Get Woke, Go Broke

Quote: odiousgambit

I was looking for where I said banks should be for men only to run, but couldn't find it. I think having women making most of the decisions might have been a good move for C. Suisse.

So, transgender women too? Might work, I wouldn't be against it as such. I wouldn't want it to be an activist, though, those have to be something not belonging in any business. I'll grant it can be complicated, there's the public image to consider, and what works for that has changed. If someone like Mission reflexively wants to defend the hiring of such to the point where he wants to put a spin on what I said, it shows it's true.

My point is what you're talking about almost certainly had very close to nothing to do with the bank's failure. Trans-inclusive business policies are the case at a great many companies, some of them in (or tangential to) the financial sector. I would guess most. Even Dave McCormick, one of the Republican candidates for the PA Senate nomination, was a higher-up at a company that had such policies.

I simply don't agree with the notion that someone can't be an activist for something and not hold some other job at the same time. You'd be getting into the territory of refusing to hire someone (or hire to a high position) based on what they do off the clock. Granted, there can sometimes be a precedent for that in the public sector, but even when that exists it's because there might be some conflict of interest (due to activism/political leanings) because the person is employed by the Government.

I'm not reflexively defending any individual's hiring; I didn't know shizz about her, shizz about what she does or shizz about what her qualifications are. I don't particularly care. The only thing that I am ATTACKING is this notion that a business can fail, so then a bunch of people start with their, "Get woke, go broke," aping...excuse me...talking point...and it's total nonsense. I'm no expert on the banking sector, but I know enough to know that, in order for a bank to fail, it's going to take a lot more than being woke.

It's just another in an ever increasing list of examples of why no serious conversation can ever be had about anything even loosely related to politics.

Quote: DoubleGold

If I'm in a burning fire, I won't care who saves me.

It's the same way in the office.

But if I place a person in there that is not the best, just because of race, gender, etc. then that is not the most efficient.

It's socialism and not capitalism.

I agree and have no problem with that. Whatever this person was doing, I am simply saying that her presence is not the single event that precipitated the downfall of the financial institution, and furthermore, I don't know she wasn't the best candidate for the job. She probably wasn't, but in general, I don't think very many companies (however big or small) bat 1.000 when it comes to hiring the best candidate for every opening. A few different places passed on me, ffs. (JK)

Quote: Mission146

I agree and have no problem with that. Whatever this person was doing, I am simply saying that her presence is not the single event that precipitated the downfall of the financial institution, and furthermore, I don't know she wasn't the best candidate for the job. She probably wasn't, but in general, I don't think very many companies (however big or small) bat 1.000 when it comes to hiring the best candidate for every opening. A few different places passed on me, ffs. (JK)

After reading further about the person in question, the person changed sex from a man to a woman.

She was originally hired as a man, then came out as a woman.

Originally, I thought she was just cross-dressing.

Quote: DoubleGold

After reading further about the person in question, the person changed sex from a man to a woman.

She was originally hired as a man, then came out as a woman.

Originally, I thought she was just cross-dressing.

Oh, so this person was originally employed by the company as a man. Good gravy, and people call me, 'Reflexive.'

Quote: Mission146

Oh, so this person was originally employed by the company as a man. Good gravy, and people call me, 'Reflexive.'

Plus, I think there is a wife and two children involved.

I have no idea how the office dynamics would work.

I'd think it wouldn't make a difference if the person was doing business strictly on the phone.


As long as the numbers were rolling in, I'd support the person.

If the numbers fell-off, I likely couldn't fire the person (legal might prevent me).

Quote: Mission146

Oh, so this person was originally employed by the company as a man. Good gravy, and people call me, 'Reflexive.'

not sure what you mean

I agree this person probably had nothing to do with the bank failing.

As far as go woke, go broke, I don't know that any of these banks deserve that more than any other modern company. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I've heard argument that the silicon valley bank's problem was other than the highly cited wokeness of that outfit, more to do with investing too much in shitty long term bonds that had to be cashed in at big discount . Then others say, well, the ESG focus of their investments otherwise started the problem, otherwise they wouldn't have needed cash.

Quote: Mission146

My point is what you're talking about almost certainly had very close to nothing to do with the bank's failure. Trans-inclusive business policies are the case at a great many companies, some of them in (or tangential to) the financial sector. I would guess most. Even Dave McCormick, one of the Republican candidates for the PA Senate nomination, was a higher-up at a company that had such policies.

I simply don't agree with the notion that someone can't be an activist for something and not hold some other job at the same time. You'd be getting into the territory of refusing to hire someone (or hire to a high position) based on what they do off the clock. Granted, there can sometimes be a precedent for that in the public sector, but even when that exists it's because there might be some conflict of interest (due to activism/political leanings) because the person is employed by the Government.

I'm not reflexively defending any individual's hiring; I didn't know shizz about her, shizz about what she does or shizz about what her qualifications are. I don't particularly care. The only thing that I am ATTACKING is this notion that a business can fail, so then a bunch of people start with their, "Get woke, go broke," aping...excuse me...talking point...and it's total nonsense. I'm no expert on the banking sector, but I know enough to know that, in order for a bank to fail, it's going to take a lot more than being woke.

It's just another in an ever increasing list of examples of why no serious conversation can ever be had about anything even loosely related to politics.

And the fact is, we don't really know for sure what all the bankers and financial wizards personal preference are or what they do in their private lives. Conservatives seem more likely to be hiding their true personal preferences as there's a stigma to being too out of line with a nuclear family concept in their ranks.

There are 25000 banks, and this one failed.


A sign of being woke, is incorporating socialism into a capitalistic structure.

If employees are being hired that are not the best available, then that can be socialism.

But the socialism goes further because their investment portfolios also incorporate climate change, etc.

It's a cost that shouldn't be there.

Heck, firms go belly up all the time without imaginary climate change expenses.

So of course, this one and many more will go belly up.


Go woke, go broke.

You could just as easily focus on other reasons financial industries fail over the years and decades Nothing special here, except maybe signaling out something you don't like personally.

One issue was Congress printing way too much fiat out of thin air.


They flooded the market with cash.

Both blues and reds.

The rich captured about $7T (USA), that went to their accounts because they own the assets, like stocks, real estate, bonds, etc.


So the woke firms (normally capitalistic but becoming socialistic) were able to hide their inefficiencies.

For example, AAPL buybacks to engineer EPS and hiring because social pressures of race, gender, climate change, etc.


They were borrowing funds for close to zero percent for a long time.

Europe even had negative percentage rates.


So now rates are climbing up to preempt inflation because so much fake cash was printed.

The excess cash is what allowed socialism to creep in.