Garys Economics
Discussion
I have mentioned this guy before but I've never felt more compelled to 'spread the word' than I have for this guy (definitely biased by my working class upbringing), and this latest video I think highlights something pretty obvious when it's explained to you but that I've certainly been blinkered to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtHN2RKdqI
His education and career path from his social standing makes him an almost unique person, then he has then chosen to try and use his experience and knowledge to try and change things and not just make more and more money. He makes no secret he still trades himself, but my point is he isn't 'just' still at City bank earning millions and shrugging his shoulders about things effecting 'regular' people (these being his siblings etc).
He's actually acting on his moral compass, it's like a crusade few realise actually needs going on!?
NowWatchThisDrive said:
Not heard of him and don't have any particular opinion on his content, but after a quick read of his background I'm pretty sure there's some dramatic license being taken in the reporting of his career and comp trajectory.
Surely ‘I was Citi bank’s most profitable trader globally between x year and y year’ (which is what he says) is pretty easy to call out if it’s BS? What’s in it for him to make that up?NowWatchThisDrive said:
Not heard of him and don't have any particular opinion on his content, but after a quick read of his background I'm pretty sure there's some dramatic license being taken in the reporting of his career and comp trajectory.
I might normally agree but in some ways to get where he got from his background he had to be exceptional in some way (which is part of his point)There is an interview with him by another guy (that's well over an hour long) where he goes into detail about (amongst other things) his pathway into City bank. The story goes he was tipped off about a sort of backroom game for undergrads in which the winner gets an automatic intern/placement whatever with City bank and he won that.
He 'appears' to me to be low on BS, he perhaps comes across as liking to talk about his achievements too much but then I think he's perhaps always had to battle for authenticity, as like most they will assume he hasn't got the backgorund/knowledge/experience he says, as even when he does state it many still think it's got dramatic license/is full of BS!
NowWatchThisDrive said:
According to this, he joined as a grad in 2008 and got paid £400k in his first year then £1mm the next. Suffice it to say that anyone on a sellside trading desk then or since could instantly tell you how believable that is.
2.60 to 17 mins he describes the early pathway, to the £400K which was basically all bonus as the story goeshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViY-zI3b5JQ
Obviously it's up to you what you believe, but if you'd been running a desk at a competitor at the time and been involved in the horse trading of bonus pool allocation, you'd know how these things work and have a pretty good sense of how realistic those numbers are for someone 1-2 years into the job. More to the point, the FCA register shows him as only having CF30 approval (required to trade) from mid-2010.
NowWatchThisDrive said:
Obviously it's up to you what you believe, but if you'd been running a desk at a competitor at the time and been involved in the horse trading of bonus pool allocation, you'd know how these things work and have a pretty good sense of how realistic those numbers are for someone 1-2 years into the job. More to the point, the FCA register shows him as only having CF30 approval (required to trade) from mid-2010.
He is very believable, yes I do believe him, I think the claims he makes if hyperbolic would be easy to discredit. He is IMO the definition of authentic, hey if I'm wrong then so be it, but I think you are being a bit flippant and presumptive and if you did listen to those few minutes (which I doubt) you haven't made any specific comment regarding that.To you it's simply "that's impossible he's a liar"
I would implore everyone to at least watch the minutes I quoted and make your own mind up, I think he makes some interesting points even if you do think he's embelished his earnings (he doesn't seem the type to tbh, he talks of being embarassed almost upset at earning what he did that first lucrative year as he can't help compare it to his fathers working life as a Postman)
He definitely attended a state school, then LSE, got a job as a trader with City bank, got this CF30 approval at 23, made a lot of money, gave up working for a bank, went back to Oxford to study for a PhD, and has started a youtube channel on wealth inequality for comparatively zero monetary gain.
You’ve got to look at the content of this argument, not the content of his character.
It would appear he has a point about economists being utterly useless given recurring events.
It’s nothing more than human nature exhibiting itself. I’m not sure that’s anything surprising.
What isn’t surprising is despite this happening again and again people remain apathetic and turn once again to the cretins who cause this recurring issue.
What people need to do is vote for none of the above.
It would appear he has a point about economists being utterly useless given recurring events.
It’s nothing more than human nature exhibiting itself. I’m not sure that’s anything surprising.
What isn’t surprising is despite this happening again and again people remain apathetic and turn once again to the cretins who cause this recurring issue.
What people need to do is vote for none of the above.
Scootersp said:
NowWatchThisDrive said:
Obviously it's up to you what you believe, but if you'd been running a desk at a competitor at the time and been involved in the horse trading of bonus pool allocation, you'd know how these things work and have a pretty good sense of how realistic those numbers are for someone 1-2 years into the job. More to the point, the FCA register shows him as only having CF30 approval (required to trade) from mid-2010.
