Wall Street Looks to November Elections
November elections couldn't come sooner for Wall Street. Make no mistake about it, this will be the most important election in decades, if not in history, for the battered and tattered financial sector.
With autumn upon us, we get back to business as usual. Anxious aspiring monkeys peel their bananas at thoughts of recruiting season and self righteous populism dealers prep new narcotic propaganda for their fiends, the voters.
One man, however, looks to make a change Wall Street can believe in.
Hedge fund manager Paul Singer of Elliott Management is quickly becoming the George Soros of the Republican party, using his vast influence and fiscal resources to boost the coffers of various conservatives in lieu of the rapidly approaching November mid-term elections.
Irrational as it may seem, Democrats have been Wall Street's pet party. Just 18 months ago, 70% of the donations from the securities and investments sector went into liberal pockets. That number has reversed in the Republican direction to the tune of 68%.
For those who take the time to read the article you will see that Mr. Singer is a big supporter of gay rights, so this isn't your typical "righty-lefty" debate.
This is a far more practical and reality based issue.
The oft-ignored truth is that Wall Street has been made the villain and scapegoat for the stupidity, arrogance and irresponsibility of all Americans...liberal, conservative, black, white, man, woman, senior and toddler alike.
As people often forget when they get comfy and complacent, appeasement does not work with bullies. Liberal BSDs long deluded themselves with the fantasy that a sizable campaign contribution could keep regulators (the real "banksters") off their backs.
What they forgot was that a fall guy is needed for a pile of crap to be swept under the rug.
The financial sector is that fall guy and this fall, he better stand up and fight.
If you work on Wall Street and/or are planning on it, the notion of value investing is not unfamiliar to you. Democrats are long populism, they are heavily vested in anti-Wall Street propaganda and are completely illiquid. Their onslaught on your check books has only begun.
As we grow and age, we leave behind emotions and theorems for rationale and interest. The interests of the financial sector have always been clear to the lucid.
Today even the dreamers must see...
Wall Street is conservative territory, for the simple fact that there is no shame in success.
For the simple reason, that the struggles of others are NOT the problems of us all.
Success does come with a price. Wall Street seems to be realizing that this price is hefty enough on its own, without an added morality tax.
The Liberal leanings of Wall Street have always mystified me-- I can't imagine extensive regulation being anything to lust after, but even after the left's (not just the left, but they do an admittedly large amount of it) constant portrayal of the financial sector as the source of all evil, Democrats seem to win Wall Street's heart. Interesting to see if there will be a change of allegiance in November.
Pretty simple mademoiselle...
1) White liberal guilt. Much of Wall Street comes from privilege. Since the late motif in recent American history is to praise the weak and useless it is only natural that top tax bracket crowd is guilted into first, feeling and later, believing it is their duty to "give back". There is constant media pressure on people with money to give it away in some form or other and this is what a vote for the Democrats essentially acquiesces to.
2) Fear and appeasement. When you are at the top, there is no fear of hunger, no fear of poverty. There is, however, a great fear of the hungry and of the poor. Shining the shoes of regulators and getting into bed with government has always been a form of risk hedging for the elites, regardless of whether we are talking capitalism, communism, monarchy, etc...
What this crowd of people doesn't realize is that the poor will always try to take from the rich (unlike the twisted tale of Robin Hood leads us to think as children) and that government will always try to expand its power when given the opportunity.
In hard times, politicians in America keep their leather chairs by chopping of the heads of the gentry, no matter who is at fault. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept.
I am indeed, unfortunately...
I agree completely with your points, I guess I was just hoping at this point someone would wake up to the reality of it and have the balls to object. Sadly it's typically not so.
A society which prefers testicular women and vaginal men leads itself down the path of extinction.
Many object...the popular synonyms for such people are "racist", "bigot", "misogynist", "zealot", "hate monger" or they are simply dismissed as being backward, crude, primitive, greedy, etc...
I understand there is similar backlash against Frenchmen/women who do not desire a minaret atop the Eiffel...
Epidemics are rarely confined to a single locale.
Ha, yeah, I've been told many-a-time that I'm the most heartless person alive for advocating freedom.
I've only ever heard one French person here say anything about their society's lack of actual progress/whatnot, everyone else is too busy preparing to go on strike while enjoying their second year of unemployment by watching TV. I will say though, nothing really confirms a stance against socialism like living in a socialist country and realizing nothing actually works here.
Plus of being Asian and a chick though-- I can be as "racist" and "sexist" as I want, and no one gets to say anything about it.
Asian chicks are hot.
People are morons. Plain and simple. I honestly have a strong disdain for most people and it has been something slowly created. This country is about giving people the chance to win. Sometimes people lose and we have safetly nets for those people. Unfortunately the people who never try or half ass the effort are simply jealous of the people who do well. There are a lot of temptations along the road to success and far too many people fall off track. Instead of being ashamed of themselves and using these defeats as fodder for future success they rail against the system that allowed them the freedom to succeed. Quite simply, they are losers who want everyone to be like them.
When the Titanic sank those in the rescue boats had to stop themselves from going back to save the drowning. Even if you have 10 empty seats you would soon be overwhelmed and all the rescuers would drown. I think thats what this society has boiled down to. If we try and "save" all the losers we will just kill off the people who can be saved.
Look at the auto workers in Detroit. Did these guys need a sign from God to realize that US auto manufacturing was on a downward spiral? I mean how many plant closures and layoffs do you need to realize that you might want to take a welding class or plumbing class and retrain. Only when it was too late did they cry out for help.
When I was growing up I never heard the end of it when it came to going to school and getting an education. I guess no one told high school drop outs of those who jerked around in high school that life sucks without an education. They ignored everyone, ignored history and now they reap the rewards. I busted my ass and continue to bust my ass so that I won't live a life like that. I am reaping my rewards.
Gotta love freedom. I chose to punish myself and add college, work and internships onto my already busy schedule. That was my choice. Other people did nothing, had tons of fun, and partied. That was their choice. Now that your bed is made don't try and make me feel bad because you were an idiot.
Let them eat cake.
.
Lol, yeah standard socialist pattern...sell off all tangible assets including own country and bare asses, then recoil in shock as poverty and misery ensue, preface previous with "it can never happen to us because we had_______"(Napoleon, Peter, Arthur, Charlemagne, Alexander, Washington...pick your favorite) attitude and POOF!
I would play that Asian chick card hard in your place, get a clip on mustache and a che guevara shirt...run for office.
I believe the majority or wallstreeters tend to vote/donate to whoever they think is going to win. A lot of the same people that supported George Bush supported Obama as well.
One day I would like to do what Paul Singer is doing. Hopefully I'll make enough money to where I can do that.
I believe in charity because I think it's a noble thing to do. I don't feel that way because of guilt or anything like that. People shouldn't be guilt tripped into wanting to pay more taxes (Buffet) government is inherently inefficient and will distribute it to the wrong people or just waste it on bullshit.
Until people realize that actions have consequences nothing will change.
All this redistribution of wealth shit is crap also. The day the majority of my earnings are given to someone else to "equalize" things is the day I just stop working hard. Real simple. If I can sit on my ass and suck off someone who is more productive I will have no incentive to do anything.
Always amazes me that in today's world you still see people push for a socialistic or communistic type environment. Take a look at the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and tell me how well true communism works. Everyone points to Europe as evidence that socialism works except I see relatively small societies who are now realizing the huge bill all these social programs require. They desperately need immigrants to add productivity, but with these immigrants comes a whole new set of problems.
Government is not meant to take care of you. We have safety nets in place so you can try and fail, but we should not be taking care of people from cradle to grave.
Precisely. The rejection of historical facts is the pillar upon which this house of cards is built. Europe has languished economically since the end of the industrial revolution. Socialists-at-heart happily ignore the fact that Europe has faced calamity after calamity for the majority of the 19th and 20th centuries, never quite recovering so much as reorganizing and reshuffling it's assets into new states, organizations and alliances. There hasn't been true economic growth and output in Europe for nearly two centuries. The entire continent's history for the past two centuries is a giant ponzi scheme.
It is easier to vote for smart people with whom you may disagree than stupid people... regardless of their opinions. Wall Street goes blue as long as Republicans continue to nominate idiots.
I don't think John McCain is an idiot.
Sara Palin is as dumb as Joe Biden
Anthony, have you heard Sarah Palin speak. Her banter is filled with ungrammatical and redundant phrases. She also is WAY dumber than Biden. While Biden has been factually wrong a few times, Sarah Palin has shown an inability to think.
For example, Sarah Palin, on multiple occasions said that being in close proximity to Russia imbued her with some foreign policy experience. She also has said that American law is based on the bible, there is no separation of church and state, that, "the department of law" would protect her from lawsuits.
The coup de gras (am I spelling this right), was this little entanglement with some random protester.
You can not say that Palin is comparable to Biden in intellect.
The average person I talk to still thinks that the time they broke their leg in Sweden and had it taken care of by the health care system means that Europe is flourishing. People are too moronic to understand anything beyond the surface, as long as the lazy are getting welfare up the ass and everyone is "taken care of," everything must be working perfectly.
I knew a girl who stayed at a five star resort in Cuba and came home telling us that Communism was great and we should all live like the Cubans do.
Haha, let me work on the faux facial hair and I'll be running shit in no time. I'm only half Asian, but maybe I can start a campaign on how diverse and hopeful I am, seemed to work for the current pres.
If you guys think the Republicans are any more likely to save this country you are sadly deluded. Every election is said to be the "most important one ever," over and over again. If the Republicans win, they'll either spend us into oblivion like every Republican since Reagan has tried to do, or push austerity measures that will crush our economy and guarantee the success of the Democrats in 2012/2014. Having faith in the current system is incredibly misplaced imo.
Neocons aren't real conservatives, for the most part. People keep pointing out Bush as saying why Conservatives are screwing shit up... aside from a few tax cuts most of them are practically the same party nowadays. And in any case, Democrats have more spending on the agenda than Republicans anyway, not exactly a choice alternative.
Libertarianism ftw...
Hopefully he isn't a supporter of the tea party. Back to topic- After reading the Joseph Staglitz book about the financial crisis I think it is fair to say that banks did have a significant amount of responsibility for the crisis. You could sort this out with more regulation but ultimately I think the Austrian version of economies without central banks will work far better as the Fed and others won't be manipulating interest rates due to political pressure and instead interest rats will be decided by the markets. Saying that however as I said earlier Wall Street/banks/mortgage lender/the whole free marker did have a significant responsibility for the crisis they could have chosen to spend the massive amount of cash coming in from china on investments yet they choose to give money to a bubble. A bubble which wasn't spotted by the Fed, the government so no the blame doesn't lie completely with wall street but a lot of it does too.
Also Central right ftw
Tea party is the worst of all. I would basically consider myself central-right but it's pretty hard to find public servants with those characteristics.
I actually had the opportunity to go to a tea party rally in Boston last semester. I was surprised by the number of normal, apolitical and just plain sweet people were in attendance. Invariably, they are lemmings, are just increasing the income of Glenn Beck's, and in this case Sarah Palin's, income. I actually like the anti incumbent fervor that the tea party represents. Why do we accept professional politicians in our America? Incumbents in Congress win 95% of the elections, 95 PERCENT. That is quite literally the equivalent having a yearly 25% return on a portfolio without making risky investments.
You can talk shit about the Executive Branch, but at the end of the day, America's domestic policy is set in Congress. The entire system promulgates the purchase of politicians by political action committees.
The average person is only interested in the surface level of an issue. They want to look into a puddle and see their smiling face gazing back at them; by muddying the water with personal responsibility people become less clear and beautiful to themselves. At that point, the mind kicks in and rationalization begins, to the extent that stealing from someone to give to another is not only acceptable, but humane, going even further, reaching the outer limits of natural law to the point of murder.
People, and I mean everyone including Wall Street, are unable to accept REAL responsibility for their actions and suffer the consequences, thus the root cause for these games of Hot 'Blame' Potato we constantly play witness to. If human nature is inherently so, rationalizing and irresponsible, then the only way to address it is through recognition, and circumvention. Therefore, political donors, i.e. Wall Street, should truly be donating to those who will reap them the most benefits not whomever supposedly is equivalent on an ideological level.
