, the United States is not even remotely similar to a tiny, homogenous Scandanavian country--the U.S. is a massive continental behemoth that is culturally, racially, and politically heterogeneous. American socialism is much more likely to look like Argentina or Spain than Norway or Sweden. The U.S. Constitution simply does not jive with centralized statism, so what we will be left with is no rule of law at all if "democratic socialism" is enacted in America (democratic socialism = absolute rule of the majority).

Array
 

If Sanders were president, but congress remained in the GOP's hands, they would pretty much prevent Sanders from passing legislation that he really wants. At best, Sanders would need to accept watered down versions of what he really wants. However, the damage would still be substantial since Sanders could appoint several Supreme Court justices, heads of various regulatory agencies, Fed Chairman, federal court of appeals and district court judges, issue executive orders on a whole host of areas, and serve as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military. Simply put, a Sanders presidency would be a disaster of historic proportions and officially end America's status as the world's most powerful country. The U.S. stock market and bond market will tank, as investors lose hope in the economic viability of the country.

 
MBAGrad2015:

If Sanders were president, but congress remained in the GOP's hands, they would pretty much prevent Sanders from passing legislation that he really wants. At best, Sanders would need to accept watered down versions of what he really wants. However, the damage would still be substantial since Sanders could appoint several Supreme Court justices, heads of various regulatory agencies, Fed Chairman, federal court of appeals and district court judges, issue executive orders on a whole host of areas, and serve as the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military. Simply put, a Sanders presidency would be a disaster of historic proportions and officially end America's status as the world's most powerful country. The U.S. stock market and bond market will tank, as investors lose hope in the economic viability of the country.

Your fears are different than mine. I'm not sure how starting an illegal trillion dollar war can be topped in terms of damage to the country.

 

Considering President Obama was sworn in with a S&P below 900, which was then followed by unprecedented monetary stimulus from the Fed, I'd say that's a bit of a false-positive.

I disagree with many of out current president's policies, however, he's not a socialist. If we do get a Bernie Sanders in the white house, I have a feeling we'll be seeing Obama in a Meme with the caption, "Miss me Yet"?

 

That's what I thought at first, but I've noticed more and more that the (numerous) people that (i.e. blasting "FEEL THE BERN" on my FB feed) who are behind Sanders are FANATICAL about him. They almost literally are painting him as the next coming of Christ, offering to drive others to his rally that Sanders had near here a few days ago. Granted I'm in an area full of hippies and lazy incompetent college kids so I'm probably more likely to see a lot more Sanders supporters, but imagine when you have kids with all the free time in the world because they're too lazy to find a job, combined with a candidate offering them pipe dreams of socialism. You get a recipe for people who will dedicate their next year campaigning for him unpaid and extremely persistent.

Incoming Spring Discovery Day Participant at J.P. Morgan Stanley
 

I realize you're upset, but Obama did not implement those programs, they've been around for decades.

I personally don't care, and as much as I disagree with Sanders' policies, the stock market does better under democrats historically, so either way (lower taxes or higher advisory fees) I'm better off.

as for the rest of you WSO'ers, feel free to get your undies in a bundle over something you have zero control over.

 
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Sanders can't win a general election against the Republican candidate (unless it's Trump, then all bets are off). If Sanders did win the general you'd see everything short of secession. It would fracture the country in 2, which is where we are eventually headed anyway.

Elaborate on what you mean by "everything short of secession." Not the secession part, just the "everything short."

 
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Sanders can't win a general election against the Republican candidate (unless it's Trump, then all bets are off). If Sanders did win the general you'd see everything short of secession. It would fracture the country in 2, which is where we are eventually headed anyway.

I don't think Bernie is a great candidate, but that's VASTLY blown out of proportion. Sanders is more electable than many of socially-backward bible-thumpers on the right. He'd definitely have a lot of trouble against someone that runs very moderate though.

Again, blown out of proportion. I don't know if you live in Texas/Louisiana/Alabama/etc, but in the vast majority of the country, "fracture" isn't even close to true. More polarizing than Obama - definitely.

