Today a terrible tragedy struck when a lunatic attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona and killed several others at her event. This awful episode shows how horribly extreme the political climate has become in the U.S. And I’m not talking about the man who attacked a member of Congress: I’m talking about all of the pundits who are trying to make this senseless act a political issue.

The reality of the situation is that politics had nothing – nothing – to do with what occurred today. You don’t need to analyze this idiot’s political affiliations. When someone decides to do something crazy, his politics are irrelevant: the act was insane. There’s no logic in trying to gun down a member of Congress, even if you don’t like what he or she stands for. Any attempt to do so is not the result of divisive politics or violent rhetoric. It’s a chemical imbalance or some other brain problem that results in a psychotic episode.

What makes it even more absurd that this act could have been merely political is who was targeted. Rep Giffords is a moderate by any definition. This wasn’t Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. She is a Blue Dog Democrat, which means she’s relatively conservative in her fiscal views. She opposed the DC gun ban. She supports strong immigration measures. But she also isn’t particularly conservative. She is pro-choice. She voted for the Obama stimulus in 2009. Unless this gunman has a particular aversion to moderates, then it couldn’t have been political. This further shows that he isn’t a fringe political wacko — he’s just a wacko.

From today for the next few weeks or months, people on TV will debate this guy’s political motivation. They’ll criticize violent political rhetoric. But they’re wasting their time. None of that actually mattered here. This person developed a psychotic obsession that he exercised through violence. This isn’t that different from your usual serial killer in that they are both mentally deranged.

So as the talking heads on TV drone on about how this episode might have been prevented, they’ll develop lots of grand theories and assertions of how to make things better. But they’ll all be empty and worthless. The sad truth is that this couldn’t been prevented by more enlightened political discourse, because there will always be psychotic people with the will and means to commit violent acts. This isn’t a result of violent rhetoric or political extremism; it’s a result of psychoses.

There have been lunatics killing people since the beginning of time, and there’s no way to ensure that they won’t in the future. While some psychologist, friend, or relative might have discovered this man’s problems earlier to prevent the problem, no political pundit or new commentator could have helped.

A few days ago, Ezra Klein had a fun post investigating the Ivy Leage to Wall Street connection. To do so, he interviewed a Harvard alum who ended up at Goldman Sachs. I related a lot to the post, as my experience had many similarities, but also many differences.

I didn’t go to Harvard, I went to Cornell. And I also happened to be interviewing at a time when finance was a complete disaster — just after 9/11. During one of my final round interviews (for Citigroup) I remember being downtown in November and you could still smell a stench, quite a few blocks away from ground zero. So I wasn’t in a situation where anyone who could use a calculator got a job, like it was a few years earlier and a few years later. Some bulge brackets weren’t even interviewing. Things were so bad that several were just taking their summer analysts for full time or fewer.

I was also stupidly selective, so I didn’t get the offer I wanted. Instead, I ended up getting a job in consulting in structured finance for a few years. But everything happens for a reason. It turned out to be a rich experience that shaped my future more than I could know. It led to an associate position in investment banking.

Since I wasn’t as heavily recruited as Klein’s subject, what led me to banking? A lack of better options. I was coming out of school with a fair number of loans. I felt like my expensive education should get me a decent paying job. I didn’t want to be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, or college professor — so what was left? Finance. I had never taken a finance class until my junior year in college. I added an economics major in my senior year to look more attractive in finance interviews.

So how exactly did I decide to pursue finance? I always had a knack for math and am a hard worker. That basically spells success in finance. And it worked. I did quite well. But I was never passionate about the work. Ever since college, I had dreamed about writing. But that always seemed like a pipe dream. I always heard the whole “no one wants to be a starving writer” line.

Yet, I grew bored with finance. The day to day didn’t challenge or interest me. But as Klein mentions, money is a trap. He calls this the “golden handcuffs” problem. The banker says:

There’s this notion of the accidental banker, people who get caught up in that world and get more and more pay and find it harder to justify leaving. But the cultural effect of all of this — and even with regulatory reform, we need to think about that — is that a lot of people decide to sacrifice much more time than they normally would because the money is so good, and then they believe they deserve extremely high pay because they’re giving up so much time. It’s not malicious. But there are a lot of unhappy people who end up in that situation.

That’s exactly right. Once you start living in a certain way, it’s very, very difficult to imagine making a lot less money. I loved eating at the best restaurants, drinking the best wine, buying expensive things. Who doesn’t? I remember the incredible realization walking home from the subway one evening that I no longer had to budget — I didn’t have to worry about money. It was great. Except I didn’t like my job. So I had to eventually make a conscious decision that I’d rather be happy than rich. I feel I chose wisely. It turns out you can write for a living and not starve; you just have to live a little more modestly.

