A wise woman once said to me while I was in a moment of distress : “Things change rapidly” Three brief words but I’ve held on to them and they’ve often helped. “Things change rapidly” might end up being the tagline for 2012. A second poll now confirms Obama’s very bad month. This is odd. The MSM has been harping for days about what a good month he had.
Just weeks ago Obama was up in the polls, riding allegedly good economic news and the antics of a suicidal GOP. It turns out suspect jobs numbers and the other team’s circular firing squad is no match for rising gas prices. Obama is back underwater. Will he remain underwater for long? No idea. Presumably if gas prices go back down Obama will get some breathing room. Or not. My working thesis of this election year so far is that Obama is running a strong campaign with a weak hand. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Team Barry is scrambling behind the scenes, grabbing whatever Limbaugh and Santorum vomit their way while using Hollywood and the MSM in an attempt to re-create the 2008 hologram. Neither tactic stands a chance if voters are freaking out about gas prices.
In the big picture it doesn’t matter much that Obama is down now. Just as it didn’t matter that he was up a few weeks ago. Things change rapidly. But it is worth noting that the GOP did have a disastrous month. At times it seemed to be choreographed by Sharon Angle and Ed Wood. If Obama took advantage it’s not evident in the most recent polls.
This is going to be one hell of an interesting campaign to watch. There’s brain deadening arrogance on one side. The recent slew of Obama is perfect propaganda manages to be distasteful, creepy, surreal, and absolutely hilarious. The other candidate constantly makes the dumbest remarks imaginable and somehow manages to appear less connected to actual people than even his opponent, the Golfer in Chief. Add in piles of money on both sides and we’ve got quite a show brewing. The elites are going to duke it our right before our eyes. Who will win? George Soros or the Koch Brothers? Uh…I mean Obama or Romney?
I’ll update here tonight if GOP primary returns are remotely interesting. Don’t hold your breath.
“The recent slew of Obama is perfect propaganda manages to be distasteful, creepy, surreal, and absolutely hilarious.”
I’ll lay this out as bait for our Obot blog-pet.
Romney may end up walking away with the BTE win today — if he’s a close second or a respectable third in these heavily-Evango states, that’ll be impressive.
AL declared for Santy. Newtie, time to go.
People keep thinking that if Newt drops out all his voters will go to Santorum. I’m betting it’s closer to 50-50. Lots of Newt voters are pro-constitution and small govt and distinctly uneasy with St Rick.
Personally I’m hoping they all stay in all the way to an open convention.
“My working thesis of this election year so far is that Obama is running a strong campaign with a weak hand.”
Indeed. As I said a while back on your show, he’s playing his trumps, but they are low trumps. And now, I’m wondering if they aren’t playing them for low-point tricks too early in the game. Santorum & Rush’ gaffes fell into their hands, but perhaps they hoped to save the “War on Women” meme until closer to the election? The race card is already in play, with a piece of statistical garbage from DOE reporting that our schools are horribly racist because black boys are suspended more often that asian girls, as well as a voter discrimination meme that refuses to take wing despite being force-fed to the MSM and proglodyte blogs. CREEP also relied heavily the past few months on Mechelle, but the shelf-life of ‘Mechelle-is-likable’ is very short. The ‘obama the populist’ meme will be played from start to finish, but it’ll have to weather:
1) gas prices;
2) rising unemployment figures (the BLS is fast running out of fudge room);
3) the ever-present risk of an economic dive.
The ‘I killed bin Laden with a Bowie knife’ and ‘I ended the war in Iraq’ boasts will be like whispers in a hurricane if Afghanistan implodes.
So that leaves still in hand super-pac attacks on mormonism, and running barry vs. the GOP VP nominee, like last time.
…or if Afghanistan EXPLODES (a likely scenario).
statistical garbage from DOE reporting that our schools are horribly racist because black boys are suspended more often that asian girls
*dies laughing*
I think the public is tuning the media out on the political races and their impact is not going to be anything like 2008.
TL – I agree with your take. We’ll see what else they have up their sleeves but it does seem the bag of tricks is being emptied early. This feels like 1980 to me. Not because Obama is Carter…he’s a weaker personality but a stronger candidate than Carter. Obama is far less of a man than Carter. It’s like 1980 because that election was close until the last week and a half. Reagan didn’t close the deal until late october. And much of that was a final look at Carter and a collective moment of “No, actually we can’t take YOU for 4 more years.” Obama is vulnerable to the same psychology if Romney presents as even a somewhat viable alternative. Both Carter and Obama have one important personality trait in common: They’re both excuse makers. The reason we remember RR’s line “There you go, again.” but not what it was in response to is because whatever prompted the remark wasn’t relevant. “There you go again” pulled focus on a sense everyone had about Carter: He whined from the misunderstood mountain top. Obama whines too. He needs his tricks to win unless scads of jobs suddenly appears or the GOP self destructs. Which is possible.
The recent polls are interesting because the a lot of media is pulling for Obama like mad. It’s not working. Still and all- the GOP having breakdown. Obama’s best friend right now is Rick Santorum.
And the race card is dead. As much as it plays with some, it will repel will more this time.
I am in my late fifties. I was a news and political junkie and all of my friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers paid attention and consumed television news, newspapers, weekly news magazines to some degree most of the time from multiple sources to stay informed and be responsible citizens. No longer. We do not watch any TV news unless it is weather related. We skim newspapers because we know what it is going to say based upon the source reporting and it is a waste of time. The media is attempting to do what they did in 2008 only this time they are viewed increasingly as a joke. The public ignoring the disgraced media is one of the worst things that can happen to Obama’s re-election efforts.
The race card whips up the cultists, who they need to build the ground organization. Based on the avalanche of desperate OFA emails Ima Puma is receiving (“If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would beat our Lord and Savior, Barack. H. Christ! Can you stomach that, Ima?”) they are hurting. Those 18-20 year olds, who were caught up in the fad of obama 2008, are now older & jaded, and the new crop are nonplussed. Traditional Dem slam-dunks, like environmentalists & anti-war activists, are pissed at teh O. Guilty, white, latte liberals is about all they have left to rely on.
TL, I agree with all your comments here, but this last one hits in a personal space, because it exemplifies the need for the fanatical reaction to the race and gender cards.
I have an uncle who is the definition of a latte liberal (he’s also living in the top 3% in NYC, and agrees with his Occupy son, who he’s supporting with that hefty income) and we had become kinda close on FB, except for our disagreement on Obama (well, and my constant suspicions about the manipulative nature of Dem/leftist rhetoric). Our relationship has soured in the wake of this contraception debacle, which happened during a debate we were having about the usefulness of donating money to groups like PP. My position was that it was great activism that I supported, but that poor women didn’t always want birth control or abortion; sometimes they had very specific reasons for wanting a baby or to become a mother instead, and those choices also revolved around perceived empowerment of themselves. I suggested for balance that he might consider donating to educational or mentoring programs for girls and/or boys, thus increasing the opportunities available to the poor.
The next day out of the blue he sends me a FB message accusing me trying to belittle his efforts and we haven’t spoken since. I get the sense that he is in the process of using these issues on women to convince himself that I am racist because I won’t support Obama. That’s my instinct, anyway, based on some race-based discussions we’ve had previously, and some evidence that he is an old-school hostility to women’s issues, which he doesn’t see as important as race. So these little theaters really do have an effect, just as you say. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop (note so many of these are analogies of abuse, which I’m mightily tempted to call him out on).
Even the “negative” poll article shows a continued MSM cover for Obama. The meme is “improving economy”, which is BS. A significant portion of the jobs created are temps. and low wage. The falsely low unemployment rate is maintained by “disappearing” worker from the labor force. The inflation rate is much higher than the ministry of propaganda number and people know the economic recovery is just Obama BS. I had two friends in their early 50′s loose their jobs during the past week. Both were in the IT area and had had worked for their companies for >20 years.
One stat the BLS has not bothered to fudge is the Number of Weeks Unemployed. It has sky-rocketed since 2009.
This is true.
It’s also true, as Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” The msm seems to think that saying something repeatedly will make it true. That this wishful speaking is coming from discredited and super partisan pundits, only makes it less believable. Who or what should voters believe, the pundits or their own lyin’ eyes ?
“The msm seems to think that saying something repeatedly will make it true. ”
Well that’s how it works with cultists. ‘The Leader has Wonder Weapons that will throw back the enemy. We just have to have faith in The Leader.’
“Who or what should voters believe, the pundits or their own lyin’ eyes ?”
Like with unemployment. They can say it’s 8%, but the 1 in 5 Americans without a job know better.
Anybody but Santorum. If he’s on the ticket, I’ll have to break my pledge and vote for Obama.
I live in Ohio, so my vote counts and I won’t vote for a theocrat.
Obama’s cult of personality is rapidly approaching theocracy.
For all his faults, I don’t think Santorum will ever have his face on a US flag.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/14/us-flag-depicting-president-obama-removed-from-floridas-lake-county-democratic/
Plus I think the feminist movement will actually be revived and reformed out of necessity if Santorum manages to ride his shtick to the WH. I look forward to that. 3rd wavers have to find out they can’t rely on smooth-talking men to “defend” their rights. They have to ditch them and stand for themselves.
Santorum would lose in a landslide.
I am so sick of these primary voters who say Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and then vote for Newt or Santorum.
Yikes Sweet Sue! BIte your tongue! But, I do feel for your dilemma — I’m in a deep-Blue/Kool-aid-sozzled state, so my vote doesn’t ‘count.’ Would you consider voting for a third party instead of Obama?
Yep, PJ. I’m tempted to say Eff ‘em all. Let them drive off the cliff with Rick or Newt, and that’ll WAKE them all up. What a waste of what could’ve been a great opp’t to knock out Obama.
Jill Stein is on the ballot in Ohio.
http://www.jillstein.org/
I agree, NES. Screw em. If Santorum gets the nom, I’m voting for Roseanne.
Pingback: What Makes a Good Supplement? Dr Seidman Explains the ViSalus Sciences Body by Vi Vi-Pak Last Chance! Join the Council, Improve Your Library Vitamins for Female Infertility – Fertility Improvement Vitamins and Supplements
Santorum’s daughter’s exceedingly rare condition, and it’s presumed outcome, really illustrates how his priorities are very screwed up..of course it is exceedingly rude to say that, so I apologize in advance. Even if he were not a misinformed, ‘born again’ Catholic { the very term is offensive}, but a normal person, his priorities would still be selfish and self serving. He insults one of the primary tenets of Catholicism, service, and caring for others, on a daily basis.
His duty at this time, should be to his family, especially his long suffering wife, unless she’s as nutty as he is, but I doubt it.
True. It’s unfathomable.
Santy’s initial rise coincided neatly with his return from his prayer vigil for his daughter. Sympathy votes among fellow prayers?
In other news, a man named Greg Smith may have just done more to reform Wall St’s sociopathy than any OWS protests could possibly have achieved. (Heck, maybe even more than a President Elizabeth Warren . . . on second thought . . .)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-goldman-executives-brave-departure-20120314
That’s bullshit. And Greg Smith isn’t brave, he’s grandstanding. No doubt he’ll get cheers for that though.
Goldman’s “moral slide” was in progress, and out-in-the-open evident by 2000 when I resigned over it. There was no secret about what was going on, it was talked about openly in the elevators and on golf courses and drinks after work, to say nothing of on the floor itself. After Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999 all hell broke loose and that’s when the moral slide began to avalanche. And guess what: that’s right when Greg Smith began working at Goldman. Did he quit over it then? Nope. Did he quit and write an op-ed about it anytime during the ten years that followed when the toxicity was pure poison to the American economy? Nope. He stayed through all those years, collected his bonuses and celebrated his promotions, made no discernible effort to use his positions of power to stop the immoral practices.
He’s no hero and this will change nothing at Goldman, except add a little excitement to the chatter at Starbucks.
Yep. And my understanding is that Goldy Sacks rotates them in and out on a 7 to 10 year stint so his sell by date was up. He was on his way out before he quit and he knew it. Very few have 20 to 30 year careers at that one. They all know what will be required of them when they take the gig for big bucks.
So, Zal and Lulu – what alternative would you have? Having no one who is ever part of a corrupt system speaking out finally and telling the truth because they have benefited by it over the time they’ve been there? You’d never reveal any corrupt systems under your rubric then.
If you demanded that someone reveal the corruptness of an org or system basically on their first day/week (which they would have to under your standard of – “you only have credibilty if you’ve never gotten a paycheck from them”), you would NEVER get at the truth then from many, many corrupt systems. I say kudos to this guy for not only speaking out, but for clearly having enough evidence on the toxicity of GS to get the NYT to devote their precious op-ed real-estate to his resignation letter.
And, Zal – jealous much? I actually don’t think GS’s complete lack of moral compass was an “open secret” as of 2000 as you seem to think. But, if it was – why didn’t you have the courage to resign with a letter to the NYT like Greg Smith did?
And, Lulu – don’t know why Smith’s perceived “sell date” would matter to whether what he said was true or not. (Unless you are a GS PR person – are you?) He may be disgruntled, but people who worked with him at GS (and are defending GS) say he’s not. Despite that, it’s hard to believe the NYT would, again, give valuable OP-ED real estate just to a disgruntled employee because he wanted to vent.
Come on – try to address the substance of his arguments, rather than ridiculous ad homeniem attacks.
run_dmc
This dude was the VP of the derivatives group. Got that. Derivatives! And he was apparently fine with it as long as it was making big bucks for GK and himself because he stayed. This was not an emerging markets, or energy sector, or some other niche guy. And he did it until derivatives blew up and GK probably needed him to unwind them. Now not so much. I always find the self righteous suspect after they have squeezed every scintilla of benefit from that which they find so objectionable.
Zal & Lulu fall into an ad hominen tu quoque fallacy. Forgetting for a moment Smith’s motivations, or when GS first turned corrupt, are Smith’s allegations:
1) veracious?
2) damaging to GS?
If so (and GS stock has been sinking since the piece came out), then who cares why Smith turned? If you keep shooting prisoners, you won’t get many defectors crossing the lines.
