That's groovy. However, "industry overall" waters down the views held by those who actually trade size and gives voice to other areas in the industry. On the other hand, I was trying to more directly address the question posed in this thread.
Can any trader worth his/her salt be a liberal?
- Thread starter vanhelsing
- Start date
I wonder if any trader that made a fortune on some market deficiency would later become a supporter of plugging those loopholes?
I guess it's the rational thing to do - although it's very hypocritical: "oh, I made lots of money this way, but it's really not fair to the market so lets change it."
I guess it's the rational thing to do - although it's very hypocritical: "oh, I made lots of money this way, but it's really not fair to the market so lets change it."
And up is down.
The only time folks like you will ever accept ANYTHING at face value is when you readily agree with it. I'm all for being skeptical, but some of you guys are driving with serious blind spots.
Hey, if that's what you say works for Buffett and Soros, then feel free to do the same. This is the information age, after all. Are you now saying that a Democratic government would benefit savvy traders? Which is it? When you go in circles like that, it's hard sometimes to know where you started from and which way is up. Or down.
And that is why the hedge funds that are presently operating are more supportive of the Democrats? You may wish to think this one through a bit longer.Quote from Gringinho:
I wonder if any trader that made a fortune on some market deficiency would later become a supporter of plugging those loopholes?
I guess it's the rational thing to do - although it's very hypocritical: "oh, I made lots of money this way, but it's really not fair to the market so lets change it."
Quote from Thunderdog:
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. However, I'm not sure how you walked away with that conclusion. Perhaps your inference is correct, as I'm sure many ETers would agree. However, I saw no such allusion in the article itself. Therefore, I think your conclusion is safely your own (and that of many other ETers
I came to this interpretation because the article is questioning why the hedge funds give so much to the democratic party when historically it is the democratic party in favor of higher taxes for the wealthy. The article also explains someones opinion that the democratic ideologies are more progressive compared to republican ideologies (stem cell research, abortion for example)
So my conclusion is that the people in these big hedge funds in general are progressive thinking smart people who do clash with some repressive republican ideologies, but have benefited from republican ideas on lower taxes for capital gains.
Here is a sentence in the last paragraph of that article
"I know...no one deserves to have their taxes raised quite like these extremely well-compensated benefactors of the party that seeks to destroy them. However, as usual, its up to conservatives to know better."
What is he saying?
That last sentence is an opinion. The opinion is not my concern. Rather, I am just looking at the facts as reported. It is these reported facts that I excerpted in direct response to the question posed in this thread.
However, if you would like my interpretation of these facts, I would say that here are some people who are thinking longer term than just one move in advance. Perhaps they are less short-sighted than those people who only regard the next tax cut as the messiah. Perhaps they recognize that there is a bigger and far more serious picture to contend with, and are not hypnotically dazzled by the pyritic glitter of supply side "economics." But that's just my own interpretation.
I said it seemed the rational thing to do, and that is a single isolated view on the statistical fact - one single reason. All the reasons, and their importance, for their support of democrats may not be that obvious, and I don't think that there is any simple explanation - although we all strive to reduce any consequence into something simplistic that we can understand.
About rationality - a nice critique of Public Choice Theory is:
The absurdity of public-choice theory is captured by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in the following little scenario: âCan you direct me to the railway station?â asks the stranger. âCertainly,â says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, âand would you post this letter for me on your way?â âCertainly,â says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
I think it's not trivial to find motives to such complex, composited phenomenons as hedge fund managers supporting democrats. Even though statistics can show us the numbers and facts - the outcome, the reason behind is similar to the knapsack problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem
I think that something like Two-level utilitarianism is a more accurate model, although it's not trivial to try and identify all the factors of a decision for a group of voters or a financial sector for that matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism
Ok, I think I understand. People like Soros and Buffett are looking at the big picture for the country best interest, so they support democrats with their money because democrats pledge to invest in alternative energys (for one example)
So now that they are very wealthy, (people like Soros and Buffett), and can afford to pay large taxes, their goal is not to accumulate their wealth so much any more, but to use their wealth more productively for their country, and not just for themselves?
How many traders live in this country' s most conservative states and cities (in the Deep South), and how many live in this country's most liberal states and cities (Northeast)?
I do not know the exact numbers, but I would venture that most live in more liberal states.
Of course they know they pay more taxes, but they choose to live there anyway, for reasons that are pretty obvious: "liberal" states offer a better quality of life.
The most backward states in this country happen to be the most conservative--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. These states happen to have low taxes for businesses, yet they still remain backward.
I do not know the exact numbers, but I would venture that most live in more liberal states.
Of course they know they pay more taxes, but they choose to live there anyway, for reasons that are pretty obvious: "liberal" states offer a better quality of life.
The most backward states in this country happen to be the most conservative--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. These states happen to have low taxes for businesses, yet they still remain backward.