Obama and Goldman Sachs: A Quid Pro Quo?

U.S. President Obama nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. While president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he had played a key role in forcing AIG to pay Goldman Sachs’ claims dollar for dollar. Put another way, Geithner, as well as Henry Paulson, Goldman’s ex-CEO serving as Secretary of the Treasury as the financial crisis unfolded, stopped AIG from using the leverage in its bankrupt condition to pay claimants much less than full value. At Treasury, Mark Patterson was Geithner’s chief of staff. Patterson had been a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
To head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission—the regulatory agency that Born had headed during the previous administration—Obama picked Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who had helped ban the regulation of derivatives in 1999. Born had pushed for the securities to be regulated, only to be bullied by Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Revere) and Larry Summers, whom Obama would have as his chief economic advisor. To head the SEC, Obama nominated Mary Shapiro, the former CEO of FINRA, the financial industry’s self-regulatory body.
In short, Obama stacked his financial appointees during his first term with people who had played a role in or at least benefitted financially from financial bubble that came crashing down in September 2008.[1] Put another way, Obama selected people who had taken down the barriers to spreading systemic risk to fix the problem. Why would he have done so? Could it have been part of the quid pro quo the president had agreed to when he accepted the $1 million campaign contribution from Goldman Sachs (the largest contribution to Obama in 2007)? Might Goldman’s executives have wanted to hedge their bets in case the Democrat wins. Getting Goldman alums in high positions of government would essentially make the U.S. Government a Wall Street Government—that is, a plutocracy with the outward look of a democracy. It is no accident, we can conclude, that the spiraling economic inequality increased during the Democrat’s first term of office.

1. Inside Job (2010).

Goldman Sachs' Revolving Door: Regulatory Capture

In July 2012, Andrew Williams, a former spokesman for U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, announced plans to head over to Goldman Sachs at the end of that month.[1] Williams was the second of the Secretary’s spokesmen to head to theWall Street bank. Such moves may reflect a standing policy at the bank to have a revolving door. The previous U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, had been the CEO at Goldman. This suggests that the revolving door was to include populating high offices in government, presumably not out of a sense of civic duty, but, rather, to see that Goldman's interests would be protected and even promoted through public policy. Hence President Obama was said to have had a Wall Street government with respect to positions bearing on Wall Street. I submit that deconstructing such a revolving door would be very difficult. 

From the standpoint of a government official being hired by Goldman, the prospect of becoming wealthy is a large incentive to make the jump. Such an official would typically have scruples about using his contacts in government to pull strings for the bank. Mired in scandal following the financial crisis of 2008, Goldman’s leadership no doubt understood the value in hiring good PR men. Such hires could even put a good face on the cozy relationship between the bank and people still in government.

The “revolving door” dynamic is also difficult to break up because it contributes toward the capture of regulators by the regulated. This is known as regulatory capture. The regulated companies supply information that regulators need in order to devise regulations; the companies can use this reliance to their advantage even just in providing tainted, self-serving data. Moreover, the revolving door can make it easier for the managements of the regulated companies to get even high government officials to put political pressure on the regulatory agencies to go soft on regulating. In the case of Goldman Sachs, it is reasonable to expect that Henry Paulson would have bent to the bank's request for lax regulatory oversight from the SEC, which of course had no idea how many subprime-mortgage-derivative bonds Wall Street had been producing and selling up to the financial crisis of 2008. 

 

The SEC can be soft on Wall Street and point to insufficient staffing as the reason, while the reality is far more sordid in terms of the relationship between the regulators and the powerful regulated. 

Legislated restrictions on former government financial officials going to Wall Street banks could of course be circumvented, given the incentives described above, though prohibiting employment (or financial enrichment, such as by consulting) in the industries related to an official's area for many years seems possible. Even if Goldman Sachs could not hire away Treasury or SEC offiicals, the bank could still count on ex-Goldman folks who occupy key offices in the U.S. Government. 

Generally speaking, the financial and related political power of such huge aggregations of wealth such as a Wall Street bank has (and is) naturally overpower weak governments, by which I mean governments that depend on or do not have the will to resist the allure of money (or threats) from entities subject to the government. A government whose elected officials must rely on large sums of donated money just to get reelected is ripe for succumbing to corporate offers with strings attached. A strong government is insulated, whether by law, will, or power generally from such strings. A government that has many points of access (of influence) is likely to be weak in not only rebuffing pressure to reduce taxes and spend more, but also standing up to large corporations. A government in a pro-business society is likely to be weak with respect to the power of business, other things equal. Even more significant than these variables, however, is the tenuous basis of representative democracy amid Wall Street bewindowed towers. 

1. Bonnie Kavoussi, “Andrew Williams, Ex-Treasury Spokesman,Headed to Goldman Sachs,” The Huffington Post, July 12, 2012. 

President Obama Took Care of Wall Street below a Public Persona of Reform

In April, 2010, President Obama gave a speech in New York City to counter what he called “the furious efforts of industry lobbyists” geared to weakening or stopping the new financial regulations that Obama claimed would be needed to stave off a second Great Depression.[1]  It is telling that the banks that had contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 were trying to diminish or block any new regulation. The very legitimacy of industry calls for deregulation in the wake of a market failure caused in part by the industry flies in the face of the rationale for regulation. In short, the rationale for government regulation has to do with market failures, which includes fraud and over-zealous profit-taking at the expense of the public good. The root of the rationale is the difference between the interests of an organization and society (i.e., the public good). 

After the financial crisis of 2008, the U.S. President wanted more consumer protections, limits on the size of banks and the risks they could take, reforms on executive compensation, and greater transparency for controversial financial securities known as derivatives.  He maintained that each of these safeguards must be in any bill that he would sign. In giving the speech with some of the banking titans in the audience, the President wanted to confront the financial industry more directly through a sharp speech. After having castigated the bankers' “failure of responsibility” in recent years, he called on them to stop resisting tighter regulation through the army of lobbyists staked out then on Capitol Hill. The president’s address at Cooper Union in Lower Manhattan circled back to another speech he had given at the same location in March of 2008 warning of financial manipulation, market bubbles and the concentration of economic power.

Analysis:

At the time of his speech, the President was actually supporting the bills coming out of Congress. These bills would do nothing to forestall or minimize market bubbles and reduce the concentration of economic power.  The bills would not even limit or reduce bank size; instead, higher reserve requirements for the biggest banks was presumed a sufficient incentive for those banks to willing reduce their sizes. Although this approach, which would become law, incorporated the market mechanism (regarding financial disincentives), the assumption that empire-building Wall Street titans would reverse the "business logic" where in the opposite of growth is bankruptcy is very naive. It is remarkable that the president considered this approach as satisfying his requirement that the bill reaching his desk must include something limiting the size of financial institutions (especially when the systemic risk of one big bank failing and taking down the entire financial system had recently been lived through). Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Reagan, was urging a decrease in the sizes of the five largest banks. 

I submit that Goldman Sachs' $1 million contribution to Obama's presidential campaign may have had something to do with it, as did Wall Street lobbying in Congress. On the eve of the President’s speech, Obama’s chief of staff had met behind closed doors with representatives of Wall Street firms. Fox News reported that Obama's message was the following: we’ve got to trash you in public, but know that we will take care of you in private.  While Fox News was at the time certainly no friend of the President, the account would explain why the President would eventually sign the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which except for staggered reserve requirements and a consumer-protection bureau is pretty kind to Wall Street.  

 

Recalling President Andrew Jackson, who successfully took on the bank of the U.S. by refusing to fund it in 1832, and Theodore Roosevelt, who supported the Sherman Anti-trust Act in 1911, we could certainly view Obama as not having been willing to take on the guys who not only had contributed to his 2008 campaign, but could be useful again in 2012 for Obama's reelection.  

1.  Peter Baker, "Obama Issues Sharp Call for Reforms on Wall Street," The New York Times, April 22, 2010.

An Institutional Conflict of Interest in Corporate Governance: The Case of Goldman Sachs

In September 2011, a pension fund representing U.S. government employees filed a shareholder proposal to strip Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein of his other post as chairman of the board. According to Reuters, “The pension plan of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees said on Wednesday an independent chairman would provide checks and balances in the power structure at the largest U.S. investment bank. AFSCME said splitting the roles of CEO and chairman might have prevented Goldman from getting into trouble for its actions leading up to the financial crisis and will improve its stock performance going forward. ‘A strong, independent Board chair would focus Goldman on generating long-term value for its shareholders,’ AFSCME President Gerald McEntee said in a statement.” Goldman spokesman Stephen Cohen responded, “We think we have a robust governance structure in place, with a very effective independent lead director. We always listen to our shareholders, so it is disappointing that AFSCME decided to go to the media before raising the issue with us.”[1]

Analysis:

One of a board of directors’ main functions is to monitor the performance of the company's management, including the chief executive. It follows that for the same person to serve concurrently as CEO and chair of the board constitutes an institutional conflict of interest in that the CEO is in charge of the group that serves as a check on the CEO. There would also have been a conflict of interest if AFSCME had taken its complaint up with the management, which is under the CEO. No group should thus be left to have the final say on complaints about the group (and especially its head). 

Goldman’s management pointing to a “lead director” as somehow providing a check on the CEO ignored the fact that that director was under the board’s chair, who was also the CEO. The management’s claim that the firm had a “robust governance system” thus rings hollow; robust systems do not contain an obvious conflict of interest. Nor should instituting them depend on there having been bad performance. However, practically speaking, anything less would have been insufficient to prompt the appointment of a new chair at Goldman.

At the time of the proposal, Goldman shares already had dropped 38 percent in 2011, compared with a decline of 43 percent for its chief rival, Morgan Stanley. The other four biggest U.S. banks were down 21-48 percent. Aside from relative financial performance, the hits to Goldman’s reputational capital since September 2008, including paying a settlement on a fraud claim, suggest that Goldman’s shareholders could have benefited from a check on the bank’s management. Unfortunately, AFSCME directly held 7,101 shares of Goldman, worth $741,000 at the market prices at the time, according to pension fund spokesman Chris Fleming. AFSCME's 1.6 million members owned 2.5 percent of Goldman's outstanding shares, worth $1.325 billion.[2] Other institutional investors would have had to be persuaded, and absent bad financial performance, achieving a majority would have been difficult.

My point is simply that recognizing the chair of a board as an inherent check on a company’s management ought not depend on the owners of enough shares being persuaded by bad financial performance. Every company should have the institutional structure of a robust governance system, rather than one containing a blatant conflict of interest. If the problem is managements having too much power in corporate governance, using corporate governance or legislation to reduce that power is apt to be a non-starter. Going to management for the reform would be sheer insanity. Expecting Lloyd Blankfein to voluntarily give up the chairmanship at Goldman in 2011 would have been tantamount to waking up one morning and expecting people to no longer be concerned with power and even their own self-interest. The U.S. Constitution was designed in large part to counter ambition with ambition rather than assuming that people with a lot of power will act selflessly. Perhaps corporate governance could take a lesson from government. 

1. “Goldman Should Strip Blankfein of Chairmanship, Pension Fund Says,” Reuters, September 14, 2011. 
2. Ibid.

President Obama and Goldman Sachs: A Quid Pro Quo?

Wall Street and the White House may be closer than the typical American thinks. One way this is accomplished is for a bank to contribute heavily to both presidential campaigns so as to be able to hedge political risk by getting ex-managers into strategic posts in the executive arm of the U.S. Government. This can be the case even when one of the candidates has campaigned on holding Wall Street accountable, such as after the financial crisis of 2008. There is the campaign slogan, and there is the political-economic reality underneath. 

U.S. President Obama nominated Timothy Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. While president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, he had played a key role in forcing AIG to pay Goldman Sachs’ claims dollar for dollar. Geithner, as well as Henry Paulson, Goldman’s ex-CEO who was serving at the time as Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush, stopped AIG from the leverage in its bankrupt condition to pay claimants much less than full value, which would have been expected given AIG's plight. Once Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury under Obama, Geithner’s chief of staff was Mark Patterson, a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.

To head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission—the regulatory agency that Born had headed during the previous administration—Obama picked Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who had helped ban the regulation of derivatives in 1999. Born had pushed for the securities to be regulated, only to be bullied by Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Revere) and Larry Summers, whom Obama would have as his chief economic adviser. To head the SEC, Obama nominated Mary Shapiro, the former CEO of FINRA, the financial industry’s self-regulatory body.

In short, Obama stacked his financial appointees during his first term with people who had played a role in or at least benefited financially from financial bubble that came crashing down in September 2008. Put another way, Obama selected people who had taken down the barriers to spreading systemic risk to fix the problem. Why would he have done so? Could it have been part of the quid pro quo the president had agreed to when he accepted the $1 million campaign contribution from Goldman Sachs (the largest contribution to Obama in 2007)? Might Goldman’s executives have wanted to hedge their bets should the Democrat win? Unfortunately, getting Goldman alums in high positions of government would essentially make the U.S. Government a Wall Street Government—one that would be hampered in holding Wall Streeters accountable, even in terms of criminal prosecutions related to the financial crisis. It is no accident, we can conclude, that the spiraling economic inequality increased during the Democrat’s first term of office.

Source: Inside Job (2010), directed by Charles Ferguson

Getting More For Doing Less: Bank Board Directors

Executive compensation is an art rather than a science. It is not as if numbers are fed into a computer and the correct compensation pops out. More discretion is involved than meets the eye. “Since the financial crisis,” The New York Times reported in 2013, “compensation for the directors of [America’s] biggest banks has continued to rise even as the banks themselves, facing difficult markets and regulatory pressures, are reining in bonuses and pay.” [1] Just five years after the financial crisis, it is interesting how the banks' respective managements decided to spend the TARP money from Congress and even more money from the Federal Reserve Bank. Also of note, board and upper management compensations seemed to be going in different directions in spite of both being presumably tied to the same firm performance. Even a performance-incentive approach tied to firm-performance can accommodate a lot of latitude, such that banks differ in how much they pay their respective boards. The discretion permits inside collusion and even outlandish demands by "celebrity" members whose advice does not necessarily come up to celebrity status.  

At $488,709 in 2011, Goldman Sachs had the highest director-pay of any American bank. Some of the bank’s 13 directors made more than $500,000 because they had extra board responsibilities. As the directors were paid in stock, 2012 promised to be an even better year for the board members. Compensation experts have stated that banks must pay premium dollar to pay such figures for what is essentially part-time work in order to get the best advice. However, JPMorgan, the largest American bank, gave its directors “only” an average of $278,194 in 2011. Bank of America paid its directors $275,000 each. Equilar reported that the average compensation for a director at one of the six largest American banks in 2011 was $328,655. This compares with $232,142 at almost 500 publicly-traded companies, according to Spencer Stuart, in spite of the fact that regulations had narrowed the responsibilities of bank boards.

One would think that compensation would reflect changes in the number of tasks even more than macro indicators of bank performance. “I get you have to pay up for sophisticated board, but what is that complexity worth?” said Timothy M. Ghriskey, co-founder of the Solaris Group, a financial services shareholder that voted in 2011 to reject a pay plan for top executives at Citigroup. “Does it take $200,000 or $500,000? The discrepancy between a board like JPMorgan and Goldman is confusing.”[2] I submit that it is confusing only from a rationalistic standpoint. 

The differential indicates that the matter is far more subjective than meets the eye. Collusion between upper management and its board may be happening. So when a compensation expert claims that a certain level is necessary, the claim can be questioned rather than taken at face value. In fact, the false-necessity may be a subterfuge used by insiders seeking to enrich each other. You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. The dispersed stockholders are left with less.

In short, it can be doubted whether the director compensation levels at banks are necessary or even in the stockholders’ interest. The excess probably reflects the difficulty facing stockholders in holding the insiders accountable. Accordingly, one consequence of corporate governance reform may be reining in the pay for what is really a part-time job with fewer and fewer responsibilities. If very wealthy or renown board members demand a premium, it is not justified in terms of corporate governance unless the advice is more valuable. 

See Essays on the Financial Crisis: Systemic Greed and Arrogant Stupidity, available at Amazon.

1. Susanne Craig, “At Banks, Board Pay Soars Amid Cutbacks,” The New York Times, April 1, 2013.
2. Ibid.

Regulating Wall Street after a Financial Crisis

On Columbus Day 2011, The New York Times observed that the regulations known as the Volcker rule, “intended to limit trading when the bank's money is at risk, a sweet spot for banks, is seen as a centerpiece of the sprawling financial overhaul of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. In anticipation, the nation's biggest banks, like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have already shut down their stand-alone proprietary trading desks.”[1] Even so, the long and tortuous route by which any regulation is written was leaving its own mark in the sense that promising loopholes were finding their way into the rule. In other words, the regulated would have a disproportionate influence on the writing of the regulations. This conflict of interest is dangerous from the standpoint of not being vulnerable to another financial crisis in which the greed on Wall Street knows no bounds. 

Regulators were leaving room for “significant changes,” according to the Times. Wall Street was “lobbying furiously to tame the Volcker Rule, holding roughly 40 meetings with various regulators, warning that the changes will eat into profits at a difficult time for banks.” Those banks were undoubtedly threatening to charge more to their customers if the rule weren’t weakened. “In essence, the [rule] would upend the banking industry's lucrative, yet risky trading system, forcing powerhouse investment banks to resemble sleepier brokerage firms.” It is difficult to see Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs readily becoming mere market-makers and deposit and loan banks without a fight. To be sure, Lloyd Blankfein did insist that his bank was only a market maker when he testified before Sen. Levin’s Senate committee after the credit freeze of 2008.

At the time the Volcker Rule was being proposed, it was already apparent that there would be some wiggle-room for the banks. "Unfortunately, this initial proposal does not deliver on the promise of the Volcker Rule or the requirements of the statute," said Marcus Stanley, policy director of American for Financial Reform, an advocacy group. In the proposal, “a number of controversial exemptions emerged. While the regulation prevents big banks from placing bets on many stocks, corporate bonds and derivatives, it exempts trading in government bonds and foreign currencies. The proposal also provided a path for getting around the ban, for instance, when banks hedge against risk that comes from carrying out a customer's trade. Market-making and underwriting are excused, too, though the line is often fuzzy between these pure client activities and proprietary bets.” Lastly, the proposal would allow “banks to hedge against theoretical or ‘anticipatory’ risk, rather than just clear-and-present problems.” Armed with their lawyers and astute financial wizards, Wall Street banks could conceivably continue with business as usual.

Trading in government bonds and foreign currencies, and hedging even theoretical risk presumably with anything constitute an obstacle course that any Wall Street banker could run without breaking a sweat. With so much on the line and public scrutiny less potent at the regulatory stage, the financial-sector lobbyists could be expected to achieve just enough and then some. Once again, systemic risk would not be a factor, and history could repeat itself.

See: Skip Worden, Institutional Conflicts of Interests, available at Amazon.

1. Ben Protess, “Banking Industry Revamp Moves Step Closer to Law,” The New York Times, October 12, 2011. 

On the Various Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2008: Have We Learned Anything?

In January, 2011, the Financial Crisis Commission announced its findings. The usual suspects were not much of a surprise; what is particularly notable is how little had changed on Wall Street since the crisis in September of 2008. According to The New York Times, "The report examined the risky mortgage loans that helped build the housing bubble; the packaging of those loans into exotic securities that were sold to investors; and the heedless placement of giant bets on those investments." In spite of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act of 2010 and the panel's report, The New York Times reported that "little on Wall Street has changed." One commissioner, Byron S. Georgiou, a Nevada lawyer, said the financial system was “not really very different” in 2010 from before the crisis. “In fact," he went on, "the concentration of financial assets in the largest commercial and investment banks is really significantly higher today than it was in the run-up to the crisis, as a result of the evisceration of some of the institutions, and the consolidation and merger of others into larger institutions.” Richard Baker, the president of the Managed Funds Association, told The Financial Times, "The most recent financial crisis was caused by institutions that didn't know how to adequately manage risk and were over-leveraged. And I worry that if there is another crisis, it will be because the same institutions have failed to learn from the mistakes of the past." From the testimonies of managers of some of those institutions, one might surmise that the lack of learning in the two years after the crisis was due to a refusal to admit to even a partial role in crisis.  In other words, there appears to have been a crisis of mentality, which, as it contains intractable assumptions and ideological beliefs, as well as stubborn defensiveness, is not easy to dislodge such that legislation past Dodd-Frank could ever be passed.
It is admittedly tempting to go with the status quo than be responsible for reforms. If the reformers are also the former perpetrators, their defensiveness and ineptitude mesh well with the continuance of the status quo even if an entire economy the size of an empire is left vulnerable to a future crisis. To comprehend the inherent danger in the sheer continuance of the status quo, it is helpful to digest the panel's findings. 
The crisis commission found "a bias toward deregulation by government officials, and mismanagement by financiers who failed to perceive the risks." The commission concluded, for example, that "Fannie and Freddie had loosened underwriting standards, bought and guaranteed riskier loans and increased their purchases of mortgage-backed securities because they were fearful of losing more market share to Wall Street competitors." These two organizations were not really market participants, as they were guaranteed by the U.S. Government. That government-backed corporations would act so much like private competitive firms undercuts the assumed civic mission that premises government-underwriting. All this ought to have raised a red flag for everyone--not just the panel which stressed the need for a pro-regulation verdict. 

Lehman was a particularly inept player leading up to the crisis.     Zambio

In terms of the private sector, The New York Times reported that the panel "offered new evidence that officials at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch had portrayed mortgage-related investments to investors as being safer than they really were. It noted — Goldman’s denials to the contrary — that 'Goldman has been criticized — and sued — for selling its subprime mortgage securities to clients while simultaneously betting against those securities.'”  The bank's proprietary net-short position could not be justified by simply market-making as a counter-party to its clients, Blankfein's congressional testimony notwithstanding. 
Relatedly, the panel also pointed to problems in executive compensation at the banks. For example, Stanley O’Neal, chief executive of Merrill Lynch, a bank which failed in the crisis, told the commission about a “dawning awareness” through September 2007 that mortgage securities had been causing disastrous losses at the firm; in spite of his incompetence, he walked away weeks later with a severance package worth $161.5 million. The panel might have gone on to point to the historically relatively huge difference between CEO and lower-level manager compensation and questioned the relative merit, but such a conclusion would go beyond the commission's mission to explain the financial crisis.

With regard to the government, The New York Times reported that the panel "showed that the Fed and the Treasury Department had been plunged into uncertainty and hesitation after Bear Stearns was sold to JPMorgan Chase in March 2008, which contributed to a series of “inconsistent” bailout-related decisions later that year." The Federal Reserve was clearly the steward of lending standards in this country,” said one commissioner, John W. Thompson, a technology executive. “They chose not to act.” Furthermore, Sabeth Siddique, a top Fed regulator, described how his 2005 warnings about the surge in “irresponsible loans” had prompted an “ideological turf war” within the Fed — and resistance from bankers who had accused him of “denying the American dream” to potential home borrowers. That is to say, the Federal Reserve, a corporation wholly owned by the U.S. Government, is too beholden to bankers instead of the common good. So we are back to the issue of a government-guaranteed corporation acting like or on behalf of private companies (and badly at that).
We can conclude generally that governmental, governmental-supported, and private institutions, all acting in their self interests, contributed to a "perfect storm" that knocked down Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, AIG, and Freddy and Fannie Mae. Systemically, the commercial paper market--lending between banks--seized up and many of the housing markets in the U.S. took a severe fall such that home borrowers awoke to find their homes under water. The Federal Reserve was caught off-guard, as its chairman, Ben Bernanke, had been claiming that the housing markets could be relied on to stay afloat. Relatedly, AIG insured holders of mortgage-based bonds without bothering to hold enough cash in reserves in case of a major decline in the housing markets all at once. Neither the insurer nor the investment banks that had packaged the subprime mortgages into bonds though to investigate whether Countrywide's mortgage producers had pushed through very risky mortgages before selling them to the banks to package. In short, people who were inept believed nonetheless that they could not be wrong. Dick Fuld, Lehman's CEO, had the firm take on too much debt to buy real estate so that eventually his firm would be as big as Goldman Sachs. That such recklessness would be on the behest of a childish desire to be as big as the other banks testifies as to the need for financial regulation that goes beyond the "comfort zone" of Wall Street's bankers and their political campaign "donations."

See also Essays on the Financial Crisis: Systemic Greed and Arrogant Stupidity, available at Amazon.

Source:

Sam Jones, "Hedge Funds Rebuke Goldman," Financial Times, January 28, 2011, p. 18.

Was Goldman Sachs Really Politically Impotent amid Public Scrutiny in the Wake of the Financial Crisis?

If the American financial houses on Wall Street are among the most powerful forces in American politics-- powers, as it were, behind the throne--does it make sense that the strongest bank would be politically impotent?  In other words, can a public blemish nullify the power of all that capital?

According to The New York Times, Goldman Sachs employs perhaps the country’s most well-connected stable of Washington lobbyists, and it spent $2.8 million [in 2009] to bend the ear of federal officials and lawmakers. Goldman executives and its political action committee gavve more than $24 million to federal candidates in the first decade of the twenty-first century, including nearly $1 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Even so, the pounding in the media that Goldman Sachs took in April, 2010 left it sidelined — at least in public — as Congress moved toward a decision that could reshape the very industry it rules.  In particular, the SEC filing of charges and eleven hours of grueling testimony before Sen. Levin’s Investigations Committee left the bank a lobbyist persona non grata, if only for a day.  However, even then, the reality behind the scenes was doubtlessly very different.  Even as politicians publicly vilified the bank, they were picking up lucrative campaign contributions sourced in the bank, even if through intermediaries; any large scale electorate is notoriously bad at tracing links.  To be sure, The New York Times was reporting that Goldman Sachs was trying to find a way to influence the debate, even if it could not play as visible a role as it otherwise could have.

Goldman Sachs managers declined to comment the day after the hearing before Carl Levin's committee at the U.S. Senate. The question that the bankers were refusing to answer was on the impact that the bank's legal and public relations troubles were having on its Washington lobbying operations. Even so, one person briefed on its plans spoke on condition of anonymity because of the firm’s continuing legal and political troubles. He or she said it was still trying to push its agenda. The New York Times reported that according to industry officials, the bank had been “largely relying on trade groups, like the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. However, this could have been a smoke screen. The real deals could have been made behind closed doors, even by industry standards.  According to the paper, “More often, the firm — whose lobbyists and outside lawyers include such Washington luminaries as Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader, and Ken Duberstein, the former Reagan administration official — has relied largely on intermediaries because politicians are worried about being associated with it, government and industry officials said.”  Members of Congress were worried about public association, but willing to be influenced through intermediaries. Therefore, even though Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who was in a tight race at the time, canceled a fund-raiser at the bank’s New York offices after the SEC filed its lawsuit, I would not be surprised that she accepted contributions by an intermediary.

Most voters are too far away from Washington to get the real scoop, and journalists who want to continue with their career are not apt to dig too deep. We are left with the surface, and can only guess as to the subterranean dynamics.  It seems to me that traces of the underground rumblings can be discerned in lines such as “at least in public.”  We are left wondering how deep the wells of gold run.  Perhaps only the goldman knows.  The actuality can be far different than appearances.  If possible, a study on the real influence of Wall Street in Washington would be very helpful. For this reason, it is apt to be a difficult task with many self-interested obstacles.  In any case, we ought not be so incredulous as to rest on the public appearances. Even as Lloyd Blankfein was testifying, senators turned increasingly friendly to him–with the exception of Carl Levin and perhaps John McCain.  The Democratic side in particular almost made excuses for the CEO, saying that any number of firms should be there with him. Those senators had given their soundbites to be picked up at home; it was time to make sure they were not cutting off one of the ruddy fat hands that feeds them. This expression comes from Nietzsche’s description of businessmen and their propensity to overreach. 

To be sure, Nietzsche is no advocate of modern morality; he viewed it as a defense of weakness.  Weakness cannot be other than weakness, he writes. So too, strength, he writes, cannot be other than strong.  So I contend that we ought to take reports of the political impotence of Goldman Sachs with a rather large grain of salt (or gold, in this case).  He or she who has the gold makes the rules. There is no natural law stating that this process must be transparent.  My question is: can we, the American public, get to it, or does the well of gold run too deep for our patience and perseverance?


See also "Essays on the Financial Crisis," available at Amazon. 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/business/29lobby.html

Unnecessary Systemic Risk: Banks' Price-Fixing and Racketeering in Side Businesses

A lawsuit filed in a Florida district-court in 2013 alleged that JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and the London Metal Exchange (LME) artificially inflated aluminum prices.  The plaintiffs accused the companies of anti-trust practices and racketeering, including the “manipulation of the aluminum market through supply price fixing.”[1] This sounds like what had led to the forced break-up of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, though in that case exactly a century before, the restraint of trade had to do with the company’s main line of business (i.e., oil). In the case of the banks, however, owning commodity assets such as storage facilities and trading in raw materials do not constitute banking. This point triggers a larger question involving the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

Should we allow banks to expand even beyond these functions to owning commodities and related real-estate? What does this do to the banks' systemic risk?    Image Source: salisburyareafoundation.org. 

Under Glass-Steagal, commercial banks were not permitted to engage in investment-banking activities, such as proprietary trading and market-making. The law’s repeal in the late 1990's is ironic, for in just a decade the notion of systemic risk would flash into the public’s consciousness under the label of banks being “too big to fail.”
Rather than confront systemic risk directly, U.S. lawmakers and regulators have consistently preferred focusing on incremental change in particular areas. For example, when the lawsuit was filed in Florida, regulators were “scrutinizing ownership of commodity storage facilities by major U.S. banks.”[2] Unfortunately, the scrutiny was limited to price-fixing and racketeering, and those regulators probably were not talking to regulators at the SEC who were still promulgating regulations as part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which was ostensibly geared to reducing systemic risk through providing for the “orderly liquidation” of banks and other financial institutions too big to fail.
Were the various government regulators to compare notes, they might ask each other whether branching off into trading commodities and owning storage facilities increase the banks’ systemic risk. By taking on market risk (i.e., of commodity and commercial real-estate markets) that is higher than the risks in commercial banking, the banks increase their systemic risk. Factor in the legal and reputational liabilities associated with price-fixing and racketeering and the systemic risk increases even more.
Therefore, beyond the question of collusion and restraint of trade in a side business, it can and should be asked whether banks should go into side businesses at all, given the matter of systemic risk. Focusing narrowly on whether lines formed at warehouses, and, moreover, debating secondary issues more generally, are at the very least distractions from the fundamental matter of systemic risk. To the extent that Dodd-Frank fails to curb such risk, we as a society put the economy and financial system at a higher risk of collapsing if we follow the government and the media in focusing too narrowly on just the possible wrong-doing of the bankers. Ironically, sustaining such a focus may be in the banks’ own financial interest.

---

[1] Melanie Burton, “Glencore, JPMorgan Sued Over Warehouse Aluminium Prices,” Reuters, August 7, 2013.

[2] Ibid.

A Trader Dreamed of Economic Collapse

Call it over-confident bravado or perhaps a lapse into utter transparency; trader Alessio Rastani’s comments on BBC give the rest of us a glimpse of the power behind the world’s thrones and how prone “the system” is to collapsing without a sufficient force geared to the viability of the system itself. In other words, it is amazing that the financial/governmental systems go on without more attention to them as systems rather than to micro self-interests. One might ask whether powerful self-interests are sufficient to keep the system from hitting the rocks. Apparently the answer is yes, though this is astonishing nonetheless. It is like a car somehow making its way down the street with one person in the car looking at pedal, another at the steering wheel, and still another at the speedometer. It is amazing if the car does not crash, yet somehow it managing to stay on the road.

As for a dash of reality, Rastani said on September 26, 2011 on BBC TV that Goldman Sachs rules the world and the Euro zone is poised to crash. "This is not a time right now for wishful thinking that governments are going to sort things out," Rastani said. "The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world." Beyond the disciplining of egos within the bank, Goldman’s reach is multiplied by forays made by its alumni into governments and other banks. For example, when Merrill Lynch executives were finally facing the prospect of needing to sell to Bank of America in September 2008, John Thain relied on his fellow Goldman alums who he had lured to Merrill—sidelining Merrill’s own. In the U.S. Government, both Henry Paulson and his assistant at Treasury who ran TARP were Golden. It can therefore be surmised that the Eurozone was poised to crash because Goldman’s execs had determined that they could profit from it. The state-heavy E.U.’s government only appeared to be capable of protecting the viability of the euro financial system.

I suspect that Rastani was overplaying his hand. The financial interest of the rich states of the E.U. (and their respective banks) cannot not be written off in favor of a Golden hegemony unless Goldman Sachs controls the European banks. To be sure, at the time of Rastani's interview, there were players poised to benefit financially from the collapse of the Eurozone. Even so, powerful vested financial interests not limited to Europe surely had a financial interest in the continued viability of the Eurozone. Of more value to us than Rastani's crystal ball is his mentality and values, which were on full display during his interview. We have a rare snapshot of what sort of people rule the world in terms of real power. 

The crash will be good news for traders, Rastani told stunned BBC anchors. "For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it," he said. "Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession." Rastani said traders aren't the only ones who can benefit from the crisis. "When the market crashes . . . if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this." Whether or not such opportunities rule the day, Rastani’s mentality itself is startling (or should be). In other words, we should also be stunned.

 Rastani's dreaming of a recession (like Bing dreamt of a white Christmas?) even as he was predicting that the “savings of millions of people are going to vanish” in less than a year might strike us as insensitive, even sadistic—and at the very least, rather selfish. Would he cheer the death of an uninsured man who could not afford medical treatment if money could be saved by a hospital in Rastani’s portfolio?  If so, could we give any credence to his “deathbed conversion” should he fall on bad times? Beyond the obvious moral questions, does the child deserve his amassed power, wealth and position? Moreover, can we continue in good conscience to respect him now? The respect that we give to offices or positions may be exaggerated, and thus due an "adjustment." Just because a Wall street player has power on account of his or her position (and wealth) does not mean that he or she is due respect accordingly.

In fact, if traders such as Rastani have a financial interest in the collapse of an economic system, it could be asked whether they have enough power to make that catastrophe happen. If Wall Street bankers—the real power-brokers—are focused on such financial payoffs, is anyone of sufficient power looking out for the system itself? Again, Rastani may have been overplaying his hand.

In 2008, the U.S. Government enacted TARP to stave off financial collapse. Of course, even Goldman was vulnerable, so it was in its own financial interest that Treasury contain the contagion. The experience demonstrated that the American federal government is capable of safeguarding the financial system, but what if Goldman were to face no downside from a collapse and would in fact benefit from it? Could Goldman alums in strategically-placed government offices sabotage the government’s own efforts to protect the system? As Sen. Dick Durbin said in 2010, the banking lobby owns Congress. The U.S. Government acting against the interests of Wall Street might be akin to that government putting some air between itself and Israel. Elected representatives and their appointees know enough not to screw the sacred cows.

So the trader has a point, though beyond the content of his predictions, the transparency of his mentality and the mentality itself warrant reflection by the rest of us. I suspect that we have a naïve view of the type of people pulling the strings. Were we to get to know those people (even the CEOs), an obvious question might be whether they deserve the power, position and wealth that they have gained. In a plutocracy, there is unfortunately little that we can do about it, as they hold the strings. In a republic, on the other hand, the financial and business sectors are subordinate to the public good, and the representatives of that good can reform the selection and promotion rules in those sectors. In saying that the rest of us will have no other choice but suffer because it is in his financial interest, Rastani was essentially informing us that our so-called democratic republics are actually plutocracies. Our systems depend, in other words, on the particular financial incentives of the Golden traders. This is even worse than the prospect of a recession. 

It means nothing that you or I might conclude that the system itself is broken, as we do not pull the strings; we merely pull the levers on election-day, lulled by the illusion that popular sovereignty lies with us. Even if Rastani’s interview wakes some of us up, little difference can be expected short of a major shift in power—but how can the less powerful overcome the kings of the hill to gain the hill itself? That would be like water flowing upstream as if gravity no longer held. Yet somehow, for people such as Rastani to be so respected and powerful in spite of the kind of persons they are seems to go against gravity itself. Like ignorance that is arrogant, one must wonder how the thing manages to stand at all. Perhaps all that is necessary is a gust of realization by us that the emperors are indeed trading in the nude, and are thus unworthy as de facto rulers. But can we act on the basis of a new awareness?

Source:

“Trader Alessio Rastani To BBC: ‘Governments Don’t Rule the World, Goldman Sachs Rules the World’,” The Huffington Post, September 26, 2011. 

Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs in the White House: A Hidden Agenda?

Rex Tillerson, the U.S. Secretary of State fired by U.S. President Donald Trump and former CEO of Exxon, an international oil company based in the U.S., did not allow his difference with the president of tariffs on steel and aluminum to be a deal breaker. In this respect, the ex-CEO was not doing his company’s bidding. That is to say, he was not primarily in public service to serve the private interests of a multinational corporation. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of Gary Cohn, the ex-president of Goldman Sachs who quit as Trump’s chief economic advisor just after the tariffs were announced. Tariffs in general and especially to protect goods in another sector are not in the interests of a major American banks with substantial international business. If the former president of Goldman Sachs had taken the post in government to further Goldman’s interests, the question is whether public service is mere window-dressing at the highest levels of government—plutocracy being the real name of the game.

In a statement at the time of his resignation, Cohn wrote, “It has been an honour to serve my country and enact pro-growth economic policies to benefit the American people. In particular the passage of historic tax reform.”[1] That reform lowered the corporate tax rate and thus was a financial benefit to Goldman Sachs. Cohn left this point out and instead cited the benefit to the American people, which might thus have been a mere subterfuge designed to hide the possibility that the ex-president of Goldman Sachs was actually doing his firm’s bidding.

That Cohn was instrumental in getting the corporate tax rate reduced and that he resigned at least in part because President Trump acted aversely to Goldman Sachs’ interests in enacting tariffs—even just as a negotiating tactic in the trade negotiations then going on—suggests that Cohn had taken the governmental post to safeguard and promote the financial interests of Goldman Sachs. Perhaps President Trump had been obliged to fill the position with such a person in exchange for having accepted campaign contributions from the firm or even the financial industry more generally. It would then be no accident that the Secretary of the Treasury was also a Goldman alum.

The larger question regards whether the public interest can be served in a political economy in which large companies have substantial political leverage over aspiring candidates for office via campaign contributions. At the time of Tillerson’s firing, President Trump remarked that he was finally able to have a cabinet of his own—of his choosing. This statement implies that he had been obliged initially to hand over several cabinet positions to people not of his own choosing. Had Exxon purchased the de facto first chance to fill the Secretary of State position, and Goldman Sachs the U.S. Treasury and chief economic advisor positions? With public statements insisting on having served the American people, which would hardly be need to be said were it true, it should come as no surprise that the American people have been kept in the dark concerning the influence of “dark” money on “public” offices at the expense of the public good.

For more on this topic, see Institutional Conflicts of Interest

---

1. Kate Kelly, Maggie Haberman, and Peter Baker, “Gary Cohn to Resign as Trump’s Top Economic Advisor,” The New York  Times, March 6, 2018.

Political Black Holes: On the Power Behind the Throne

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, has a black hole. If this is news to you, there is no need to go hide under a rock. It turns out our black hole is not the biggest by far, and it doesn't spew out a lot of excess energy that falls into it. Even so, it is ours, and we can be glad that we have one of our very own even if it isn't the biggest one on the block. In case you are interested in seeing it’s baleful look in a picture, I’ve got bad news for you; it is invisible. No light can bounce off it.  You are probably wondering how the scientists found it.  Well, they knew that black holes are in the center of galaxies, so the crafty lab coats used light to find our center because there is too much gas there for much there to be visible to us.  The scientists noticed that the speed of stars speeds up around a certain point and posited the existence of a highly-dense black hole.

