5 ms·

This is an edgy soundbite, but I don’t think it contributes anything substantive to the discussion of a cryptocurrency exchange being acquired by a GS subsidiar

by dsacco 9y ago

This is an edgy soundbite, but I don’t think it contributes anything substantive to the discussion of a cryptocurrency exchange being acquired by a GS subsidiary. I could have replaced “Goldman Sachs” with “Google” and I’d have received the same amount of insight.

zaroth 9y ago
If you replaced GS with Google, it would still be funny, but it would no longer be true.
- dsacco 9y ago
  The statement is sufficiently underspecified that it’s not falsifiable for any large company, which is my point. If you dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to believe it. If you don’t dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to be more skeptical about it. The description is fully open to interpretation, which means believing it is a function of ideology and identity more than facts and reality. Descriptions are only meaningful insofar as they help differentiate things. There is no precision in calling a giant financial company a vampiric squid. So what do we actually learn? It’s a total sideshow to a meaningful discussion about cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency exchanges, the evolving role of traditional financial institutions in cryptocurrency trading, or the future legitimacy of digital currencies as an asset class.
barkingcat 9y ago
Goldman Sachs is so much bigger than Google. Google is substantial, but it's nothing compared to Goldman Sachs. Goldman is a company that's funded entire wars, on both sides of conflicts. If you dig behind almost all revolutions, governments, and companies, on the planet chances are Goldman Sachs is behind there lurking. Google can only dream of having 1/1000th's the influence of Goldman.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Goldman Sachs is so much bigger than Google. Goldman is more politically connected (and more widely invested, at least per dollar of assets, because it's an investment bank, and not tech firm that invested in other firms incidentally), sure, but Google is much bigger by many measures (nearly 8 times the market cap, for instance.)
  - marnett 9y ago
    Market cap is not everything and saying 'politically connected' is a massive understatement - they are politics. Goldman is the more powerful institution - Google wishes they could have entire administrative cabinets flooded with ex-execs.
    - mamon 9y ago
      Market cap is especially misleading in case of investment banks: it's not about how much money they own, it's all about how much of their clients' assets they manage, and that's about $1.5 trillion. Google can only dream of having this much cash at their disposal.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > it's all about how much of their clients' assets they manage, and that's about $1.5 trillion. Google can only dream of having this much cash at their disposal. So, given that number, Goldman manages (and is accountable to clients, as well as their own shareholders, for the management of) a little under 2 Googles worth of market value. Google manages 1 Google worth of market value, accountable only to Google shareholders.
        mamon 9y ago
        Google does not "manage" it's market value, because most of it is frozen, not readily available for Google's CEO to spend. It is also mostly virtual, while GS assets are hard cash. The point is: with $1.5 trillion in assets, Goldman Sachs can, just by slight adjustment in its investment policies, make whole countries prosper economically, or ruin them. Google does not have that much influence.
- t3po7re5 9y ago
  'Goldman is a company that's funded entire wars, on both sides of conflicts. ' That sounds like an interesting read, is there an article a relevant article I can check out?
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Sounds like a decent hedge.
- AznHisoka 9y ago
  Let's pose a theoretical question. If both of them were to disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow, which would would people notice more? Which one would people miss more?
  - ironjunkie 9y ago
    If you wiped both, Google would be more noticed. But Goldman Sachs would have a WAY WAY bigger effect indirectly. Google MarketCap is based on a promise that tech is taking over the world, but the day to day business of Google is pretty much insignificant. Goldman literally decides the direction of the world through their investments, policy and lobbies. The fact that they are pretty much invisible is actually a feature.
    - sitepodmatt 9y ago
      Would the effect be positive for the rest of humanity?
      - marnett 9y ago
        Why not both Goldman and Google? I can't see how knocking off the leader of corrupt capitalism and the infrastructure of the surveillance state wouldn't be a good thing.
vkou 9y ago
I'd have replaced "Goldman Sachs" with "Berkshire Hathaway", or "General Electric" or "A Private Equity Firm."
laverick 9y ago
Circle seems to be far from a Goldman subsidiary. According to Crunchbase Goldman invested once in their Series C. If anything the Bloomberg headline seems to overplay the Goldman connection.

by dsacco 9y ago

zaroth 9y ago

If you replaced GS with Google, it would still be funny, but it would no longer be true.

dsacco 9y ago
The statement is sufficiently underspecified that it’s not falsifiable for any large company, which is my point. If you dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to believe it. If you don’t dislike Goldman Sachs, you’re inclined to be more skeptical about it. The description is fully open to interpretation, which means believing it is a function of ideology and identity more than facts and reality. Descriptions are only meaningful insofar as they help differentiate things. There is no precision in calling a giant financial company a vampiric squid. So what do we actually learn? It’s a total sideshow to a meaningful discussion about cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency exchanges, the evolving role of traditional financial institutions in cryptocurrency trading, or the future legitimacy of digital currencies as an asset class.

barkingcat 9y ago

Goldman Sachs is so much bigger than Google. Google is substantial, but it's nothing compared to Goldman Sachs. Goldman is a company that's funded entire wars, on both sides of conflicts. If you dig behind almost all revolutions, governments, and companies, on the planet chances are Goldman Sachs is behind there lurking. Google can only dream of having 1/1000th's the influence of Goldman.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Goldman Sachs is so much bigger than Google. Goldman is more politically connected (and more widely invested, at least per dollar of assets, because it's an investment bank, and not tech firm that invested in other firms incidentally), sure, but Google is much bigger by many measures (nearly 8 times the market cap, for instance.)
- marnett 9y ago
  Market cap is not everything and saying 'politically connected' is a massive understatement - they are politics. Goldman is the more powerful institution - Google wishes they could have entire administrative cabinets flooded with ex-execs.
  - mamon 9y ago
    Market cap is especially misleading in case of investment banks: it's not about how much money they own, it's all about how much of their clients' assets they manage, and that's about $1.5 trillion. Google can only dream of having this much cash at their disposal.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > it's all about how much of their clients' assets they manage, and that's about $1.5 trillion. Google can only dream of having this much cash at their disposal. So, given that number, Goldman manages (and is accountable to clients, as well as their own shareholders, for the management of) a little under 2 Googles worth of market value. Google manages 1 Google worth of market value, accountable only to Google shareholders.
      - mamon 9y ago
        Google does not "manage" it's market value, because most of it is frozen, not readily available for Google's CEO to spend. It is also mostly virtual, while GS assets are hard cash. The point is: with $1.5 trillion in assets, Goldman Sachs can, just by slight adjustment in its investment policies, make whole countries prosper economically, or ruin them. Google does not have that much influence.
t3po7re5 9y ago
'Goldman is a company that's funded entire wars, on both sides of conflicts. ' That sounds like an interesting read, is there an article a relevant article I can check out?
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Sounds like a decent hedge.
AznHisoka 9y ago
Let's pose a theoretical question. If both of them were to disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow, which would would people notice more? Which one would people miss more?
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  If you wiped both, Google would be more noticed. But Goldman Sachs would have a WAY WAY bigger effect indirectly. Google MarketCap is based on a promise that tech is taking over the world, but the day to day business of Google is pretty much insignificant. Goldman literally decides the direction of the world through their investments, policy and lobbies. The fact that they are pretty much invisible is actually a feature.
  - sitepodmatt 9y ago
    Would the effect be positive for the rest of humanity?
    - marnett 9y ago
      Why not both Goldman and Google? I can't see how knocking off the leader of corrupt capitalism and the infrastructure of the surveillance state wouldn't be a good thing.

vkou 9y ago

I'd have replaced "Goldman Sachs" with "Berkshire Hathaway", or "General Electric" or "A Private Equity Firm."

laverick 9y ago

Circle seems to be far from a Goldman subsidiary. According to Crunchbase Goldman invested once in their Series C. If anything the Bloomberg headline seems to overplay the Goldman connection.