3 ms·

I'm only a random passerby in finance/economics but I have seen a few blogs like this upvoted on HN. Those blogs are usually (or at least advertised to be) run

I'm only a random passerby in finance/economics but I have seen a few blogs like this upvoted on HN. Those blogs are usually (or at least advertised to be) run by a single person (in this case, a couple). When I go to the blogs' about pages, that person barely has any experience working in finance or econ. People with past history of making money get predictions wrong all the time and here we are with bloggers who have never been in the game. Come on HN. Surely there are better sources that share these opinions.

jules-jules 6y ago
>When I go to the blogs' about pages, that person barely has any experience working in finance or econ. From the about page: Ms. Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years. The last decade of her career was spent as an outspoken critic of Wall Street’s corrupt practices, its private justice system and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. (This YouTube video captures Ms. Martens testifying before the Federal Reserve on June 26, 1998 against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
- easytiger 6y ago
  > Ms. Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years If there was any credibility to that it might have mentioned what she did. Plenty of procedural/pm/pa jobs that don't require much holistic knowledge or qualification.
  - jules-jules 6y ago
    Do you think they would allow a low-level position to testify before the Fed? A quick search reveals that Pam Martens worked as a strock broker for what is now CitiGroup for sixteen years. She is the recipient of the Woman of Courage Award from the National Organization for Women and the Susan B. Anthony Award from its New York City Chapter. Her suit, Martens v. Smith Barney, challenging mandatory arbitration for employee grievances, including civil rights-related claims, is in its seventh year in U.S. federal courts [1]. But I am guessing you are not arguing in good faith, as you seem unable to engage with the substance of the article but instead keep attacking the source. But please do let me know if you have any issues with the contents of the article, I would be keen to hear them as you seem to be so interested in its authors. Otherwise I'll leave it at that and won't waste anymore energy on ad hominems. [1]https://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02april/april02interviewmartens.html https://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02april/april02inter...

jules-jules 6y ago

>When I go to the blogs' about pages, that person barely has any experience working in finance or econ. From the about page: Ms. Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years. The last decade of her career was spent as an outspoken critic of Wall Street’s corrupt practices, its private justice system and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. (This YouTube video captures Ms. Martens testifying before the Federal Reserve on June 26, 1998 against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

easytiger 6y ago
> Ms. Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years If there was any credibility to that it might have mentioned what she did. Plenty of procedural/pm/pa jobs that don't require much holistic knowledge or qualification.
- jules-jules 6y ago
  Do you think they would allow a low-level position to testify before the Fed? A quick search reveals that Pam Martens worked as a strock broker for what is now CitiGroup for sixteen years. She is the recipient of the Woman of Courage Award from the National Organization for Women and the Susan B. Anthony Award from its New York City Chapter. Her suit, Martens v. Smith Barney, challenging mandatory arbitration for employee grievances, including civil rights-related claims, is in its seventh year in U.S. federal courts [1]. But I am guessing you are not arguing in good faith, as you seem unable to engage with the substance of the article but instead keep attacking the source. But please do let me know if you have any issues with the contents of the article, I would be keen to hear them as you seem to be so interested in its authors. Otherwise I'll leave it at that and won't waste anymore energy on ad hominems. [1]https://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02april/april02interviewmartens.html https://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02april/april02inter...