Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
I don't know, where I am finance pays consistently more then engineering, and a lot of talent is being funneled into enterprises of dubious productivity (does making trades 5 milliseconds earlier really help people get the products they need or want?). More and more resources seem to be going towards the stock markets rather then the innovative projects the stock market is supposed to help finance.
|
True it reduces growth in the long term. However, due to worldwide deregulation in recent decades, the financial sector holds a strong bargaining position and can skim quite a bit of the gains of production. In turn it can afford to hire the best and the brightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Also, I think Engineers might be a poor choice to program financial systems, as unlike normal "mechanical risk", "financial risk" cannot be directly mathematically modelled. Mechanical faults can be predicted with a degree of mathematical certainty, but financial faults cannot (if they could be, the financial crisis would never have happened). Banking needs to be more about due diligence, and the likelihoods for a default are often down to difficult to quantify human factors. Their mathematical work gave them a false sense of confidence.
|
The way financials have operated would be deadly in engineering as well. Mechanical faults can be calculated but if moral hazard leads to the use of inferior construction materials accidents are bound to happen. The only difference is that faith can sustain markets longer than constructions.