Klein also asks the banker whether banking pay is justified. That’s a fair question. Amusingly enough, when I was in banking I believed I was underpaid — because from banking standards, I was. I worked at a bank known for being at the bottom of the pay scale. I wasn’t promoted on the schedule promised. So even though I was probably in the top few percent of Americans in terms of compensation, I was bitter. I should have been making two or three times what I was. Naturally, even at that “inadequate” pay, I was making several times what I make now as a journalist.

But that was just the relative pay. In general, bankers are certainly overpaid. In general, they aren’t as smart as people think; it isn’t rocket science. In fact, I think the people I work with now are far more intelligent than those I worked with in finance. The service they provide is important, but no more important than that many other professions provide. I feel like having thousands of people reading my writing each day has far more impact on the world than a banking deal. I used to quip, “I’m changing the world, one large institutional investor at a time.” Bankers do work hard — no doubt about it. But so does a guy with two minimum wage jobs. Even though my hours are slightly less now, my days are far, far busier and more challenging. I think I ultimately work harder, though I feel my quality of life is much higher.

I’m not sure why bankers make so much money, but that’s just how the market works. And that’s fine. It’s only money; they can have it. You don’t need to look far to find filthy rich people who are miserable and dirt poor people who are happy. They can have their summers in the Hamptons, expensive French restaurants and Upper East Side penthouses. I’m perfectly happy with my quaint one-bedroom, a burger from Ray’s and the occasional trip home to South Florida. Because I leave for work after a decent night’s sleep with the sun up looking forward to my day, and I return with the sun still shining having felt like I did something I enjoyed that might have somehow made at least a small difference in the world. And that probably explains why I never fit into the banker mold.

Given that it’s Earth Day, I figured it would be a good time to voice a concern I have. I find it difficult being as environmentally conscious as I want to be. I am no global warming alarmist, but I do feel a moral obligation to treat nature well. That means I recycle when possible and waste as little as I can. That breaks down a little, however, when it becomes inconvenient.

In particular, it’s hard not to waste at work. During an average weekday I’m very, very busy. The life of a professional blogger/editor leaves little time to relax. Either I’m paying attention to something going on in the news, reading what someone else wrote or writing something myself. In the constant struggle to produce, produce, produce, I rarely have time for breaks. I eat lunch every day at my desk and 40% of the time, I don’t leave my floor the entire day.

So I feel forced to use disposable cups and plates for my beverages and food. That means my daily loose leaf green tea includes wasting a Styrofoam cup and paper filter, my water wastes a plastic cup, and my sandwich wastes a paper plate. Awful, I know.

The alternative would be to bring a mug, tea infuser, plastic cup, ceramic plate, and sponge to leave at work. And then I would have to wash it each morning, which would easily take five to ten minutes out of my day. I don’t even allow that to walk to get lunch twice per week. How can I justify wasting that time to wash cups and plates when I could be working instead?

This attitude contrasts greatly with my feelings in my prior life. Back when I worked in finance, I washed all my stuff, and didn’t use disposable items. That’s because I savored the opportunity to get away from my desk to break up my boredom. Now that I actually enjoy what I do, and am much busier, that’s all changed.

I know that it might seem a little insane to care about 5 to 10 minutes. That’s not that much time, right? Yet, if I got home 5 to 10 minutes later each day, I know that would annoy me. So I’m bothered. I want to do the right thing and not waste containers, but I also don’t want to waste time. But now that I’ve thought through this in blog format, I’m starting to think it might not be so bad to deal with the washing. I’m just torn.

First, I have horribly neglected my personal blog here. Ever since becoming a professional blogger, it’s a challenge to work up the will to write more during a night or weekend when I’ve already written a few thousands words that day. Planning a wedding doesn’t help either, as that’s taken up a lot of my free time. But I hope to start writing here more often, especially my opinions or on non-business stuff. So onward!

The SEC Goldman lawsuit is pretty big news. I already wrote a post on it today at Atlantic Business, and will post another tomorrow.

I have a few additional thoughts. First, this is likely an isolated situation. Even if the case succeeds, I wouldn’t expect there to be a big flood of cases involving investment banks getting prosecuted that sold CDOs or subprime MBS that went bad. In this particular situation, according to the SEC complaint, the bonds were created precisely to provide John Paulson’s hedge fund with a short. This kind of behavior only started towards the end of the housing boom. Most of the toxic securities sold during the bubble were created in good faith — even the banks thought they would hold up. That’s why they bought so much of the garbage.

I see this as a lose-lose situation for Goldman. If they lose the case, well that will be very bad. Then, Goldman will have been shown to have misled investors in a court of law. No matter the fine, it will result in a huge blemish on the firm’s name. Investors will suddenly be very skeptical about trusting the firm going forward.

If Goldman wins the case, however, it’s unclear that things will be much better. This will be a very public, high-profile trial. Goldman can’t simply try to slip by on some technicality. For investors to have confidence in the firm, it will have to completely dismantle the SEC’s case. It will have to provide some incredibly surprising information that makes the complaint look like pure gibberish. If it turns out that Goldman acted essentially as shady as the SEC complaint says, even if not technically fraud according to the court, investors will lose trust in the bank.

