5 ms·

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,

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.
        notyourday 9y ago
        Of course it does, it simply chooses not to. If Google re-prioritizes search results for entities it believes are in a specific country, that country is going to have a recession much faster than if GSCO attempts to influence it via policy
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Goldman is the more powerful institution You're significantly overstating the influence of one institution which, while veritable in financial and New York City Democratic circles, is also one amongst many heavy banks which now have to share the mantle with the likes of BlackRock, Fidelity, et al, not to mention the reach and influence of tech.
    - marnett 9y ago
      That sentence says more powerful, not most powerful. I do believe Goldman Sachs is the more powerful institution of the two we've been discussing - listing off other influential financial institutions doesn't really support the counter-argument. Google is also one amongst heavy tech companies such as Apple (arguably the most influential tech company since it has the most capital, not because it has the highest market cap), facebook, etc. Goldman has influence worldwide. Google can hardly go 6 months without a billion dollar fine from the EU. Google lags behind Baidu and Soso in China - these institutions are just not in the same ballpark.
- barkingcat 9y ago
  Market cap is kinda a misnomer - a snapshot in time that doesn't mean much. How about use something like total volume of capital that's flowed through the company/or facilitated by the company? For Goldman Sachs that would be trillions or on the order of the GNP of the largest countries.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > How about use something like total volume of capital that's flowed through the company/or facilitated by the company? Sure, if you measure by exactly what an investment bank specializes in, its unsurprising that Goldman does somewhat more of it than Google, but still... > For Goldman Sachs that would be trillions or on the order of the GNP of the largest countries. For Google, if it hasn't already crossed into the trillions it will soon; at over $100 billion in annual revenue with over 20% annual revenue growth, it doesn't take that long to pump a trillion dollars through even without counting money flowing through in forms of transaction facilitation that aren't revenue, such as Google's various payment systems.
    - rokhayakebe 9y ago
      And JP Morgan Chase moves $6 Trillion per day.
  - megablast 9y ago
    Why don't we measure by the number of google searches each company handles?
  - airstrike 9y ago
    Total volume of capital flowed through the company would include foreign exchange trading, which don't really create value directly but moves around $5 trillion per day.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    For an IB, the measure is "assets under management"
  - 9y ago
- freedomben 9y ago
  Goldman considers themselves a tech company before a banking company. They really have some amazing tech, although it's proprietary and used to give them an edge at trading, which is why we don't usually see it.
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.

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.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        Of course it does, it simply chooses not to. If Google re-prioritizes search results for entities it believes are in a specific country, that country is going to have a recession much faster than if GSCO attempts to influence it via policy
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Goldman is the more powerful institution You're significantly overstating the influence of one institution which, while veritable in financial and New York City Democratic circles, is also one amongst many heavy banks which now have to share the mantle with the likes of BlackRock, Fidelity, et al, not to mention the reach and influence of tech.
  - marnett 9y ago
    That sentence says more powerful, not most powerful. I do believe Goldman Sachs is the more powerful institution of the two we've been discussing - listing off other influential financial institutions doesn't really support the counter-argument. Google is also one amongst heavy tech companies such as Apple (arguably the most influential tech company since it has the most capital, not because it has the highest market cap), facebook, etc. Goldman has influence worldwide. Google can hardly go 6 months without a billion dollar fine from the EU. Google lags behind Baidu and Soso in China - these institutions are just not in the same ballpark.
barkingcat 9y ago
Market cap is kinda a misnomer - a snapshot in time that doesn't mean much. How about use something like total volume of capital that's flowed through the company/or facilitated by the company? For Goldman Sachs that would be trillions or on the order of the GNP of the largest countries.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > How about use something like total volume of capital that's flowed through the company/or facilitated by the company? Sure, if you measure by exactly what an investment bank specializes in, its unsurprising that Goldman does somewhat more of it than Google, but still... > For Goldman Sachs that would be trillions or on the order of the GNP of the largest countries. For Google, if it hasn't already crossed into the trillions it will soon; at over $100 billion in annual revenue with over 20% annual revenue growth, it doesn't take that long to pump a trillion dollars through even without counting money flowing through in forms of transaction facilitation that aren't revenue, such as Google's various payment systems.
  - rokhayakebe 9y ago
    And JP Morgan Chase moves $6 Trillion per day.
- megablast 9y ago
  Why don't we measure by the number of google searches each company handles?
- airstrike 9y ago
  Total volume of capital flowed through the company would include foreign exchange trading, which don't really create value directly but moves around $5 trillion per day.
- notyourday 9y ago
  For an IB, the measure is "assets under management"
- 9y ago
freedomben 9y ago
Goldman considers themselves a tech company before a banking company. They really have some amazing tech, although it's proprietary and used to give them an edge at trading, which is why we don't usually see it.

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.