evilbyaccident:
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan boy, but he did not look good here. Libertarians need a new poster boy.

If I had any WSO credits, I'd throw MS at you. I have no idea what you're talking about - I was expecting Krugman to actually speak intelligently and was extremely surprised Ron Paul's arguments were much more articulate and convincing than Krugman's. Really, I'm astounded that Krugman is a Princeton professor. No wonder the Ivies' reputations are becoming those of crack head academia lately.

 
Best Response
bulge_bracket:
evilbyaccident:
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan boy, but he did not look good here. Libertarians need a new poster boy.

If I had any WSO credits, I'd throw MS at you. I have no idea what you're talking about - I was expecting Krugman to actually speak intelligently and was extremely surprised Ron Paul's arguments were much more articulate and convincing than Krugman's. Really, I'm astounded that Krugman is a Princeton professor. No wonder the Ivies' reputations are becoming those of crack head academia lately.

Dude, come on...you are trying to argue who was more articulate and you are shilling for Ron Paul? Did you even watch the video?

It's fine if you agree with Ron Paul's views, but saying he looked good there is absurd. He didn't gain any momentum until the closing question.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Honestly, I don't even think this was an honest debate. Both parties seemed to be arguing against totally different points, and not against each other. It's like for the most part, Ron Paul was creating strange positions and Krugman kept insisting that wasn't his position.

For me, Ron Paul was often arguing a relatively progressive position.

Weird discussion, they needed a better moderator IMO.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died.
 

I also liked how Krug threw in that jab about Friedman and if RP read his work directed at economists instead of the general public, he would see that MF said the Fed didn't do enough during the depression.

Academics are great and they provide building blocks for research, etc, but economics is not biology or physics. Economic rules and equations really don't work well out in the wild.

Always amazes me how people can want more government, yet whenever we interact with government at almost every level we bitch and complain. TSA, IRS, DMV, Corrupt Cities, incompetent SEC, Bank Bail outs, on and on and on, people complain and hate how things work. Yet they still want more of it. Blows my mind.

 
TNA:
Always amazes me how people can want more government, yet whenever we interact with government at almost every level we bitch and complain. TSA, IRS, DMV, Corrupt Cities, incompetent SEC, Bank Bail outs, on and on and on, people complain and hate how things work. Yet they still want more of it. Blows my mind.

It's not a matter of "more" or "less" government, it's about having the right kind. This is what annoys me about people who argue for smaller/bigger government. When is it small/big enough? We as a society tend to unnecessarily polarize issues over vague ideologies.

 
JDawg:
TNA:
Always amazes me how people can want more government, yet whenever we interact with government at almost every level we bitch and complain. TSA, IRS, DMV, Corrupt Cities, incompetent SEC, Bank Bail outs, on and on and on, people complain and hate how things work. Yet they still want more of it. Blows my mind.

It's not a matter of "more" or "less" government, it's about having the right kind. This is what annoys me about people who argue for smaller/bigger government. When is it small/big enough? We as a society tend to unnecessarily polarize issues over vague ideologies.

Absolutely agree. Smaller government, to a point, is probably the world. Frankly, I think we need to always drive for the smallest form of government, if not to simply counteract the natural forces to grow government because of power hungry politicians.

Government is far too big right now. Particularly the Fed level. I do realize the state level has been shedding people, which I think is a good thing, but there is so much bloat at the Fed level. Entire agency level bloat.

My question to everyone is at what point do you take away the keys.

Enron, govt fucks up, says more govt will solve things = SOX

Financial crisis, govt fucks up, says more govt will solve things = Dodd Frank

Do we give them 1 more shot before saying you failed? This isn't even touching on all the other times in the past. Yeah I know no one is perfect and you cannot predict the future, but how many times are we going to buy the answer "more government will solve it this time" before we start over?

Maybe the answer isn't more, but less with more effectiveness?

 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/company/trilantic-north-america>TNA</a></span>:
IAcademics are great and they provide building blocks for research, etc, but economics is not biology or physics. Economic rules and equations really don't work well out in the wild.
This is the case on both sides of the economic equation: neither government spending nor private markets adequately do the job on their own. The primary goal is to have the best functioning system possible, and if markets / government can do one thing better, the they can be used for that. The hollow ideologies are really just to blind the public to the power struggle between private wealth and public power.

Personally, I'd like to see the middle class assert itself more, but that's just me. The market v gov't spending argument is stale and unproductive at this point. Why not just get the priorities straight and then do what works?

Get busy living
 

I don't see government presence shrinking anytime soon. I actually think it will continue to increase and we'll eventually look like the Nanny States in Europe.