Frankly, I’ve never understood investors who buy complicated securities from bankers smarter than they are. If you don’t fully understand what you’re buying, then what are you doing putting your money on a hope and a prayer that some crafty bankers aren’t trying to mislead you? At the end of the day, a lot of trading is a zero sum game — and the house generally wins. That house is Wall Street, so unless you’re an investor with an unusual amount of genius, then you will probably lose.

I’ve been following the national healthcare debate approximately as well as any concerned journalist. To be honest, I find the topic tiresome, because I think it’s really a moral question that Washington has tried to (unsuccessfully in my opinion) make economic. At this point, much of the media is characterizing those who oppose national healthcare as a small right-wing fringe. I think that’s wrong.

I know a fairly significant number of people who oppose national healthcare, and none of them are right-wing nut jobs. Most of these people lean right politically, but they’re hardly going to try to wound you with their bibles or shotguns if you bring it up. They’re happy to have a calm rational debate about it. They just don’t believe it’s ultimately best for the government to control healthcare.

At this point, it looks like national healthcare is on a slow march to its grave. But if Congress and the Obama administration really believe that America wants national healthcare, I have a suggestion: let’s vote on it. Have Congress draft a plan. Give Americans a month or two to read, understand and discuss the plan. Then make a national referendum vote for it. That will eliminate special interest lobbyists that are whispering into the ears of our politicians and let the people really voice what they believe. If Congress and Obama are right, and Americans really do want national healthcare, then it will pass, and they will have their victory. If they’re wrong, then it shouldn’t pass anyway, and the debate will be over.

There are so many important political and economic discussions out there right now that Washington needs to be having, but the healthcare debate seems to be sucking up all of its time, energy and money. Why not let the people decide so we can just move on?

For those who follow my writing, and I hope your numbers are growing, I wanted to make a quick announcement. I am now, officially, a professional writer/reporter/blogger/editor what-have-you. Instead of trudging through work everyday in the unforgiving world of business/finance, I have elected to write about it. Because writing is much more fun.

As I said a while back, from January through May, I was on a stint in a non-permanent capacity working as a reporter in Forbes’ Washington DC Bureau. Today I started working for The Atlantic. Permanently, full-time, etc. I am a new blogger/editor for their Business Channel. That means that I will be writing a lot, all the time. Think of it as what I used to do here, focused on business and economics, on steroids, except that I’m getting paid for it.

That also means that I am officially moving to the DC area. I’m still subletting in Arlington, trying to decide (opinions welcome) if it’s worth paying approximately 4% in higher taxes to live in DC, or if I should stay a little further out in the trendy northern Virginia suburbs. (I say that without a hint of sarcasm. NoVA rules.) I leave behind New York City. Good riddens. Been there, done that, got the I HEART NY T-shirt. May it rest in its rats’ feces peace.

Does that mean synchrodan.com will cease existence? Of course not. The Atlantic is not particularly interested in my ramblings on topics like the paparazzi, Gari or peeing. So I hope to still blog on other non-business/finance/economics topics through this site. In the event that I do other cool stuff like TV or radio, I’ll be sure to post about that here too.

Anyway, if you’re interested in my Atlantic work, check it out here:

http://business.theatlantic.com/

Or more specifically, here:

http://business.theatlantic.com/author/daniel_indiviglio/

The past two weeks I was a guest blogger for The Atlantic. I posted all of my pieces separately last week, but since I was more prolific this week, I thought one post would do. Here they are:

Friday, March 29, 2009

Is The U.S. Treasury Smart or Generous?

U.S. Debt $668,621 Per Household

Organic Milk: It Does A Farmer Bad

Thursday, March 28, 2009

Should The Fed Be The Systemic Risk Regulator?

Prime Borrowers Ask: “What Bottom?”

Suffering States Not Feeling Stimulated

Inflation: Because Here Looks A Lot Like There

Is OPEC a Cartel?

Wednesday, March 27, 2009

Sure, A National Sales Tax

Is Sotomayor Wrong on Affirmative Action’s Effect on Business?

A National Sales Tax?

Hiding Experience Means Hindering Growth

Bonus Bitterness Backfires

Tuesday, March 26, 2009

Banks To Get Huge Windfall From. . . Mortgages?

Washington’s Short-Sighted Action May Haunt Unions

Not Confident About Consumer Confidence

5 Reasons Business Should Cheer Obama’s Pick of Sotomayor

Contracts: Credit Cards, Mortgages and Chrysler

Monday, March 25, 2009

Why Paulson Didn’t Understand Mortgage Securities

A piece I wrote for the Atlantic about the Hamptons.

It’s Back To The Future In The Hamptons

Another I wrote for the Atlantic about the biggest bank bailout you haven’t heard about, involving the FDIC.

The Backdoor Bailout for Banks and the FDIC

Another Atlantic piece I wrote from yesterday, why a free trade agreement with Panama is such a no-brainer.

Panama and Protectionism