Marxists/Socialist.... why are you into finance if you are against capitalism?

AngryBallCoach's picture
Rank: Baboon | banana points 174

Self explanatory title.

If you are a Leftist, SJW, someone that believes in Marxist ideals or someone who believes in "YOUR Version" of Socialism... how could you work for an "evil corporation"?

Short of saying you are the Leftist equivalent of Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec... isn't it a little hypocritical to spend your entire college career bashing corporations/capitalism and demanding government regulations; yet you are going to apply to Goldman Sachs to "make the rich richer" ?

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (64)

May 17, 2017

to make money?

May 17, 2017

*hypocritically making money

    • 3
    • 5
May 17, 2017

We all gotta eat, some just have a bigger appetite.

May 18, 2017

Thought socialists and commies are only supposed to take/given what they NEED. Big appetite is not really a need

    • 5
    • 1
May 17, 2017

... thus proving my point. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

May 17, 2017

I never said I was a Marxist/Socialist (I'm not). I was just throwing out an idea as to why they do what they do.

May 17, 2017

I never said you were lol

    • 2
May 18, 2017

Because I want to fit in

    • 7
May 18, 2017

the simple answer is that few people have integrity in their beliefs.

    • 13
    • 1
May 17, 2017

BINGO!!!

    • 1
May 18, 2017

Banking is a surprisingly "anti-capitalist" career.
Think about it. It's one of the only almost risk-free path to become rich by one's own work. You don't need to be born rich to be a rich banker. You don't need to have a 1-in-a-million business idea. You don't need to be a trust fund baby.
You just need to follow the very explicit rules (go to a target, have a great GPA, work on your technicals, network). You just need to work. Anyone could become a rich banker if they knew what the rules were and were smart enough/dumb enough to follow them.

So I guess I don't understand why the public opinion is bashing someone like Macron for being a banker when he was just the son of small-time doctors in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere in France. Trump should get much more hate for being born rich and thinking that a "1-million dollar" loan to start his career is nothing.

    • 1
May 18, 2017

Banking is also heavily relying on government and public policies

    • 2
May 18, 2017

You have this backwards. In commie Russia, your connections and loyalties determined your success and level of comfort. To make it into proper society in the West used to require you to have a sponsor of some sort. American capitalism is the idea that the common man can pull himself up in society by his bootstraps.

It's flawed, because having a sponsor still is the best way, as bootstrapping is very outdated where there is much more structured systems in our country's developed position (I.e. you can no longer pull resources out of unchartered territory to sell just by being diligent). Ivy League schools or personal connections are the sponsors today, where poor kids have the opportunity to be included in higher society, generally no matter their socioeconomic start.

    • 1
May 18, 2017

SOCIALISM DOES NOT EQUAL MARXISM. For example Germany was socialist in WW2, it was part of the Nazi acronym, and they hated all communists.

May 18, 2017

No but Russia and Germany sympathized with each other

May 18, 2017

Yes, a short term tacit alliance while they pursued other goals is "sympathy". Stalin was planning to go to war with Germany in 1944-5, when he thought they would be ready, Hitler needed safety on his flank and trade while he handled business in the West.

May 18, 2017

Yeah, I never said they were the same thing. Fascism was not nearly close to capitalism, and looked more like Communism. The Germans and Russians allied because for a period of time they thought they were fighting the same fight, until Germans wanted hierarchy and the Soviets wanted this so-called 'even distribution,' which was really some sort of masked hierarchy.

    • 1
Jul 23, 2017

As the saying goes, even liberals get the bullet too.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Monkeyrella</span>:

Banking is a surprisingly "anti-capitalist" career.Think about it. It's one of the only almost risk-free path to become rich by one's own work. You don't need to be born rich to be a rich banker. You don't need to have a 1-in-a-million business idea. You don't need to be a trust fund baby.You just need to follow the very explicit rules (go to a target, have a great GPA, work on your technicals, network). You just need to work. Anyone could become a rich banker if they knew what the rules were and were smart enough/dumb enough to follow them.

So I guess I don't understand why the public opinion is bashing someone like Macron for being a banker when he was just the son of small-time doctors in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere in France. Trump should get much more hate for being born rich and thinking that a "1-million dollar" loan to start his career is nothing.

Yeah, Venezuela has a booming banking sector...