TNA:
Smaller government, to a point, is probably the world. Frankly, I think we need to always drive for the smallest form of government, if not to simply counteract the natural forces to grow government because of power hungry politicians.

You act as though corporations are any less corrupt than the government.

The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to the socially optimal outcome due primarily to externalities. That's not my opinion, it's fact. It's why the government interferes - to help correct these imbalances (eg. a coal power plant pollutes too much -> everyone complains -> government regulates the power plants).

Of course the government often fucks up and makes things worse, but I fail to see how the world would be better off without an SEC, FDA, EPA, etc. You're right in saying that whenever a crisis happens, the government gets "bigger" in order to solve things. I don't see this changing. It doesn't means that "bigger" is the problem, it just means that whatever changes we keep implementing aren't working well enough.

The "small government" mentality on here pisses me off because free markets are inherently flawed. I'm not a communist, but I believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to pollute as much as they want or throw dirty rats in the ground beef assembly line. Government will never fix everything, but that doesn't mean that we're better off not having the government do anything at all.

 
JDawg:
I don't see government presence shrinking anytime soon. I actually think it will continue to increase and we'll eventually look like the Nanny States in Europe.
TNA:
Smaller government, to a point, is probably the world. Frankly, I think we need to always drive for the smallest form of government, if not to simply counteract the natural forces to grow government because of power hungry politicians.

You act as though corporations are any less corrupt than the government.

The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to the socially optimal outcome due primarily to externalities. That's not my opinion, it's fact. It's why the government interferes - to help correct these imbalances (eg. a coal power plant pollutes too much -> everyone complains -> government regulates the power plants).

Of course the government often fucks up and makes things worse, but I fail to see how the world would be better off without an SEC, FDA, EPA, etc. You're right in saying that whenever a crisis happens, the government gets "bigger" in order to solve things. I don't see this changing. It doesn't means that "bigger" is the problem, it just means that whatever changes we keep implementing aren't working well enough.

The "small government" mentality on here pisses me off because free markets are inherently flawed. I'm not a communist, but I believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to pollute as much as they want or throw dirty rats in the ground beef assembly line. Government will never fix everything, but that doesn't mean that we're better off not having the government do anything at all.

Yes, that's why you nationalize that which leads to an externality, like defense. At the state level, I'm all for environmental standards. But the EPA is hugely overblown. Besides, do private roads create externalities? No, in fact they're run much better. Almost everything the government does works better when private except defense.

 
darknight12:
JDawg:
I don't see government presence shrinking anytime soon. I actually think it will continue to increase and we'll eventually look like the Nanny States in Europe.
TNA:
Smaller government, to a point, is probably the world. Frankly, I think we need to always drive for the smallest form of government, if not to simply counteract the natural forces to grow government because of power hungry politicians.

You act as though corporations are any less corrupt than the government.

The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to the socially optimal outcome due primarily to externalities. That's not my opinion, it's fact. It's why the government interferes - to help correct these imbalances (eg. a coal power plant pollutes too much -> everyone complains -> government regulates the power plants).

Of course the government often fucks up and makes things worse, but I fail to see how the world would be better off without an SEC, FDA, EPA, etc. You're right in saying that whenever a crisis happens, the government gets "bigger" in order to solve things. I don't see this changing. It doesn't means that "bigger" is the problem, it just means that whatever changes we keep implementing aren't working well enough.

The "small government" mentality on here pisses me off because free markets are inherently flawed. I'm not a communist, but I believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to pollute as much as they want or throw dirty rats in the ground beef assembly line. Government will never fix everything, but that doesn't mean that we're better off not having the government do anything at all.

Yes, that's why you nationalize that which leads to an externality, like defense. At the state level, I'm all for environmental standards. But the EPA is hugely overblown. Besides, do private roads create externalities? No, in fact they're run much better. Almost everything the government does works better when private except defense.

Everything has an externality, although in varying degrees (eg. healthcare and education have positive externalities).

How exactly would you privatize all roads? Say you have a house next to a road. Do you have to pay a fee every time you drive on it?

How would you know your food isn't made with shady practices like those described in "The Jungle"?

More regulation helps those it's designed to hurt: the big banks. It makes them "too big to fail" and essentially guarantees their solvency, makes barriers to entry higher, and makes it harder for smaller corporations to compete. It essentially helps to make the corporations quasi-nationalized so that the government controls them, but then there's not competition left.

The government is trying to regulate banks so that they're not too big to fail (eg. by raising liquidity requirements, increasing transparency, etc).

 

I never said completely end all agencies or that companies do not do wrong, I simply said bigger is not always better. How much regulation is simply a power move to benefit government or as an obstical to benefit big business? How much of all this ever growing government is actually beneficial or does what it is intended to do?

