It’s interesting to me how republicans believe they are the only ones who are qualified to run our economy. Has anyone else noticed that most people in the financial industry almost expect you to be a Republican just because you work in finance. The "good ol’ boys mentality is strikingly similar to the “good ol’ republicans” mentality. I’m not going to lie, I sometimes pretend to be a Republican just to get by. Anybody else do the same? Yet, some of the most brilliant financial minds who have proven their ability to consistently understand the bigger picture are democrats (ex: Buffet and Soros). Maybe they’re actually onto something… Check out these two links: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm Thoughts???
I always pretend to be a republican at work. I also pretend that I go to church (I pretend I am an episcopal, this way none of the people that ask would be familiar with local church). I also pretend I like golf. Price you gotta pay.
I pretend I’m dem when trying to talk to NYU chicks…
I point out that just because markets are fascinating and a great place to make money doesn’t mean that I think they provide the best solutions to all problems in society. Also, the last administration has been such a crony capitalism that even if you’re a republican, you are somewhat suspect. Besides, the financial industry has a mostly libertarian bent - they like (traditional) Republican stances on economic issues, traditional Democratic stances on social issues. Depending on which you think is more threatened these days, you you can swing either way with the main parties.
I had a manager start talking politics and ask me what I thought. I told him I think all politicians are garbage to me. They lack any signs of real knowledge or intelligence and could not rise beyond warehouse management in the real world but claim to be able to run a country. The only reason our system works is because between the partisanship and the branches checks and balances our system “usually” prevents these morons from doing excessively retarded. It’s just a giant televised circus and in my mind holds no value beyond that of entertainment.
I’m a Republican because the government has ruined everything it touches, and does no matter which party controls government. Economic bubbles caused by bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve (tech, real estate); the real estate market bubbling because of Gov’t-Sponsored Entity liquidity and gov’t social engineering; a joke of a public educational system (at least compared to home schooling and public-private charter schools); something like $100 trillion in unfunded government entitlements for social security and medicare; high energy prices due to 1) gov’t taxation of the consumer and the industry, 2) gov’t regulation, and 3) foreign government cartels; the ineffectiveness of gov’t social programs compared to private and other faith-based social programs; and the list goes on. Ever dealt with the incompetence of state or local gov’t employees when calling the local assessor’s board? Since I believe the gov’t ruins most or all of what it touches, I’m inclined to reject socialized medicine, increased economic regulation, federal (and, frankly, further gov’t) intervention in education, and socialized entitlements, such as SS and medicare, which are incapable of funding themselves and have probably cost millions of jobs over the years due to the incredible cost of employment taxes to employers. In addition, Repulican welfare reform has proved to be a resounding success. Finally, labor unions, a Democrat constituency for 100 years, are partially responsible–in a large way–for American jobs being shipped over seas. And I utterly reject global warming alarmism, as do at least 31,000 scientists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=64734). In sum, it’s not about “us versus them” or Democrats are evil or Republicans are evil. It’s fundamentally about how you view the role of government. If you think more government is better for society, that’s fine–vote Democrat. If you think more government is detrimental for society, that’s fine–vote Republican. I know a lot of great Democrats. They’re not evil.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m a Republican because the government has ruined > everything it touches, and does no matter which > party controls government. Economic bubbles caused > by bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve (tech, real > estate); the real estate market bubbling because > of Gov’t-Sponsored Entity liquidity and gov’t > social engineering; a joke of a public educational > system (at least compared to home schooling and > public-private charter schools); something like > $100 trillion in unfunded government entitlements > for social security and medicare; high energy > prices due to 1) gov’t taxation of the consumer > and the industry, 2) gov’t regulation, and 3) > foreign government cartels; the ineffectiveness of > gov’t social programs compared to private and > other faith-based social programs; and the list > goes on. Ever dealt with the incompetence of state > or local gov’t employees when calling the local > assessor’s board? > > Since I believe the gov’t ruins most or all of > what it touches, I’m inclined to reject socialized > medicine, increased economic regulation, federal > (and, frankly, further gov’t) intervention in > education, and socialized entitlements, such as SS > and medicare, which are incapable of funding > themselves and have probably cost millions of jobs > over the years due to the incredible cost of > employment taxes to employers. In addition, > Repulican welfare reform has proved to be a > resounding success. Finally, labor unions, a > Democrat constituency for 100 years, are partially > responsible–in a large way–for American jobs > being shipped over seas. And I utterly