4 ms·

"I also realize that "quants" are utterly bankrupt. Paul Krugman is right - Obama has made serious error in trying to restart the finance machine." I think you

by Rod 17y ago

"I also realize that "quants" are utterly bankrupt. Paul Krugman is right - Obama has made serious error in trying to restart the finance machine." I think you're painting things with a very broad brush. While it's certainly true that there's a financial crisis of global proportions, it's also true that there's a whole world out there outside of the U.S., and that world is not under Obama's influence. Are quants bankrupt? Well, maybe in NYC. But NYC has not been the world's financial capital for a few years now. London has. And Shanghai is emerging pretty fast... A friend of mine who's a grad student at a top 5 math department in the U.S. was invited to join D.E. Shaw recently. Another friend just finished her MSc at MIT and will take a quant position in an investment fund... in East Asia ;-) Circumstances don't look cheery for sure, but just because the U.S. is depressed, it doesn't mean other parts of the world are equally depressed.

noaharc 17y ago
I think you are factually wrong on a few points. 1) Though Obama is the legal president of the United States only, it is trivial to see that his actions influence people in other countries. 2) It's hard to define "world's financial capital", but, by most accounts, New York is still the front-runner. See http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22financial+capital%22+world%27s http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=... 3) The concept of decoupled economies is false. The US is actually doing better than a lot of countries that proponents of the theory had expected to fare well. See http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/no-shelter-in-this-storm/ http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/no-shelter-in-thi...
- Rod 17y ago
  My replies: 1) Obviously. But whatever laws are passed in the U.S. are not going to be enforced outside the U.S. (of course). The president of the U.S. can exercize his influence abroad but he can't exactly force other countries to do what he wants, unless he threatens with penalties (not limited to military action), which would help denigrate the image of the U.S. abroad even more. Obama's administration can pass whatever laws it wants. Financial institutions will always find a loophole to be exploited. Regulatory arbitrage works wonders... 2) Defining "world's capital" is admittedly a childish game. One possible definition of world's financial capital would be to count the number of hedge funds in London and the number of hedge funds in NYC. 3) Of course the concept of decoupled economies is false. What I was trying to argue is that the correlation between the American economy and other countries' economies is not 100%. America is still a great country, obviously. Just don't expect the post-WW2 status to last forever. Things change.
  - noaharc 17y ago
    Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. It certainly is easy to project the geopolitical status quo infinitely into the future, and just as certainly that is wrong. But I think financial centers shift slowly -- we've only really seen three (London, New York, and Amsterdam) in as many centuries. Moreover, the traditions and rules of the predecessors are often carried over to the successors, and we can probably expect this continuity to be even stronger in the future, given the greater degree of global interconnectedness. So I guess what I'm saying is that it will be some time before we seen a financial industry like that of the turn of the 21st century, no matter where you look.
    - Rod 17y ago
      "So I guess what I'm saying is that it will be some time before we seen a financial industry like that of the turn of the 21st century, no matter where you look." I agree. And, honestly, that could be a wonderful thing. Now that the New Gilded Age seems to be over, maybe people can cool their heads off and get back to reality...

by Rod 17y ago

noaharc 17y ago

I think you are factually wrong on a few points. 1) Though Obama is the legal president of the United States only, it is trivial to see that his actions influence people in other countries. 2) It's hard to define "world's financial capital", but, by most accounts, New York is still the front-runner. See http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22financial+capital%22+world%27s http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=... 3) The concept of decoupled economies is false. The US is actually doing better than a lot of countries that proponents of the theory had expected to fare well. See http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/no-shelter-in-this-storm/ http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/no-shelter-in-thi...

Rod 17y ago
My replies: 1) Obviously. But whatever laws are passed in the U.S. are not going to be enforced outside the U.S. (of course). The president of the U.S. can exercize his influence abroad but he can't exactly force other countries to do what he wants, unless he threatens with penalties (not limited to military action), which would help denigrate the image of the U.S. abroad even more. Obama's administration can pass whatever laws it wants. Financial institutions will always find a loophole to be exploited. Regulatory arbitrage works wonders... 2) Defining "world's capital" is admittedly a childish game. One possible definition of world's financial capital would be to count the number of hedge funds in London and the number of hedge funds in NYC. 3) Of course the concept of decoupled economies is false. What I was trying to argue is that the correlation between the American economy and other countries' economies is not 100%. America is still a great country, obviously. Just don't expect the post-WW2 status to last forever. Things change.
- noaharc 17y ago
  Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. It certainly is easy to project the geopolitical status quo infinitely into the future, and just as certainly that is wrong. But I think financial centers shift slowly -- we've only really seen three (London, New York, and Amsterdam) in as many centuries. Moreover, the traditions and rules of the predecessors are often carried over to the successors, and we can probably expect this continuity to be even stronger in the future, given the greater degree of global interconnectedness. So I guess what I'm saying is that it will be some time before we seen a financial industry like that of the turn of the 21st century, no matter where you look.
  - Rod 17y ago
    "So I guess what I'm saying is that it will be some time before we seen a financial industry like that of the turn of the 21st century, no matter where you look." I agree. And, honestly, that could be a wonderful thing. Now that the New Gilded Age seems to be over, maybe people can cool their heads off and get back to reality...