Does it seem that WSO is significantly more republican than the rest of wall street? from my internships at various banks and firms, it was a pretty solid 50/50 split between Dems and Repubs. If anything there were more Dems, which kind of makes sense as most banking analysts came from liberal, Ivy league institutions. But on WSO, almost everyone is a Republican.
| +128 | Is my life over after not getting GS? | 32 | 50m | |
| +83 | BEING WHITEGIRL IS PARADISE | 16 | 1m | |
| +73 | Best IB group on the Street | 35 | 52m | |
| +65 | Thoughts and tips on how to speak like an investment banker. | 25 | 20h | |
| +58 | BIG FOUR ARE PARADISE | 15 | 20h | |
| +48 | Tell me one good reason why Jefferies isn’t going to be a top bank in the next 5 years | 23 | 13h | |
| +38 | UBS Outlook | 28 | 1d | |
| +35 | How to deal with egotistical team? | 6 | 3d | |
| +33 | Highest Paid Bankers in Toronto? | 51 | 17h | |
| +31 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 13 | 4h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
i think you have the answer to your question right in your post.
my question isn't whether WS is more repub or den, but rather how do you explain the discrepancy between the # of Republicans on here (the vast majority) vs. the # of republicans at banks (~50%)
i hope people don't rub their politics in your face--that doesn't happen in other industries but i bet on wall street politics is mighty important.
Well actually don't know who is really a repub or a demo here because only the repub's are vocal. People are afraid to against people they view as "better" than themselves so only a hand few of people speak up against the repub minded users. Basically what goes on here is the I'm a pussy factor and I refuse to stand up for what I believe in, that or people don't care or don't know what they believe in. But who knows this is an internet forum...
From my experience, most people on WS are Republicans. And if they are Democrats, they are conservative Democrats..maybe that is just my company.
Rather than party breakdown, I'd say for the most part a large % of people in banking are fiscally conservative, socially liberal
Unfortunately, there is no real party for that...
That'd be the Libertarian Party my friend.
Most are libertarian I'd say.
Yeah, I'd strongly disagree that WSO is largely Republican. WSO is largely libertarian. Unfortunately (from my perspective), if you did a presidential poll of WSO users you'd find a huge portion voting for Ron Paul.
I think the truth is that most people in high finance are actually crony capitalists, whether they identify as Republican or Democrat. There's a reason Democrat NY Governor Cuomo seems highly distinct in his politics from, say, Howard Dean. Guys in high finance want to use their government contacts to make money.
If you look at the conditions underlying WSO's current userbase, you'll realize why it's significantly more Republican...
WSO is built to attract users from nontargets
Hence why there are so many certified users.
I'm not even going to bother with the logical disconnect
I agree with VTech, people on WS aren't really either, they are whatever the person they can pay the least to advance their interests the furthest is.
The aspiring financiers receive advice from certified users, whose backgrounds and political leanings vary greatly and upon which I have currently offer no assumptions. However, I would be willing to bet that they are outnumbered by regular users more than 50 to 1
...
And this is even before considering the educational background and political beliefs of the most active certified users on WSO
.......
Republican Banker or Democrat Banker (Originally Posted: 04/02/2013)
Honestly, what's the popular view in Finance? Is it even, or mainly Republican? I haven't seen much Democrats in WSO, actually it's more distaste toward Democrats if anything.
What's your set of views and what are you?
I don't know what I am though. I have views all over the map.
Can someone tell me what I am?.
(EDIT:) - I support abortion - I support birth control methods, but people should pay for them - I think the child support system is abused and needs to be uphauled with a maximum payment cap of $3000/m per child none of this $19K a month paydays golddiggers are snuffing - I don't want state and church mixed - No creationism in the classroom and proven scientific theories held in place whether it's against a religion or not. (mind you, I am religious)
Oh! I just became a Baboon. Sweet.
I'm far to the right, but I support the current social policies being explored right now. It will just create more weakness in our society, allowing the strong among us to be even stronger on a relative basis.
I'm a libertarian.
This
Why do you have to put yourself under a label with so much baggage?
I, like probably most people have opinions that will be more liberal and others that will be more conservative.
Most people on Wall Street are socially liberal (or indifferent), and economically conservative. I think this is the case with most successful, economically literate people, actually. Whether you vote Democrat or GOP depends on the candidate.
Most informed individuals lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. Left on some issues, right on others. i.e. social liberal & fiscal conservative
This pretty much. After a while, you learn that if people work hard & pay their (probably too high) taxes, you don't care who they are or what they do. And you realize that someone shoving their ideas on others vs. letting people work out for themselves what they want (both literally like grind for a dream job, or intellectually like figuring out their own stances on issues) is a stupid thing to spend time on, especially when your free time is limited.
