TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789
Results 201 to 214 of 214

Thread: Being immigrated in France what can happen to me if Marine Le Pen wins the elections

  1. #201
    Yeah it'd be an understatement to say I wasn't paying atention before the 2008 crisis but it happened and since then, yeah, you can bet I'm distrustful of the big bankers because the event has proven in the clearest way possible that they are greedy and untrustworthy and unable to learn from history.

    Honestly dema with all respect, I'm a bit disappointed here, because I know you know these topics way better than I do. I don't deny that my argument doesnt go very deep and has shades of knee-jerkiness, mind you. I'm still new to caring about politics beyond the news cycle.
    Last edited by raph; 10th May 2017 at 05:26.

  2. #202
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Well this whole discussion has been a bizarre digression to begin with. I had the feeling that people kept pressing me to explain my thinking on a point that I didn't even originally bring up and wouldn't naturally ever bring up by myself anyway, but I was just jumping in on. And part of it was just to give an impression of the way I think about politics. For me it's all about policy and statistics, and the emotional side doesn't really speak to me, at least not in terms of what to actually do. I'm a wonk's wonk (wonk = people most interested in statistics & policies and not the emotional or horse-race side).

    But I'm particularly liberal in the sense that I recognize other people see politics a lot differently than I do, and there's not only nothing wrong with that, but it's a good thing not everyone thinks like I do and that people are still moved by the emotional side. Politics would be moribund if it were all wonks and no bleeding-hearts. And to the extent I know you all (raph, Melan, I don't feel I know zacharius well yet but seems like a nice enough guy) only by what you post, I have nothing but warm feelings & friendship, and I don't think anyone should ever be made to feel bad for their honest political opinions because, you know, values & beliefs like that are sacred. Who am I to say people can't believe & value what they do? (Although GMD & Vae know how to test my commitment to that, anyway the trolling part.)

    And actually I need to apologize. I was out of line saying if people "really cared" they'd study the issue like a wonk. That's not true at all. Of course people can care about politics in all sorts of ways, whatever is honest to their beliefs and values, and it was wrong of me to denigrate that. So sorry about that. Mea culpa (again).

    But for the record I don't even disagree. Bankers & people in the finance world undoubtedly get into the field because they're interested in making bookoos of money, and I expect people that rise to the top, a sizable proportion of them are of the personality that if they saw an exploit they thought they'd get away with, they'd take it. I don't deny the grounds for calling them greedy or untrustworthy, it's just not the part I'd personally focus on.

    Edit: Just regarding zacharius's point, no, I wasn't directly referring to you. In the text you quoted I was making a more general rhetorical point about what a wonk's perspective on politics is like & using that kind of language to dramatize it. But re: your actual point, if you want me to respond to it, my thinking is we're using the term "historical context" in much different ways, so the two things we're talking about can co-exist. What I was talking about is a narrative that gets passed down to people from their grandparents & great grand parents when they're developing their values in childhood, why certain villages or certain families in certain regions lean a certain way politically and have characteristic opinions, that gets slowly percolated over decades if not centuries. I mean I'm talking about how the term "banker" and "finance" has been given meaning since the medieval period, with all its emotional valence of corruption & distrust we might hear from our grandparents & take for granted & just assume today, but actually were given that content over a long period of history that's worth recognizing. What you're talking about is the really concrete context of people's direct experience with some events or experiences, that probably also taps into those deep-set narratives, but is also a direct experience they respond to as well. So we were making a bit different points about what history adds to meaning (values you just absorb growing up vs. lived experience) that exist alongside each other together, at least the way I think about it. So that's how I'd reconcile what I was saying with your point, at least on my first pass. Ok, well, there's also the part about emotional valence vs. detached wonk-think, but that doesn't really change either way. People can despise bankers because of what they learned from their grandparents or because they used to love bankers until this or that crisis they witnessed turned them. Either way wouldn't change the point I was making from those posts that emotion, wherever it comes from, is a distraction to policy-making from a wonk's way of looking at it. So just on that front, the housing crisis isn't really a counterargument to my broader point (which, again, I was rhetorically dramatizing because it's a politics thread, which always invite a little drama.)
    Last edited by demagogue; 10th May 2017 at 07:07.

