Goldman exec quits, calling firm 'toxic'

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 1:35 PM GMT
    http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/14/markets/goldman_sachs/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

    Smith's main gripe is that the firm cares more about making money from its clients than making it for them.

    "It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off," he wrote. "Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as 'muppets,' sometimes over internal e-mail."


    And these guys really thought we believed they cared about anyone other than their greedy little selves?
    Hey riddler..icon_wink.gif

    Read his Op Ed to the NYTimes!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?hp
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 2:25 PM GMT
    It's sad that the last few leaders of GS have taken it from being a company with a vision of excellence and humility to a vulgar imitation of it's former self willing to sacrifice any principles to make money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:05 PM GMT
    Bunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!


    Incorrect. They're not "liberals". They are probably not conservatives in the way we think of them. They are just greedy. The worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:15 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidBunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!


    Incorrect. They're not "liberals". They are probably not conservatives in the way we think of them. They are just greedy. The worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.


    They love big government so that they can buy off greedy politicians who are willing to unequally empower the very large corporations and firms with the perks and loopholes that aren't available to the rest of the small businesses.

    Why can't we bring taxes down and give all businesses incentives and then close the loopholes for the very large corporations?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 4:35 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidBunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!


    Incorrect. They're not "liberals". They are probably not conservatives in the way we think of them. They are just greedy. The worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.


    They love big government so that they can buy off greedy politicians who are willing to unequally empower the very large corporations and firms with the perks and loopholes that aren't available to the rest of the small businesses.

    Why can't we bring taxes down and give all businesses incentives and then close the loopholes for the very large corporations?


    I don't know a single progressive that wants "big government". Rather we want a government that is the size it must be to effectively run a country of 330 million people. So I don't find that to be a "liberal" issue. In fact, most progressives agree that there is massive corruption, which Citizens United has only made worse.

    To your question, these very large corporations are paying zero tax in most cases and some - like oil companies and GE - are getting money back from the government. I'm for closing all the loopholes, seeing what the revenue is like then and seeing if we can then lower taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 6:01 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidBunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!


    Incorrect. They're not "liberals". They are probably not conservatives in the way we think of them. They are just greedy. The worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.


    They love big government so that they can buy off greedy politicians who are willing to unequally empower the very large corporations and firms with the perks and loopholes that aren't available to the rest of the small businesses.

    Why can't we bring taxes down and give all businesses incentives and then close the loopholes for the very large corporations?
    Because the "conservatives" will NEVER let that happen!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 7:53 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidBunch of greedy liberals is what goldman is!


    Incorrect. They're not "liberals". They are probably not conservatives in the way we think of them. They are just greedy. The worship at the altar of the almighty dollar.


    They love big government so that they can buy off greedy politicians who are willing to unequally empower the very large corporations and firms with the perks and loopholes that aren't available to the rest of the small businesses.

    Why can't we bring taxes down and give all businesses incentives and then close the loopholes for the very large corporations?


    I don't know a single progressive that wants "big government". Rather we want a government that is the size it must be to effectively run a country of 330 million people. So I don't find that to be a "liberal" issue. In fact, most progressives agree that there is massive corruption, which Citizens United has only made worse.

    To your question, these very large corporations are paying zero tax in most cases and some - like oil companies and GE - are getting money back from the government. I'm for closing all the loopholes, seeing what the revenue is like then and seeing if we can then lower taxes.


    When the word "big government" is used it doesn't mean infrastructure that has to grow with population (like in the case with the Reagan presidency), it means government becoming more and more involved in that which is best and most efficiently left up to the private sector. It has to do with government program expansion and deprivitization, not keeping the same services proportionate to population growth. So adding a new safety net or benefits programs we can't afford or centralizing the role of healthcare etc etc would be examples of "bigger government".

    Big corporations want monopolies, so they love big government regulations to suppress small business from equal competition which would threaten their monopolies -- this is why most of the ultra elites in this country are liberals -- although the more moderately rich tend to be slightly more conservative. Bigger gov. role = bigger politician role = more self-serving politicians = easier for crony capitalism to have full effect.

    Your whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 14, 2012 11:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 said...I don't know a single progressive that wants "big government". Rather we want a government that is the size it must be to effectively run a country of 330 million people. So I don't find that to be a "liberal" issue. In fact, most progressives agree that there is massive corruption, which Citizens United has only made worse.

    To your question, these very large corporations are paying zero tax in most cases and some - like oil companies and GE - are getting money back from the government. I'm for closing all the loopholes, seeing what the revenue is like then and seeing if we can then lower taxes.


    Sounds reasonable to me. Why would ANYONE...conservative, liberal or other...object to this line of reasoning?




    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 11:26 PM GMT
    rnch said
    Christian73 said...I don't know a single progressive that wants "big government". Rather we want a government that is the size it must be to effectively run a country of 330 million people. So I don't find that to be a "liberal" issue. In fact, most progressives agree that there is massive corruption, which Citizens United has only made worse.

