You would be wrong, I don't live in Houston. Although I don't live in NYC, I am in North East. And I talk to different people on the street everyday (part of my job). Some of them are at MD level, pretty sure that's high enough to know what's going on (unless all your friends are CEOs). And don't short change the traders, some of them I know pulled in high 7 figure bonus last year. They are what's driving the street. Bush or not, from the MDs to the peons, most were pretty happy about last year's results.
Dollars in my pocket is an abstract theory? So you are dismissing the underlying principles behind our entire economy? That's rich. I'm simply pointing out to your the inconsistency in your argument.
I talk mostly to the derivative and fix income guys, they are usually less jacked up than the equity side. Of course that's all relative.
That wasn't the point. You seem to dismiss the fact (or couldn't care less) that the death of US manufacturing is nothing more than a speed bump on the road to globalization without thought as to how that would affect a lot of American families. that's all
My contacts are in the VC/Banking/Buyout firm sector - so CEO's pitch to them. They're happy about last year's results - because MONEY is what drives the street, not a bunch of traders who grew up watching too much "Wall Street" and "boiler room"
I am talking about CEOs of IBanks, not some company looking for funding. And contacts with the receptionist at a VC firm doesn't really count. You obviously don't have a clue how money is made in these firms. A good trading desk can make hundreds of millions for the firm, they are driving the street. Do you know an average new deal (on the fix income side) is about 500 million dollars? A desk cranking out several deals a month can make a lot of money even with a few basis points margin.
D&D, where people love to argue about worthless things. Come on people, let's get back to planet earth. There's lots of things Bush has failed at - especially to do with Iraq. But you definitely can't knock him on the economy -- he may be a failure at everything else, but in the time period he has been president, we have gone from a recession to major economic boom. And he isn't riding any dot-com bubbles either. Unemployment is at all-time lows, etc. You can argue that the economy has blossomed in spite of him -- in which case, you'd also have to concede the same about Clinton who did in fact ride the dot-com wave to great economic prosperity. I think it's moot. Bush has failed woefully in Iraq. But he definitely has not failed the economy. And I don't really see any point in arguing that.
Its just a question of which families. If we limit globalization we increase the prices to EVERYONE, which adversely affects all families. It makes our televisions, cars, food etc more expensive which hinders our lifestyle and our ability to save and live. As democrats and liberals tend to be portrayed as for the people and to help the suffering at the expense of the wealthy, its ironic that by not globalizing we are saying that others outside the US are not worth to compete with US workers. Their hard work and innovation should not be rewarded, only the work of Americans should be. That principal keeps the US and its people from becoming more efficient and working in higher margin areas like the service industry. As far as the Republican vs. Democrat on Wall Street: From my experience many people will be Republican, but will in public claim to have democratic values based on their positions. Some though tend to gravitate to the democratic side as they feel they are enlightened and academics and are so intellectual that they should make many of the decisions for others. The primary voters for the democratic party tend to be either very wealthy or lower-lower middle class. The first because regardless of taxes, they will still maintain a very high lifestyle and are so above everyday needs and problems that they can't fathom how anyone can be hungry or not have certain necessities that they've always had. The second for obvious reasons as a means to recieve more benefits at the expense of others.
Actually we can knock him on the economy very easy. When more than 10% of the money we pay in taxes goes towards nothing. It doesn't pay for services, the military, or pay down are debt, or anything. Instead it just pays for the interest on our national debt, which has increased immensely under Bush. The govt. should be better stewards for our money than that. Furthermore the people who have benefited most from the said ecnomy are the ones who were already not suffering before.
Forgive me but I don't think I've ever heard any democrat espouse this idea that people outside of America aren't worthy to compete with American workers. But there has to be a way to balance corporate profits and the sustaining of the American family without driving them into poverty.
OK, I get it, so you claim to know the managing director of some regional investment bank from Baltimore - yeah then you're rather well equipped to judge the political temprament of the Manhattan financial community. Actually I do, they are our clients as I've worked for a wall street law firm for years. You obviously have a bit to learn about the industry if you're the one who thinks that traders from Baltimore (again, somebody who watched too much "Wall Street" and thinks the world revolves around the smelly trader in front of his Bloomberg machine....) are the only thing that makes money. Thanks for the advice though.
My feelings exactly. Bush's economics may not be good for government, but they are definitely good for most Americans.
Most of the "wall street" people in NY are Democrats because the Republican Party has run so amuck when it comes to social issues that to vote republican is unthinkable. If they do have any fiscal Republican leanings they are swept aside because of issues like abortion, equal rights for the gay population, the environment, etc. As long as the Republicans use these issues to draw a line in the sand there they won't get much love in NYC.
Oh goodness, Sam are you claiming to understand finance because you are a lawyer for financial types? That is rich. I deal with lawyers such as yourself on a daily basis. You boys get the grunt work. You create our PSA's, our LLC Agreements, our Employment Agreement language -- all the crap work that we don't concern ourselves with. Basically, you are our legal errand boys. If you understood business, you wouldn't be in that profession. You'd be calling the shots. Putting money at risk. Not wordsmithing legal docs. Do not for one minute pretend like you are an expert on finance. You are not hired to do that at all.
How many lower class rednecks are voting for Dems? Let's not categorize people. 50 million people voted for Kerry, if yoiu're telling me that the number of rich people plus poor people in America equals 50 million...
law firms also have to review all the legalities in a merger, which generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the underwriter. if Sam is involved with that, I'd say he knows what he's talking about.
Try again, the MDs I know are not from Baltimore, they work in NYC (a few in London), one of them works for Goldman. Pretty sure they are not one of the "regional investment bank" you are talking about. And those "smelly traders" make whole a lot more money then some lawyer reading over the legal documents for a street firm. So you worked at a law firm big deal, you aren't close to sniffing a seven figure salary unless you are a partner. And we all know no law firm partner spends 18 hours a day posting on a basketball bbs, so please don't tell you are the one who knows how to make money.
I htink you both need to take a step back and breathe deeply. You're both making statements that noone can verify in regards to who you know, or where you work, etc. It's getting too personal.