  3. #203
    At the same time, bringing it up forces us to take a look and indeed wonder why these notions may resonate so much emotionally due to culture/history, and try as much as possible to detach rational arguments from this initial response.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    Yeah it'd be an understatement to say I wasn't paying atention before the 2008 crisis but it happened and since then, yeah, you can bet I'm distrustful of the big bankers because the event has proven in the clearest way possible that they are greedy and untrustworthy and unable to learn from history.

    Honestly dema with all respect, I'm a bit disappointed here, because I know you know these topics way better than I do. I don't deny that my argument doesnt go very deep and has shades of knee-jerkiness, mind you. I'm still new to caring about politics beyond the news cycle.
    So what exactly is a "banker" to you? Not that I disagree with you but I think it's helpful to demarcate exactly who we're talking about. Are you referring to large bulge bracket bank executives, anyone who works in high finance, advisory businesses, or large hedge fund/private equity money managers?

    Since I'll be starting as an investment banker myself soon would I fall that category? Keep in mind what the grunts do (analysts and associates) isn't a great gig in and of itself and actually totals out to a mediocre wage on an hourly basis especially once you factor in the taxes and cost of living associated with living close to the office in any financial hub.



    Although in Macron's case it's somewhat fortuitous that het "coincidentally" attended his first Bilderberg meeting and then almost immediately wins his first ever attempt at public office...for a head of state position no less.



    Also keep in mind that's part of why people become bankers to begin with. Half of the reason for someone getting their first job with a company like McKinsey or Goldman Sachs is because working at those companies allows you to build up a huge rolodex of corporate executives. There's a lot of benefits associated with that: you can easily call up people to get a job at different companies, you'll know folks who can get your startup funded or its product in front of distributors, and in some cases you'll even be sought out specifically for your network (Example: Bank of America recently poached a senior investment banker and was willing to pay him a $50 million signing bonus to switch). Some of these people will be politicians who depend on donors (both the bank and your network) to keep up their re-election campaigns, lavish lifestyles, and Cayman Islands bank accounts. As such it isn't entirely surprising that someone from a large multinational bank (e.g. Rotschild) would be very well connected and picked as a great representative of those interests......and the interests of the "1%" (more accurately, the world's 0.0001%) align fairly closely with the interests of a bank executive. "Bankers" are in a service industry: they get rich by helping richer people become wealthier.

    Or as Carlin says:
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 15th May 2017 at 18:31.

  5. #205
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Europops
    He'd never said that and never would.

    Because he didn't have the grammar of a giftwrapped fruitcake.

  6. #206
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Wondering what our French friends think of Macron's cabinet. To my shame, I know absolutely nothing about any of these people.

  7. #207
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2011
    Location: Montpellier, France
    Same old. The media hammered that Macron is the renaissance of French politics, but a few people in the government are old faces we've known for the past 20-30 years. Hell, Le Drian was a minister in the previous government already. What a big change!

  8. #208
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Thanks, skacky.

  9. #209
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by nickie View Post
    Wondering what our French friends think of Macron's cabinet. To my shame, I know absolutely nothing about any of these people.
    22 ministers, split evenly between men and women. 13 of them are drawn from political parties, and 2 of those have been expelled by theirs for joining the cabinet. Only 4 have previous ministerial experience.

  10. #210
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    So they're not all from political parties - I didn't realise that. As long as they all have experience in knowing when to keep their mouths shut, it may well go a lot better than another place I won't mention. Good or bad, politics is a lot more interesting than it used to be.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    He'd never said that and never would.

    Because he didn't have the grammar of a giftwrapped fruitcake.
    You're 100% wrong. Here's a video of him saying, word for word, what you say he never said and never would.


  12. #212
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    I think the word 'grammar' was the key. There is an all-important 's' missing from your image.

  13. #213
    You're making a fairly ridiculous defense of his statement:

    He'd never said that and never would.

    Because he didn't have the grammar of a giftwrapped fruitcake.
    He didn't say "he didn't say it like that". He said "He'd never said that", which is a VERY different statement then saying that the image is wrong in a way that doesn't interfere with the meaning (since it was the only result that popped up with the quote visible).

  14. #214
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    My observation wasn't intended as a defense. I took that from SubJeff's post. I've no idea if that's what he meant.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •