SEC unit hires ex-Goldman Sachs worker as chief operating officer

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.

Why would someone leave a job that pays millions of dollars in bonuses to come and work for the government?
Your parasite/host relationship explanation didn't really touch on that.


Why did Robert McNarama leave his CEO position at Ford which was paying him $400k in 1960 for a cabinet level Defense Secretary position that only paid $25k at the time?

Why did Robert Rubin leave his Chairmanship position at Goldman which paid him millions in salary/stock options to earn $150k working for the government as Treasury secretary?

Why did Hank Paulson leave his CEO position at Goldman($30 million/year in salary and stock options) to come and work for the government for only $150k as Treasury secretary?

Similarly, why is this young 29 year old guy leaving his multi-million dollar position to come work for the government for pennies on the dollar?
I thought you're supposed to stay in the private sector first then come work for the government when you're becoming old/frail/nearing retirement age and then retire, not the other way around...

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Link

Glenn Greenwald above on the topic.

One excerpt:

Business Insider has more details on Storch, the new COO of SEC Enforcement: He's 29, and has worked at Goldman Sachs for the last 5 years -- since he's 24 years old. I'm sure there was nobody more qualified for that position and that he'll be an absolutely relentless and fearsome force in helping the SEC enforce applicable laws and regulations.

:laugh: Gotta love Greenwald.

I don't care what kind of wunderkind they think they are, a 29 year old is inexperienced and naive. Anybody who chooses a 29 year old as a COO is an idiot or has a hidden agenda.

I 110% agree with this.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.

Why would someone leave a job that pays millions of dollars in bonuses to come and work for the government?
Your parasite/host relationship explanation didn't really touch on that.


Why did Robert McNarama leave his CEO position at Ford which was paying him $400k in 1960 for a cabinet level Defense Secretary position that only paid $25k at the time?

Why did Robert Rubin leave his Chairmanship position at Goldman which paid him millions in salary/stock options to earn $150k working for the government as Treasury secretary?

Why did Hank Paulson leave his CEO position at Goldman($30 million/year in salary and stock options) to come and work for the government for only $150k as Treasury secretary?

Similarly, why is this young 29 year old guy leaving his multi-million dollar position to come work for the government for pennies on the dollar?
I thought you're supposed to stay in the private sector first then come work for the government when you're becoming old/frail/nearing retirement age and then retire, not the other way around...

The first thing to say is that McNamara's reasons were not the same as the others.

McNamara had 'patriotic' motives for better or worse, it was a time when 'when your President asks you to help, you help' was a reason.

This is reflected in how McNamara went on to hold public positions later, moving on to the World Bank.

McNamara was widely viewed as the star of JFK's cabinet, and the most likely to run for President himself later, putting Bob Kennedy to the side for thi question.

The others are more of a revolving door problem, though it's fair to say that they're not just 'motivated by evil', but they come from a world and a culture in which the good done foe Wall Street firms seems a lot more compelling to them than to the average American, where 'too big to fail' is more an accomplishment and goal than a systemic problem.

The simple fact is that the government has a big effect on Wall Street - which is the design of our government to give the people the rule of the country and the power to protect their interests against narrow interests, but when the narrow interests are put into the positions that belong to the people, it doesn't quite work that way.

Goldman is said to view its government connections as perhaps its most important activity - and this is the source of disillusioned citizens who blame government, when government serves interests like Goldman and not the public.It's short-sighted, though, for them to react to weaken the government, not recognizing that the solution is to get government representing the public better. Weakening the government weakens the public's power to limit the abuses of the narrow interests.

Look at the others on your list - Robert Rubin in government pushing all kinds of Wall Street policies through against the public interest, and when he left it was to an executive position at one of the too big to fail institutions, Citibank. You had the former CEO of Goldman, Paulson, inviting the current CEO to sit with him as the decision to not bail out a major Goldman competitor was made, as a decision to give billions of tax dollars to AIG to buy out Goldman risky investments at 100% value was made.

As you sit and look at someone like Paulson whose long career was on Wall Street, where he adopted that culture, sitting in his government position with a few months left and a tiny salary compared to the huge sums from Wall Street, you should recognize the conglicts of interest in his fully representing the 'public interest' when it's in conflict with Wall Street's.

There's a reason they say Wall Street CEO's can get the Secretary on the phone much more easily that other government officials.

There's even an anecdote from a former Bush speechwriter that at the height of the TARP crisis, George Bush yelled at Paulson that he had to tell him what he was doing.

You ask why execs leave high-income positions to take low-paying positions, and the answer involves the huge effect they can have, in billions and more.

It's fair to say that there is some level of 'public service' to try to measure, but between the conflicts of interest and the ingrained Wall Street culture, it's a problem.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Craig234
They're parasites, not golden geese.

I'd say that completely depends on whether or not you're a client of theirs.

No, it doesn't - looking at the larger situation, the distinction between parasite and golden goose is pretty objective.