 

QGKZ He outlines his plans pretty clearly but you have to keep in mind several things... Anything that gets passed on his agenda, even the ability for Medicare to negotiate pricing, will be compromised/watered down to get approval even in a Democrat controlled congress. Higher taxes and scrutiny for banking, which does in theory hinder business... but the last time I checked regardless of the taxes, bankers are going to want to get paid to do deals and provide financial services... Just as there clients will still need those services. Generally speaking legislation is a slow process, and any drastic changes will probably have language to be implemented gradually. Lastly, consider how much he has on his agenda.

 

The thing about polls in general especially at this point is they are designed to put front runners at tied or slightly behind. The purpose of polls especially those conducted by news media such as the one you posted is to get the campaigns with the big war chests to spend money. Have you ever actually looked at election results compared to polls done even days before elections? On the national level the polls are almost always "IT'S TOO CLOSE TO CALL FOLKS YOU BETTER SPEND THAT LAST 10 MILLION YOU HAVE IN YOUR CAMPAIGN COFFERS!!!!!" when in reality the election is like 57 to 43 which is a massive disparity. Polls are the news medias way of advertising their commercial blocks to candidates.

Also Iowa and New Hampshire have historically since about the 50s or so trended in a similar way to the polls you posted. The gaps fluctuate but the results are always similar. The Democrats poll better than the Republicans in these two states because of the make up of their voting populace.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

have to say that Sanders in the only good option right now.. everyone else is either a puppet of big money interests or simply too crazy and/or conflict-loving.. The good news is that despite the fact that mainstream media tries its best to keep Bernie out, his support just keeps getting stronger.. That is because beyond the name calling (socialist, etc.) when sensible folks take a deeper look at his policies it appeals to the common man.. As for folks who hate socialism, govt control, etc, - social security, medicare, anti--discrimination laws are all socialism - so I am not really sure why that word, by itself, is so toxic..

Anyway, I really hope Bernie wins. He seems to be the most sensible candidate around. He has the potential to greatly improve things. A Hillary presidency will likely keep things static.. A republican presidency will just be a bad move for everyone..

 

Social Security isn't "socialism"--you pay in an amount over the course of your life, and that payment is correlated with your income as a retiree.

You're right that a lot of people on main street support Bernie Sanders because when a candidate proposes $20 trillion in new spending that someone else is supposed to pay for, it's hard to be opposed.

Array
 
Best Response

This is, by far, the most profoundly ill-informed comment I've read on WSO. It compares to something in a CNN comment section.

You do realize that Sanders' socialist policies are basically a petition to relinquish any economic freedom we have here? We'll be France 2.0 under him. Do you have any idea what social mobility is like in France? Fucking zero. When the government "offers" you a bunch of programs supported by higher tax rates, they're taking your money and choosing what to buy for you. Some things are good - police protection, national security and defense, education - but some are simply a poor allocation of capital.

The government isn't capable of "fixing" the "problems" that millennials want fixed; Sanders is just the stupid person's solution to the problems they have right now as opposed to 50 years from now. And guess what: the vast majority of America isn't nearly well-educated enough to know that Sanders' policies are a crock of socialist bullshit.

 

I'm amazed that anyone working at any level of pay for that matter would support someone who wants to raise taxes in way that will have a real impact on their standard of living. The really odd thing is that college educated people support someone who seems to think that a transaction tax will just be absorbed by the institutions that they are targeted at and not passed on to clients or other customers. If someone thinks that banks will absorb billions of dollars in new taxes out of the goodness of their hearts deserves to choke on their food while sitting alone in a dark room.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Current estimates have Hillary Clinton at an 80%+ chance of winning the democratic nomination and something like 60% to win the presidency (this figure will only go up when she locks up the Dem nom). Barring a major scandal or major geopolitical/economic event, I think everyone should just prepare for life under another Clinton. Can you imagine? 2 families basically trading the white house since 1990. Getting in the white house is about connections, and money. It's simply about getting the party nomination and hoping your party is in favor at that moment, this is why it was a foregone conclusion when Obama got the nomination, regardless of race. Honestly it is robbing the voters of any power they allegedly hold. This is why we need at least 2 strong minority parties, a strong socialist as well as libertarian party would be a God send.