May 18, 2017

+SB'ed.

Communism and socialism are different though. Communism and marxism are what we see in Venezuela and the USSR. Socialism (without communism) is what we see in France, or the UAE (for their citizens alone). Communist governments are inherently dictatorships because once they are in power, they tend to stifle out the rest. Socialists are just inept governors.
Want a commie country not socialist? China, where capitalism runs bountifully amok.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Jul 23, 2017

You don't seriously think that the UAE has a democratic form of government?

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

May 18, 2017

It is a meritocracy for the most part. And yes, there are elections for ministerial positions. Only the HoS is hereditary. The UAE is a perfect welfare state though, for their citizens.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 18, 2017
My Name is Jeff:

Want a commie country not socialist? China, where capitalism runs bountifully amok.

To your point, the market, in many respects, is less regulated in China than it is in the U.S. The securities sector, for example, is like the wild west.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Best Response
May 18, 2017

Socialism to get the chicks

Banking to get the cheques.

    • 16
    • 1
May 18, 2017

so like "virtue" signaling in beta male "feminists"?

May 18, 2017

I am a beta male, though not a beta male feminist, thankfully.

May 18, 2017
May 18, 2017

I miss that thread

    • 1
May 18, 2017

Me too, man, me too.

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>techjobsyankee</span>:

Socialism to get the chicks

Banking to get the cheques.

Wow, much fancy. So eloquence.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

May 18, 2017

Compensates for my overall betaness.

May 18, 2017

Yup. Markets don't exist in 'socialist' countries like France and Germany. No companies to invest in there folks.

    • 2
    • 4
May 18, 2017

Exactly these stupid college "conservatives" who post here don't realize that we already live in a socialist country, it's just a matter of degree. Capitalism exists in a market socialist system, it just helps to mitigate the punishment dealt to economic losers. It limits how much you can win to a degree, but the stakes are lower because you don't have to worry as much about being homeless and bankrupt with no medical coverage.

    • 3
    • 2
May 17, 2017

I never said we don't live in a regulated economy.

    • 1
May 17, 2017

I never claimed that they don't.

    • 2
May 18, 2017

The overarching point is that if you look at global economies, "left wing"/"socialist" viewpoints are held by business people all over the world. Clearly, it's not an absurd set of views to have given that so many people globally have them. Americans just seem to have a perverse view of what is a "liberal SJW commie" view and what is a "conservative" view.

Anyway, trying to hold people to a litmus test of their views is a logical fallacy. People can advocate for policies that advance a path towards their version of an ideal society while still engaging in behavior that technically hampers that path. Just because you believe that climate change is real and will have disastrous consequences does not mean you are some kind of hypocrite for not driving a hybrid. Hybrids are more expensive. Everyone is just trying to get by given the hand they were dealt. Only engaging in behavior that is consistent with your ideology is expensive, both economically and socially.

My personal view as a liberal and democrat is that in order to be an agent of change in a system, I have to be a part of it. I have no interest in a Bernie Sanders "revolution". I believe that the best and most sustainable way of improving the economy such that it is more economically and socially just is by integrating myself into the economy and doing my small part to help push it in the right direction. There are, of course, many liberals who reject this idea and refuse to work at for-profit companies due to the many societal ills that are created by capitalists. I don't really blame them for holding this view but I don't see it as the most productive use of their efforts.

    • 9
    • 1
May 17, 2017

"advocate for policies that advance a path towards their version of an ideal society while still engaging in behavior that technically hampers that path"
That's called hypocrisy

"Just because you believe that climate change is real and will have disastrous consequences does not mean you are some kind of hypocrite for not driving a hybrid"

No it shows that your fear/belief in climate change isn't strong enough to influence your action.
If you believed/feared in it enough, why even own a car? Why not walk/ use public transport?

' I have no interest in a Bernie Sanders "revolution".'
Alteast we have some common ground. I agree, my main point of the post was targeting these people, not the moderate left.

    • 3
May 18, 2017

This fo sho though probably too reasonable and well thought out for this context

May 18, 2017

It is impossible to lead a life that is entirely consistent with your ideology. People have to make do with the confines of their environment. Sometimes that requires sacrificing certain principles. It's just a part of being human. It is unrealistic for the vast majority of the country to not own a car. Owning a car is as American as apple pie and as such, has been built in as an expectation in urban/economic/social planning. The infrastructure simply does not exist for people to be able to live their life as they would ideally like to.

Not everyone has the time and resources lead an ideal life. If the choice is between putting food on the table or adhering to an abstract principle that has a microscopic benefit as an individual, people are going to choose the former. Anyway, if you don't have enough food, are homeless, don't have a job, etc. how could you possibly put yourself in a position to influence society? The Berniecrats who work in corporate environments probably understand this (consciously or subconsciously). They need to be able to survive, have enough money, etc. in order to be able to advance their agenda.

    • 2
May 17, 2017

... but this is not a matter of resources as in the car example, it is a matter of choice.

let me flip it the other way.
Say someone leans right who vastly denounces the ACLU and all the class action "discrimination" lawsuits; especially the transgenders in women's bathroom issue; to the point where he actually stood outside city hall and protested.

The conservative gets a liberal arts degree, goes to law school, passes the bar, and joins the ACLU and makes a fortune on class action discrimination against transgender bathroom law suits, even though he has spent his whole life bashing them.

He could have practiced any other area of law, but he didn't. Wouldn't you agree that its hypocritical that he is advancing an agenda he has openly and personally denounced?

How is that different from my example of the anti-capitalist working for an investment bank?
No one put a gun to his head and made him do it. He chose to work at a career that advances an agenda that he allegedly despises.

    • 1
    • 1
May 18, 2017

Read some basic philosophy. People don't truly have free will. Most professional philosophers have agreed on this. But that's a different conversation entirely I suppose.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make a hypocritical career choice. It depends on your perspective. Perhaps this hypothetical right wing lawyer believed that bringing his perspective to the ACLU suits could bring about a result and policy that is more reasonable in his view. But anyway, your hypothetical doesn't really make much sense since ACLU lawyers make like 60k per year. You have presented a false equivalence. Joining a specific practice area of law to advance a specific agenda is very different from becoming an investment banker. Sure, as an investment banker you are a member of a capitalist system but it's not like doing excel for some M&A deal has some specific political agenda attached to it. The comparison doesn't really make sense. Investment banking is just a well paying job. In order to succeed economically in the U.S. you have to engage in capitalistic activity to some degree. I'm not an anti-capitalist Berniecrat, nor do I know any who work as investment bankers personally. I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm just a guy who believes in smart regulation and in the idea that the only way to change a system for the better is to bring your views to the table within the system.

If I ever meet an anti-capitalist Berniecrat in investment banking or a transphobic ACLU lawyer, I'll be sure to ask them this question and get back to you. I'm not holding my breath though.

    • 2
May 17, 2017

"I'm not saying it's impossible to make a hypocritical career choice"
Which is my overall point.

If you are into investment banking/finance and you hold anti-capitalist views you are a** hypocrite.**

If you believe that class action lawyers are hurting america with frivolous lawsuits and then become a class action lawyer who profits off of frivolous law suits you are a hypocrite.

The only false equivalency was the car analogy.
That was based off "need"; a hypocritical career choice is based off of greed.

    • 1
May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>DeepLearning</span>:

It is impossible to lead a life that is entirely consistent with your ideology.

Completely agree, and yet choosing a career at Goldman Sachs IBD is a very narrow decision that one makes in a sea of literally infinite life choices one could make. This isn't a case of someone being forced to buy a gas guzzler because he adopted 8 Syrian refugees and needs to be able to drive them around; it's a case of anti-capitalist leftists actively choosing to engage in facilitating pure capitalism--literally, facilitating capital investment into a market economy, and collecting handsome remuneration for facilitating said transaction, and then when it comes to tax time seeking every possible deduction in which they are legally entitled.

May 18, 2017

Again, I think if you were to ask these "anti-capitalist leftists" why they chose to work at Goldman IBD, they would say they are bringing their liberal viewpoints to the table in order to push the industry to be more socially and economically just. Lots of anti-capitalist people don't have an all or nothing mentality. Have to be willing to integrate yourself in order to change shit. The only way to make police departments less racist is for non-racists to become police officers. The only way for investment banking to become more of an agent for economic liberalism is for economic liberals to become investment bankers.

    • 1
May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>DeepLearning</span>:

Again, I think if you were to ask these "anti-capitalist leftists" why they chose to work at Goldman IBD, they would say they are bringing their liberal viewpoints to the table in order to push the industry to be more socially and economically just. Lots of anti-capitalist people don't have an all or nothing mentality. Have to be willing to integrate yourself in order to change shit. The only way to make police departments less racist is for non-racists to become police officers. The only way for investment banking to become more of an agent for economic liberalism is for economic liberals to become investment bankers.

I don't believe that for one second. I grew up in a hard left community with countless rich liberal Democrats living in mansions and driving gas guzzling SUVs with "Earth First" bumper stickers. The reality is, most people on the left are irreligious and they've replaced their ancestors' religion with secular humanism and environmentalism, but at the end of the day they are just as hypocritical as the religious conservative pastors who cheat on their wives with parishioners.

Ultimately, all people, at their core, are hypocrites or prone to rank hypocrisy, and loving money while preaching against it just comes with the territory of being human. The "altruistic" capitalist is bullcrap--it's greed.

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Dances with Dachshunds</span>:

DeepLearning:Again, I think if you were to ask these "anti-capitalist leftists" why they chose to work at Goldman IBD, they would say they are bringing their liberal viewpoints to the table in order to push the industry to be more socially and economically just. Lots of anti-capitalist people don't have an all or nothing mentality. Have to be willing to integrate yourself in order to change shit. The only way to make police departments less racist is for non-racists to become police officers. The only way for investment banking to become more of an agent for economic liberalism is for economic liberals to become investment bankers.

I don't believe that for one second. I grew up in a hard left community with countless rich liberal Democrats living in mansions and driving gas guzzling SUVs with "Earth First" bumper stickers. The reality is, most people on the left are irreligious and they've replaced their ancestors' religion with secular humanism and environmentalism, but at the end of the day they are just as hypocritical as the religious conservative pastors who cheat on their wives with parishioners.

Ultimately, all people, at their core, are hypocrites or prone to rank hypocrisy, and loving money while preaching against it just comes with the territory of being human. The "altruistic" capitalist is bullcrap--it's greed.

Amazing stuff here, Virginia Tech 4ever. You should write a book filled to the brim with all this insightful wisdom

    • 2
May 20, 2017

Considering that the U.S. is a multiracial, multi-ethnic nation of 320 million people across the North American continent + Hawai'i living in rural, suburban, and urban environments with hundreds of different subcultures, generalizations about Americans are, well, generally pretty stupid.

    • 1
Aug 1, 2017

There is an overlooked, inverse corollary to this: The merchants of capitalism who tout free-market fervor while engaging in government subsidies, anti-competitive behavior, and the forced commonization of their costs on to the taxpayers.

Support for capitalism should be separate and distinct from support of big business practices. The way in which many big businesses exploit the political landscape is antithetical to the principles of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't include government involvement in the form of massive government subsidies, tax abatements, concessionary lending rates, "McHelp-Lines" for government assistance, bailouts, and other "externalities" that are imposed and spread across the populace in order to defray costs to the business. Those that are the fastest to decry the ails of big government are often also the ones milking it most effectively.

Capitalism is the privatization of profits AND costs. Due to the ignorance and avarice rampant in politics, profits have remained privatized while costs are becoming increasingly and surreptitiously commonized. Unfortunately the right has shown a high level of toleration for this perversion of capitalism. My point is that you can be critical of big business without being anti-capitalism.

This comment wasn't directed at you but it seemed like the most appropriate place to put it.

May 18, 2017
Schreckstoff:

There is an overlooked, inverse corollary to this: The merchants of capitalism who tout free-market fervor while engaging in government subsidies, anti-competitive behavior, and the forced commonization of their costs on to the taxpayers.

Support for capitalism should be separate and distinct from support of big business practices. The way in which many big businesses exploit the political landscape is antithetical to the principles of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't include government involvement in the form of massive government subsidies, tax abatements, concessionary lending rates, "McHelp-Lines" for government assistance, bailouts, and other "externalities" that are imposed and spread across the populace in order to defray costs to the business. Those that are the fastest to decry the ails of big government are often also the ones milking it most effectively.

Capitalism is the privatization of profits AND costs. Due to the ignorance and avarice rampant in politics, profits have remained privatized while costs are becoming increasingly and surreptitiously commonized. Unfortunately the right has shown a high level of toleration for this perversion of capitalism. My point is that you can be critical of big business without being anti-capitalism.

This comment wasn't directed at you but it seemed like the most appropriate place to put it.

You've just described corporatism or crony capitalism. Conservatives (like real conservatives, not necessarily elected Republicans) are ideologically opposed to crony capitalism. "Pro-business Democrats" like Zuckerberg and Musk and pretty much everyone at Goldman Sachs are supportive of corporatism. The idea that "the right", at least as an ideology, is friendly to corporatism is laughable.

Aug 1, 2017

Fair enough, my allusion to "the right" was intended to implicate the representatives and not the ideology. I'll gladly concede that it's a bi-partisan issue that has infected the entire political spectrum. However, I'm willing to hold steadfast to the supposition that elected officials on the right have less latitude to condemn these practices out of fear of becoming labeled anti-business and having their campaign funding pulled. The former is a detriment unique to Republicans, the latter is universal among all politicians.

May 18, 2017
Schreckstoff:

Fair enough, my allusion to "the right" was intended to implicate the representatives and not the ideology. I'll gladly concede that it's a bi-partisan issue that has infected the entire political spectrum. However, I'm willing to hold steadfast to the supposition that elected officials on the right have less latitude to condemn these practices out of fear of becoming labeled anti-business and having their campaign funding pulled. The former is a detriment unique to Republicans, the latter is universal among all politicians.

Wasn't Obamacare pure corporatism? Isn't regulation a fantastic method for large, established firms to regulate away competition (taxi services, moving companies, banking)? Isn't trade protectionism (pre-Trump was common to the left) corporatism? Wasn't Solyndra (and, to a lesser degree, Tesla) the result of corporatism? Weren't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's massive expansion allowed through congressional lobbying?

The very core of limited government conservatism is antithetical to corporatism because a constitutionally limited government affords few lobbying benefits to private industry. As far as I'm aware, there is no consistent left position on business lobbying other than lobbying is bad if "we" disagree with the specific policy being lobbied for.

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>DeepLearning</span>:

I believe that the best and most sustainable way of improving the economy such that it is more economically and socially just is by integrating myself into the economy and doing my small part to help push it in the right direction. There are, of course, many liberals who reject this idea and refuse to work at for-profit companies due to the many societal ills that are created by capitalists. I don't really blame them for holding this view but I don't see it as the most productive use of their efforts.

Spot on. In the words of Seth Godin:

"Artists don't think outside the box, because outside the box there's a vacuum. Outside the box there are no rules, there is no reality. You have nothing to interact with, nothing to work against. If you set out to do something way outside the box (designing a time machine, or using liquid nitrogen to freeze Niagara Falls), then you'll never be able to do the real work of art. You can't ship if you're far outside the box.
Artists think along the edges of the box, because that's where things get done. That's where the audience is, that's where the means of production are available, and that's where you can make impact."

    • 2
Jul 23, 2017

Thanks for writing this out.

Lets just dispel the usage of the inane "SJW" categorizations. I think the majority of posters on WSO are generally pro-capitalist, yourself included, no matter how many paragraphs you write in attempts to explain otherwise. The problem is that we're not working in a true capitalist system.

I assume you work in hedge fund equity research so for the most part you are just a friction cost in a financial institution's deal execution process. Acknowledging that, can you tell me what you're doing to improve the system, and furthermore, what your ideal system is?

I ask because you land repeatedly on "smart regulation" but do nothing to define what that is. Government involvement in the private markets is undeniably the root cause of all past, and future, financial crises. Just look at Dodd-Frank's core policies, they do nothing to resolve the causes that snowballed us into the Great Recession.

Dodd-Frank exists for no other reason than to impede economic growth and feed regulatory compliance work to the consulting industry. It's no wonder the Big 4 promoted a pro-liberal political agenda because they benefited heavily from SOX, DFA, and DOL project work. The whole "third party" assessment requirement most of these regulations laid out was a de jure government mandated transfer of money from banks to consulting firms.

Just for appropriate measure, I wanted also highlight the deluge of regulations during the Clinton administration that loosened lending standards. Literal regulation that pressured banks to lend to customers they otherwise wouldn't lend to because of high credit risk they posed to their balance sheets. I can't think of any clearer indicator that the government's going to be there to bail you out than a federal mandate pressuring banks to lend to customers with subprime credit.

Capitalism is the answer, but we're not operating in a true capitalist system. It's a Rube Goldberg machine of patchwork regulations and crony capitalist lifelines.

It was actually refreshing seeing Jamie Dimon rail against the DC status quo.

Aug 1, 2017

I feel like the words capitalism and socialism are taken for their literal senses, whereas we should take them in their more Canadian context. Canada, where I'm from, has aspects from socialism and capitalism in its economy and that is probably what makes its strength. Both capitalism and socialism taken to their extremes will probably amount to a great amount of hardship for the poor.

I'm a 'Berniecrat' and I do want to pursue a career in IB and painting all Bernie supporters as people who wants to nationalize all industries is unfair. Working at Goldman Sachs or any other bank doesn't impede my belief that healthcare should be free for all and covered by the gov't or that business aren't taxed enough and workers aren't being paid a living wage. Of course, both don't go together hand in hand but they aren't mutually exclusive. Most bernie supporters don't advocate the nationalisation of all industries and saying otherwise is dishonest. At the end of the day, I believe it's more our political vote that counts more than where we work.

May 18, 2017

Because anyone who attacks life's problems from a purely binary perspective and uses terms like "commie", "SJW", "alt-right", "fascist" to describe themselves or others is a fucking retard.

...Plus the man ain't never bounced one of my checks yet.

    • 2
    • 1
May 18, 2017

If you consider centrist democrats as "leftist", then the majority of people you meet on Wall Street will be considered as such. And I think you'd be hard pressed to prove any of them were being hypocritical. Shocking as it is for so many, these things have nuance.

If you just mean socialists, not sure I've met more then a couple of those on the street. And all of them were basically just "to get in and get out so I set myself up for the future".

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>AllDay_028</span>:

If you consider centrist democrats as "leftist", then the majority of people you meet on Wall Street will be considered as such. And I think you'd be hard pressed to prove any of them were being hypocritical. Shocking as it is for so many, these things have nuance.

If you just mean socialists, not sure I've met more then a couple of those on the street. And all of them were basically just "to get in and get out so I set myself up for the future".

Are you kidding? WSO is riddled with literal socialists--people in or trying to get into Wall Street finance.

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Dances with Dachshunds</span>:

AllDay_028:If you consider centrist democrats as "leftist", then the majority of people you meet on Wall Street will be considered as such. And I think you'd be hard pressed to prove any of them were being hypocritical. Shocking as it is for so many, these things have nuance.If you just mean socialists, not sure I've met more then a couple of those on the street. And all of them were basically just "to get in and get out so I set myself up for the future".

Are you kidding? WSO is riddled with literal socialists--people in or trying to get into Wall Street finance.

This comment makes certain you don't know what socialism, as a philosophy, actually entails. Advocating for single payer healthcare does not even come close to making someone a socialist (and it isn't socialism, despite conservatives love for calling it that), for instance, yet i'm certain a lot of the kids on here think it does.

    • 2
May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>AllDay_028</span>:

This comment makes certain you don't know what socialism, as a philosophy, actually entails. Advocating for single payer healthcare does not even come close to making someone a socialist, for instance, yet i'm certain a lot of the kids on here think it does.

No, I'm talking about people literally who believe that capitalism is a net negative for society, who agree with Bernie Sanders' 90% marginal tax rate, who believe that corporations are evil and owned by rich people, that government is or should be the source of technological and societal advancement, that the economy should be actively directed and managed by bureaucrats. There are a ton of those people on WSO.

May 18, 2017
<span itemprop=name>Dances with Dachshunds</span>:

AllDay_028:This comment makes certain you don't know what socialism, as a philosophy, actually entails. Advocating for single payer healthcare does not even come close to making someone a socialist, for instance, yet i'm certain a lot of the kids on here think it does.

No, I'm talking about people literally who believe that capitalism is a net negative for society, who agree with Bernie Sanders' 90% marginal tax rate, who believe that corporations are evil and owned by rich people, that government is or should be the source of technological and societal advancement, that the economy should be actively directed and managed by bureaucrats.

Can't say i've seen those direct or as extreme of views on WSO, or on more then one or two people i've met across three investment banks i've worked at, but I don't spend that much time on here so maybe i've missed it and I can concede that to you.

    • 2
May 20, 2017
May 19, 2017
    • 1
May 21, 2017
May 22, 2017