He is very believable, yes I do believe him, I think the claims he makes if hyperbolic would be easy to discredit. He is IMO the definition of authentic, hey if I'm wrong then so be it, but I think you are being a bit flippant and presumptive and if you did listen to those few minutes (which I doubt) you haven't made any specific comment regarding that.To you it's simply "that's impossible he's a liar"
I would implore everyone to at least watch the minutes I quoted and make your own mind up, I think he makes some interesting points even if you do think he's embelished his earnings (he doesn't seem the type to tbh, he talks of being embarassed almost upset at earning what he did that first lucrative year as he can't help compare it to his fathers working life as a Postman)
He definitely attended a state school, then LSE, got a job as a trader with City bank, got this CF30 approval at 23, made a lot of money, gave up working for a bank, went back to Oxford to study for a PhD, and has started a youtube channel on wealth inequality for comparatively zero monetary gain.
/quote]
Hmmm, certainly an interesting character, the bonus numbers are possible, depending on how the trades were funded, If he was using the forms balance sheet to make the money, if not they are quite conservative, Citi's most profitable trader would most likely have received a much higher bonus figure.
I am not doubting him, but the whole social conscience thing on a trading desk at a US moneycentre bank is not typical.
Whatever bonus you get allocated is never enough, As someone who appears to thrive on game theory, surely he would realise that?
I am surprised he stayed as long as he did? It's quite a hostile environment,
We had artwork on the wall, such as "you eitther make dust or eat dust!".
( yes, I know H Jackson Brown jr).
WY86 said:
I saw his BBC interview and came across as a bit of a Champagne socialist, talking a good game when it came to pointing fingers but when asked for a way to solve the issue he didn’t really provide an answer.
This is not what ‘champagne socialism’ is. I think he’s quite clear that one of the biggest changes he wants to see is a wealth tax rather than increasing taxes on working people jfis89 said:
This is not what ‘champagne socialism’ is. I think he’s quite clear that one of the biggest changes he wants to see is a wealth tax rather than increasing taxes on working people
Whilst being a multi millionaire himself… he was quite happy taking his big bonuses and pay cheques when his job was making the rich richer. He just strikes me as a edgy financial version of Russell Brand.jfis89 said:
WY86 said:
I saw his BBC interview and came across as a bit of a Champagne socialist, talking a good game when it came to pointing fingers but when asked for a way to solve the issue he didn’t really provide an answer.
This is not what ‘champagne socialism’ is. I think he’s quite clear that one of the biggest changes he wants to see is a wealth tax rather than increasing taxes on working people Taxes on the wealthy don’t work and he should realise that, having worked in the rarified world in which he did.
Very wealthy people can avoid taxes as it becomes increasingly worthwhile and cost effective to do so.
Instead moderately rich people who do work hard end up being hit, disincentivised, and don’t bother with their SMEs that employ most people out there.
Then we get pensions people saying pension money needs to be risked for both yield and to help the country grow, to encourage enterprise… then you have socialists saying nonsense like the above who just disincentivise enterprise.
What we have is a system that feeds on human nature. It’s greed will run rampant.
Regulation can tame it.
But right now we have more desire to deregulate to get growth, because we’ve had 15 years of malinvestment and we need MORE silly money throwing into the pit to keep the fire burning.
What we NEED is for malinvested money to burn. A harsh recession to clear out the rubbish from the last 15 years.
Then we need to sack off half the people running the show because clearly there are a lot of complete idiots, yes men, and people who should know better doing important jobs, but who shouldn’t even be allowed to swap a £1 into two 50p coins.
Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 12th June 22:29
WY86 said:
jfis89 said:
This is not what ‘champagne socialism’ is. I think he’s quite clear that one of the biggest changes he wants to see is a wealth tax rather than increasing taxes on working people
Whilst being a multi millionaire himself… he was quite happy taking his big bonuses and pay cheques when his job was making the rich richer. He just strikes me as a edgy financial version of Russell Brand.WY86 said:
jfis89 said:
This is not what ‘champagne socialism’ is. I think he’s quite clear that one of the biggest changes he wants to see is a wealth tax rather than increasing taxes on working people
Whilst being a multi millionaire himself… he was quite happy taking his big bonuses and pay cheques when his job was making the rich richer. He just strikes me as a edgy financial version of Russell Brand.You’re probably thinking in terms of PAYE income tax. ‘The rich’ in these arguments are not the people on £150k up (who do pay a lot of income tax) but people with tens of millions or more. They could pay less tax in percentage terms than me as a 40% tax payer. This is why every time there’s a Budget we get headlines about tax cuts/rises on ‘the rich’ when the people we’re talking about aren’t paying most/any of their tax through PAYE
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff