Looter

by Russ Roberts on November 10, 2009

in Financial Markets

From an article on Goldman Sachs, from a conversation with the CEO, Lloyd Blankfein:

He starts with a little humility. He understands that “people are pissed off, mad, and bent out of shape” at bankers’ actions. Goldman played its part in the meltdown that almost destroyed the global financial system. It, like most other banks, lent too much money, made its first quarterly loss for more than a decade last year and ended up taking bail-out cash from Washington. “I know I could slit my wrists and people would cheer,” he says. But then, he slowly begins to argue the case for modern banking. “We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.” To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. “We have a social purpose.”

I used to feel this way. I used to think that Wall Street innovation was part of our prosperity because the innovation made markets more efficient. But that only works when firms face profits and losses. When losses are truncated by bailouts, you get anti-social risk-taking. You get a cycle not of virtue but of vice. You get $1.5 trillion poured down the black hole of subprime lending. The bottom line of the current system is that Blankfein won and the we, the people, lost. Shame on the people who allowed him to play with our money instead of his own. Shame on him for pretending he earned our money and the profits he made playing with it.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • mpohl
  • JimG
    I really feel that no discussion of the meltdown, at least by conservative or libertarians should ever exclude mentioning the horrific role of the govt. in the Community Reinvestment Act. Govt. requiring that these firms invest in "sub prime" loans in ever increasing amounts with acorn lawyers funded by the govt suing every firm to increase that lending to the extent that a large west coast financial firm spent nearly 200 million and 2 years trying to fight giving these loans and seeing it hopeless finally gave in. I don't know if these people are afraid to do more than mention it or what
  • JimG
    I really feel that no discussion of the meltdown, at least by conservative or libertarians should ever exclude mentioning the horrific role of the govt. in the Community Reinvestment Act. Govt. requiring that these firms invest in "sub prime" loans in ever increasing amounts with acorn lawyers funded by the govt suing every firm to increase that lending to the extent that a large west coast financial firm spent nearly 200 million and 2 years trying to fight giving these loans and seeing it hopeless finally gave in. I don't know if these people are afraid to do more than mention it or what
  • MikeRulle
    Lloyd B. was speaking in non-sequiturs. Never trust a guy who begins by telling you he "feels your pain". He defends GS by defending the concept of banks. An analogy might be Ted Bundy defending himself by saying knives are good things to have.
  • superheater
    This is bizarre. Investment banking is a public good??
  • Ken
    Why should I waste my ire on him? If the government is handing out obscenely huge amounts of our money, it only stands to simple economic reason that somebody will be there dressed up like a clown and shouting "Pick me, Monty!" If the government is meddling in the marketplace, only a fool would be surprised that business leaders were eager to hand over their stockholders' money to politicians who promised regulations, taxes and subsidies that hindered the competition and helped them. (What stockholder would complain as long as the politicians delivered. Indeed, they'd quickly fire incompetent leaders who didn't buy the best politicians available.)
  • Ecommunist
    We are stupid and weak. They are smart and strong. I'm not saying it's right, just the way it is.
  • Keith
    This is the end result of government intervention in markets. Sure, there's a market in the US, but it's not free. Not even close. The current system only benefits idiots and thieves like Goldman. Having heavily regulated industries, like finance, ends up in only making things worse.

    I say end the SEC, end the Fed, stop the Treasury from perpetrating the current garbage and bring on the free banking and truly open markets. Markets where, if you fail, no one bails you out-- leaving other people, who acted prudently, will rise up to take your place. The market is supposed to be a profit and loss system. What's currently in place is a system where the only people that lose are the consumers and taxpayers.