Using the phenomenon of black holes as an analogy, political "scientists" might investigate whether power, whethere in business, government or society, tends by its very nature to consolidate. In the Micheal Moore documentary on capitalism, two members of congress point to the immense power of an anti-democratic corporate banking elite that was able to turn around the House vote on the bank bailout (TARP) using the democratic leadership as runners. If so, such power was invisible to the public. Likewise a black hole is of course invisible. In the case of the banking elite, we couldn't point our fingers at who exactly gave the marching orders that turned around the no-questions-asked government loans to the banks too big to fail.  Nor do we, or will we, know who told the U.S. Senators: hands off meddling in foreclosures.  Indeed, we shall have no idea whether a power behind the throne told Congress not to even debate the alternative of giving the TARP money directly to home borrowers in trouble.  That this was not seriously debated for foreclosures involving mortgages that banks and mortgage companies should not have given in the first place hints of the existence of a massive albeit hidden political black hole. Finally, such a black hole may have been behind the administration's decision not to push for banks too big to fail to be carved up while extant rather than simply "orderly liquidated" once they have fallen under their own weight.

Neither the American people nor the American media companies go far enough in investigating even the existence of invisible black holes in the American political universe, let alone what damage they do from the standpoint of the public or common good.  Micheal Moore suggests that Citibank and Goldman don’t fear popular election much because they expect the 1 person, 1 vote thing won’t turn on them because most people think they could be in the elite too. The financial elite is 1% of the vote; 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth, so if the other 99% happen to wake up and notice, they might take back the reins. The big business would be worried, but, alas, Wall Street is not shaking in its golden boots. As to why, I would add to Moore’s explanation by pointing to the extent to which Americans are manipulated without even knowing it.  Lest it be missed, the giant media companies are corporate too.

Is it an accident, for example, that so many stories on Afganistan pop up when it is in the interest of the defence contractors? Are they simply using the people to urge Congress to support a surge?  I would call this “direct manipulation” because we are being summoned to debate what has been put on the table for us.   The other kind is “indirect,” which involves a political black hole keeping an issue or policy-option off our radar screens.  President Obama’s suggestion, for example, that the banks too big to fail be reduced in size (and money) so they would not be so dangerous in failing, quietly went away. In looking for indirect manipulation, the important thing to notice is the absence of  any visible event or change that could explain the removal of a proposal by some new issue being covered by the media. We ought to be examining what political black holes do not want us to talk about because of private interests. For instance, we now know that health insurance companies gave their surrogates "death panel scare stories" to fan out discussion of a public alternative in health insurance.  Scaring a proposal off the radar screen is among the silent weapons used by political black holes.  Again, the source of such weapons is invisible.

So like sheep, the American people is led to debate or focus on something or to forget something else, In the process, we are unwittingly giving up, or failing to grasp, our democratic power, which can be used for the public good. To be sure, there are excesses and drawbacks in democracy and these too should be discussed, but there are hidden dangers to political black holes, and we miss these if we do not even know that such things exist.  That is to say, the democracy we do have may be rather wan in comparison to the gravity of the political black hole at the center of our political society.

Perhaps the question on your mind is:  So how do we get it back?   It might involve nothing short of waking up out of the Matrix.  So many of us don’t realize how much we are being manipulated.  Realizing it, and not tailoring our thoughts and discussions along its lines will wake others.   Once people start waking, we can start to look for candidates who do not, like Obama, take a $1 million from Goldman after promising real change.  We need candidates willing to forego being bought out by the elites who sense that democracy might possibly get the upper hand in an election.  Pay particular attention to the matter of teeth in such candidates’ proposals with respect to big business…and ask at their speeches whether they are taking money from the establish that has a vested interest in the status quo.  Don’t buy the “I’m not influenced by money.”  …which should be treated as a laugh line.   If you find genuine candidates willing to effect systemic change even where it is at the expense of the big corporate players, know that the elite will offer such candidates so much if the elite view the candidates as viable and  not under their control.  Control, by the way, can be more subtle than using a leash.  This is perhaps my major point here…political black holes are invisible and yet their anti-democratic gravity is HUGE…even as it is in a tiny space, or office.

In the Roman Empire, the games in the arena (which means “sand” in Latin) were a devise to distract as well as mollify and entertain the masses.  Today, we have American Idol and the Super Bowl, as well as the World Series.  Besides their entertainment value made possible by the talent involved, these idols are effective in gravitating popular attention…and this can be useful to the extent that the US is a plutocracy (i.e. ruled in the interest of the top 1% of the wealth) and vested powers fear the 1 person, 1 vote power of democracy.  But as Micheal Moore points out, Citibank and Goldman Sachs can rest easier knowing that many of us don’t use the power of the vote to take from the banks because many of us believe we might be among the plutacracy one day. 

I would add that we tend to be easily manipulated into following the media’s current (which, kein Zufall, tends to move around the interests of the major houses so as not to disturb the islands of capital).   We stop wondering about the distant promises to do something about the banks too big to fail because the media has conveniently stopped reminding us.  We forget that an option is to break up the banks too big to fail (which, by the way, have gotten bigger since September, 2008 and are still active at the casino).  We unthinkingly join the media in debating Obama’s banking consumer protection proposal, as though that were primary.  In other words, Goldman Sachs, which was Obama’s largest campaign contributor according to Micheal Moore (over $1 million), is content to have us debate a potentially pain so we will be appeased by Obama’s pledge of “real change” and not ask, demand, or VOTE to apply anti-trust law to financial houses.   In short, we allow ourselves to be dupped and we don’t even know it.  We don’t even realize we are taking our eyes off the eight ball.  Goldman lets Obama have four more years and 1 person, 1 vote is once again not a threat to either Goldman or the change agent that the bank bought.  Don’t expect Obama to rock the boat in bringing any real change that is not in the interests of the most powerful of the corporations.  Obama’s challenge is to show us just enough that looks like real change while not acting outside the interests of his corporate backers.  However, aren’t real change and status quo vested intersts mutually exclusive?  If so, how does Barak Obama get around this?  He gives us just enough to appear…   Meanwhile, the systemic change that is needed on the players at fault in September, 2008, goes by the wayside and we remain vulnerable even though We the People are convinced that a new consumer protection agency will do the trick.  The trick, ladies and gentlemen, is on us–and we don’t even know it.  We don’t know what we don’t know…while we presume we know it.

In 2009, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya gave a speech  at the annual opening of the General Assembly at the UN in New York City.  Substantively, he pointed to the drawbacks in having the UN remain in New York.  He also advocated a permanent seat for the African Union in the Security Council.   Fifty-three states are represented in that Union.  In an interesting twist, he remarked that the US contains fifty countries, so Africa too deserved a permanent seat.  I was utterly surprised that the man who was disorganized and sporatic in his delivery (and whose government would kill hundreds of unarmed protesters in 2011) could grasp the nature of the US in terms commensurate to the AU. He added that the EU should have a seat.   This makes a lot of sense because it is not fair for three of the EU’s states to have seats while all of the 50 United States have one. It occurred to me in listening to his speech that he understood the nature of the US as an empire-scale polity better, actually, than most contemporary Americans do. This is a bad commentary on the condition of civics classes in American high schools.  So I was surprised to find the mainstream media report the speech simply as “disorganized" without reporting any of the substance, as though there had been no serious content whatsoever.   Someone must have wanted to discredit Qaddafi for political or economic reasons.   The summary verdict was so immedate and total that none of Qaddafi’s content was covered.   The media’s treatment had all the footprints of a hidden strategy--that is, of a black hole's pull.  If I am correct, I’m left surprised that the subterfuge itself could be so blatant.  For a journalistic standpoint, the reporting was really bad.   Alternatively, the journalists could have reported what the man had said (as well as on his style and approach) and have left it to the readers to decide whether the content should be dismissed due to the style.   Something else was going on.  I’m just not sure what. I contend that something else typically goes on in terms of what is debated in the public discourse via the media. The invisible source steering and pruning what travels across our public radar screen is none other than a political black hole: a very dense concentration of private power functioning akin to an invisible elephant in a small living room. One person senses a trunk--another a leg--but we as a people miss the very existence of the elephant.  We are too distracted, and this is no accident, as it manifests by the very black hole that we do not suspect exists.

In short, both the content and frequency of topics reported by the media bear traces of the black whole that they are orbiting. As long as the source of the gravity is invisible, the black hole will continue to be quite useful.  Put another way, as long as Americans take the press reports as simply journalism, we will miss what is going on behind the scenes and therefore continue to be subject to being manipulated.  Micheal Moore asks: when will democracy ascend over the power of big business?  It is possible, but not probable.   This, by the way, is the expression that Kant uses in discussing his Kingdom of Ends (treating rational beings as ends and not just as means). Beyond the latent or actual subterranean power of corporate America over our public airwaves and legislative chambers, we ought to reflect on the threat to a republic in there simply being political black holes.

  

See: Nova on Black Holes
 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/)

The Banking Lobby Amid Goldman Sachs' Culpability: A Danger to the Republic?

To simplify how Goldman Sachs got into trouble with the SEC: According to Annie Lowrey, the hedge fund Paulson & Co. handpicked mortgage-backed securities that were doomed to stop performing, being backed with subprime mortgages, and Goldman packaged them into a kind of bond. Paulson & Co. bet against the bond by buying short-sales, with Goldman acting as the broker. At the same time, Goldman sold the bond to other clients without disclosing that Paulson had engineered the bond to fail. The SEC filing notes that those other clients lost $1 billion. Goldman had no direct stake in the success or failure of the CDO. It made money either way. “This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another,” Chris Whalen, a bank analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics, said in a note to clients on April 16, 2010. Someone at Goldman said on the same day that “the SEC’s charges are completely unfounded in law and fact.” If the SEC charges hold up (and it is doubtful that the agency would bring such charges without supporting documentation; it is more apt to miss something than go overboard), I am astonished that the people at Goldman simply dismissed the matter out of hand. It might make sense as their legal defense, but if the bankers are convicted, those lying ought to be fired even if they were not a party to the scheme. It also appears that the bankers lied about whether they made money in betting against the housing market. “The 2009 Goldman Sachs annual report stated that the firm ‘did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products,’ ” Senator Levin, chairman of the US Senate’s committee on investigations, said in a statement in April, 2010. “These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market.” When a spokesperson for the bank says something in the future, a rational person will be wont not to trust him or her. Lying has (or ought to have) consequences rather than being dismissed as harmless PR or a legal defense. The bank’s credibility is at issue here. The SEC has accused Goldman of outright lying to customers in order to make money both ways on a deal. Even though this ought to reflect negatively on Goldman’s future business, bigger issues involved that ought to consume more of our attention than how Goldman fares.

Given the strength of the financial sector’s lobby in Washington, this case involving Goldman suggests that we, the American electorate, were unwittingly putting our financial system and our republics in danger by enabling the lobby to have such effect in watering down the regulatory reform in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008.

In the election cycle in which the US Senate’s agricultural committee took up legislation that would regulate all derivatives (2010), people and organizations affiliated with financial, insurance and real estate companies gave members of the committee $22.8 million. Wall Street firms raised $60,000 at two fund-raisers for the committee’s chair’s re-election campaign in the cycle before the committee took up the legislation. Many of the chairs constituents want a crackdown on the speculation. This put Blanche Lincoln in a difficult situation, ethically speaking. At the very least, accepting money from the firms that would be subject to the legislation involves the appearance of a conflict of interest. I contend that given human nature, even such an appearance ought to be avoided or even outlawed. At the very least, it is unseemly in a republic, and I would argue dangerous to its viability.

Furthermore, as if the banks’ culpibility in the crisis was not sufficient to cancel their reservations at the regulatory table, the Goldman case strongly suggests that the banks ought not to be trusted as contributors to regulatory reform. And yet they push ahead to reduce the regulatation, in spite of it all. A child who drops his milkshake doesn’t turn around and tell his mother that she better not clean it up and that she had better not get involved if it happens again. Rather, such a child stands back. As if there is not enough of a natural feeling of shame at having made a mess, there is, or ought naturally to be, an even greater sense of shame in presuming to be in a position to direct the clean-up according to one’s self-interest over objections that the person who caused the problem is not the one best suited to fix it. Even if corporations can enjoy the legal fiction of personhood, there are actual human beings running them, and it is telling when those people dismiss their innate shame in their presumption–even pretending that it is not presumption! We are to blame in not calling them on it, and relegating them. We must relegate them if they won’t do it for themselves, as would be natural for them to do. In other words, we ought to call the artiface for what it is and relegate it as a parent would naturally tell a spoiled and misbehaving yet dogmatic child to go to his room. We, the American people, are enablers; bad parents. We ought to look toward solving the bigger problem, which the case of the Goldman children intimates.

The theory of regulatory capture points to the government’s need for information that the industry being regulated can provide. This theory ignores the broader power-base that an industry is apt to have in lobbying the government (and supporting candidates). In other words, information is just small change from the standpoint of an industry’s ability to influence a government. A better theory would have its primary focus on the macro level, asking the question, in effect, whether (and how) a republic is compromised by its moneyed corporations and banks. Besides looking at campaign finance law and uncovering actual lobbying practices, we ought to look at how much the society in question values money, commerical gain, wealth and economic freedom. We ought not be limited to the managerial or technocrat perspective in ascertaining whether our financial system and indeed our very republics are in danger from being used by unscrupulous firms or industies according to that which fits their peoples’ desires. Once we have uncovered the real problem, we really won’t have any excuse for not fixing it, and we would be bad parents indeed if we let the children fix it.

Sources:
http://washingtonindependent.com/82571/sec-charges-goldman-sachs-over-subprime-tied-product  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/goldmans-stacked-bet/?ref=opinion
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2010041616 ; http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/goldman_sachs_questions.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2010041615 ; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/business/20derivatives.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/business/25goldman.html?ref=us