3 ms·

Wording is important. The current US president is a good example of what happens, when one is careless with one's language. GS doesn't define U.S. economic pol

by jevgeni 10y ago

Wording is important. The current US president is a good example of what happens, when one is careless with one's language. GS doesn't define U.S. economic policy. It might lobby for some specific issues, sure. But it isn't interested in defining the entirety of economic policy. Also, I don't see lobbying as a problem, if it is transparent.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 10y ago
Wording is important. And I intentionally worded my OP to convey my concern that US economic policy is indistinguishable from GS wishes. It's just a little artistic expression, and it was clearly effective since you apparently knew exactly what I meant. I'm not writing an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics here. When US economic policy is indistinguishable from the wishes of GS, GS may as well have an economic policy.
- jevgeni 10y ago
  What bothers me is the conspiracy-theory-like obsession with GS. No mention of JPM, or BofA, or Citi, and so on. It's not about you concretely, just in general what I often hear and see. Your comment was just an example of the focus. It's like GS is the only bulge bracket bank with lobbying interests and deep Washington connections. GS are mostly smart and mean. Sure. But do you really think that their competition does nothing and lets them dictate their interests in DC willy-nilly?
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    It's because GS alum are consistently finding themselves in high political office. Rahm Emanuel, Obamas Chief of Staff, was on the GS payroll for $3k/mo while in office. His job description at GS was to "introduce us to people." Here's an article about GS ties to Trump's White House. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/goldman-sachs-completes-return-from-wilderness-to-the-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/goldman-sachs-co... BofA, JPM, etc. definitely have ties, but it never seems to be as blatant as with GS.

by jevgeni 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Consultant32452 10y ago

Wording is important. And I intentionally worded my OP to convey my concern that US economic policy is indistinguishable from GS wishes. It's just a little artistic expression, and it was clearly effective since you apparently knew exactly what I meant. I'm not writing an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics here. When US economic policy is indistinguishable from the wishes of GS, GS may as well have an economic policy.

jevgeni 10y ago
What bothers me is the conspiracy-theory-like obsession with GS. No mention of JPM, or BofA, or Citi, and so on. It's not about you concretely, just in general what I often hear and see. Your comment was just an example of the focus. It's like GS is the only bulge bracket bank with lobbying interests and deep Washington connections. GS are mostly smart and mean. Sure. But do you really think that their competition does nothing and lets them dictate their interests in DC willy-nilly?
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  It's because GS alum are consistently finding themselves in high political office. Rahm Emanuel, Obamas Chief of Staff, was on the GS payroll for $3k/mo while in office. His job description at GS was to "introduce us to people." Here's an article about GS ties to Trump's White House. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/goldman-sachs-completes-return-from-wilderness-to-the-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/goldman-sachs-co... BofA, JPM, etc. definitely have ties, but it never seems to be as blatant as with GS.