reject > global warming alarmism, as do at least 31,000 > scientists > (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=647 > 34). > > In sum, it’s not about “us versus them” or > Democrats are evil or Republicans are evil. It’s > fundamentally about how you view the role of > government. If you think more government is better > for society, that’s fine–vote Democrat. If you > think more government is detrimental for society, > that’s fine–vote Republican. I know a lot of > great Democrats. They’re not evil. First let me respond to this post by saying there are numerous things I strongly agree with, such as the unfunded entitlements and the large problems associated with socialized medicine. Fact of the matter is, I do not believe that a democratic president would actually be able accomplish a socialized medicine plan (even with a democratic congress). But there a few places where you are missing the big picture: 1. High energy prices are not caused by govt taxation and govt regulation…if anything in the long-term that will help to depress the price of energy (due to forced conservation). The peak oil theory is real people!!! 2. Intervention in education??? You mean the democrats increased spending and emphasis on education? Go to the deep south my friend and you will learn some scary things about education in America. The failure of republicans to invest in education highlights their lack of ability to plan for the future (embodies the give me now culture we reside in today). The benefits of education typically don’t even start to show up until 20 years…it’s a lagging future indicator of our economy. Also, what’s up with the voucher deal?? So every kid in America can experience private school for a whooping 3 days?? Come on. Let’s invest in our public schools and make sure we give everyone equal opportunities to help identify talent and help America effectively compete in this global marketplace. 3. The theory that Republicans=less government and Democrats=more government is a myth and an old way of thinking my friend…the republicans almost always spend more and increase the deficit. If you allow it to, history WILL repeat itself. 4. Republican welfare reform?? What about Clinton? How short is your memory? Didn’t he make the largest cuts in the welfare program?? 5. Global Warming…obviously I’m not a scientist and I don’t know enough to take a stance either way. The one thing I do know is there is an overwhelming number of scientists who are convinced it is a real threat. To me, a simple probabilty based cost benefit analysis of the situation would say that we should take steps to try to reduce our “global carbon footprint” ASAP and I believe we can it in ways that a beneficial to our economy.
CFA500 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. High energy prices are not caused by govt > taxation and govt regulation…if anything in the > long-term that will help to depress the price of > energy (due to forced conservation). The peak oil > theory is real people!!! The government has stopped the construction of nuclear facilities for 30 years. It has limited oil drilling in the United States. It has halted the construction of crude oil refineries. And the government takes a larger cut per gallon of gas than the oil companies. In my most humble opinion, gov’t has done all it can to limit America’s ability to generate itself. > 2. Intervention in education??? You mean the > democrats increased spending and emphasis on > education? Go to the deep south my friend and you > will learn some scary things about education in > America. The failure of republicans to invest in > education highlights their lack of ability to plan > for the future (embodies the give me now culture > we reside in today). The benefits of education > typically don’t even start to show up until 20 > years…it’s a lagging future indicator of our > economy. Also, what’s up with the voucher deal?? > So every kid in America can experience private > school for a whooping 3 days?? Come on. Let’s > invest in our public schools and make sure we give > everyone equal opportunities to help identify > talent and help America effectively compete in > this global marketplace. Washington, DC spends more per capita than any other jurisdiction in America and has one of the worst systems. It’s not about money–it’s about incompetent government. No comparison between the efficacy of homeschooling compared to public schools. Even Obama says he can’t deny the success of charter schools. Public education in America is a failure because government is a failure. > 3. The theory that Republicans=less government and > Democrats=more government is a myth and an old way > of thinking my friend…the republicans almost > always spend more and increase the deficit. If you > allow it to, history WILL repeat itself. This is true. I’m also a conservative. But at least my taxes don’t go up under Republicans. > 4. Republican welfare reform?? What about Clinton? > How short is your memory? Didn’t he make the > largest cuts in the welfare program?? Umm, brother, you’re the one who needs to checkyour history. Welfare reform was part of the Republican “Contract with America” in 1994. Four years later, Clinton finally reluctantly signed the GOP welfare reform bill after years of rejection. Political pressure had hit its breaking point. > 5. Global Warming…obviously I’m not a scientist > and I don’t know enough to take a stance either > way. The one thing I do know is there is an > overwhelming number of scientists who are > convinced it is a real threat. To me, a simple > probabilty based cost benefit analysis of the > situation would say that we should take steps to > try to reduce our “global carbon footprint” ASAP > and I believe we can it in ways that a beneficial > to our economy. I agree. All alternatives, including more drilling, on the table.
I think conservative and liberal labels are bogus. Basically, I have an options of living under party with - 16th century approach to civil liberties (separation of church and state, family planning) - Horrible approach to the environment (I do not want an oil drilling rig in front of my beach, I do not want those forest clear cut - especially when it is not a solution, even temporary) - Excessive military spending (a drag on GDP) - Elimination of public secular education ( NCLB is just a way to starve public schools to get church school back in business of education) or - Affirmative action - Restrictive trade rhetoric - Increased government handouts I will take latter because I value freedom from government and religious interferance above all else. But none of the parties are liberal or conservative in the sense of the words that are used in the rest of the world. Democrats/Liberals - Labour Republican/Convervatives - Far Right
CFAchief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - Horrible approach to the environment (I do not > want an oil drilling rig in front of my beach, I > do not want those forest clear cut - especially > when it is not a solution, even temporary) I love this. So Democrats would rather corrupt governments in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America with no environmental standards produce the world’s oil, while the nation with the least corrupt and most effective regulator in the world–the United States–limits or bans itself from producing oil. The environmentalist argument is dead. It simply lacks logic.
I used to pretend to be politically conservative in the office until I realized that 90% of the people I work with are liberals. I don’t think the financial services industry is as conservative as people make it out to be. Look at all of the famous investors / people in the industry who are liberals. I do think it would be good for the country to have a conservative, ex-CEO as a President (someone from the investor class would be great) right now though. Neither of the current schmoes seem to know much about the economy.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > …while the nation with the > least corrupt and most effective regulator in the > world–the United States–… No, that’s Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. The US is 20th in the corruption stakes. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007
Yeah, whoever the hell transparency.org is. Great source. That doesn’t negate the argument that the U.S. is far less corrupt and has far more environmental standards than Kenya.
Actually, christmaths, you prove my point. Canada is the only major U.S. oil supplier that transparency.org (haha) says is “less corrupt” than the U.S.
I think there may be a slight correlation between Republican/conservative and financial market workers for psychological reasons. For example, if you see some guy selling wheat futures way below market value, someone with a more Republican/conservative/free-market/individualist bent will tend to see an opportunity to get something at good value, turn a profit, and act fast. Someone with a more Democratic/liberal/moderated-market/collectivist bent will tend to wonder what’s wrong with the guy and see if he’s in trouble because he has to sell so low. And they might feel a little guilty about taking advantage of someone else’s bad situation. A lot of those types might not want to enter the industry at all. So the Republican is more likely to rake in the profits, and the Democrat, even at the margin, might not do as well. Over time, the Republican gets promoted over the Democrat because they show higher profits, and so at the top, you may have slightly higher representations for Republicans, particularly in large, more bureaucratic institutions, and in proprietary trading. Where the Democrat might excel is where understandings of the limits to market orthodoxy are, and in smaller arenas like hedge funds, where you survival based on lower volatility rather than higher returns is more feasible. This is why I separate an interest in markets and a desire to profit by them from accepting an ideology that would say that everything should be handled by free markets. I think lots of - even most of - things should be handled through markets, but I do think the State has important functions too, and it’s important that the State be under the control of 1) responsive policy makers, and 2) capable administrators to implement policy.
chad, liberals may feel more guilty, but they are less charitable. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I wasn’t debating your point on drilling. I really don’t care. Just corruption. What have you got against transparency international? A quick google would yield 1.8m hits for the exact phrase “Transparency International”. They have offices around the world and have been running this survey for years. YOU made the claim that the US was the least corrupt in the world. How are you going to back up that claim? Do you have a better source?
I’ll have to read this, but my first reaction is: 1) Are we controlling for levels of wealth? Do equally wealthy liberals and conservatives act more or less charitable? 2) Are we accounting for the fact that conservatives might decide that social problems are best handled by individual charity vs liberals feeling that the state can exercise an economy of scale?
Well, says that liberals make more money on average but give less in absolute dollars. Syracuse University.
christmaths, no, transparency.org is fine. It can rank nations like Switzerland (in the pocket of Nazis) ahead of the U.S. all it wants. The fact is, the environmental argument is a dead one. And transparency.org’s own ranking prove it.