It sure has been a rough month for pigs…
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/obama-chief-strategist-cancels-bill-maher-appearance-dpgonc-20120314-to_18538040
At some point Obama is going to have to insist on giving back the money. That’s going to hurt.
I agree that he’s going to have to return the money, eventually. Hopefully, he’ll hang out longer so he’ll be more muddied by the time he actually gets around to it. On the other hand, he’s the-shameless-bugger-of-all-buggers, so maybe he’ll do nuthin’.
I never suggested Smith had to “reveal the corruptness” of Goldman his first week or his first month or even his first year at the firm. First of all he began as an Intern and if he’d “revealed” it then, nobody would’ve paid the slightest attention. Further, the Times wouldn’t have published an op-ed from him about this in 2000 – I was way above Intern and tried and they rejected it out of hand. Remember the investment banks were working within the laws that’d been changed to accommodate exactly the shenanigans they were up to; as far as they (and almost everybody I talked to) were concerned there was no corruption going on. Some Wall Streeters (and others including people in the MSM) I argued with conceded that practices may have slid into unethical, but it was legal and their excuses were this is the way the world is today and you either scam or you’re a sucker, a winner or a loser. And their proof was they were making a lot of people a lot of money, and they were “correcting” the market back up after the dot com bubble had burst. The people with power who continued working at Goldman past 2001 were part of the continuing creation of corruption — and Greg Smith was right in the thick of that, not just watching but making it happen.
Greg Smith acquired more and more power at Goldman during his 12 years there, starting as Intern and ending not only as an Executive Director but an especially powerful one. The EDs at Goldman are basically department heads, they’re very powerful in terms of leading the firm’s corporate culture and some few like Smith are especially so. Every employee from Intern to the many Vice Presidents answer to their ED; the EDs (through directives from Partners with whom they hob nob) set the standards and are charged with monitoring those standards and practices, including ethical, of their employees. Smith had countless opportunities over the years to call out the corruption; his failure to do so and his climb up the corrupt corporate ladder to the corrupt top indicates he’s (unlike Elizabeth Warren) one of the sociopaths. Most importantly once he became Executive Director, which is a prized promotion, he was positioned to change the practices under his control and he did not do that; THAT would have been courageous. Greg Smith was the Executive Director and head of Goldman Sachs’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; do you have any idea how powerful that position is, what kind and how long a string of corruptions in the 2000s it took him to reach it, and are you aware that derivatives is the nexus of Goldman’s worst corruption? He could have blown the whistle before it all fell down, when it might’ve made a difference, or he could have taken steps to change the culture under his command or, if he’d met unmovable resistance, done his big resignation and NYT op-ed back THEN, not after he’d squeezed out all he could of the corrupt system he had to have been instrumental in expanding, if not creating.
Lulu’s absolutely right that at Goldman (and throughout investment banking) the usual course of a career is to stay 7, maybe 10 years tops, if you haven’t made partner, then move on. I don’t know Greg Smith but I’ve seen him and I’ll bet dollars to donuts he hit a ceiling; he’s not, as they say, Partner material. Greg Smith is merely moving on with his hundreds of millions and has decided to grandstand on the way out, my bet is he’s seeking revenge on those who wouldn’t give him the ultimate gold key. He was in a position, for years, to make changes or blow the whistle but as long as the money and perks and promotions flowed into his coffers, he merely exploited what was happening to his own advantage, and likely that’s what he’s still doing.
Well you’re wrong, by the end of 2000 the direction Goldman was going in was not just an open secret, it wasn’t a secret at all. As I’ve said, laws were changed to accommodate what Goldman (and Morgan Stanley and eventually others) were already pushing the envelope to do. The toxic culture was already worming in by the late 1990s but it was derivatives (Greg Smith’s chosen specialty) that gave it its solid foothold.
What Greg Smith writes is true, but what he leaves out is he’s one of the bad guys. One of the worst. (And some here, including my most vociferous detractors like Mouse, will verify that I have never said everybody at Goldman was a bad guy — there were people who went to work every day and tried to do the right thing, but nobody who strives to do the right thing reaches the position Greg Smith reached at Goldman during that period.)
I did resign and I wrote articles about what was happening; no mainstream paper or magazine or book publisher would touch it in 2000 or 2001, and after 9/11 forget about it. And during all that time, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, every 365 days of every one of those years, 2006, 2007, 2008, Greg Smith went to work, 2009, 2010, 2011, collected his bonuses, received promotions, gained more and more power, and was a powerful contributor to the toxic culture he now blames on others.
Not sure what you think I’m jealous of, though I assume you mean envious. The last thing I’d want to be is as smarmy as Greg Smith, he’s exactly the kind of man I fought against and refused to become. I have plenty of faults but envying greedy narcissistic bullying hypocrites has never been one of them.
I’m glad Greg Smith wrote that piece but calling him courageous or brave is wrong and plays into what’s created and continued the corruption and America’s decline. He’s not a hero –Elizabeth Warren is heroic– he’s a villain who’s seeking revenge on some other villains.
This is Zaladonis. Don’t know why this changed my screen name to hawkeye and I’ve no clue how to change it back.
Bravo Zala-Hawkeye. Well said.
Zal, did you know this guy? Haven’t yet, but plan to, read the article. Is it largely accurate?
Smith makes three allegations. GS traders were:
1) paid bonuses for convincing clients to invest in garbage stocks;
2) encouraged to convince clients to buy the product that offered the biggest profit to GS;
3) derided their clients as “muppets”, etc., and bragged about ripping them off.
I have no doubt all three are true, and that this revelation will seriously damage GS’ reputation.
Missing from Smith’s ‘confession’ is any comprehension of, much less apology for, GS’ & Wall Street’s toxic effect on society. His only concern is for the (imo, also toxic) clients.
Tam:
Goldman stock is UP, not sinking.
Will Greg Smith’s op-ed damage Goldman? Not one bit. Nor will it change what’s wrong at Goldman.
Greg Smith’s unethical choices while he worked at Goldman did a great deal more to damage Goldman Sachs than his disingenuous op-ed could.
Oh, and the reason someone “turns” does matter. Motive matters. Bad does not bring about the same as good. Revenge and betrayal do not spark the same chain of events, do not result in the same consequences, as grace and altruism do; greed does not start and does not end the same as generosity does.
NES:
No I don’t know Greg Smith, he arrived at Goldman as I was leaving and if our paths crossed I don’t remember him.
What he says about Goldman is true, and yet out of sync with his position and other things he wrote. For instance he writes, “I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. … It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off.” He was Executive Director and head of the firm’s equity derivatives business in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East; we’re to believe a man who’s reached that position is so passive and powerless he doesn’t take action to change subordinate’s behavior that made him ill and he believed was destroying the firm? He had seniority over the employees he’s complaining about, and yet he blames corrupt leadership; what was his leadership? If he was a rebel Executive Director trying to lead the Goldman culture back to the right path, he doesn’t indicate it in his op-ed and from what I’ve read nobody’s reported it.
It’s not credible that someone would have the kind of understanding about integrity and empathy for clients, and disgust for the corrupt culture he describes, and at the same time achieve the level of success he did in that same toxic atmosphere. A man who believed what he says he believed, was as outraged as he claims to have been about the corruption, would not have been promoted to Executive Director and head of US equity derivatives in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The person in that position supports the current culture of the firm, or if he didn’t then there’d be evidence of his attempts to change it.
By 2002 when Smith began working as a Goldman employee, the corruption was in full swing, so his description of what changed and the timing he gives it is off. This is a way to spot a liar. In the first part of his third paragraph he writes:
This is almost verbatim from the Goldman Sachs orientation presentation that (used to be and I’m guessing still is) part of a one day indoctrination for new employees which includes a propagandistic movie tracing Goldman’s history. I even remember the use of “secret sauce,” a reference I’m surprised they’re still using (do young people today even know what the reference is?), but his repeating it without attribution is revealing. That isn’t his description of what Goldman’s culture was, it’s Goldman’s and it’s twenty years old. Then Smith finishes that paragraph with this:
He’s saying that culture of teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility and always doing right by clients, existed “for many years” while he worked at Goldman, which began in 2000 at the earliest. Well that’s nonsense, proved by the toxic waste that came spewing out in 2008, but believing his lie is essential to believing he’s the good courageous guy rather than part of the problem.
Sorry for my lack of brevity; I could go on and on, there’s lots to mine in that op-ed!
OK, Zal, you got me. I read that GS stock had dropped following Smith’s op-ed; you, the stock-trader, know that it’s gone up again. BFD. I also don’t give a rat’s ass about Smith’s motives. I just wanna know:
1) Are Smith’s allegations true? Yes or No.
2) Will it hurt GS business … in the long-run? You say, ‘no way’, but – despite some verbose comments – you give no reasons why, no insight that a former GS stormtrooper might offer.
Your standard mantra is: ‘everything’s fucked; there’s no hope; don’t waste your time; wah wah.’ And perversely, it seems you get a certain satisfaction from the hopelessness you perceive. Now, you have the right to winge & kvetch until the cows come home, but some of us around here plan on actually doing something about things.
Tam:
Yes, as should be abundantly clear by now, of course they’re true.
As far as the impact it’ll have, apparently it’s passed your notice that today truthiness trumps truth.
It won’t hurt Goldman business because enough people today are scared and greedy and indulgently dependent, and most importantly are fully prepped to dismiss the truth and believe what they want to believe. Goldman is well stocked with seducers and well honed seductions; those well groomed, well educated, articulate attractive young urban professionals will charm the cash out of clients just as they did after Carl Levin humiliated Lloyd Blankfein and Dan Sparks before Congress and it was replayed all over the news and youtube for its week of Unprecedented Historic Truth.
I’ve never said there’s no hope so don’t waste your time, I’ve said Americans will continue making bad choices and that’ll result in the decline continuing.
And what, exactly, are you planning on actually doing? I can hardly wait to know. But if you give no specifics, you’re just farting the national anthem like you usually do.
Zal – busy week at work and I honestly just don’t have the time to do more than skim your comments. From what I read of what you say, my point still stands. You go on and on talking about how venal Smith is rather than addressing what he actually says about what GS is like now, which is the essential point I made. Who else, other than someone who participated in a system – and therefore is always going to have blood on his/her hands – can be the one who exposes the corruption? I’m not sure why your seeming compulsion to lay waste to the messenger because he has unclean hands too.
For what it’s worth, I also worked at GS from 2001 to 2007 in the chief of staff’s office – so reporting to JWFR. I came in – not as a neophyte out of college – but from a completely different sector than banking (and even corporate). I’m not objective, of course, but it is extremely easy to be seduced by the internal narrative of the “special culture” GS had. I can see clearly how Smith internalized it and felt what he was doing was “providing liquidity to the markets so that companies can grow, provide jobs, etc.” Not only was it a mantra that you wanted to buy into, but the leadership at the time (and still now, frankly) are extremely charismatic men and women who make you want to believe them.
Of course, when I joined, GS and other banks were being excoriated with the internet bubble bursting – lots of bad behavior then too. But, again – wanted to believe that the bad had been rooted out, addressed and wouldn’t happen again. Maybe it was stupid, self-serving. But, it was easy to believe. When Smith was promoted to ED – derivatives were not a dirty word and he probably believed he was honestly providing a needed hedge for his clients, not that he was screwing them and potentially blowing up the financial world as we know it.
At some point, I woke up, partly because people i thought were good leaders were leaving – for not great reasons – and things were changing. I guess Smith had his epiphany too. The fact that we participated in venality – if you want to call it that – before we woke up doesn’t make us liars about the realizations we had
run_dmc:
I just finished writing my response to Tam and then read your comment and it perfectly illustrates my point.
You believed what you wanted to believe and Goldman is aces at seduction.
I addressed what he wrote, I said it’s true and that, notably, it was true when he started at Goldman. The second part is key in understanding what he’s really saying and trying to accomplish with the narrative he lays out.
Smith says that “for many years” after 2000 the Goldman culture was one he “loved” working in and wants Goldman to return to — but in truth that’s when Goldman was deepest in the thick of its toxic culture. Those particular many years, when Smith was simpatico with Goldman culture and prospered from Intern to Executive Director and head of US derivatives in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the culture was toxic with deceit and greed and narcissistic pleasure in scamming suckers. He could not possibly have prospered to the degree he did in that toxic environment, and “loved” it, unless he was toxic as well. And one doesn’t cleanse from toxic to non-toxic with an epiphany unless the epiphany includes taking responsibility for one’s own participation — but according to Smith he’s proud of his work at Goldman as head of US derivatives in Europe (I assume you’re aware of the mess that clients of US derivatives in Europe are now struggling to clean up — right when Greg Smith decides to resign).
You give him a pass the same way he gives it to himself, as if he was an innocent starry eyed Believer in Good, with no power, while the bad leaders were ruining everything. But that’s simply not what the facts show. As Executive Director, and in the career trajectory that would lead to such a powerful position, Smith was one of the leaders he now admonishes and distances himself from.
This op-ed is nothing more than another seduction for another purpose. And its purpose is by no means to get Goldman cleaned up (he wants Goldman to return to what it was in the 2000s), which is sad because a cleaned up Goldman Sachs could greatly benefit our nation right now.
Hawkeye or Zal or whomever – we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Your depiction just wasn’t the GS I experienced in 2001 (at which time I believe you said you weren’t there any longer); for me it did change over the ought-years which led me to leave, but it wasn’t “toxic” when I started there. It actually was a great place to work and to learn about the financial system. I’ve been incredibly saddened by what it’s become because, while never perfect, it was for many years a firm with value in our system.
You can say I was stupid or naive (I won’t give you greedy as I actually ended up not making much and wasn’t trying to), and – as Lloyd would say “you are entitled to your opinion” but I’m just not going to give you that you will ever make me believe my perception – or Greg Smith’s – was wrong.
With this you give a better illustration of the power of seduction than I ever could.
It’s impossible for the vast 2008 financial meltdown to have happened without at least seven years of a corrupt culture at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere.
