| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On July 15 2017 06:33 IgnE wrote: At some point isn't it better to just spend your time finding a better paying job? Or working more? I guess you did say you thought of it as a game . . . I'm interviewing for the job of doing this for people next week. I'm just doing it for myself while waiting on the CPA license. Give me a year. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
Can't believe I'm agreeing with a banker. But he's right on all accounts. He's won me over for the time being. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On July 15 2017 06:43 KwarK wrote: I'm interviewing for the job of doing this for people next week. I'm just doing it for myself while waiting on the CPA license. Give me a year. Why does the license take so long? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 15 2017 06:27 a_flayer wrote: Glenn Greenwald makes an interesting whataboutism case: The Steele dossier that contained incriminating information about Trump was partially obtained from Russian Kremlin-associated figures, and also Ukrainian government officials. In essence, the Democrats paid Steele to collect information from foreign agents who may have been looking to interfere in the US elections to help HRC get elected over Trump. It obviously doesn't excuse Juniors meeting, but should the Democrats who paid Steele to do that be prosecuted now just like Junior ought to be, if the act of attempting to obtain incriminating information from foreign entities is indeed illegal? I mean, if anything, the Steele dossier was a more successful attempt to do this (regardless of the accuracy of the informatoin), rather than the apparently failed attempt of Junior which seemed to have yielding nothing (as far as we know right now). How do these two things compare to one another, exactly? That's an interesting point. One difference is that Trump Jr understood the info to be coming from the Russian government in its attempt to get Trump elected. If the Clinton campaign is paying Steele to search for info in other countries, I mean there has to be times that it's reasonable to ethical to search for info in other countries. This is assuming there was no indication from Steele's Russian sources that they wanted policy concessions in return for the info, or that they actually wanted to get Clinton elected. Steele allegedly paid his sources, so one might think that would be the end of the "value exchange" and beyond that, there's no policy or election interference involved. The big difference on the Trump side is that you have this hacking campaign by the Russians, designed to influence the US news cycles in a major way, to help get Trump elected. So there's this question of whether Trump's favoritism for Russia and Putin, and the timing of events surrounding Trump Jr's meeting, are just coincidences, or are actually evidence of collusion. In other words the Russian hacking campaign adds this much bigger element to obtaining oppo research from a foreign adversary (and keep in mind in the case of Steele, it's not necessarily oppo research from a foreign adversary, but from "foreign entities"). To be sure, there are questions still unanswered, but the Trump Jr meeting shows us, at a minimum, that the Trump campaign was willing to obtain damaging info from a foreign adversary government - which would surely not be given without a quid pro quo. And in all likelihood based on tweet timing, Trump Sr knew full well about the intention of the meeting. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
16 hour exam + experience requirements (hours working under CPAs) + educational requirements (credit hours advanced accounting courses) + other requirements varying by state It's a bitch. I'm actually getting it really quickly in the grand scheme of things for someone who is also working full time. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On July 15 2017 06:56 IgnE wrote: well he loses money if the economy tanks I wish this was true because then the incentives of us and them might be aligned. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
In other words the Russian hacking campaign adds this much bigger element to obtaining oppo research from a foreign adversary Does this really matter to Trump Jr's situation? Could he reasonably have suspected the Russians would give him hacked info? Did the Russians' contact with him have anything to do with info from hacking, as opposed to fictitious info or info from some other source? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:07 Buckyman wrote: Does this really matter to Trump Jr's situation? Could he reasonably have suspected the Russians would give him hacked info? Did the Russians' contact with him have anything to do with info from hacking, as opposed to fictitious info or info from some other source? Well it certainly had to do with info from the Russian government as part of its effort to help elect Trump. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:04 KwarK wrote: I wish this was true because then the incentives of us and them might be aligned. it is true. he will still be impossibly wealthy but slightly less impossibly wealthy. he has stock. what drives a man like jamie dimon? you think he likes losing money? that doesn't mean i think his interests are aligned with "ours." us hoi polloi don't matter of course. i take his concern to mean that he thinks things at his level aren't looking so well, which means that things for us probably aren't either. vampires prefer healthy blood, you know. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:24 IgnE wrote: it is true. he will still be impossibly wealthy but slightly less impossibly wealthy. he has stock. what drives a man like jamie dimon? you think he likes losing money? Last time the economy crashed the big banks got together and agreed not to devalue their junk before they offloaded it to a sucker who could then be left holding the loss. They're on record selling it to customers claiming it's good while privately calling it shit. Nobody likes losing money. That's why they don't do it. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:04 KwarK wrote: I wish this was true because then the incentives of us and them might be aligned. JP Morgan refused bailout funds until the government coerced them to accept the funds. The government was worried investors would flee the banks getting bailout funds (as that would be an indicator of those with the worst financial health), so they basically made everyone take them. Aiming vitriol at Jamie Dimon over the bailouts doesn't really make any sense. JP Morgan was solvent. Not to mention, nearly every (absolutely every?) major bank repaid the bailout funds (plus interest) years ago and they've been comically overregulated since 2008. Maybe the economy would actually grow a little if the left could get over their irrational rage towards bankers. Last time the economy crashed the big banks got together and agreed not to devalue their junk before they offloaded it to a sucker who could then be left holding the loss. They're on record selling it to customers claiming it's good while privately calling it shit. Of course they did. Corporations don't act out of charity. They're there to make a profit. The system had horrible incentives, but it's not like the bankers were doing anything that any other company in the world wouldn't have done. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame the idiot buyers who bought the MBS without doing proper due diligence on the product they were buying, the rating agencies for ignoring their terrible rating models, and the government-distorted mortgage market. Before somebody brings up their Big Short knowledge, keep in mind that that movie is as "fair and balanced" as Fox News is. Source: I used to work in banking, though not at an investment bank or a bank that took bailout funds. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:26 KwarK wrote: Last time the economy crashed the big banks got together and agreed not to devalue their junk before they offloaded it to a sucker who could then be left holding the loss. They're on record selling it to customers claiming it's good while privately calling it shit. Nobody likes losing money. That's why they don't do it. yeah of course. i edited my post (very bad practice on a slow phone obvs). but sometimes you can't avoid taking a hit even if you are still standing at the end | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:27 mozoku wrote: JP Morgan refused bailout funds until the government coerced them to accept the funds. The government was worried investors would flee the banks getting bailout funds (as that would be an indicator of those with the worst financial health), so they basically made everyone take them. Aiming vitriol at Jamie Dimon over the bailouts doesn't really make any sense. JP Morgan was solvent. Not to mention, nearly every (absolutely every?) major bank repaid the bailout funds (plus interest) years ago and they've been comically overregulated since 2008. Maybe the economy would actually grow a little if the left could get over their irrational rage towards bankers. You're ignoring the toxic assets the government took off their hands, and the wider societal impact. An awful lot of people lost an awful lot of money in the recession and a lot of them never recovered. The pension funds that got missold shit never got a bailout. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:27 mozoku wrote: JP Morgan refused bailout funds until the government coerced them to accept the funds. The government was worried investors would flee the banks getting bailout funds (as that would be an indicator of those with the worst financial health), so they basically made everyone take them. Aiming vitriol at Jamie Dimon over the bailouts doesn't really make any sense. JP Morgan was solvent. Not to mention, nearly every (absolutely every?) major bank repaid the bailout funds (plus interest) years ago and they've been comically overregulated since 2008. Maybe the economy would actually grow a little if the left could get over their irrational rage towards bankers. lol "comically overregulated" in a post chain about an article w record bank profits | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21661 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:27 mozoku wrote: JP Morgan refused bailout funds until the government coerced them to accept the funds. The government was worried investors would flee the banks getting bailout funds (as that would be an indicator of those with the worst financial health), so they basically made everyone take them. Aiming vitriol at Jamie Dimon over the bailouts doesn't really make any sense. JP Morgan was solvent. Not to mention, nearly every (absolutely every?) major bank repaid the bailout funds (plus interest) years ago and they've been comically overregulated since 2008. Maybe the economy would actually grow a little if the left could get over their irrational rage towards bankers. Leaving banks to their own devices cause the last crisis. But sure lets pretend that the poor banks, while running record profits, are being held back from their true potential. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 15 2017 07:31 KwarK wrote: You're ignoring the toxic assets the government took off their hands, and the wider societal impact. An awful lot of people lost an awful lot of money in the recession and a lot of them never recovered. The pension funds that got missold shit never got a bailout. The TARP (toxic asset relief program) funds were bailout funds I was talking about. They repaid those with interest. The Fed also made a boatload of money of TARP iirc (don't remember the details off the top of my head), which eventually should flow back to taxpayers anyway. Leaving banks to their own devices cause the last crisis. But sure lets pretend that the poor banks, while running record profits, are being held back from their true potential. This is exactly the problem. People are angry at banks. Thus, politicians looking to satiate their base, throw ham-fisted regulation in droves at the banks. People, ten years later and still angry at the banks, refuse to even consider that some of the haphazard regulation thrown together in 2010 had some issues. Maybe we should let people with actual knowledge of finance make decisions on financial regulations, instead of having legislative decisions led by an irrational and finance-ignorant mob. Which is what has been going on since 2008. Nobody is advocating for going back to 2007-style regulations. Not even the major investment banks. But the stress tests on small banks, for example, are an utter joke and a huge costs for banks. I used to run some stress tests at the bank I worked for. The regulators they brought in to examine predictive modeling problems didn't include a single quant/dude with a quantitative degree. They brought in like 12 MBAs from top B-Schools. Do you know how expensive MBAs from top B-Schools are? They weren't even capable of doing the job. They came in, gave us incorrect statistical advice, and then told us we'd be sanctioned if we didn't follow it. This year, the bank's models don't even make sense. The same exact process basically took place for our anti-money laundering and fraud detection department, except it was 20 times worse. The regulators were so clueless that they were completely bamboozled when the department gave them 200 pages documents of a totally ineffective process. Or how about the fact that banks are required to hold so much capital for risky loans these days, that they aren't even profitable to make? Know who asks for risky loans? Low-income, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups. The "progressive" policies actively promote inequality by limiting credit to people who need it. Here's another banking regulation gem: banks aren't allowed to ask for race/ethnicity on loan applications. At the same time, they're required to prove to regulators that they're lending adequate amount to different races. It's a total contradiction. Curious how our bank resolved it? We had a guy sit down, look at an applicant's name, and try to guess what race the applicant was from his name (which is arguably racist in of itself lol). Literally. The regulators were totally okay with this process as well, because it's pretty much the best you can do given the contradictory set of regulations that are out there. Is it effective? Nobody even knows. Stories like this go on and on in banking. Meanwhile, Elisabeth Warren (who's never worked in the private sector, let alone banking/finance) panders to Leftist rage over banks for political purposes. And they eat it right up. Dodd-Frank is probably preferable to 2007, but it's a majorly flawed piece of regulation that isn't being reformed because it's being exploited for political purpose by Democrats. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
|
|
|
EPT
