The London Times got an interview with a bunch of Goldman Sachs people including its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. The headline quote was “I’m doing God’s work.” It’s so Gordon Gekko, you can feel Blankfein’s nostalgia for the 80’s. But the article reads more like a Stephen King novel, with creepy crawly things sliming the reader.
“We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.” To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. “We have a social purpose.”
The GS 10-Q tells a completely different story. For the nine months ended 9/30, GS derived 82% of its total revenues from trading and principal investments. Every penny of that came out of someone else’s pocket, and some unknown part came from $1.71bn (at 9/30) in borrowings guaranteed by the FDIC. See note 6, p. 50. About 10% of revenues came from investment banking, the business of raising capital. A big part of that seems to come from securitizations. See Note 4:
During the three and nine months ended September 2009, the firm securitized $18.75 billion and $35.22 billion, respectively, of financial assets…, including $18.75 billion and $34.63 billion, respectively, of residential mortgages, primarily in connection with government agency securitizations….
They packaged up a bunch of mortgages, sliced and diced them, sold them and included the profits in investment banking income. That doesn’t create jobs.
Here’s a better description of Goldman Sachs’ hard work:
You can’t see the cash whizzing around 85 Broad Street as you walk through the place, but you can feel it being shuffled 24 hours a day between central, commercial and investment banks, vast companies, Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern movers and sheikhers, Texas oilmen and secretive billionaires in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
I’m not feeling the hand of the Almighty in this. And since Blankfein and the Company Pastor, Lord Griffiths, invited it, let’s look at the morality of all this money-shuffling.
Most of the people in the world work and play by the rules. They work for their income, they take care of their families, they do volunteer work through churches and other groups, they pay taxes, and they act responsibly. The work of the world is in their hands, and they do it, because they are socially responsible, or because their religion requires it or because mother and daddy taught them to, whatever, they do it. We all eat and sleep safely because others of us are responsible, contributing members of society.
Then there are the pirates. Some of them are Somalis, who raid ships in the ocean. Some are banksters, who raid the productive work of their neighbors. They ignore the laws, as Sanford Weil and John Reed did when they merged Citicorp and Travelers; or they get Congress to change laws to suit them. They don’t pay taxes, and they arrange transactions so other rich people won’t pay taxes either. They jack up fees and interest rates on credit cards in the face of legislation to stop them. They set up trading computers at the site of an exchange, and use them to cut in front of other traders. They trade stocks in dark pools without exposing the prices or the securities to the public. And here’s another example:
Goldman trades securities for big firms and pension funds. It also acts as adviser to many of the companies whose securities it trades. This means the firm has a view on what everyone in the market is doing. Say an investor approaches Goldman and says it wants to buy into the oil market. Goldman can offer an accurate view of what is likely to happen in that market because it knows what its own corporate energy clients are doing on its advice and what other big investors are trading. This also means the bank can do well on its own oil trades.
Responsibility and piracy define the relationship between two sectors of society. One produces goods, security and civilization. The other takes. In the entire article, Mr. Blankfein doesn’t point to a single thing he has done in his life besides making money. Well, he has saved a few kitties.




55 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Well, I suppose when your god is Mammon it is absolutely true that they are doing god’s work. They just neglected to mention which god it was (NOT the Abrahamic god for certain).
But didn’t it take some extra publicity for them to even actually save the kittehs?
Thank you for keeping the light shining bright on these banksters masaccio.
which is of course backwords, before there was wealth there was product, not the other way around, wealth migrates up it does not trickle down
a company can only grow if people are interested in a product, that product can’t exist until it’s made and sold, that person resells the product for more then it cost, etc
it clearly and always has started from the bottom up
so he’s either lying or a moron, possibly both
So, Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein thinks,
Yeah, just like cockroaches, leeches, and maggots have a purpose.
But all that money shuffling has a purpose –
giving the little lady the moral high ground in situations like this:
Blankfein is willing to trade Goldman’s potential profits in years to come for a huge bonus today. “Damn our reputation, damn our shareholders’ interests, damn the stability of the United States, I WANT MY BILLION DOLLAR BONUS RIGHT NOW OR I’M NOT GOING TO PLAY!!!!!”