First a big enough population of self serving narcissists had to be hired and rise to positions of enough power to override the culture of integrity and humility; that alone takes a few years. Then after attaining enough power, those people needed time to conceive of and design, then market and sell, toxic financial instruments worldwide. After all that time then time needed to pass for the toxicity to build to the point of meltdown in 2008. All of that couldn’t have happened in less than seven years, couldn’t have happened if Goldman’s culture in 2001 genuinely “revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients.”
What you believe simply doesn’t jive with facts, objective evidence or reason.
But, believe me, I already know I won’t be able to make you believe your perception is wrong because all I offer is the truth; and seduction, whether it’s Goldman’s or anybody’s else’s, is more appealing and persuasive because it provides what we want to believe, which generally gets more ingrained over time if one isn’t jolted out of it (which is a painful process).
This is how Obama will win a second term. He didn’t win in 2008 on merit or true qualifications, he won by seducing people. What you’re experiencing in your mind right this moment about what you believe about Goldman in 2001 versus what I’m telling you is very similar to how those who were seduced by Obama will struggle with the objective facts and what they “believe.” To the seduced, what they believe is perceived as truth.
As long as the government of the United States is a run by Goldman boys, Goldman will be just fin.
Touche, John. I too absolutely think GS will survive this too. But, it will be survival. It won’t be the place that the best, brightest people who try to think that capitalism can exist within a system that values humans and their achievements as first and foremost go to to learn from great leaders. (And, scoff if you will, but we were inculcated when I started with the “long-term greedy” great leaders who learned at the knee of the people who built the firm like the Weinbergs and Gus Levy). It won’t be the same place. And, I know the current crop of leadership won’t care.
Call me a self-serving idiot (although I gave most of my $ from my GS years away), but I bought into the fact that investment banks served a useful purpose in our economy and – if led by wise people – could be part of the body politic that was a force for good. Creating strong companies that were sustainable over time – building jobs and communities and safeguarding retirement funds . . . I know it’s all gone to crap and I find that deplorable not because GS won’t survive, but because that idea apparently hasn’t survived.
I don’t care whether GS survives. I care whether the balance of what banks do to aid the economy in a healthy capitalist system survives. As flawed as Greg Smith (funny he has same initials as GS) may be, I think that’s what he cared about too and was trying to jolt GS back into being part of a healty system, not the destroyer of worlds it has become. It likely won’t do that, but I still applaud the guy for trying.
Investment banks DO serve a useful purpose when they’re operated for the purpose they were designed for and by people with integrity.
But during Greg Smith’s entire tenure, “many years” he “loved” working at Goldman, the purpose was self-enrichment and self-agrandizement.
Believing something is true doesn’t make it so and does not bring about the same results as it being true. Which is why Smith’s disingenuousness now and people believing it is another contributor to what’s wrong rather than to what’ll fix what’s wrong.
This is just the next step for this generation. We see it in Obama’s narrative as well. First they’re all special snowflakes, every single one a potential Frank Lloyd Wright or Edison or Marie Curie or FDR or Lincoln, and is superior to and will make a better world than the generation before. Then when that doesn’t happen, when in fact their narcissism and faked empathy make a big fat mess, they decide they’re innocent Believers in Good who each, individually, did a great job they’re proud of but others (the “leaders,” the “1%,” the fill in the blank Other) ruined everything.
That’s where we are now, and what’s next is this special snowflake generation being unable to figure out how to clean up this mess and, even if they could figure it out, they don’t want to do it: they want to resign, they want to camp out in parks, they want to just believe it’ll all be better, because hey nobody likes a Debbie Downer and isn’t this supposed to be fun?
“And what, exactly, are you planning on actually doing? I can hardly wait to know. But if you give no specifics, you’re just farting the national anthem like you usually do.”
I won’t tell war stories about the direct action I took, along with people like John & Jay, in 2008, or go into detail the efforts – some admittedly abortive, they we’ve attempted recently. I will mention that I did some anti-bank organizing this Summer. I plan on getting involved in Jill Stein’s campaign, and also the repeal Citizen’s United movement.
As for broad plans, I mentioned on John’s show a few weeks ago three things:
1) A constitutional amendment to deny full personhood to corporations;
2) Passing the “majority rules” initiatives in states to circumvent the Electoral College;
3) Diverse actions to get money out of politics.
I’m also currently looking for specific ways to take action against the erosion of our constitutional rights.
I may be accused of being an armchair activist, but I do have plans, elaborate them in public, and do act when time permits. In contrast, you have repeatedly refused to give any concrete plans or suggestions of your own, being content simply to bemoan how “Americans will continue making bad choices and that’ll result in the decline continuing.” Sour grapes.
Tam, just like a politician, listing fantasy results but nothing specific about what you’re going to DO, the specific action you’re taking and going to take. I asked what you actually plan on DOING, not what you hope to achieve. And I was calling out your own language, “some of us around here plan on actually doing something about things.”
I hope you’re a lot younger than I because if you’re not then I have to say it’s time you grow up: you are not going to get money out of politics (I love your bullshit bullet point “diverse actions” – you really do sound like a crummy politician) and you are not going to circumvent the EC as long as the Democratic and Republican Parties maintain control. If you want to change those things then you have to tear apart or at least weaken the two major parties first and, most importantly, provide a viable alternative. As for your constitutional amendment, that’s just laughable considering the Congress and President we have; so again, back to the Democratic and Republican Party problem. Your plan for “actually doing something about things” is as vague and wheel-spinning as Occupy Wall Street.
Using your list as a guide, hey here’s my list: repeal Obamacare and enact universal healthcare, grant full Federal rights and privileges of marriage to same sex spouses, work to get world financial leaders to agree to substantive banking reform. I’ll provide a fuller list later on, you know after I take action to end world hunger.
Yeah well you let us know how that works out.
What do you mean, “in contrast”? You haven’t written out one single concrete plan. I mean, “I plan on getting involved in Jill Stein’s campaign” is the closest you come and it’s weak as spit since you’re not even doing that. In contrast, I have been involved in Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. Rooty toot toot. But I wouldn’t have thought to list that because, to me, that’s helping someone else (Elizabeth Warren) try to get into position to actually do something.
In terms of more direct action, I’ve written before (maybe elsewhere, maybe here, I don’t remember anymore) about what I do and will do. And what I’ve repeatedly said is I’m not repeating it over and over.
More often than not, these days, people are in such distress, that the large numbers of people and voices need to effect change are not going to heed the call. The only word that comes to mind is ‘dispirited’. Spoiled rich kids sitting around using their I phones to Occupy places, have now been replaced by thugs and arsonists. The average voter sits in his underwater house and listens to the likes of Ms Fluke whine about nine bucks worth of b.c. pills, and wants to throw something at his aging t.v., but he can’t afford to replace it, if he breaks it…
I’m currently reading Dominic Dunne’s last book of thinly veiled fiction, “Too Much Money” it is a good slap upside the head and a reminder as to where the Real power can be found. The Occupiers picked the right church, but very much the wrong pew.
I fear our lack of moral courage is no secret, and the den of thieves will just get bolder. We certainly can’t count on our representatives to care, they are part of the problem, and will never have a role in the solution, as it would not favor them.
Zal. I’ve spent my life since I left GS in 2007 in philanthropy. What have you done? Also, its great that you place all the bad behavior of GS post your leaving the org. Very convenient. Bravo.
run_dmc:
You cast two narratives for yourself and they don’t jive. You say you “ended up not making much” at Goldman, and then you claim to have spent your life in philanthropy the past five years. Do you mean you’ve spent your life since 2007 giving away other people’s money?
Oh, and I haven’t placed all the bad behavior at GS after I left. I’ve posted here many times about the deterioration while I worked there and that that was the reason I resigned.
Nothing wrong with working for a philanthropic institution — still advances the cause of charitable giving.
What a coincidence — two ex-Goldys commenting here.
That’s one of those broad conclusions, which Americans take false comfort in believing, that’s way too broad to true, like soldiers and teachers and nurses are heroes. Some are, some aren’t.
Some philanthropic institutions are founded and at least partially funded from fortunes of ill-gotten gold, which is another ethical issue worthy of note when discussing institutions like Goldman and who gets rich and how.
I like Fran Lebowitz’s comment about giving back. “When you hear a rich person say they are giving back, here’s my advice to them: ‘Don’t take to begin with.’”
” I’ve posted here many times about the deterioration while I worked there and that that was the reason I resigned.”
None can contest that.
Hawkeye said: “I hope you’re a lot younger than I because if you’re not then I have to say it’s time you grow up”
I sure hope you’re a lot older than me; cuz it’d suck for a middle-aged guy to be such a whiny, grumpy codger already.
“You are not going to circumvent the EC as long as the Democratic and Republican Parties maintain control”
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
132 EV down, 138 to go. ‘Spose you’ll classify these as “fantasy results”.
“As for your constitutional amendment, that’s just laughable considering the Congress and President we have”
Per Art 1 Sec. V, Const. can be amended via both Congress or state legislatures. (President is not involved, btw.) I propose the latter as easier, but both avenues are being utilized.
Bernie Sanders has introduced an amendment:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/08/sen-sanders-files-amendment-to-end-corporate-personhood/
And grass-roots movements are working toward amending, too:
http://movetoamend.org/
– but I’m sure you think they’re all just ‘spinning their wheels.’
” I’ll provide a fuller list later on, you know after I take action to end world hunger.”
I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours.
Get thee to a retirement home, and quick! Perhaps the nurses will lend a sympathetic ear to you whining, but I assure you: the quality of the jell-o will not improve so long as the Democratic and Republican Parties maintain control.