And I also agree, we will continue to grow towards a European level and larger. The masses do not understand and only care about being protected. I am a believer in liberty for those who want, but I have no desire to force people to be free. If they want to be enslaved I am all for it. Part of being free is allowing people to not want to be free. Sad, but who cares.

The truly free are those with money and connections. Gain assets, shed liabilities and never stop leaning and networking. You will be free no matter what form of government is running things.

 
TNA:
If they want to be enslaved I am all for it.

In a democratic government, it should never be allowed to become that corrupt. It shouldn't be a few corrupt officials calling the shots.

Problem is, most politicians are just charismatic preachers and expert fundraisers who don't know what's best for society. Senators (even when it's not campaign season) spend ~20% of their time fundraising and kissing lobbyist ass (keep in mind we pay their salaries). Politicians care more about catchy slogans than actual issues. Also, the world nowadays is so complex that one person can't possibly be an expert on all aspects of public policy and economics. So how do you decide on what to vote? Easy, return the donor's favor or vote on whatever your affiliated political party is voting on.

I hate politics and wish the government was more technocratic.

 
NebraskaYoungin:
Ant, people want less freedom because it protects them from failure, in a free society, people are allowed to fail and that is scary to the majority..

Oh I completely agree. A more free society means more responsibility, more self reliance and that is pretty scary for most of the sheeple. That is why I do not want to force liberty. Those with money and an education will always be free. If the proletariat wants to be "protected" I completely want the government to protect them. But when they wake up and cry out for help, I will also have a deaf ear.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

This is why I don't really care about legalizing drugs. If I want to get high I could and would never fear going to jail. Why? Because I have a job, can afford a lawyer, am clean cut and have a college education. I'd get a fine and a slap on the wrist at most. For me, drugs are legalized. Why should I care or want to force freedom on others when they are more than happy to turn to the government whenever something goes wrong.

See guys, liberty is a wonderful ideal, but it only lives when it is harbored inside every citizen. We have a nation of people that has seen their fire die out. It is a nation with their hand out. Everyone is at fault but themselves.

When I was growing up the only excuse was there is no excuse.

I was literally working around the clock for weeks on end and while driving to class I started falling asleep behind the wheel of my car. Mind you this was an 8am math class and I had an hour commute. So after falling asleep and almost running off the road a couple times I pulled over and passed out. Slept right through my test. All the GA's told me to say I had to go to the doctors to get a retest. The professor asked me if I was sick and I said no, I deserve the zero. That was 25% of my grade.

No excuse. Unfortunately that mantra has been lost on the "citizens" of this country.

 
NebraskaYoungin:
Ant, people want less freedom because it protects them from failure, in a free society, people are allowed to fail and that is scary to the majority..

Unless you're a giant investment bank. In that case, you aren't allowed to fail and get bailed out with no strings attached.

I'm not even going to get involved in this whole discussion, but lots of you "gov't needs to get out of the way" types put on the blinders when you talk about this shit.

 
TheKing:
NebraskaYoungin:
Ant, people want less freedom because it protects them from failure, in a free society, people are allowed to fail and that is scary to the majority..

Unless you're a giant investment bank. In that case, you aren't allowed to fail and get bailed out with no strings attached.

I'm not even going to get involved in this whole discussion, but lots of you "gov't needs to get out of the way" types put on the blinders when you talk about this shit.

I don't remember reading anyone that says the government should bail out banks in this conversation. Also, to not factor in the involvement of the government and the people who took out the loans is to ignore 2/3's of the fault in this situation.

 

Wow. Even when I call you guys out for circle-jerking (darknight and bulge_bracket in particular), you continue to do so. Get a room or go play your soggy biscuits somewhere else.

 
JDawg:
Wow. Even when I call you guys out for circle-jerking (darknight and bulge_bracket in particular), you continue to do so. Get a room or go play your soggy biscuits somewhere else.

So if someone who's not even a Ron Paul supporter thinks that he did a better job than Krugman and says so, they're circle-jerking? You "called me out" for me giving my opinion. You're an idiot.

 
bulge_bracket:
JDawg:
Wow. Even when I call you guys out for circle-jerking (darknight and bulge_bracket in particular), you continue to do so. Get a room or go play your soggy biscuits somewhere else.

So if someone who's not even a Ron Paul supporter thinks that he did a better job than Krugman and says so, they're circle-jerking? You "called me out" for me giving my opinion. You're an idiot.

bulge_bracket:
I'm not a giant RP fan, yes I saw the video and I was completely unimpressed with how awful Krugman's responses were. This guy is supposed to be one of the smartest Keynesian economists in the country in his intellectual prime and he can't beat a 76 year old Congressman with no formal economic training?? This should have been no contest whatsoever, Krugman should have thrown statistics in RP's face but instead he came off to me as really petty, his responses seemed like "yeah.. but no" to every question.
darknight12:
I agree with bulge bracket, I dunno if we watched the same video but Paul Krugman didn't offer any convincing arguments at all, in fact I thought Paul looked really good there and I'm a Romney fan. And like bulge bracket said, considering Krugman writes in the NY Times and is a renowned economist? Paul kicked his ass.
bulge_bracket:
JDawg:
darknight12:
JDawg:
I don't see government presence shrinking anytime soon. I actually think it will continue to increase and we'll eventually look like the Nanny States in Europe.
TNA:
Smaller government, to a point, is probably the world. Frankly, I think we need to always drive for the smallest form of government, if not to simply counteract the natural forces to grow government because of power hungry politicians.

You act as though corporations are any less corrupt than the government.

The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism doesn't necessarily lead to the socially optimal outcome due primarily to externalities. That's not my opinion, it's fact. It's why the government interferes - to help correct these imbalances (eg. a coal power plant pollutes too much -> everyone complains -> government regulates the power plants).

Of course the government often fucks up and makes things worse, but I fail to see how the world would be better off without an SEC, FDA, EPA, etc. You're right in saying that whenever a crisis happens, the government gets "bigger" in order to solve things. I don't see this changing. It doesn't means that "bigger" is the problem, it just means that whatever changes we keep implementing aren't working well enough.

The "small government" mentality on here pisses me off because free markets are inherently flawed. I'm not a communist, but I believe that corporations shouldn't be allowed to pollute as much as they want or throw dirty rats in the ground beef assembly line. Government will never fix everything, but that doesn't mean that we're better off not having the government do anything at all.

Yes, that's why you nationalize that which leads to an externality, like defense. At the state level, I'm all for environmental standards. But the EPA is hugely overblown. Besides, do private roads create externalities? No, in fact they're run much better. Almost everything the government does works better when private except defense.

Everything has an externality, although in varying degrees (eg. healthcare and education have positive externalities).

How exactly would you privatize all roads? Say you have a house next to a road. Do you have to pay a fee every time you drive on it?

How would you know your food isn't made with shady practices like those described in "The Jungle"?

More regulation helps those it's designed to hurt: the big banks. It makes them "too big to fail" and essentially guarantees their solvency, makes barriers to entry higher, and makes it harder for smaller corporations to compete. It essentially helps to make the corporations quasi-nationalized so that the government controls them, but then there's not competition left.

The government is trying to regulate banks so that they're not too big to fail (eg. by raising liquidity requirements, increasing transparency, etc).

Darknight is spot on.

Am I invited to the wedding?

 

Btw I don't care if you're a RP fanboy, RP most definitely didn't win that debate. All he did was preach about the evils of big government and inflation. He didn't mention anything that's not common knowledge (inflation hurts savers - O RLY?). I wouldn't say that Krugman kicked ass or anything, but he definitely held his own and overall had more substantive things to say. But whatever, I'm not going to argue about the winner of some 10 minute debate.

 

Voluptatum aut ipsum illo modi. Consequatur tenetur a non sed dolorum placeat porro. Expedita rerum distinctio illo minima saepe officia. Quo et et molestias asperiores numquam accusantium. Sit quis recusandae molestiae enim qui id. Aliquam culpa quod error eos ut harum.

Sed alias eligendi est. Distinctio est dicta doloribus itaque animi. Alias facilis ad id modi aspernatur non. Maxime delectus quam corporis.

Et est maiores ea deleniti ut reiciendis quo mollitia. Cupiditate numquam est velit et optio. Enim nihil quisquam eum occaecati quisquam nemo est nesciunt. Error voluptates quo sapiente fugit. Sit aliquam ab ea eius repellendus cupiditate molestiae.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Exercitationem assumenda deserunt distinctio possimus non. Qui cum sit ut nemo. Rerum eligendi nostrum ut ex. Voluptas eius sit reiciendis et impedit ducimus. Magnam magnam molestiae inventore ut non amet. Sit corrupti quia nesciunt illo.

Autem odit labore quibusdam quasi vitae et soluta. Ea in ipsum enim. In occaecati quasi autem eum. In commodi ea aut nemo.

Autem laborum voluptate veritatis nulla praesentium maiores nihil. Tempora numquam possimus sit eveniet labore distinctio voluptatum. Vel beatae et dolorem id qui saepe quis.

Perspiciatis minus dolor deleniti. Illum natus ut aut provident tempore. Velit corporis beatae sed consequatur earum ex.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely. And Rhaegar died.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

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

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”