Hacker News Reader

Comment by create_account | Hacker News Reader

He effectively blacklists himself from any future job in finance (and therefore ends his career) just because he doesn't like his bonus?

So no, it's not Occam's Razor: if he were merely unhappy with his bonus, he would call another i-bank and move on.

BTW, I notice you're always quick to defend the big money status quo around here (you were against net neutrality a while back, IIRC).

What's in it for you, as a mere SEO "consultant"?

Are you paid to post these talking points, or do you really believe what you say?

View on HN

I don't really know what he's thinking. But it is interesting that he was fine with the culture during most of his career, then not-fine with the culture after he found out how much money he'd be making in the future. There are many boutique banks whose management shares his sentiments, in the sense that they believe big banks are too self-serving and too indifferent to their clients. Some of those banks do very well, and it wouldn't be terrible for their PR to hire him.

Do you know anyone who pays people for saying stuff like this on random message boards? I tend to say this kind of thing because I think it's true, and because I'm unimpressed with the quality of opposing arguments and would like someone to refute me. But if I can get paid while I'm at it, that's even better! I don't think the economics really work out, though.

Some of those banks do very well, and it wouldn't be terrible for their PR to hire him.

Possible, but unlikely.

Smith must have known he'd be attacked personally (as in that ad hominem piece you posted), and it's unlikely another bank would want to touch him, regardless of their true feelings towards Goldman.

Do you know anyone who pays people for saying stuff like this on random message boards?

Sure: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/pku22/iama_former_koch...

I tend to say this kind of thing because I think it's true, and because I'm unimpressed with the quality of opposing arguments and would like someone to refute me.

I'll give you credit for the latter (if it's true), but not the former.

Yeah, that reddit IAmA post is not very convincing. Considering it attempts to confirm every single /r/politics stereotype about the evil Koch Industries, I'm inclined to believe guilty_of_innocence's theory that it's a fake and a troll.

Maybe, since he was willing to name his employers, who happen to be despised in liberal circles.

OTOH, there is a lot of PR spending on social media (e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/politics/obama-campaign...), so it wouldn't surprise me if Goldman has hired people to smear Smith on forums like this one.

Can you imagine yourself paying someone to smear others on a forum? What if you really believed in your own cause? What if it cost you a trivial proportion of your buckets of money, and if you had legions of lawyers able to write terrifying NDAs? What if you had a history of being unscrupulous in countless other contexts?

What if all it took to "solve the problem" were a few choice words said to the right person?

This kind of smearing is almost certainly happening all over the place because there is tons of motive, tons of opportunity, and many people with a habit of being unscrupulous.

Can you imagine yourself paying someone to smear others on a forum?

I cannot, no.

But a large (and dare I say ruthless) organization interested in limiting the PR damage?

Sure.

Except it takes about 10 seconds to click over to byrneseyeview's profile and see that he's been on hn for years and is obviously not a shill.

It reflects poorly on you that you'd rather accuse someone of being dishonest than take a little effort to check your paranoia.

He's been on here for years, and so have I.

I have often wondered, though, about his alacrity to side with the establishment, in defense of investment bankers, against net neutrality, etc., and what his motivation is.

It reflects poorly on you that you can't conceive of someone widely disagreeing with you in good faith.

He could be doubling down. Sorta like they did on Mad Men after losing the tobacco contract.

He figures finance is dead as a way to make people wealthy, so he's setting himself up for a career change into criticism of the financial industry, which looks like it's a booming business.

Michael Lewis ended his career in finance by writing Liar's Poker. But he jump-started a successful career as an author and journalist. Something tells me he's doing better than he ever could have in his old career.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com