    Robert Wenzel from Ecnoomic Policy journal posted an interesting list recently:

    "The Latest List of Goldman Player's Now in (or recently in) Government

    Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton (Robert Rubin)

    Treasury Secretary under George Bush (Hank Paulson)

    Current president and former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve (William Dudley and Stephen Friedman)

    Chief of Staff to current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Mark Patterson)

    Chief of Staff under President Bush (Joshua Bolten)

    Economic adviser to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (Robert Hormats)

    Chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Gary Gensler)

    Under-Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural affairs under President Bush (Reuben Jeffery)

    The past and current heads of the New York Stock Exchange (John Thain and Duncan Niederauer)

    The chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division (Adam Storch)

    Goldman’s new top lobbyist in Washington, Michael Paese, used to work for Barney Frank, the congressman who chairs the House Financial Services Committee.

    In London, Goldman's former chief economist and partner, Gavyn Davies, is married to Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s special adviser Sue Nye. Under Tony Blair, Davies became chairman of the BBC.

    His successor as chief economist at Goldman, the late David Walton, was handed a seat on the Bank of England’s interest-rate setting Monetary Policy Committee.

    Paul Deighton, who is running the London Olympic Games organising committee, used to be Goldman’s chief operating officer.

    Obama’s top economic adviser Larry Summers never worked directly for Goldman, but served in Clinton’s government under his mentor, Goldmanite Robert Rubin, and Goldman paid Summers $135,000 to appear at a one-day speaking event in 2008 before Barack Obama came to power

    Goldmanite Mark Carney is governor of the Bank of Canada.

    Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, was a managing director and chairman of the Goldman's International Advisors department.

    Neel Kashkari Treasury Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability, during the Hank Paulson period at Treasury, is a former Goldman Sachs man.

    The ultimate global inside operator is Mario Draghi From 2002 to 2005, he was vice chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of the firm-wide management committee. He is governor of the Bank of Italy. In this capacity, he is a member of the Governing and General Councils of the European Central Bank and a member of the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements.

    He is also governor for Italy on the Boards of Governors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank. In April 2006 he was elected Chairman of the very powerful Financial Stability Forum, which became Financial Stability Board in spring 2009."
  • SteveO
    Russ, as much asI respect your opinion, I've been thinking for some time now that you may actually be too forgiving to your opponents, too open minded, too willing to be patient and non-judgmental.

    If someone breaks into my house while I'm baking brownies and forces me to put a teeny-tiny bit of poop in the brownies, is it fair to say "the brownie system" is the problem? No. It is the mix of systems that is the problem. The poop would actually do some good in another context- just as there as very specific, very limited, proper functions for government.

    My challenge to the government apologists is this; try a mental experiment where we get to have all the capitalism in one part of the country, and you get to keep all the government. We would have to do without the protections of basic government functions- we'd make due with our best approximations. You would have to do without the productive capital and PPE- getting by with your best approximations.

    I don't see how anyone sane thinks the all government side of the fence would last very long. Inherently, government can't survive without something to leech off of.

    Now, radical idea: Try a capitalist system with the limited functions of government ensuring individual rights by punishing initiation of violence, and enforcing contracts, with only the leeching minimally required to do so. Win.
  • No better summation of the whole thing.
  • johnpapola
    Bravo.
  • Methinks1776
    BTW, Russ. There's nothing inherently wrong with playing with other people's money - as long as those other people willingly invested that money without coercion. Obviously, not what happened here.

    If it weren't for "other people's money" (outside capital) we would have no entrepreneurship. Few entrepreneurs have enough capital to fund their own start-ups and about 80% of start-ups fail within five years.
  • Methinks1776
    “We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation.

    What a tool this guy is. Yes, I-banks and financial institutions and many of the innovations that were born there are important. No single entity on Wall Street is important.

    But, Russ, you have to read between the lines in Blankfein's statement. The industry is so heavily regulated that it is almost impossible for competitors to break in. Small investment banks operate as boutique firms ins niche markets but because of barriers to entry resulting from regulation can never provide true competition to the handful of mega I-banks like Goldman Sachs. Incidentally, neither they nor hedge funds received bailouts and the world survived.

    Thus, the insider mega-banks become crucial to the system. Blankfein is right. GS is very important - because every other entity is prohibited from entering the market. That's why these banks are all for more regulation.
  • MontaniSemperLiberi
    Russ, Blankfein is just responding to incentives put in place by government like any rational, utility maximizing agent. He is not the problem. The government is the problem. If there were no government agencies to fill with cronies or politicians to buy off, Goldman would bear the costs itself.
  • sspiller
    Pure chutzpa - it now comes to light that Goldman and Buffett offered to buy (at a discount naturally) most of Fanny Mae's $5.2 billion dollars of tax credits - effectively taking from one arm of the government to pay another, AND pay your taxes at $0.80 or less on the dollar.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldmanbuffett... and
    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/11/09/24352/

    Wouldn't all American tax payers like to participate is such a deal.
  • Mike
    Blankfein is merely playing the game set in front of him and playing it well.
  • muirgeo
    The game was not set in front of him. He and guys like him wrote the rules and set up the game. The average rational hard working American would push for very different rules. They just aren't getting the representation people with money can get.
  • russroberts
    But it's an immoral game. Yes, I understand his incentive. But it's still repulsive and wrong.
  • Methinks1776
    Of course it's an immoral game. Are you seriously expecting people to refrain from playing the game government sets up? In this game, you either play or get played. Most people are too self interested to willingly be on the giving rather than the receiving end.
  • muirgeo
    "Shame on the people who allowed him to play with our money instead of his own. Shame on him for pretending he earned our money and the profits he made playing with it."

    The problem is these guys infiltrate the government, they pay off the government, they infiltrate the Fed and they get the rules made to their liking. Until we address this the same way we address separation of Church and State ( even that needs bolstering) we should expect more of the same. The Obama administration seems to be under their spell as much as anyone else. They are very wealthy, they are very powerful and they rule us.

    This is a must read article. This is an article that defines capitalism and it's inherent problems. This is an article that shows capitalism is not an "opt in opt out no body gets hurt" sort of venture.
  • sandre
    Separation of money and state is theoretically easy to achieve. Eliminate Federal reserve and IRS, eliminate all regulation on commerce. It is the practical part that is difficult. Politicians don't want to separate themselves from money.
  • BoscoH
    To paraphrase George a little out of context: "The problem is... the government..."

    Exactly. Russ' conclusion is a powerful one because it can be read by the less careful reader as an endorsement of the kinds of things George likes: regulation, government intervention, etc. But a closer look shows that Russ recognizes that when there is a concentration of power and wealth like government that does not have to be responsible to the truths dictated by the market except in the very long term "life of a nation" sense, the lure of power and basically free money draws a lot of looters in like fireflies to streetlight.

    It should be no surprise that Wall Street's best friends are politicians like Barney Frank, who on the surface seem obviously unfriendly to their interests, but in actuality, provide very inexpensive cover for the looting. Play our way, lend to our constituencies, and when things go bad, we'll put up the money to bail you out. Not just your firms, but your lavish bonuses too. And we can even make it look like punishment. Skip those 7 figure bonuses for a couple of years or cut them in half -- they'll be there when this washes over.
  • muirgeo
    Hey if you think this money power goes away when you weaken government I think you'll be in for a big surprise. In fact , weaken government and men with money will make it strong again. They'll do things like create the Fed for their own purpose.

    Government is the only check on these type of people. Not more government but effective government that represents the needs of the people.

    The fight never changes its always the wealthy elite and powerful against the masses of people simply trying to make a good living.
  • Randy
    "The fight never changes its always the wealthy elite and powerful against the masses of people simply trying to make a good living."

    I tend to think of it as the political versus the productive, but yeah, same basic idea. The problem is that the political types will always rule for the simple reason that being political (exploitation and manipulation) is what they are good at. The productive class is good only at being productive. So, generally speaking, we're screwed. But I think that maybe we could try a strike. The politicians really are dependant on us. They won't admit it, of course, but they are. It worked against the Soviet Union and it might work here too.

    P.S. Government isn't the answer, its the problem. Government is just a gathering place for those who exploit and manipulate.
  • BoscoH
    Consequence, preferably driven by reality than the whims of men in power, is a better check on excess. The only downside risk faced by the Wall Streeters who did this was if the United States collapsed. Short of collapse, we would have to bail some portion of them out if the problem got bad enough because the risk of not doing so would be convincing enough.

    The problem with your statement that government is the only check is that it wasn't. That has nothing to do with Bush II being in power and not Obama or Clinton. It has nothing to do with innovative financial practices which weren't sound. The regulatory agencies in place never had the expertise or processes to evaluate them and they can't. Nor do they have the power to shape incentive like a Barney Frank has. It's simply an information problem. Read your Hayek.
  • Carl Pham
    The problem is these guys infiltrate the government

    Exactly. And you know what? They always will. There's too much money to be made, and government officials are merely human, and always will be.

    What's the solution? What would your solution be to, say, the problem of hormonal teenagers getting their hands on loaded assault weapons, cases of vodka, and racing motorcycles? Wouldn't you recommend locking the dangerous articles away?

    There you go. The problem is not "capitalism," the fact that people can accumulate lots of cash. The problem is government, the fact that lots of cash can buy lots of force -- laws, police, court, jail, guns -- that you can use to compel people who would not voluntarily do business with you (e.g. because you're offering them a terrible deal, like Goldman Sachs offered the taxpayer last year).

    As folks are saying here, we need "gun control" for the agency with the biggest "guns" (the monoply on force) around: the government. With less power available, and that locked away, behind "trigger locks" like strong constitutional rights and federalism, it just won't be possible for big business to rent the government's guns to shake down citizens for cash instead of earning it the old-fashioned way.
  • magilson
    The irony in your idea to fix the issue is that it stems completely around fault within government (...as described even by yourself. After all, if The One cannot resist the temptation, who in government ever could?) and yet your prescription for resolution involves more of the same.

    You harp on libertarians for their repetition of market values and yet you yourself suffer the same ideological blind "faith".

    The flaw is not with capitalism, muirgeo, just as the flaw is not with a gun. The flaw is with the user. Likewise the issue is not with the idea of government but instead with the way it is used. If anyone on this site is to gleem anything from these discussions then everyone needs to drop the B.S. and get down to the root.

    Your problem is with corporatism, not capitalism. Government is not an "opt in opt out nobody gets hurt" sort of venture either. Your point is meaningless. Why you don't seem to understand the removing the weapon of government from the hands of these people is beyond me. It seems the concept of escalation is all that's left in the progressive mindset. If corporations get guns, government needs bigger guns. It's the national conservatism mindset applied to corporations instead of countries and it's appaling you guys don't see yourselves doing it.
  • martinbrock
    Capitalism is as capitalism does, and capitalism does corporatism these days. "Capitalism" is a term of abuse coined by Marx. The classical liberals never used it. I advocate free markets, but I stopped calling myself a "capitalist" years ago. I'd rather be a utopian advocating something that doesn't exist and possibly never will than a shill for Goldman Sachs and the Senate Banking Committee.
  • Randy
    "The problem is these guys infiltrate the government, they pay off the government, they infiltrate the Fed and they get the rules made to their liking."

    The problem is that government exists to promote exactly the kinds of behavior that you are complaining about. Government is a rent collection business, not a non-profit. It always has been and always will be.
  • Randy
    Just one more politician claiming the right to speak for "society".
  • Stephan
    Looter? That's a little hard. Don't you think so. For someone who is, he says, just a banker "doing God's work". Who can oppose that?
  • juandos
    I think we are see yet again we citizens have the government we deserve...

    The White (Goldman Sachs) House...


    Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash
  • mcwop
    ------
    Goldman played its part in the meltdown that almost destroyed the global financial system.
    ------
    They did play a part in the meltdown, but I doubt the global financial system would have been permanently destroyed. It would have been interrupted, and a new, possibly better one, would arise.
  • erp617
    We share their losses, but not their profits. Nice work if you can get it.
  • vidyohs
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: