Down with Goldman Sachs!

UPDATE – And yes, he was an excellent prankster, an attention seeker not a trader.

The Rastani Moment – Well done. More believable than the traders you lampooned.

But let’s look at some of that content.

The power of Goldman Sachs is utterly undeniable – its representation in Obama’s cabinet – from the earliest days – is stunning. Were I a financier Id be in awe of what they’ve gotten away with it!! His (overdone!) shark-ish attitude was precisely the thing which drove the SPM and CDF fiascos that led to the 2008 crash. The film Inside Job describes *how* the bankers did it. Precisely that attitude to selling (whatever cost (deferred)). And they’re doing it again – because our governments have REWARDED that bad behaviour. And for those in the game, it doesn’t matter whether the markets go up or down, they live off gambling well.

This is why it’s right to regard most financial trading as merely a big game. And right that it be highly regulated so real people don’t suffer!

And with the severest penalties for companies who get too big and for politicians who enable them.

Free-market capitalism has just about enslaved all humanity. We must break the chains of this most cruel and deceptive ruler.


3 thoughts on “Down with Goldman Sachs!

  1. I wrote the following sometime last year under the title ‘Inequality for all’

    “Inequality is necessary to ensure greater wealth for all” Chairman – Goldman Sachs

    I was kind of half paying attention to BBC2’s Newsnight when I heard this quote, or words to that effect, attributed to the chairman of Goldman Sachs, the investment banking giant and one of the main pillars of world capitalism.

    The statement struck me as a paradox which ranks alongside “All animals are equal, but some are more equal then others.” from Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and it has to be judged in a similar context. In Animal Farm the declaration was used to justify the pigs’ assumption of unchallenged supremacy on the farm.

    It also struck me that whoever said it was speaking in defence of, and justifying the iniquitous rigours of world capitalism in general and the wealth amassing practice of Goldman Sachs in particular (for ‘wealth amassing’ read ‘money grabbing’)

    A Google search revealed that the culprit was Lord Brian Griffiths of Fforestfach, a former special adviser to Margaret Thatcher, now a vice chairman at Goldman Sachs International, a life peer and Christian theorist of “biblically based wealth creation.” Just the man to explain how Goldman’s taxpayer-financed bonuses are perfectly moral.

    When Lord Griffiths said: “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” at a panel discussion in London on 21st October, what he really meant is greater prosperity and opportunity for all the very rich.

    To whom is he addressing his remarks in this instance? To a ‘discussion panel’, of his peers, the rich and the super rich. His words were not meant for the ears of those at the bottom of his unequal society. He is saying to his peers that they must continue in their noble quest, the acquisition of yet more wealth, regardless of all the dire consequences of their mission for the millions of victims of the system which enables them to do that.

    Claims that inequality is necessary are generally made by apologists for capitalism and all its sins. It is used by the rich as a justification for their wealth and acquisitions. It is a defence of the ‘trickle down’ economy as practiced by Ronald Reagan (Reaganomics) and his disciple Margaret Thatcher, on the premise that capitalists create wealth, which in turn enriches society. Another name for this theory is supply-side economics. It meant huge tax cuts for the rich and super-rich.

    The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. stood at 70% when Reagan was elected in 1980, falling steadily to 28% by 1989, before it began to rise modestly. The top marginal rate now stands at 35% against a peak of 94% in 1945.

    “When the tax burden on the upper income brackets is lifted, the rich and not-rich alike all benefit,” said Arthur Laffer, who was a former member of Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board. “Eventually.”

    These tax cuts were implemented with the support of the Democrats, which explains why they have been upheld all these years. The result of this was, unsurprisingly, a higher concentration of wealth in fewer hands:

    Reaganomics also meant a beefed-up national defense budget of $210 billion enabled the military to purchase advanced warhead-delivery systems from aerospace manufacturer Lockheed. (another pillar of capitalism)

    “Trickle-down economics prevailed in a period in which a smaller portion of the U.S. (i.e. the rich) gained an increasing share of the most important measures of economic vigor. Be it total wealth or net income, the top gained a greater share of the pie at the expense of the less-well-off.”
    Michael S. Derby (Real Time Economy)

    A similar effect occurred in GB during the Thatcher era, when £63 billion was taken from the poor and given to the rich.

    As John Pilger says, in ‘Hidden Agendas’:
    “ According to Economic trends the post-war improvement of life for the poorest ‘has been put in reverse [since 1979]. Income has not trickled down but filtered up from the poorer sections of society to the richer ones’ put another way: since the year Margaret Thatcher came to power, more than £63 billion has been transferred, in subsidies, from the poor to the rich” p105-106

    Things have not changed much either since Tony Blair’s ‘New labour’ won a landslide victory in the 1997 election. Under the Blair/Brown govt, despite all the rhetoric, the gap between rich and poor continued to widen.

    ‘The poor will always be with us’ is another old saw trotted out by those who support the ideal of a society in which the wealth is concentrated in the hands of an elite few. The philosophy of the ‘trickle down’ economy is based on the idea that all boats rise on a rising tide. Redistribution is counter-productive because it will take away the incentives to do well, and hence also take away the possibility of wealth creation and subsequent automatic wealth distribution through “trickling down”. All this is reminiscent of laissez-faire and the invisible hand theory.

    The only conclusion to be drawn from the above, is that the trickle down doctrine has failed. Obviously not all boats have risen on the same tide. It is inconcievable that a person with Lord Brian Griffiths’ knowledge and experience of economics and high finance can be seriously advocating a failed economic strategy.
    Article 25 of the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights) states:
    “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
    Every one of these rights is violated by the inequality endemic to capitalist society, yet most of the ‘civilised’ world endorsed the declaration.
    Inequality is a requisite for capitalism, it cannot function without it. Any alternative is unthinkable to the likes of Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach and his peers. That is why, for them, inequality must be tolerated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s