When are his bosses going to throw him under the bus like they did Ken Lewis? Blankfien seems like a dead man talking (financially speaking).
Hey! for some reason you also forgot to mention how much of this cash ‘whizzed’ into the campaign coffers of Candidate Barack Obama!, making Goldman Sachs the number one contributor, as Matt Tabibi has pointed out, here on FDL!
It must be that Goldman Sachs is so devoted to Democracy, right? So, most of the time, they are pirates, except when they donate millions to the campaign of your candidate, which is why you refrain from mentioning that little tidbit.
Thanks. My daughter gave me this idea, oddly in the context of the way George Soros made billions betting against the British Pound. She pointed out how offensive it was that apparently it cost the average British person 12 Pounds, for doing nothing of any value at all.
Reading the GS SEC reports like the 10-K and the 10-Q is like being plunged into an alternate universe of ways to make money. I am always amazed at what some people call work: the list in my post seems like a compilation of not-work jobs.
And they get paid hundreds of thousands/millions for this not-work, while folks doing real work as nurses, school teachers, and even janitors, garbage pick-up, farm labor, etc make tens of dollars per day. Maybe
Look here sporkovat, I have written piece after piece explaining the damage GS and the rest of the financial elites have done to all of us. I don’t spare them anything because they gave to the Democrats in election after election.
I don’t write politics. I write business stuff. Please feel free to write your own screeds on the campaign contributions of GS and the rest of Wall Street. Of course, we expect links.
And of course much of their income is taxed at (at most) 15% as capital gains,
while those who foolishly choose to take their income as wages are taxed at higher rates.
Conversation from this past weekend:
Talented young [professional, technical field] person had a choice of several firms that wanted his services and expertise.
He went with the privately held firm’s offer.
Why?
Having watched Jon Stewart and general news reports the past 18 months, he concluded that going with a publicly owned company whose share prices could be manipulated quite easily did not make sense for his professional future and economic hopes.
I don’t know how his new company raises capital.
But I can certainly guess why they’ve decided to remain ‘privately held’ so that they don’t have to screw with the ‘advisers’ from Goldman Sachs.
Interesting to me that the type of firm (‘privately held’) was an important calculation in this young person’s employment decision.
It’s interesting that he sees more economic stability in **avoiding** companies listed on the stock exchanges.
Pirates are like wasps: they come in and steal all the honey.
We need more ways to identify, rein in, and monitor piracy.
Right now, we have what John Perkins** calls predatory capitalism.
And it’s not at all surprising that Blankfein will be among the last to come clean with respect to the consequences of their actions. After all, are people actually proud of screwing over millions of people? That wouldn’t look very pleasing on the foundation letterhead, now would it?
**Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Hoodwinked
Nomi Prins, in “It Takes A Pillage”, explains how Goldman Sachs transitioned to being a publicly traded company in 1999, and Rubin was in D.C. — you can’t help but assume that Rubin (and Summers) shepherded it through legislatively.
The old-school ‘partners’ made about $66 million apiece, which I regard as obscene. However, at least they’d kept some restraints, because it was a partnership so there was at least some kind of accountability.
Once it became a publicly traded corporation charged with ‘delivering shareholder value’, it really ran rampant; no accountability, but with so many linkages to DC, it has been more successful than others at ‘leveraging’ tax payer money.
I offer an analogy from the insect kingdom:
There’s a kind of ant that lays its eggs in the host, then when the eggs hatch, the ant ends up eating the ‘host’ animal — from the inside out. Quite grisly.
Our legal structures have enabled our government-sanctioned, government initiated economic entities to devour the very governments that enabled those corporate structures to exist in the first place.
The corporate ‘ants’ have been consuming the government (federal, state, AND local) ‘hosts’. It’s looking like a death-match.
EITHER Congress has to fundamentally restructure the legal structures — collections of contracts — that we call ‘corporations’, or else governments of nation-states are soon to pass into history.