You are just an independent, which most people are but wont fully admit too because everybody likes to be part of something and not alone, nothing wrong with that. If anybody tells you they agree with you 100% they are full of shit. No republican or democrat believes what they are saying 100% of the time. When you get to that level, it is just more about pleasing your party as a whole and the people who got you in office.
How can there be such a thing as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative? You're saying social liberal programs can be funded with fiscal conservative behavior. That is impossible. It sounds very sophisticated and vogue to use the phrase "social liberal and fiscal conservative" as if that is a "responsible" stance or something, but I assure you social causes and fiscal causes cannot be separated.
When people say "socially liberal" they don't mean "supports social welfare programs". They mean they support gay marriage, equal rights, ending the drug war, birth control, (some) abortion rights, don't want creationism in the classroom, etc.
"Socially liberal and fiscally conservative" means "get the government out of my bedroom and my pocketbook".
Just to run a hypothetical, reduce the military budget from $100 to $50, remove $25 from the tax base entirely, and spend the other $25 on improving our social/infrastucture/education/medical systems. Lower taxes, more social programs: I'd never suggest taking it as far as the French, but some movement in that direction would do the US a world of good. Saves money and is better for citizens, and if a bunch of third world hooligans want to slaughter each other, let them come ask us nicely for help instead of us sending our troops in harm's way so that everyone can later bitch about how the USA is just trying to control them. Let the world figure its own shit out a bit more. A staggering amount of Americans back this idea, go ahead and ask around, you'd be surprised at the responses if you phrase it the way I just did...
Since gay marriage is the topic of the day, yes, it is a liberal tactic to use the power of the state to gaurantee a right (should it so be recognized). However, in this case we're talking about a right that already exists for +/- 90% of the people and would simply be expanded to cover the difference. If people think the legal institution of marriage (I'm not touching the religious aspect here, too long) should be reduced by the state, they may or may not have a point but it's a seperate topic altogether. It's kind of like pointing out that some people shouldn't be forced to the back of the bus and then countering with "well, there should be less busses"...that may be the case, but the situation of the people on the busses that ARE running is the focus of the debate. So it is with gay marriage.
As for having lots of banana points leading to not getting laid, there seems to be no correlation, and I have dry spells and periods where I'm literally suffering sexual exhaustion, but my point count keeps going up. I'd say it's about the same for most people here, who BTW are really cool people in person, I've met a bunch of 'em. So I don't know what to tell you. If you don't think this forum is worth contributing to, then go somewhere else, no one is twisting your arm to get free advice and interaction from a huge spectrum of industry professionals. Go on DB where you will never actually get a straight answer, get a connection, or get a great training course for only a few bucks.
As far as immigration blah blah blah, well, realize how much money would be gained in income taxes if everyone working here paid them. I'm thinking the overall rate would probably go down. That is...if spending didn't go up.
But it's late and I'm tired and where's TNA on this?
Spending always goes up. France is the perfect example. They have no military to speak of, outrageous taxes, and yet their government still needs more more more money. What's the tax up to now for the wealthy over there? 75%? It's classic public choice economics. You steal from/vilify a minority (the wealthy in this case) and spread it amongst the majority in order to garner the most votes for yourself, thereby keeping your power and personal wealth-generating position. Governments never spend less. It's baked into the system here in the states. If I am the head of a government department and I don't spend my budget for the year, what I don't spend gets lopped off next year's budget (because I presumably don't need that much). What if next year said department head needs that extra money but doesn't have it? He gets in trouble - has to make do (potential unpopular cuts) or has to grovel to his boss. So year after year, government agencies spend every penny of their budget. They might run out and buy a bunch of supplies they don't need before the end of the fiscal year and just give it away; they just don't want their budgets scaled back. Hence the reason government spending has grown to 40% of our GDP over the last 100 years - that's a whole lot of transfer payments.
I am all for scaling back the U.S. military, but you must surely know that taxes wouldn't stay cut for long if they even got cut at all. You can't buy votes from your constituents without tax dollars from people who aren't your constituents, and people always need more to be satisfied; the logical progression is that we would eventually be where France is (or Obama); having made more promises to get elected than we can keep. You're seeing the world through the eyes of what could be done by some benevolent sovereign; you need to see it through the eyes of a career politician.
I understand what you're saying on gay marriage and from an ideological standpoint you are right in my opinion. But I'm not willing to foot the bill for group B's equality with group A. Especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than Group B wanting to line their pockets with the government benefits that I ALREADY don't want to be paying for Group A. It's literally this logic: Group A is stealing me blind, it's only fair that Group B gets to steal me blind too. After I let Group B steal me blind as much as as Group A does, I'll work on getting them both to stop stealing me blind.