Array
 

didn't read the thread because it looks like a bunch of banter between people who will never agree.

here are the facts: whoever you hate in this election be it sanders, trump, rubio, cruz, clinton, whatever. the president is not all-powerful. I believe an extremist on either side would push for radical legislation that resonates with part of their party but alienates other americans, and then that person's party would not have the house & senate after midterms in 2018. simple as that. if an extremist gets elected, expect gridlock and a lot of speeches & facebook posts about policies that likely won't become law. in the event executive orders start raining down, expect litigation from the opposing party's congressmen and rulings from the supreme court.

so what happens if sanders gets elected? essentially nothing. I think so many americans would oppose him in his first two years that the republicans would use his craziness as fodder to maintain control of congress, thus minimizing his influence. he'd have to calm down his points if he wants anything to get through.

what's more important here is the fact that trump & sanders are frontrunners. if that's not a sign of the times, I don't know what is.

 
thebrofessor:
what's more important here is the fact that trump & sanders are frontrunners. if that's not a sign of the times, I don't know what is.

I don't agree with you that nothing will get done--Obama has set the precedent that the President can do whatever he wants (although I don't think Sanders can command the bully pulpit the way Obama can). But I do agree that Sanders and Trump leading the pack is an extremely poor commentary on where America is and where it's headed. A communist and a shallow celebrity.

Array
 
thebrofessor:

didn't read the thread because it looks like a bunch of banter between people who will never agree.

here are the facts: whoever you hate in this election be it sanders, trump, rubio, cruz, clinton, whatever. the president is not all-powerful. I believe an extremist on either side would push for radical legislation that resonates with part of their party but alienates other americans, and then that person's party would not have the house & senate after midterms in 2018. simple as that. if an extremist gets elected, expect gridlock and a lot of speeches & facebook posts about policies that likely won't become law. in the event executive orders start raining down, expect litigation from the opposing party's congressmen and rulings from the supreme court.

so what happens if sanders gets elected? essentially nothing. I think so many americans would oppose him in his first two years that the republicans would use his craziness as fodder to maintain control of congress, thus minimizing his influence. he'd have to calm down his points if he wants anything to get through.

what's more important here is the fact that trump & sanders are frontrunners. if that's not a sign of the times, I don't know what is.

Agree with you for the most part, except that you're still looking at this through a limited framework. The Republicans have a majority in both houses and for the most part they've done absolutely nothing except rubber stamp whatever Obama wants.

On the other hand put in an anti-establishment president, and the career congressmen are going to do everything in their power to subvert him.

Ironically enough their power is going to be more limited than they think because Congress has given much of its power to the executive branch over the years( vie legislative delegation). The president will still have control over federal prosecutors, judges, the IRS...you name it. All of the lettered organizations are much more powerful than they used to be and answer only to the executive branch.

 

Sanders is in no way a front runner, Clinton will dominate that race. Trump will eventually flame out as the republican base consolidates under an establishment candidate (most likely Rubio).

Array
 
BobTheBaker:

Sanders is in no way a front runner, Clinton will dominate that race. Trump will eventually flame out as the republican base consolidates under an establishment candidate (most likely Rubio).

Primaries begin in under a month. Bold predictions considering how much of lead Trump has, and he's already begun to move to a slightly more moderate agenda.

Sanders isn't a front runner yet but is within 5% of Clinton with decent leads in some states.

I think it'd be foolish to discount these candidates, because there's a not-so-small chance that they win the nominations.

 

Bernie Sanders would easily be the worst President ever, if he were to be elected. Luckily, the odds of him winning are just a hair better than the odds of a WSO memeber winning the Powerball tonight.

I truly think he is the most dangerous man in America. If his policies were to be implemented, it would ruin this country. Once again, the odds of him passing everything he wanted to would be slim even if he won.

Nobody my age takes him seriously. He's pandering to idiot college students and poor people about 'fairness'. Everybody agrees that 'being fair' is a correct principle. However, there are fundamental disagreements about what that actually means.

If Bernie or the Donald wins the election, I will be moving out of the country.

