>Huh. I sort of had the idea that the politics of finance in general were to
>the left of capital's central tendency. Not left left, but Clinton left. For
>various reasons -- less labor-intensive, less vulnerable to international
>competition, less (directly) affected by many forms of regulation. More
>attuned to the needs of capital as a whole. Some superficial evidence that
>this is so from, for instance, comparison of Clinton and Bush's Treasury
>secretaries. And Wall Street skews Democratic in campaign donations, no?
>
>(That's Thomas Ferguson's argument anyway. Maybe he's out of date.)
I used to think that, but watching Goldman Sachs go completely Republican over the last couple of years has been interesting. I think it's two things: Bush cut their taxes, and they like to back whoever's in power. But GS was a hotbed of Wall Street liberals, and now it's not.
Doug