As far as that banana points = not getting laid comment goes, I just said it for the sake of being rude back to BTbanker. I don't entirely understand where banana points come from or what they do. I do greatly appreciate this site and I actually have purchased one of the modeling programs which I've found very useful.
You're fiscally conservative, and socially moderately progressive.
The reason why most intelligent, economically literate and educated people are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (see Libertarian) is because they are actually consistent political views. The two parties in the United States are entirely hypocritical: supporting liberty on one hand and aggressively curtailing it on the other.
Okay, so from what I have summed up from you guys is I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I just needed a way to package everything tidy, so I don't go strutting around having to explain the technicalities of my political beliefs, that just makes them sound nonsensical.
Economic moderate, social conservative. Overall I'm part of the dying breed of Blue Dog Democrats, though I no longer feel a part of the Democratic Party and will probably identify as Independent once all the Senate Dems support gay marriage.
Your a moderate republican. Economically conservative but socially moderate.
I'm similar. I'm economically conservative (tho Im n favor of welfare programs intended to give children stable homelives and tho lower taxes would be nice we pay the lowest taxes of any developed western nation) and I'm socially very liberal. All in all I guess I would call myself a moderate or independent
Since developed Western countries have it so good these days... Talking about the intentions of welfare programs doesn't sound like a very economically conservative thing to do.
The caliber of Grouse's comments increased markedly in the last two posts.
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Society should not choose what a woman can and cannot do with her body, leave the social aspect up to the people. I do however have a problem with people taking advantage of the system for their own personal benefit and do not believe that the US's citizens should pay higher taxes in turn.
I second that.
OP sounds like a moderate republican.
My main thing is a hate supporting other people - period. If you make terrible decisions (ie: having kids you can't afford and then going on welfare) there should be serious repercussions. I believe women collecting child welfare should have IUD forcibly inserted (no more kids until you are off welfare). The men with children on welfare should have a net worth of zero. No car, no tv, no cable, no internet, no house, extremely modest clothes, etc.
If you require other citizens to pay for your mistakes you better be one step above homeless, nothing less.
Second your main thing. Instead of moderate republican I'll just go with fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
European old school liberal
wall streeters are fiscally conservative not due to strongly-held philosophical views on "big government", job creation, income inequality, etc. the reason is simple: they pay lots of taxes and want to pay less. from there they work backwards to develop their position on economic policy. secondly, they tend to be white guys from upper middle class backgrounds who can't understand or relate to economic hardship and the need for government assistance.
wall streeters are socially liberal because they are educated and sane.
somehow the republican party evolved into a bizarre alliance of constituents who have almost nothing in common: low-income conservative rednecks and high-income non-crazy business folk. so there is nothing strange about guys on wall street being fiscally conservative and socially liberal...that's a pretty logical set of views. i happen to have a similar combination of views but wouldn't identify as a republican.
It honestly incenses me that people insist on reducing ideological beliefs to mindless self-interest ("he just wants to save a quick buck on taxes!" or "he just wants to get a few more dollars in welfare!"). While it is certainly true that people on Wall Street pay a lot of taxes and that this is a reality they despise, I will go out on a very sturdy limb and say that the primary motivator for Wall Street's fiscally conservative leanings has very little to do with lower tax rates. Capitalism is a powerful, proven, consistent economic structure that accords with a socially liberal viewpoint. Fiscal conservatism is just good policy.
I'm non-white and come from a lower middle class background. I've accomplished a decent amount in my life (Ivy, Wall Street, etc) but every inch of the way has been paved by my own hard work. We're talking crappy public school, never heard of banking before college, didn't have parents who could bail me out if I fucked up (so I had to be careful not to fuck up). The experience built character. Getting handouts makes you a loser, on a very fundamental level.
While I consider myself socially moderate, this is one of the reasons I'm sympathetic to the culture war. The character of the people in a society matters.
Incentivizing bad decisions will be the legacy of the FDR/LBJ/Obama: having kids you can't pay for (via SNAP/Welfare), not planning for retirement (via medicare/social security), or simply not looking for work (SS disability and incredible unemployment insurance). These transfer payments are looking to comprise 20% of US GDP in a few decades.
Most are probably Libertarian at heart.
A good amount probably don't care enough about politics to associate themselves with the Libertarian Party and just call themselves Republicans. Older guys are more likely to be true republicans, but they'll be dead soon enough.
I wonder what the average bankers' life expectancy is...
democrat or republican (Originally Posted: 02/18/2011)
well, what's it gonna be?
For county sheriff?
Federalist.
Socially moderate, fiscally conservative. Libertarian?
p i m p
Anti-Federalist
I see this thread fast becoming a piss fest of who can throw out the most obscure political jargon.
Fuck the Whigs! Tory for life homies!
Moderate Democrat.
I ask instead: Guelph or Ghibelline?
I am for freedom and anti robbery. That means whatever is against what the Democrats are for.
Economically I am a Republican and everything else I don't really care that much.
Except, drug policy needs to be reformed. We spend billions of dollars on the War on Drugs, which has never and will never work. The only thing the War on Drugs does is drive up the street price of drugs, so junkies have to resort to armed robberies to support their addiction. Why not just give the junkies dirt cheap drugs and let them kill themselves? All they do is rob people and take money from entitlement programs and/or drain resources from the economy, while they are in prison. Why not turn the War on Drugs into the War on Tax Evasion in the Drug Industry?
I prefer the American League personally, though I can sympathize with the argument against the DH
Bringing back the Democrat-Republican party.
Our starting lineup: Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams
Republican...Lower my taxes
Democrat vs Republican (Originally Posted: 05/08/2011)
Noticed a pretty strong trend that bankers tend to be relatively liberal economically, while PE guys are more conservative. Any reasons for that, outside of capital gains tax hikes?
Sorry but you noticed wrong
e.g. henry kravis (KKR), mitt romney (bain), and Steve Schwarzman (Blackstone) are big republicans
lloyd blankfein (GS), jamie dimon (JPM), roger altman (Evercore), robert rubin (GS) are all democrats with connections to clinton, obama, etc.
And three out of those four that are democrats are Jewish. I'm sorry if anyone is offended, but most Jewish people are democratic in their political leanings.
Clarify what you mean by "liberal economically" Liberal in the sense of opening up markets and removing restrictions? Liberal as in higher taxes and larger government role? Or liberal as in entitlements, transfer payments, etc.? Anyone else have no idea what liberal means anymore?
I have a feeling that this thread is going to turn into shitstorm...
Hank Paulson is a republican, numerous others also. Your logic=fail. Sorry buddy you haven't decoded the cipher
@dwight government role. i more just meant it as whether they self-identity as republican or democrat
@yourworstenemy i asked a question based on a quick observation. paulson is one exception, i'd give you that. rubenstein at carlyle is another. but we're speaking in generalities here
Numquam harum at quas velit aut cumque aperiam. Rem fugiat perferendis reprehenderit veniam vel. Reiciendis iste voluptatem fugiat doloribus dolorem nisi. Odit consequuntur labore qui totam atque facere autem. Sint enim rem quisquam ipsum ut perspiciatis. Autem quibusdam soluta quidem ad et.
Praesentium sint adipisci perferendis molestiae voluptatem quia iusto. Rerum cum vero fugit voluptatem. Error ducimus sapiente a sint. Rerum et ut debitis aut ab. Aut quo animi voluptates. Numquam vero rerum distinctio.
Dolores aliquid ea qui nobis aut ex harum. Similique est qui ut soluta est facere cumque. Atque quo exercitationem placeat consequatur vel et et fugiat.
Minus reiciendis aut odio dolor commodi. Qui libero aut illum architecto eum delectus. Autem cumque ducimus ea et id repudiandae dignissimos. Quam deserunt nobis cum voluptas tenetur in. Molestiae molestiae optio earum quasi in mollitia dolorum. Cupiditate quia perferendis dignissimos in laudantium voluptas corporis. Soluta porro voluptas quas autem hic consequatur.
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...
Dolor itaque aut cumque ut autem voluptatum. Numquam doloremque unde debitis assumenda voluptas.
Quos facilis quibusdam ullam id consequatur voluptate quod. Voluptatem quis vel molestias aliquid et vero perspiciatis.
Asperiores vitae aut quis quia unde. Maxime architecto vero optio occaecati. Sunt sit ipsam molestias repudiandae. Quia quis consectetur inventore et ut eum sit. Veniam maxime qui nam aspernatur est aut molestiae. Modi voluptate nemo eos.
Enim enim debitis sit dolorum repudiandae quisquam. Voluptatum inventore saepe nemo iure alias sint quam. Rerum voluptates laudantium deserunt illum fugiat. Amet quisquam quo aut voluptate.
Culpa cumque necessitatibus quidem sint et. Inventore est at iste voluptas repellat dolorum atque. Voluptate quo aut doloremque et et perferendis dignissimos ut. Qui vel ut omnis laborum.
Facere voluptas consequuntur aliquid est. Libero alias rerum dolores et beatae architecto delectus. Aliquid officia ut omnis ut sint recusandae accusamus.
Ex voluptatem ut asperiores sunt. Quia dolor facere quaerat mollitia non id dolores. Hic ad sit perspiciatis sint. Voluptates sed exercitationem aut. Tempora ut vel quia quia facilis est.