Hacker News Reader

Comment by gizmo | Hacker News Reader

> Ah, the innocence of youth.

Ah, the smug certainty of a Wall Street Reporter. Let's not forget how miserably the WSJ (and all other media) have failed to pick up on the gross fiscal abuse on wall street. Some modesty would be in order here!

Besides, the student's suggestions are rather uncontroversial. She merely suggests that "to change wall street you have to change the incentives". How can any sensible person disagree with that?

The attitude that... "of course the people at Wall Street are going to screw everybody over for profit; what did you expect?" oozes from those last remarks. Urgh!

View on HN

I hardly disagree about the WSJ in general but I read the end of this article differently. The author's final question is a good one: why on earth did she take a job working for the very people whose irresponsibility her research exposed? Her answer, assuming it's sincere and not quoted out of context, is indeed naive: she's doing it to change the culture of Wall Street. Well, I agree with what I imagine the author's implicit points to be: (1) the odds that Wall Street culture will change because she took an analyst job are infinitesimal, it doesn't matter how brilliant and well-intentioned she is; (2) this is the kind of grandiose fantasy you have at that age.

Sadly, many young people overestimate how resilient they will be to a culture they abhor, which is how they get sucked in and assimilated. The risks to the beast are negligible compared to the risks to her soul (if this were a movie we'd all be yelling Nooooooooo...) and she's not unusual in underestimating this.

On the other hand, it's easy to understand why any "large New York investment bank" would want to hire her: anyone who can figure out what they do that masterfully will be useful in doing more of it.

I hadn't considered that interpretation earlier (not until it was pointed out in another comment) and I agree that it's completely possible the author meant it like that -- so my attitude was not justified.

It was because of the way the author put "their irresponsible underwriting practices" in quotes in the just before the conclusion that set the tone for me, but once again, I should not have jumped to conclusions.

>Sadly, many young people overestimate how resilient they will be to a culture they abhor, which is how they get sucked in and assimilated. The risks to the beast are negligible compared to the risks to her soul (if this were a movie we'd all be yelling Nooooooooo...) and she's not unusual in underestimating this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness :-)

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

-George Bernard Shaw

As much as I used to love this quote, I now see it as a non-sequitur.

Interesting you should say that. I wrote a comment last night (and then decided not to post it) that went like this:

That's one of those lines, like the opening sentence of Anna Karenina, that is written so authoritatively that you just take it for granted when you read it, but when you stop and think, there's no reason to believe is true.

(The reason I didn't post it is because I don't accept that the quote, even if true, invalidates what I said about naive people getting sucked into the beast. Disputing whether the quote is true makes it seem like I'm conceding that point, which I ain't. I'm the last person to defend the "reasonable man".)

Edit: Shaw was great though. "Animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends" is Wilde-worthy.

Thanks for the great reply. Love that last quote especially. :)

I don't think that comment is a slam on the idea, just the likelihood of it coming to pass. I expect Wall Street to screw everybody for profit, and I expect most businesses everywhere do it to the best of their ability. Wall Street is just more able.

I read that as the author longing for that fresh optimism to think that Wall Street could be changed.

I agree that if it ever were to change, it would be because (shareholders, the SEC, Congress) changed the incentives. For instance, bonuses and commissions held in escrow and then normalized based on actual vs advertised performance. Rating agencies may only accept payment from sellers or buyers but not both. Etc.

You may be right, it is plausible the author refers to her decision to work on Wall Street to change it from the inside as the product of the innocence of youth.

I should have given the author the benefit of the doubt.

The WSJ is mainly concerned with Wall Street. Most of Wallstreet makes out very well with their current culture. She is right, short term gains are rewarded, as they are in most industries. The difference if you can make millions on WS in a very small amount of time. And, if given the chance, most people would as well.

You seem to want to blame WS, but as an engineer, should I be overly concerned if the fashion industry fails, or the building industry? Sure, I hate seeing people lose their jobs, but am I going to change how I live? People on WS are no different.

Damn, I mean we hear all this talk of environmental problems, but the majority in the US still drive to work, a large number of those in huge trucks.

The People on WS are going to do what everybody else is going to do. It is just they have an opportunity to make so much more than most poeple.

Hey dont kill the messanger, I bet in 10 years she will laugh at her vision of people on business, if her vision were right the world would be a fairy tale.

I hope she or anyone can change it, but the more I understand of people the more corruption I see, at least were big money its involved. Sad but true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com