 

I think Bernie wouldn't be a good president but I think Trump would be awful for a couple of main reasons. I'm not a fan of how he's gaining popularity through, in my opinion, stoking people's racist and nationalist sentiments but probably more importantly how he's not really a Republican. His supporters seem to largely be (and I've seen multiple polls but I'm on my phone and can't site them) are angry lower mid to middle class non urban whites who are going to look to him to impose big taxes on business, try to limit free trade and hit Wall Street because that's what those supporters want. Basically old school democrats. They blame all of those things and more on why they don't have good paying, blue collar, lifelong, manufacturing jobs that largely disappeared with their parents (or grandparents if they're young enough). Then some of them blame any immigrant or any brown folks for their plight. Combining all of those things just makes for a potential dangerous president.

But him not being a conservative really at all, and I'm not a conservative so it's not passing a litmus test for me, makes me wonder if republican legislators would follow him, at least initially, because he'd be a republican president so he'd pass some asinine things that Bernie wouldn't be able to because he'd have the Republican Party fighting him tooth and nail. So we could possibly have this weird political scene where Trump would be passing legislation that is relatively far left and have republican support because they wouldn't vote against their president and have the left wing of the dems supporting those things. I'm very middle of the road and think that the only reason our government is semi functional and not a total fucking disaster is because we have that balance. Bush couldn't push through too hard of a right agenda and Obama couldn't get through too left of an agenda because yin and yan balance each other out. Trump could blow that out of the water. Combine that with that we'd be an international joke and have a bombastic jackass leading the free world with no skills in world politics, diplomacy or military knowledge and I'm frightened of him.

And I totally agree that if either Bernie or Trump were elected I'm leaving. I was hopeful when W was elected in 00 but when he won reelection in 04 I left and would again. This time I don't think I'd come back.

 

The Real Max the fact that you cite Sanders being "within 5%" in some states means Clinton is leading every state, except maybe Vermont which is Sanders' home state. That race is over and was over before it even started, it's just that simple. Hillary leads him in endorsements by a mile (she leads all nominees by a mile), you may ask, who gives a fk about endorsements? Endorsements matter because politicians are shrewd and endorse people who they think will win, her commanding lead is indicative of her commanding handle of the dem nomination and her likelihood of being president. I'll give you the reality that Trump has a better chance but he'll be gone soon. Trump is a long-shot, as long as he doesn't have establishment backing he is climbing an uphill battle. There is absolutely nothing bold about these statements,.

Array
 
BobTheBaker:

@The Real Max the fact that you cite Sanders being "within 5%" in some states means Clinton is leading every state, except maybe Vermont which is Sanders' home state. That race is over and was over before it even started, it's just that simple. Hillary leads him in endorsements by a mile (she leads all nominees by a mile), you may ask, who gives a fk about endorsements? Endorsements matter because politicians are shrewd and endorse people who they think will win, her commanding lead is indicative of her commanding handle of the dem nomination and her likelihood of being president. I'll give you the reality that Trump has a better chance but he'll be gone soon. Trump is a long-shot, as long as he doesn't have establishment backing he is climbing an uphill battle. There is absolutely nothing bold about these statements,.

Look at a poll- within 5% nationally; ahead in some states, behind in others. Again, I'm not in his corner, but his margin is considerably lower than the margin that Trump has over the conservative candidates (and most people here are saying Trump has no chance).

 

Also to the comment about Trump throwing people out...

That's, quite literally, nothing compared to how the Clintons treat people who disrupt their campaign efforts. The Clintons will do a lot worse than just escort you out of the rally.

 

This is pretty standard imo. You move way left or right for the nomination then run back to the center as quickly as possible for the general election. Would be interesting to see Trump is reasonable person mode for the first time ever, at least.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

I'm not a Democrat and would be very hard pressed to vote for one, but I think him overtaking Clinton is not surprising. Bernie seems like a very genuine man who sticks to his ideals and that resonates with people when contrasted with Clinton, who changes her positions when the polls tell her to, who probably should be in prison for one corruption charge or another, and whose unfavorable numbers are hilariously low.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

There are two problems with this happypantsmcgee 1. His statements have been so extreme that it will almost be impossible for him to move towards the center 2. If he does attempt to do so he has given the other side so much material it will be the easiest thing in the world to paint him as a two-faced flip flopper (which he is)

either way it's all moot, he won't be the nominee.

Array
 

Reading off the TV now that Hillary is polling 42 and Bernie at 40.

There are so many different views and honestly it just makes my head hurt. I am personally feeling pretty hopeless when it comes to politics in general. None of these candidates really stand out to me, but I do agree that I am terrified of Trump. We need generally good people to run but politics is an impenetrable career where one must succumb to the beliefs of the party and leadership. I honestly think House of cards (completely unrealistic), but in terms of the hierarchy and rules every one has to follow. Even if someone has a good idea it would be immediately shut down by the extremist on either side of the parties.

 

FOHFLady Your data point was a good one to bring up. Kudos. But you're definitely intelligent enough to acknowledge that data integrity can be argued based on source and methodology. I am not doubting the validity of your number, but pointing out that numbers in a discussion like this carry a highly subjective value.

That said, also keep in mind that I said "some" government programs are a poor allocation of capital. My point was that I'm of the belief that the US does not need the kind of government intervention that people in Bernie Sanders' camp seem to be clamoring for (entitlement programs). I'm a proponent of increased investment in the workforce by way of spending on education, programs that enable lower income families to not starve, and protections like Medicare that prevent youth and working-age people to stay in the workforce. Federal student aid needs to be rethought, but I am also a proponent of such government works.

What I do NOT support are programs that merely enable people to be content and that don't drive growth. I'm going to be honest and say i don't have access to any data to cite specific data like you do, but I don't think anybody - you, your news anchors, data providers - could claim that a socialist or communist system allocates capital more effectively than a capitalist economy. And if you take that last statement as valid, then your $1.64 return on investment for food stamps becomes a good, albeit irrelevant point in light of the argument at hand, which is that Bernie Sanders is a dumbass choice for president given that a more socialist nation is what he wants.

 

Thanks for the reply. But is a bit relevant: compared to the market alternative (nothing?) some government programs effectively distribute goods and services funded by taxes. In that regard, governments efficiently allocate capital where the market has not.

But, more broadly, and to your point regarding Bernie Sanders, is that there are a whole host of human activities (energy, health insurance/care, pollution, basic financial services) where a noncapitalist model might be more effective. Whether health insurance modeled off of Japan (a nonprofit model) or a post-office model for retail banking, there measurable benefits to policies that aren't aimed at maximizing shareholder return.

Its an interesting debate, and the data certainly can illustrate where there are market failures.

 

Good post from DingDong, but there's one aspect I want to comment on where my mind has been changed fairly recently.

Just by random happenstance in my life I've gotten to meet and befriend people who have lived in both Nazi Germany and under Soviet Russia. Both of them paint a picture of life that is very, very different from what the history books say: under the Nazis/Communists You went to work, went to the store, watched crappy TV(laced with pro-state messages of course, it's called "television programming" for a reason), drank vodka/schnapps, and went to bed.

What I've gathered from these conversations is that life is surprisingly normal under a totalitarian regime. In fact you aren't even likely to notice it UNLESS you either speak out against the government or associate with(or worse, fall into) a group of people that is on the government's shit list like Jews in Germany or Ukrainians in the USSR.

That's why totalitarianism is so hard to fight. As long as its only other people suffering its effects most people don't give a shit.

 

Crazy how much the race has changed. Just a couple of months ago, Hillary was 40 points ahead in the polls and Pundits were claiming that Trump had less than 1% chance of coming close to the nomination. I'm still a little confused as to why the betting markets are favoring Rubio. I presume they think Trump will run out of gas or do something radical and implode - although that hasnt changed much in the past. I think most pundits and bettors are thinking (hoping) that its a long race and Rubio seems like the most level-headed, "presidential" candidate.

I think overall people are just getting sick of Hillary. All of her appearances on SNL, late night shows, etc. have proven to be more obnoxious than entertaining. Combine that with her past actions and last name and I think Bernie could give her a tough race. I typically hate when people complain about the candidates in the presidential race, as every election since I've been alive the masses proclaim "They don't like either candidate". But the thought of Trump or Bernie in office blows my mind.

