Blankfein Defends Goldman From Ever-Increasing Desire To See The Mollusk Chopped Up
One of the primary underthemes these days in the regulatory and academic community is the discussion of not just whether or not to break up Goldman (moot: the company has no place continuing to exist in its current form which is essentially a Holding Company for the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the White House, Congress and the Senate), but how to do it. Apparently, Goldman's apparatchiks have realized that the tide of public anger is shifting from a broad, blind anger aimed at the generic concept of "Goldman Sachs", into a definitive policy approach that recommends the immediate tear up of Goldman into various, less than monopolist organizations (Ma Bell ring a...well, bell?). It is impending for the "greater good" of the country and society that this debate becomes front and center immediately. After all, the suddenly very devout oracular priests at the top floor of One New York Plaza must be fully aware of the scripture prophesying that when the oceanic ecosystem would be threatened by one omnipotent, middleclassovorous squid, the vengeful god proceeded to smite it with great vengeance and furious anger (or something like that - we hope to stand corrected by the one "true" intermediary of God's real message these days: Goldman Sachs).
So Goldman is now on the defensive. Lloyd proceeds to define the situation in a tidy little, $24 trillion, package: “Our business is very complex, and I won’t deny that, but
it’s far, far simpler than most of the competitors." It is indeed: no risk and infinite return. Any questions? Too bad Goldman can not approach some VC's with that business model - they may be able to even get more than a couple million in post money valuation, even in today's frigid venture capital climate.
Yet is Goldman's Googlesque admonition that they do no bad, ever, correct (aside from the fact of whether being knighted Viceroy of the Milky Way has any ethical implications to it, of course)?
Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology in Cambridge, said in a Bloomberg radio interview
today that Goldman Sachs’s assets nearly quadrupled over the
last decade. “What have we gained from a societal perspective
from Goldman Sachs becoming four times bigger? Nothing,” said
Johnson, a former chief economist for the International Monetary
Fund. “Break Goldman Sachs up into four pieces, let them choose
how they break up.”
Amen Simon, Amen. (see, we can be religious too). And by, we, I of course refer to Zero Hedge as being that ever hurtful "pop press" as defined by Goldman's uberlord:
“Most of the activities we do, and you can be confused if
you read the pop press, serve a real purpose,” Blankfein said.
“It wouldn’t be better for the world or the financial system”
to change the firm’s activities, he said. “We pretty much stuck to our investment-banking
knitting,” Blankfein said. “That’s why we have 30,000 people
and many of our competitors have well over 200,000 or 300,000
Well, that, and also controlling the abovementioned entities (being the pop press, and our readers having a short attention span, let's relist them: the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the White House, Congress and the Senate). If you include all the employees at these institutions, then the total headcount msuddenly rises quite a bit higher than merely 3,000. In fact, Mr. Blankfein confirms this very effectively: "Blankfein said that the New York-based firm’s change to a
bank under the supervision of the Federal Reserve means that
“there are dozens of people who work for the New York Fed who
come to work in our offices every day.”
In fact, we would not be surprised if said NY Fed gentlemen have a dedicated Bloomberg terminal at 85 Broad and One NY Plaza (at least 4 screens a pop, as we all know these true men of galactic control hubris are BSDs), a turret straight to the Treasury and JP Morgan, whichever is less redundant, and about $1 trillion in AUM a piece. After all, running the world takes some serious taxpayer money.