Here’s what I would like to ask Mr. Blankfein, if I could:
what are you and all your employees doing with your billions? How many jobs have you created or funded that rely on expertise, knowledge, and a longer timeframe than a week or two? I thought that was the whole point of your much-ballyhooed “trickle down” economics – that all you rich people would create jobs.
Lord knows, and even Ben Bernanke knows (quoted today at HuffPo) – that the banks AREN’T LENDING ANY MONEY for anything, so where’s the beef, as it were?
Really, I might feel better if they at least built a building or two with all that money, instead of squandering it on yachts and pools and $650/plate events.
those letters that are blue in my comment, those are links.
“or they get Congress to change laws to suit them”
here is link about the repeal of Glass Steagal:
Hmmm, Lawrence Summers: “He has emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration”
Nice!
Easy to bang on Goldman, the more the merrier, Masaccio! – but don’t forget to include a little context, because many of your readers may be unaware of the profound, perhaps complete, influence GS has in the Obama Administration, thanks to its numerous alums on loan in D.C, most prominently, Tim Geithner.
How much money did GS give to Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
Ya know spork, rather than ragging on masaccio for not writing the blog post you want, you could actually go write your own.
And McCain’s. GS strategizes their political donations to have friends in high places everywhere, under every circumstances. I’m sure they also do that for political appointments too.
Just like the rest of the banksters. If Hillary had won I don’t think her economic advisers would have been very different than what we’re stuck with now. Neoliberal is as neoliberal does.
I agree.
The only place these criminals “raise money” is from AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. Then steal it. Then do it again.
Until we link these corporations, and their exemptions, taxes, bailouts, “incentives” and whatever else, to American JOBS, they will continue to operate in their socialist environment at our expense.
BUT HOPEYCHANGE IS OVER THERE IN CHINA MAKING MORE BAD TRADE DEALS, at this moment, that will further disenfranchise the American worker, and family.
A “world economy” with no trade barriers breeds a “world workforce” where the American worker is considered last in line. Yet WE are supposed to support Wall St. an economy that TREATS US LIKE SLAVES. We can’t support this boom and bust illegal setup. All that is left is to borrow money. There will be no jobs because FREE FOR ALL TRADE HAS SHIFTED THEM OFFSHORE, UNDOCUMENTED, OUTSOURCED, TOO MANY VISAS.
Hopeychange is not willing to put Americans first. Its China that will make our solar panels, ALL BEING COVERED BY workers who all have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Our jobless graduates deserve better. Our kids are starving. Joining the military and dying for nothing.
The Gospel of Exceptionalism & Prosperity
Thanks, Masaccio. Destroying the separation of church and state — let me count the ways.
no doubt, GS covers all the bases with Democratic Party presidential candidates, and buys its share of influence with (R)’s, as well.
and, they are rewarded handsomely for their largesse, political contributions have terrific ROI.
what should be pondered by (D) loyalists, however, is the question “If Goldman Sachs pays millions to get appointments and influence in Democratic administrations, what does that imply for the influence of the Progressive Netroots, who faithfully support Democrats, no matter what?”
because, as Massacio points out, there is a major conflict between the two constituencies.
and thanks for the link to Blogger, Mr. Kine, but I do now cross-link between other online presences, kind of just traffic-rolling.
Krugman‘s opening paragraph today. You might want to read the whole thing.
“We have a social purpose.”
Dickens would have had a field day with this guy
That’s an assumption. Facts not in evidence.
Then why do you whine about people not covering issues to your satisfaction if you’re not wiling to step out there on your own?
Seriously, if you think your perspective is that important, I’d think you’d want to establish yourself and see if your views can gain traction.
Interesting. I know others who have made similar decisions. Part of it is that a start-up that gives its people stock creates the possibility of cashing out when the company goes public.
Hope you get back to read this — he didn’t select it hopes of an IPO.
In his view, the business model of a privately held company with a stable, engaged Board promises more stability 5 and 10 years hence.
No idea whether it will work out that way, but unlike 10 years ago, he didn’t intend to hop on in hopes of an IPO.
I mostly offered it as an interesting sign of the times.
No clue whether it is in any way typical.