 

jss09 betting markets favor rubio because they aren't concerned with excess noise from media or way too early polls. Trump should not be favored, read Nate Silver's Trump's six stages of doom for more context on this. As for Bernie Sanders' candidacy, I would bet anyone 10-1 he doesn't get the nomination, its funny how the media shapes perception but when it gets time to votein primaries, the party establishment is what matters

Array
 

Dude Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are in no way "neck and neck" holy shit I am surprised intelligent people believe this media narrative.... this is click bait crap, like the name of this thread. It behooves the media to make it seem like it is actually a race, blowouts don't get debate watches and article clicks, which is why they are eating this fractured republican race.

here are your odds: http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc…... right now you get less than $1 for every $1 bet on Clinton while you get $6 for every $1 you bet on Sanders... that is a 14% chance Bernie becomes president compared to 47% for Clinton... lol thats a huge gap

Array
 

What a great time to be following American politics. On one side we have extremists who, if they had it their way, would irreparably damage our standing in foreign and international affairs, and reverse the last 50 years of women, gay, and minority rights. On the other side as have an extremist who, if he had it his way, would irreparably damage our economy, increase taxes on the middle class, dry up credit, stagnate wages, and push down corporate profits while driving up costs for consumers. Attempting to hurt the standard of living for 80% of Americans to slightly prop up the other 20%. All while pushing for such extreme tolerance that it actually becomes intolerance.

Yet, any of the candidates that actually see the world as it really is, one that has complex problems that require complex solutions, are fading. Understand that the world is actually full of a gray and isn't black and white? Might want to find a job outside of politics. I swead politics only exists these days to raise my blood pressure.

 

It's the problem with primaries (and the two-party system). Candidates have to run to the extremes to get the nomination, and then backtrack toward the mid center to win the election but not too far to the center so they can still get the extremes to vote for them in the general election. It's a stupid system, but alas, it's what we have.

I read something that the majority of the country, especially under a certain age, is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. An overwhelming majority of Americans would vote for a candidate who wants lower or flat taxes, reduces government spending, fixes entitlements, reduces handouts, doesn't hate gay people, doesn't hate minorities, supports a clean environment, and doesn't think America needs to apologize to the world. Of course, a candidate like that would never escape the primaries of EITHER party, because if he or she ran as a Democrat they'd get destroyed by the "safe spacers" and progressives and supporters of identity politics and if he or she ran as a Republican the evangelicals and faux libertarian "tea party" would destroy them.

Not saying that these people are perfect candidates, but Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John Kasich, etc. aren't getting anywhere in a national election.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

i live in buenos aires and i've barely been paying attention, but it's noticeable that Bernie has picked up steam down here with the USA-Americans, to the point where i think he is the favorite among most people i meet.

obviously it affects us less, and we're away from the the polls etc, (not to mention no one I know here works in finance), but interesting to see nonetheless

WSO Content & Social Media. Follow us: Linkedin, IG, Facebook, Twitter.
 
adapt or die:

We need a candidate that protects the values of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the one true God. A real Pastafarian that is not afraid to reach across the aisle to get things done.

You're completely missing the point. The fact of the matter is, we cannot allow the gays to destroy the world economy.

 
QGKZ:
Just came across the new polls on WSJ: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CI471...

What happens to the industry if Sanders becomes President? What can we expect?

If I'm not mistaken, Sanders cannot pass any laws without getting them through Congress, right? If this is so, can he really affect the industry as much as his rhetoric would make people believe?

Disclaimer: I am not an American.

I don't think the dramatic, sweeping change that he talks about (his "revolution") would ever happen - both because anti-socialist sentiment is a staple of American life (regardless of how silly that is considering socialism has been a part of American life since at least FDR) and because dramatic, sweeping changes don't typically happen.

What will happen if Sanders gets elected is a shift from the starting point. This is oversimplified, but stick with me. If you take the American political spectrum as a 1-100 timeline, and a true centrist is a 50/100, typically a Democrat in the oval office shifts the country somewhere between a 45-49 and a Republican in the oval office shifts the country somewhere between a 51-55. These are marginal changes at best, and even a dramatic swing, say a 55-45 shift or whatever, really doesn't bring the country that far from the center.

The sticking point is that certain shifts are harder to alter than others. Once a tax is implemented or once a government program is created, it is almost impossible to remove it. Bernie might only shift America slightly to the left compared to what he wants, raising taxes marginally, expanding Obamacare marginally, etc. but he could possibly do it in ways that redefine the "middle."

He has already redefined the Democratic party. Hillary is horrified of his support (and wants to pander to his supporters) so she is rushing to the left as fast as she can as the Republicans are sprinting to the right as fast as they can. (see Marco Rubio, a really solid candidate trying his best to become an extremist). In hindsight, both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton look like incredible moderates. W. Bush took America much further to the right, Obama took it much further to the left, and so many candidates in this election are sprinting to the extremes.

They will never be able to implement their extremes, but the problem is they can redefine what isn't an extreme so future elections become reframed. Imagine if Trump wins and the nonsense he says becomes acceptable and successful political discourse...

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 
CRE:
QGKZ:
Just came across the new polls on WSJ:
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CI471...

What happens to the industry if Sanders becomes President? What can we expect?

If I'm not mistaken, Sanders cannot pass any laws without getting them through Congress, right? If this is so, can he really affect the industry as much as his rhetoric would make people believe?

Disclaimer: I am not an American.

I don't think the dramatic, sweeping change that he talks about (his "revolution") would ever happen - both because anti-socialist sentiment is a staple of American life (regardless of how silly that is considering socialism has been a part of American life since at least FDR) and because dramatic, sweeping changes don't typically happen.

What will happen if Sanders gets elected is a shift from the starting point. This is oversimplified, but stick with me. If you take the American political spectrum as a 1-100 timeline, and a true centrist is a 50/100, typically a Democrat in the oval office shifts the country somewhere between a 45-49 and a Republican in the oval office shifts the country somewhere between a 51-55. These are marginal changes at best, and even a dramatic swing, say a 55-45 shift or whatever, really doesn't bring the country that far from the center.

The sticking point is that certain shifts are harder to alter than others. Once a tax is implemented or once a government program is created, it is almost impossible to remove it. Bernie might only shift America slightly to the left compared to what he wants, raising taxes marginally, expanding Obamacare marginally, etc. but he could possibly do it in ways that redefine the "middle."

He has already redefined the Democratic party. Hillary is horrified of his support (and wants to pander to his supporters) so she is rushing to the left as fast as she can as the Republicans are sprinting to the right as fast as they can. (see Marco Rubio, a really solid candidate trying his best to become an extremist). In hindsight, both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton look like incredible moderates. W. Bush took America much further to the right, Obama took it much further to the left, and so many candidates in this election are sprinting to the extremes.

They will never be able to implement their extremes, but the problem is they can redefine what isn't an extreme so future elections become reframed. Imagine if Trump wins and the nonsense he says becomes acceptable and successful political discourse...

Great post. Thanks for that.

 
BobTheBaker:

We fought the idea of communism, not socialism. I am a staunch capitalist/ libertarian but I'm tired of the GOP trying to paint those two ideas as the same thing.

One begets the other. Socialism precedes communism. You can not give people the power to determine outcomes and not have a society that morphs into a communist state. Power absolutely corrupts. Giving the lowest members of society equal claims to the production of the best members of society leads to declining production, lower standards of living, and increased poverty.
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

heister to be fair modern socialism is economic in nature and not really about politics. As in, a society can have socialist elements (taxation, legislation) and be 100% democratic (as in the politicians individually don't hold too much power). For example, France and Canada have many socialist principles in their economy and still have open governments. It would be remiss to compare their brand of socialism to communism.

Array
 

Don't fool yourself, modern socialism is just as much about politics as socialism was in the 30s and 40s. It just isn't as openly obvious as it was back then. You loose the military totalitarianism and replace it with a soft totalitarianism that entraps people in a perpetual cycle of dependence. It is just replacing the stick with a carrot. The power still lies with those who have the ability to pick who wins and who looses based on how that affects their own level of power.

Politics is about control, and it operates on the basis of any economic model that allows the players to most easily keep control. Why do we have two political parties, simply because we have two general belief systems in this country. Those who want to be mostly told what to do, and those who mostly don't. There are outliers sure, but those are an insignificant minority. So we have two parties that ebb and flow in power as the country moves towards one group or another based on the conditions of the day.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

Probably better than Hillary/Jeb.

Things are lining up pretty well for Armstrong's long predicted 2015.75 collapse in the public sector bubble....and I'm kinda sorry I doubted him for so long.

Make no mistake about it. Either Hillary or Jeb will result in a government that goes into full on confrontational, totalitarian panic mode after 2016. It will protect Wall Street at first but the end result would probably be blood on the streets....and it could lead us to a full on French Revolution type chaos(people literally storming government buildings moreso than purges) and a complete economic collapse.

Bernie and Sanders have huge flaws but I don't believe either one would react to chaos with an unchecked, aggresssive police state mentality.

 

Voluptas minus inventore quas ipsum et. Sit sed provident blanditiis dolores sit voluptate. A nostrum et cumque laboriosam quas doloribus. Porro labore rerum ad voluptatem. Ut doloribus corrupti veritatis itaque iste officia. Et est minus minus id. Omnis odio sed ut et vitae quo ea.

Laboriosam facilis ab nam cum laudantium sapiente. Saepe molestiae aliquam rerum repellat.

Non velit repudiandae aut placeat consectetur odio cumque. Qui inventore explicabo sed fuga distinctio temporibus fuga. Voluptatibus labore voluptatem ipsum suscipit quibusdam et. Aut et velit dolorum harum.

Eos omnis beatae eos totam qui quam sed. Ut error maxime similique ipsa. Ipsam nemo iure est aut sit. A qui rerum distinctio tempore. Culpa aut esse autem ut magni voluptatem a nam.

 

Nihil quia quaerat non asperiores voluptas aperiam sit. Qui et facere repudiandae asperiores alias perferendis. Saepe explicabo eius maxime tempore asperiores. Ut aut eaque consectetur consequuntur illum. Et fugit accusamus quae et doloribus maiores. Repellendus quis et sed veniam. Minima perspiciatis quod ea corrupti saepe quo minus.

 

Nihil dignissimos corrupti alias quae est. Minus qui tenetur eveniet ad et quis itaque. Vel ut dolores reprehenderit. Quod nobis quas quibusdam animi.

Nihil praesentium repellendus sequi quia voluptatem. Deserunt id ratione qui similique eveniet aliquam. Nobis pariatur distinctio enim et. Unde dolorum voluptatum id voluptas odit exercitationem. Voluptatem ut praesentium in id enim consequatur non. Sit laborum repellendus sed omnis.

 

Mollitia inventore ut ex praesentium error et. Aut vero aperiam atque quos. Ipsa atque culpa quae veniam laborum. Provident qui libero praesentium id sapiente optio architecto. Et odit ut eos repudiandae voluptates autem nisi.

Amet itaque illo est quisquam occaecati. Autem enim dolore ea autem hic blanditiis. Quasi nihil consectetur provident voluptates.

Neque dolorem at sit voluptatum natus. Nobis voluptatem aut autem ut placeat voluptas. Quia dicta fugit officia soluta commodi asperiores. Porro reiciendis sit eius possimus dolores. Ipsa modi modi id. Id impedit deleniti quis numquam esse.

 

Vel harum quam repudiandae reiciendis sunt eligendi et. Nobis nihil qui alias odit consectetur est. Consequatur earum quae ut ut voluptatum voluptas. Maiores corporis est iure pariatur.

Voluptates earum est soluta aut quod veniam. Est expedita sit id. Rem et dolorem fuga temporibus voluptatem vero.

Reprehenderit et et voluptatem saepe cumque. Quidem aspernatur quod consequatur nulla illo. Voluptates totam ducimus quam veritatis mollitia voluptatum tempore.

Unde et facilis et magnam qui vel. Voluptatem sunt error pariatur architecto nesciunt. Quis aspernatur dignissimos ut.

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
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
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...”