-N.
Joe Biden may be a buffoon, but he's not a stupid guy. Sarah Palin on the other hand is dumber than a crate of bricks. Whenever somebody mentions tea party I can't help but think of the South Park episode with "dey toork our jerbs!!!" I agree with what eokpar said that they are lemmings. They have a belief, they have something they want to fight for, except their 'leaders' are so far off base that it's doing more harm to their cause than good. So it's like they're doing the wrong thing, but for the right reason.
I think no matter who the Republicans would have run in 2008, BO still would have run because the voting population wanted to try something, anything, different than somebody similar to Bush. When I think about the 2008 election I'm reminded of the scene in The Dark Knight when Alfred says "...and in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand." The general public didn't fully understand BO. He had great marketing and a catchy slogan.
So then the Democrats saw their landslide victories as a mandate from the population to push forward with their aggressive expansion of the federal government, but they didn't listen when the public started pushing back. They just kept shoving bad medicine down the publics throats saying 'it tastes bad now, but its good for you.' I think no matter what the Republicans would have done they would have been labeled as obstructionist and party of no and all that shit. So they did kind of like what Goldman did with underwriter's fees for the GM IPO: if you're going to lose, then try as much as possible to make your opponent win less.
I have a distaste for all political parties, no matter their viewpoint. I know I am an idealist in this matter. But my hope is that the Republicans take solid control of the Congress in the election so there is at least more of a balance in the government. I believe that having the Republicans in near full control during Mr. Bush's first term was awful and I think the Democrats having full control now is awful. Having that control split between the Congress and the White House may not reverse the awful policies that have already been put into place, but at least the damage going forward can be limited and perhaps we can start to actually fix things.
.
Trackstar, I generally try to stay out of popular economics discussions because they generally appeal to lowest denominator. Simpletons love to heap platitudes on a president when the economy is going well or curses on him when the economy is doing poorly. This is unwarranted, the constitution does make the president an economic therapist of any sort: the president can issue executive orders , prepare a budget, certain war powers and a veto. I would wager that Bernanke has more economic power.
What are Obama's anti-business policies? Obama signed into law a a mandate that FORCES EVERY SINGLE Americans to purchase a product from American corporations. If that is not probusiness, I have no idea what is. He has extended the duration of pharmaceutical patents, or state endorsed monopolies. He voices no objection to the massive corporate welfare that Congress pushes in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes. The military-industrial complex has swelled with massive increases in war spending that he put in his budget.
We are stagnating for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious is that people are not as irresponsible as they were during economic heyday. The American savings rate as of the beginning of the month was 6.4%, a 4.4% percentage point swing from the 2% of their income that Americans were saving prior to the start of the recession. 70% of our GDP is consumption; any change in savings would have derisive effect on employment.
Totally agree with Eok when it comes to consumers not spending. If we are to have a recovery it will not be financed on the backs of consumers. They are tapped out.
Aliquam neque aliquam expedita dolores. Ut sed iusto officiis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eos voluptatum ullam quibusdam totam corporis blanditiis temporibus. Rem et voluptas quia fugit sed in vitae. Blanditiis sint amet quos.
Incidunt et repudiandae ut autem adipisci aut autem. Sed voluptatem nisi commodi a illum in quia est. Veritatis sed dolor excepturi qui ratione maxime assumenda. Harum totam unde similique repellat quasi sapiente.
Cum vero natus laboriosam ipsa ea. Ut recusandae sed illo ea sapiente. Nihil aut voluptatem vel quibusdam qui dignissimos fuga. Quibusdam omnis mollitia hic asperiores omnis saepe. Non expedita perferendis et minus aut.
Optio at maxime veniam illum similique ipsa consequuntur. Maiores et voluptas sequi aut repellat quidem non aperiam. Ipsum aspernatur ut asperiores tenetur dignissimos quia. Laborum quia occaecati corporis ut nesciunt harum dolores quibusdam.