    To your question, these very large corporations are paying zero tax in most cases and some - like oil companies and GE - are getting money back from the government. I'm for closing all the loopholes, seeing what the revenue is like then and seeing if we can then lower taxes.


    Sounds reasonable to me. Why would ANYONE...conservative, liberal or other...object to this line of reasoning?




    icon_confused.gif
    Cause it aint god and guns..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 11:26 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidYour whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.

    Because just possibly your view of this is completely full of shit.


    Had to laugh at this. I think little tiny Mockwinkle is a little out of his league in this discussion. It's cute when children come to the adult table though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2012 11:28 PM GMT
    smartmoney said
    JPtheBITCH said
    mocktwinkie saidYour whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.

    Because just possibly your view of this is completely full of shit.


    Had to laugh at this. I think little tiny Mockwinkle is a little out of his league in this discussion. It's cute when children come to the adult table though.
    Well we have been 'attempting' to teach him, however his ego gets in the way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 12:21 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidWhen the word "big government" is used it doesn't mean infrastructure that has to grow with population (like in the case with the Reagan presidency), it means government becoming more and more involved in that which is best and most efficiently left up to the private sector. It has to do with government program expansion and deprivitization, not keeping the same services proportionate to population growth. So adding a new safety net or benefits programs we can't afford or centralizing the role of healthcare etc etc would be examples of "bigger government".

    Big corporations want monopolies, so they love big government regulations to suppress small business from equal competition which would threaten their monopolies -- this is why most of the ultra elites in this country are liberals -- although the more moderately rich tend to be slightly more conservative. Bigger gov. role = bigger politician role = more self-serving politicians = easier for crony capitalism to have full effect.

    Your whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.


    First, infrastructure spending has been given up nearly entirely in order to pay for wars and tax cuts for the very wealthy. Along with that have gone construction and manufacturing jobs, screwing over the middle class. So let's dispense with the idea that conservatives even accept infrastructure spending is necessary. BTW, this is also why China and other emerging economies are eating our lunch in terms of growth. They are spending tons of money on infrastructure and that creates jobs, etc.

    Second, the private sector is not by design any more efficient than the public sector. There are efficient private companies, efficient nonprofits and efficient government agencies, and there are the converse and most are in the middle. Conservatives frequently confuse "efficient" with "squeezing every last penny out of our employees so we can keep all the money for the executives". That's inhumane, unpatriotic and, over the long term (as this op-ed suggests) bad for business.

    Third, certain things (healthcare, voting, infrastructure, the military, police, prisons, courts) are simply too important to be left to the private sector, which is largely only in pursuit of profits. They are key to our strength as a nation and a people and when they fall into private hands (like with private health insurance, or Blackwater, or Charter schools) they are actually more expensive and less effective.

    Finally, as the world becomes more densely populated and more complex, the role of government will necessarily increase. Yes, there are more regulations because there is a great variety of businesses employing a larger number of people using increasingly advance technology. What leads to the what you call "big government" isn't government, it's private money in public politics. If you want government to stay within it's bounds and not become corrupt, then advocate for term limits and public financing of elections.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 1:22 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidWhen the word "big government" is used it doesn't mean infrastructure that has to grow with population (like in the case with the Reagan presidency), it means government becoming more and more involved in that which is best and most efficiently left up to the private sector. It has to do with government program expansion and deprivitization, not keeping the same services proportionate to population growth. So adding a new safety net or benefits programs we can't afford or centralizing the role of healthcare etc etc would be examples of "bigger government".

    Big corporations want monopolies, so they love big government regulations to suppress small business from equal competition which would threaten their monopolies -- this is why most of the ultra elites in this country are liberals -- although the more moderately rich tend to be slightly more conservative. Bigger gov. role = bigger politician role = more self-serving politicians = easier for crony capitalism to have full effect.

    Your whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.


    First, infrastructure spending has been given up nearly entirely in order to pay for wars and tax cuts for the very wealthy. Along with that have gone construction and manufacturing jobs, screwing over the middle class. So let's dispense with the idea that conservatives even accept infrastructure spending is necessary. BTW, this is also why China and other emerging economies are eating our lunch in terms of growth. They are spending tons of money on infrastructure and that creates jobs, etc.

    Second, the private sector is not by design any more efficient than the public sector. There are efficient private companies, efficient nonprofits and efficient government agencies, and there are the converse and most are in the middle. Conservatives frequently confuse "efficient" with "squeezing every last penny out of our employees so we can keep all the money for the executives". That's inhumane, unpatriotic and, over the long term (as this op-ed suggests) bad for business.

    Third, certain things (healthcare, voting, infrastructure, the military, police, prisons, courts) are simply too important to be left to the private sector, which is largely only in pursuit of profits. They are key to our strength as a nation and a people and when they fall into private hands (like with private health insurance, or Blackwater, or Charter schools) they are actually more expensive and less effective.