Also over the weekend, a terrific young 20-something that I’ve watched grow up, who holds down a F/T job in professional position is moving back in with MomAndDad to pay off her credit cards.
She sat down and figured out how long it was going to take her to pay off her cards + her high rent, and decided that she wanted to focus on paying off her debt ASAP, which in her case means putting ALL her money toward the credit debt.
I’m really proud of her.
I think she’s just happy knowing that she has A Solid Plan.
dakine01 , it’s called overcoming audience atomization
spork didn’t just whine. he/she provided links and voiced an opinion. just because it’s not an opinion you share doesn’t imo make it illegitimate. why not argue the point if you disagree, or if you don’t want to argue why not just ignore the comment? why should the spork have to go somewhere else to voice a dissent?
imo spork is just being a dirty fucking hippie.
thanks masaccio. if Blankfein et al. have a social purpose, imo it should be to serve as an example to young children of “bad” people.
me three
I heard a clip of Terry Gross’s Fresh Air today. It’ll be on my radio tomorrow but the show is today’s and is online. Guy was talking about the number of companies owned by private equity firms, mostly hedge funds, that will begin to default on their loans in the next couple years. They employ 1 in 10 American workers. Frightening little clip.
With all due respect selise, all spork seems to do is complain that the folks like masaccio aren’t covering the issues in the way s/he wants to see them covered. It is not just on this thread, it is on every thread. It seems the folks at FDL are just not quite pure enough.
I was just pointing out that if it means so much, that there are ways of getting the voice out there that does not entail complaining about how masaccio didn’t cover the topic as s/he wanted to see it covered.
Just think if all the losses which have occurred in the past year & 1/2 required them to pay a negative-bonus back to the people whose lives they have destroyed. A bonus is fine if you’re doing something clearly productive — that’s the Capitalist way. But, what’s the personal cost of destroying so much?
you remind me of something i heard months ago – i think it was about the expected number of LBOs going bust. this thing ain’t over by a long shot. fact is, i wouldn’t be surprised if 20 years from now we’re still feeling it. we have so much private sector debt to work off. well, unless timmeh et al. can find a way to blow another credit bubble and make things worse.
… do you recommend i give terry gross’s show a listen? i still have your recommendation of trudy lieberman to listen to (i’ve downloaded the mp3, just haven’t listened yet).
and do you download podcasts? i have one to recommend if you do….
i don’t get the recent (in the last few months) issues/complaints about purity. sorry, maybe i’m just too stupid to see it but i don’t think it’s about purity — i think there’s just different povs and i kinda like that. obviously your mileage varies.
Dickens could paint a pretty bleak picture. Who would you cast in the cheap t.v. movie about the scandal, trials, etc.? But remember too, it’s just just GS who have made this happen. There is a lot for the media to investigate. The Wall Street Journal is the obvious starting place. Oh wait, sorry. I guess that won’t happen with Murdoch at the WSJ.
That makes sense. Still, I think our young people need an exit strategy.
She could have gotten that advice for free if she had read FireDogLake or Kevin Drum’s Calpundit or any of several other Left-leaning blogs over the last several years. It isn’t as if the fundamentals of our situation haven’t been known (out here in the real world) for some time.
Isn’t it amazing how some people seem to be living in a different universe (TeaBaggers, WallStreeters, Villagers, etc.)?
I’ve got iTunes installed so I think I can download podcasts but I can’t remember the last time I tried. LBOs were one of the things this guy was talking about. I haven’t heard all of Terry’s show but based on what I heard I would definitely recommend it.
I usually download as an mp3 or just listen from the site via RealPlayer or the site’s embedded player.
thanks for the recommend, i will put it in the que along with trudy lieberman.
the recommendation i have for you is not the greatest quality sound (not professional) but fine i think for listening. michael hudson was just in australia and during that time he gave a talk partially sponsored by steve keen and promoted on his blog.
(as an aside hudson and keen were two of the few economists who were identified in bezemer’s paper as having forseen the current economic crisis — not just randomly or as perma bears, but with an analytical framework).
anway, the mp3 can be downloaded here:
http://blip.tv/file/2764791?filename=PoliticsInThePub-ForeverBlowingBubblesAssetBubblesEconomicPolicyAndSustai982.mp3
and the posting with vid at keen’s blog is here:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/11/14/michael-hudson-talk-green-new-deal-discussion/
p.s. if you are not familiar with hudson and keen, they are both post-keynesians and a couple of my current favorite economists.
Thanks, will download now. What is a post-Keynesian?
Ah, with RealPlayer it scoops it right up as a download. Cool.
Got off my butt and looked it up meself.
Amazing, indeed.
Her job has not required her to pay attention to underlying statistics or other info, so I think she was just trying to ‘enjoy life’, but she’s getting an education that she’s unlikely to forget.
And wait till the LBO’s hit.
Duck!
a heterodox economics. they don’t even completely all agree with each other — so it’s not like an alternative orthodoxy. some keynes even some marx and lots of other stuff in their background. definitely big time anti-neoliberal/neoclassical. maybe the most famous post-keynesians minsky (davidson also, but i’m more interested in minsky, keen, wray, mosler, bill mitchell, hudson, godley, and the other folks at the levy institute and kansas.
anyway, i like them! they makes sense to me, in a strange kind of way and although it’s really hard to wrap my head around some of their ideas because they are so different from the conventional stuff we hear about every day (and i seem to have absorbed without knowing it). anyway, i spent months going around trying to find different schools of economic thought that made any sense to me (on the most basic level which is all i’m capable of yet).
i think of them as the dfh or contemporary economics. steve keen even wrote a book called debunking economics, the naked emperor of the social sciences. if i understand correctly, they think keynes was bastardized by the neoclassical economists and that’s why they aren’t keynesians. apparently keynes didn’t even consider himself keynesian. go figure!
excellent!
hey, leeches are useful.
well now you probably know more than me! hope you like the hudson talk and q&a after — the intro audio is no good, but i could listen to the rest of it fine. if i get the chance i’m going to make up a transcript for paul rosenberg at OL. i think it would appeal to him.
The server for Hudson’s speech is sooooooooooooooo slow. I’m just now seeing the end of it. I had read a bunch about how some economists who called themselves Kenyesian were nothing of the kind. Gonna hafta do some more research into their theories, the post-Ks that is.
Speaking of research. Time for din din and some reading.
Namaste
good night!
“All of you proles need to accept permanent poverty so I can be prosperous.”
so, the substance of my comment has been studiously avoided by both you and SD, this whole time, as is typical, and indeed buttresses the (D) captured nature of certain neighborhoods of the progressive netroots.
when people like you start talking about ‘purists’ and ‘purity’ and avoiding the actual point that gives you this allergic reaction, it indicates to me that there is a little cognitive dissonance going on, that is prompting a learned ‘reaction formation.‘
which, hypothetically, radically simplified, goes something like this:
“I loves me the Democrats, they are the one true vehicle to Progressive Change, and I despise the 3rd Party heresy”
but, that nasty spork is presenting me with evidence that Goldman Sachs (or the insurance cartel, or the MIC, or AIPAC, or what have you) has way more power in the highest reaches of my Party than folks like me will ever have, so therefor I can either (1) question my fealty to the Democrats, or (2) attack the messenger in some way.
Easy call, right? SD, dakine01, you are in good company with this reaction formation, but the avoidance of the uncomfortable points and the challenges to go start my own site or whatever evasive maneuver just visibly fail to address the validity of my initial critiques.
If it is false that GS was Obama’s no 1 contributor, and in return were granted a nice plum sinecure at Treasury, then bang on me and my faulty links or lack of links.
But if it is true, and this truth makes you uncomfortable for some reason, that has nothing to do with my purity or lack thereof, it has to do with the foulness of the company and the politicians they purchased, ya dig?
I get it now.
Our job is to be lambs, and yours is the slaughter.
Yes, capitulation is the way around here. Working within an existing party framework is our collective sin, and you are ever-present to remind us of our folly.
We get it. We have for a good while. You have made your point – join your glorious revolution or perish.
Do you have anything else to say? Anything at all?