Thursday, July 2, 2009
(And Not a Penny More)
You may have heard about a Rolling Stone article making the rounds…it’s a twelve-page tirade on Goldman Sachs penned by some character named Matt Taibbi—who we’ll come back to later.
In classic A-Letter fashion, we gave it a few days to marinate. We listened to everything that everyone had to say, all the different opinions – we actually do the research – then we respond.
And even then, everyone’s still going to have to listen to a little background. Just a minute or two, I promise…
An Exposé Trashing Goldman Sachs?! How Original!
So this isn’t our first Thursday in the publishing business, and Goldman’s had a giant bull’s-eye on their non-distinct logo for months now.
And to be honest, we’ve been rolling around the idea of a Goldman Sachs A-Letter exposé for about that long.
Not that we didn’t learn plenty from Taibbi’s article.
It’s just that digging up dirt on Goldman Sachs is like finding hay in a barn. It’s just not all that hard anymore.
So what kept us from going over some of the gory details of Goldman’s ruthless rise to the top?
Before I answer that, let me briefly introduce the author of the article in question…
The Preeminent Rise of Pseudo-Intellectualism
So Matt Taibbi…where to begin?
Well, the guy curses a lot. 
And Kurt Vonnegut said that foul language invites readers to ignore you. Oh yeah, he’s also the guy that wrote “The 52 Funniest Things about the Upcoming Death of The Pope.”
…
Yeah…if I lost you there, I don’t blame you.
I really think this guy is the mainstream print media’s version of a shock jock. Which is a crying shame…because they could really do much better…
I mean to say that it’s not surprising that his father – Mike Taibbi – was an NBC reporter. Because this definitely isn’t a case of the cream rising to the top.
Taibbi, the younger, seems to have come from a pretty “canned” experience in America’s education complex and gone on to live a pretty “canned” life as a bleeding-heart liberal…one who’s never had to wonder where his next meal would come from.
Because it takes that particular brand of bratty pseudo-intellectualism to wing around the kind of absolutes Taibbi uses in his article. At least from his perspective, everything is pretty black and white…
Such gems as referring to the investment bank as “A great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” will prove to be memorable quips amongst the quasi-intelligent dross of society…but what real purpose does his opinion serve?
I mean, what’s the one thing he wants to tell me? That Goldman is bad?
That’s not news. Don’t waste my time.
No, his fiery words and milk-toast contributions are emphatic, but they don’t lend themselves to meaningful conclusions. At least none deeper than the basest emotions of disgust and anger.
Instead, they serve to feed the rising tide of a nightmarish pseudo-intellectual debate. One where each side is blind to reason or pleas from the other…and one where both left and right believe themselves to be furthering an agenda; a set of ideals…when in reality, each side is simply empowering a different oligarchy.
And Am I Forgetting Someone?
Oh yeah, Goldman Sachs.
Whether Goldman Sachs is evil, bad, nefarious, or a vampire squid; none of these things matter…
Whether they personally blew all of the bubbles Taibbi accuses (even though they didn’t)…whether they have an “implicit” responsibility to preserve the ecosystem in which they do business (an issue we can’t even agree on for people in general)…again, these topics great for pseudo-intellectual debate, but they doesn’t really matter.
What does matter is that Goldman’s #1 responsibility is this; Get Money.
They’re in business, they’re “long-term greedy” and they’re still lovin’ it. Hey, they’re getting plenty of money, so job one is getting done. Who cares if the financial system is imploding? Goldman expects 2009 to be its most profitable year ever.
But there’s another, much more unique player in the financial system…the only one with an explicit responsibility to preserve our economy and financial system…
You guessed it; the government.
And they’ve also got the power to force institutions like Goldman to take on that responsibility as well. To keep those very institutions from turning into the kind of nightmare Taibbi describes.
But did the government do that? Did they force banks to tread more carefully?
No. They did the opposite. If anything, you could find a mountain of evidence indicting specific government officials for flaunting that responsibility…for doing the opposite of what it dictated. I’d start with Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. I wonder why the author didn’t.
And as he’s quick to point out, administrations like the CFTC were a bit too primitive and ill equipped to deal with the sneaky ways of Goldman’s greedy legal teams, traders and execs. When given a plausible excuse for removing speculative limits, the CFTC yielded.
The author goes on to call Goldman all sorts of names and tries to lead the reader to his own political conclusions, but frankly, he lost me there…
Taibbi definitely had high hopes for this article…writing it like an all-encompassing riot act listing all of Goldman’s past sins. There are many.
But thanks to his status as mainstream reporter, he was obligated to tell the story according to the facts. And the facts don’t point to a single, malicious business institution as the perpetrator of today’s crisis. To follow the trail that far and stop would be asinine…
Rather, the facts point to a larger problem. To a corrupt, inept and manipulated system; of which mega-villains like Goldman Sachs are just a single symptom.
No Mr. Taibbi. Pace yourself. There’s definitely more outrage to come, and it may not have anything to do with Goldman.
Here’s to hoping your underlying political agenda will allow you to gripe about it…and that you stumble upon some more meaningful conclusions next time around.
Yours in Personal Sovereignty,
Matthew Collins, A-Letter Editor