The 'relative' aspect you describe' exists within the parasitical structure - parasites benefit their own, and drain the host. That relative aspect doesn't make them not parasites.

Goldman Sachs does activities that cost others greeatly to gain their profit - they aren't inventing and producing useful goods and services nearly as much as extracting wealth.

Just as some parasites learn to protect any defense by the host by using the host's own defense against it, Goldman Sachs uses our political system against us to protect it.

These interests always exist - the oligarchy who would destroy democracy to cement their own power, the war profiteers who promote war for profit, the demagogues who use scapegoats to build movements based on ahte to gain power and wealth, and the financiers who go beyond the legitimate role of running the machine of the economy to turn that machine into a weapon against its own society for their own gain.

The question is how well the society protects itself. We're not doing well at that, as citizens fume at their televisions, impotent.

I've often said from an old saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO well for donors." That's the situation now as the finance industry eats our country.

You know what happens to hosts as parasites feed - and our country has seen the parasite grow to get over 40% of all profits, and to cause our country to take on massive debt.

The simple fact is that the rich are doing incredibly well and it's not a happy right-wing story about a tide lifting all boats, it's a parasitical growth.

The world has other organisms ready to compete as the king is ill, and the United States is facing problems from them as it allows this to go on.

This glorification of the rich having no responsibility to the effects of their pursuing our wealth on society is a corruption with a very high price that can cause catastrophe.

So why so little revolt? In my opinion, it's likely because as technology has advanced to the point that it's very cheap for most to have their basic food needs met, that has caused a complacency about outrageous transfers of wealth to the top. If the masses aren't starving in the streets, they don't get too upset, allowing for unprecedented increases in the concentration of wealth without the usual politicial crisis. Yet.

Why would someone leave a job that pays millions of dollars in bonuses to come and work for the government?
Your parasite/host relationship explanation didn't really touch on that.


Why did Robert McNarama leave his CEO position at Ford which was paying him $400k in 1960 for a cabinet level Defense Secretary position that only paid $25k at the time?

Why did Robert Rubin leave his Chairmanship position at Goldman which paid him millions in salary/stock options to earn $150k working for the government as Treasury secretary?

Why did Hank Paulson leave his CEO position at Goldman($30 million/year in salary and stock options) to come and work for the government for only $150k as Treasury secretary?

Similarly, why is this young 29 year old guy leaving his multi-million dollar position to come work for the government for pennies on the dollar?
I thought you're supposed to stay in the private sector first then come work for the government when you're becoming old/frail/nearing retirement age and then retire, not the other way around...

Why do they leave high paying private sector jobs to work for peanuts? Same reason some members of congress do it. They profit from it. Maybe not today, but soon. You leave company X making millions to work for the govt for a year or two setting or administrating policy that effects the same company you left. Sometimes, you go right back to the same company you left. You think maybe company X has some nice rewards for you?

Go read the Wikipedia summary on Henry Paulson. It smells real bad.

Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000. He continued to receive deferred compensation after he left Halliburton. Now, he was required to divest himself of his Halliburton interests when he was VP. You think maybe Cheney benefited from any of those billion dollar no bid contracts "won" by Halliburton. Smells bad too.

 

[da loser]

Why would someone leave a job that pays millions of dollars in bonuses to come and work for the government?
Your parasite/host relationship explanation didn't really touch on that.


Why did Robert McNarama leave his CEO position at Ford which was paying him $400k in 1960 for a cabinet level Defense Secretary position that only paid $25k at the time?

Why did Robert Rubin leave his Chairmanship position at Goldman which paid him millions in salary/stock options to earn $150k working for the government as Treasury secretary?

Why did Hank Paulson leave his CEO position at Goldman($30 million/year in salary and stock options) to come and work for the government for only $150k as Treasury secretary?

Similarly, why is this young 29 year old guy leaving his multi-million dollar position to come work for the government for pennies on the dollar?
I thought you're supposed to stay in the private sector first then come work for the government when you're becoming old/frail/nearing retirement age and then retire, not the other way around...

you do realize hank was then "forced" to sell his stocks and such. but since he was forced it was tax free. he got paid 100s of millions to take that job.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/01/paulson-tax-loophole-cx_jh_0602paultax.html

note although it's tax deferred. if he never sells it again it's free, which i'm guessing he's not going to sell.

 

[Delita]

That is the most understated post I otherwise generally agree with I remember seeing.

I have a hard time understanding why you are against GS, picking a negative metaphor, but pick one so trivial for something so large.

Matt Tiabi said GS is like a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity". That seems far more accurate.

'Global warming is like an unpleasant hot wind that blows by.'

That's because Matt Tiabi is an idiot.

 

[lothar]

you do realize hank was then "forced" to sell his stocks and such. but since he was forced it was tax free. he got paid 100s of millions to take that job.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/01/paulson-tax-loophole-cx_jh_0602paultax.html

note although it's tax deferred. if he never sells it again it's free, which i'm guessing he's not going to sell.

Interesting...