    Finally, as the world becomes more densely populated and more complex, the role of government will necessarily increase. Yes, there are more regulations because there is a great variety of businesses employing a larger number of people using increasingly advance technology. What leads to the what you call "big government" isn't government, it's private money in public politics. If you want government to stay within it's bounds and not become corrupt, then advocate for term limits and public financing of elections.


    Why is it that you think political ambitions and self interest are always nobler or more admirable than economic self interest, or somehow less susceptible to the principles of greed? It seems that every time you talk about the private sector you refer to how it is driven by greed, as though that weren't equally applicable to those in government, or people in general. You don't think that politicians seek profit? Politicians to not sustain their upward mobility through virtue but rather because of their political clout, if not downright corruption.

    Your vision seems to always entail a consolidation of more power towards one entity (in this case the government) which harbors the same greedy ambitions as the other.

    Certainly the government is great for keeping the private sector in check, but it becomes far less efficient when it attempts to increasingly overtake as opposed to oversee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2012 3:18 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidWhen the word "big government" is used it doesn't mean infrastructure that has to grow with population (like in the case with the Reagan presidency), it means government becoming more and more involved in that which is best and most efficiently left up to the private sector. It has to do with government program expansion and deprivitization, not keeping the same services proportionate to population growth. So adding a new safety net or benefits programs we can't afford or centralizing the role of healthcare etc etc would be examples of "bigger government".

    Big corporations want monopolies, so they love big government regulations to suppress small business from equal competition which would threaten their monopolies -- this is why most of the ultra elites in this country are liberals -- although the more moderately rich tend to be slightly more conservative. Bigger gov. role = bigger politician role = more self-serving politicians = easier for crony capitalism to have full effect.

    Your whole view of this seems completely backwards from mine.


    First, infrastructure spending has been given up nearly entirely in order to pay for wars and tax cuts for the very wealthy. Along with that have gone construction and manufacturing jobs, screwing over the middle class. So let's dispense with the idea that conservatives even accept infrastructure spending is necessary. BTW, this is also why China and other emerging economies are eating our lunch in terms of growth. They are spending tons of money on infrastructure and that creates jobs, etc.

    Second, the private sector is not by design any more efficient than the public sector. There are efficient private companies, efficient nonprofits and efficient government agencies, and there are the converse and most are in the middle. Conservatives frequently confuse "efficient" with "squeezing every last penny out of our employees so we can keep all the money for the executives". That's inhumane, unpatriotic and, over the long term (as this op-ed suggests) bad for business.

    Third, certain things (healthcare, voting, infrastructure, the military, police, prisons, courts) are simply too important to be left to the private sector, which is largely only in pursuit of profits. They are key to our strength as a nation and a people and when they fall into private hands (like with private health insurance, or Blackwater, or Charter schools) they are actually more expensive and less effective.

    Finally, as the world becomes more densely populated and more complex, the role of government will necessarily increase. Yes, there are more regulations because there is a great variety of businesses employing a larger number of people using increasingly advance technology. What leads to the what you call "big government" isn't government, it's private money in public politics. If you want government to stay within it's bounds and not become corrupt, then advocate for term limits and public financing of elections.


    Why is it that you think political ambitions and self interest are always nobler or more admirable than economic self interest, or somehow less susceptible to the principles of greed? It seems that every time you talk about the private sector you refer to how it is driven by greed, as though that weren't equally applicable to those in government, or people in general. You don't think that politicians seek profit? Politicians to not sustain their upward mobility through virtue but rather because of their political clout, if not downright corruption.

    Your vision seems to always entail a consolidation of more power towards one entity (in this case the government) which harbors the same greedy ambitions as the other.

    Certainly the government is great for keeping the private sector in check, but it becomes far less efficient when it attempts to increasingly overtake as opposed to oversee.


    I don't think that political ambitions are more or less noble than economic ones, or social ones, or any sort of ambition. Nor do I think that politicians are more or less noble than bankers or actors for that matter.

    Where we differ is that I don't think most people are driven by greed. In fact, I think those who are would be a minority. Rather, I think we've created a system that rewards the very worst of people and the worst kind of people. Repeated studies have shown that sociopaths are overrepresented in the financial services industry and overrepresented among CEOs. 1 in 10 bankers is a sociopath. You will not find that 1 in 10 politicians are sociopaths or 1 in 10 fundraisers or 1 in 10 schoolteachers. In fact, you'd probably find underrepresentation in the latter two fields.

    The difference in mine and your worldviews is pretty simple. You say "people are greedy so to hell with the rules". I say "people can be greedy and some are more than others so we build a system that inhibits those personality traits and rewards more benevolent ones."

    Again, that's why term limits, money out of politics and, I would add stiff rules about not letting those who represent interests (any interest!) become regulators of those interests.