4 ms·

The banking culture...how can such idiotic counterproductive mores dominate the allocation of capital...or more colloquially...how does bullshit still rule. we

The banking culture...how can such idiotic counterproductive mores dominate the allocation of capital...or more colloquially...how does bullshit still rule. we as makers, innovators, and inventors have to topple the inefficient stupidity of the system, as is. I honestly believe we are the only ones on the planet that can correct this stupidity of the suits.

Killah911 13y ago
Indeed, this is a very hard problem that needs to be solved. I just learned of JAK bank, IMHO it's a step in the right direction. Constantly accelerating systems are not natural or sustainable. Hopefully we can find solutions to money, banking and investing that are sustainable and productive without being predatory to parasitic towards most of humanity.
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  > Constantly accelerating systems are not natural or sustainable You know, all of technology is one giant constantly accelerating system.
  - Killah911 13y ago
    I don't know about that. Sure the perception is that "technology" is constantly accelerating. But if you look at it a more finite, measurable sense, for eg. Steam Engine/Steam Propulsion technology (I picked an arbitrary one, based on my assumptions, so apologies if this technology is "accelerating"), can be said to have decelerated. In this sense, the constant "acceleration", IMHO is more of a perception thing. However, companies setting higher and higher sales forecast no matter what, is the type of acceleration that is quantifiable and not quite sustainable indefinitely. There are limits. You can keep profiting till you've got a monopoly on EVERYTHING... and then you just make all the minions work harder, or make people produce more babies so there are more consumer? That type of acceleration is unsustainable and quite frankly, absurd.
    - lesterbuck 13y ago
      Consider software. No matter what new tools and amazing techniques to reduce and control complexity, everyone is still operating at or beyond the limits of the human mind to manage that complexity. That pretty much defines the state of the art in any technical field. I'm sure that applies in finance, too. And whoever invents more effective tools to manage complexity will be richly rewarded, on average.
dclowd9901 13y ago
Hey did you see that story about the topical caffeine?!
jpeg_hero 13y ago
> we as makers, innovators, and inventors have to topple the inefficient stupidity of the system, well, if the kid was working in M&A he was working FOR the innovator trying to get his acquisition done. truth is, if there wasnt as much hustle in IB, deals would fall apart. lots of deals need momentum to close.
ra 13y ago
Sure, but the reason basically is wealth has 2 currencies, money and property. That's why many of the wealthiest people you meet around the world got wealthy by working directly in property or finance.
bluthru 13y ago
Just think of all the GDP that's tied up in investment banking. We'd probably all be better off without a stock market. Imagine if those people had to actually introduce wealth into the economy for a living instead of just pocketing percentages.
- patio11 13y ago
  We'd probably all be better off without a stock market. Would you care to describe the mechanism by which middlemen get less of the economy without a public market? Because that is not the experience of assets without public markets. (And, indeed, this is why investment banks make most of their money away from "the stock market.") To use an example which many HNers are intimately familiar with, if you happen to have $100,000 to invest towards your retirement and decide to park it in an index fund, you will pay approximately $150~$500 a year for the privilege. If you were to invest it via a venture capitalist (who specialize in making markets between people who have money and people who have companies in the absence of public markets which can connect them), it would cost you $2,000 a year and 20% of your investment gains... in the unlikely event that your VC of choice had positive returns. Also, you wouldn't be allowed to invest in the first place, because the VC model does not include talking to poor people like yourself.
  - bluthru 13y ago
    It's a system that depends on the next generation buying into the idea of what a company is worth at a higher value. What happens when the next generation has no interest in buying into the idea of what a share of a company is worth? What happens to the last generation that has no one to sell shares to? Why does retirement depend on the young effectively giving the elderly money with wall street taking a percentage? We used to have pensions in this country before the 401k loophole was exploited. 401k was never intended to be a middle class retirement vehicle. Instead of just pocketing the matched 401k funds, it is required to go to wall street where they take a percentage. Built in customers, even though 75% of managed funds perform worse than index funds. It's a joke.
    - 13y ago
sliverstorm 13y ago
Yet you provide not even an inkling of how you expect to achieve that, or even why you believe the makers/innovators/inventors will do a better job.
- aswanson 13y ago
  Im gonna go out on a limb and assume most of us,know that never sleeping and powerpoints arent going to progress the global economy, long term. ymmv.
Mikeb85 13y ago
If you think you can do better, then do better... Anyone with a few grand can play in the public markets.
kenster07 13y ago
Young kids who feel like they have something to prove are not the types to question the culture that they think will prove that something.

Killah911 13y ago

Indeed, this is a very hard problem that needs to be solved. I just learned of JAK bank, IMHO it's a step in the right direction. Constantly accelerating systems are not natural or sustainable. Hopefully we can find solutions to money, banking and investing that are sustainable and productive without being predatory to parasitic towards most of humanity.

chad_oliver 13y ago
> Constantly accelerating systems are not natural or sustainable You know, all of technology is one giant constantly accelerating system.
- Killah911 13y ago
  I don't know about that. Sure the perception is that "technology" is constantly accelerating. But if you look at it a more finite, measurable sense, for eg. Steam Engine/Steam Propulsion technology (I picked an arbitrary one, based on my assumptions, so apologies if this technology is "accelerating"), can be said to have decelerated. In this sense, the constant "acceleration", IMHO is more of a perception thing. However, companies setting higher and higher sales forecast no matter what, is the type of acceleration that is quantifiable and not quite sustainable indefinitely. There are limits. You can keep profiting till you've got a monopoly on EVERYTHING... and then you just make all the minions work harder, or make people produce more babies so there are more consumer? That type of acceleration is unsustainable and quite frankly, absurd.
  - lesterbuck 13y ago
    Consider software. No matter what new tools and amazing techniques to reduce and control complexity, everyone is still operating at or beyond the limits of the human mind to manage that complexity. That pretty much defines the state of the art in any technical field. I'm sure that applies in finance, too. And whoever invents more effective tools to manage complexity will be richly rewarded, on average.

dclowd9901 13y ago

Hey did you see that story about the topical caffeine?!

jpeg_hero 13y ago

> we as makers, innovators, and inventors have to topple the inefficient stupidity of the system, well, if the kid was working in M&A he was working FOR the innovator trying to get his acquisition done. truth is, if there wasnt as much hustle in IB, deals would fall apart. lots of deals need momentum to close.

ra 13y ago

Sure, but the reason basically is wealth has 2 currencies, money and property. That's why many of the wealthiest people you meet around the world got wealthy by working directly in property or finance.

bluthru 13y ago

Just think of all the GDP that's tied up in investment banking. We'd probably all be better off without a stock market. Imagine if those people had to actually introduce wealth into the economy for a living instead of just pocketing percentages.

patio11 13y ago
We'd probably all be better off without a stock market. Would you care to describe the mechanism by which middlemen get less of the economy without a public market? Because that is not the experience of assets without public markets. (And, indeed, this is why investment banks make most of their money away from "the stock market.") To use an example which many HNers are intimately familiar with, if you happen to have $100,000 to invest towards your retirement and decide to park it in an index fund, you will pay approximately $150~$500 a year for the privilege. If you were to invest it via a venture capitalist (who specialize in making markets between people who have money and people who have companies in the absence of public markets which can connect them), it would cost you $2,000 a year and 20% of your investment gains... in the unlikely event that your VC of choice had positive returns. Also, you wouldn't be allowed to invest in the first place, because the VC model does not include talking to poor people like yourself.
- bluthru 13y ago
  It's a system that depends on the next generation buying into the idea of what a company is worth at a higher value. What happens when the next generation has no interest in buying into the idea of what a share of a company is worth? What happens to the last generation that has no one to sell shares to? Why does retirement depend on the young effectively giving the elderly money with wall street taking a percentage? We used to have pensions in this country before the 401k loophole was exploited. 401k was never intended to be a middle class retirement vehicle. Instead of just pocketing the matched 401k funds, it is required to go to wall street where they take a percentage. Built in customers, even though 75% of managed funds perform worse than index funds. It's a joke.
  - 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

Yet you provide not even an inkling of how you expect to achieve that, or even why you believe the makers/innovators/inventors will do a better job.

aswanson 13y ago
Im gonna go out on a limb and assume most of us,know that never sleeping and powerpoints arent going to progress the global economy, long term. ymmv.

Mikeb85 13y ago

If you think you can do better, then do better... Anyone with a few grand can play in the public markets.

kenster07 13y ago

Young kids who feel like they have something to prove are not the types to question the culture that they think will prove that something.