5 ms·

"Would you rather have your children engineering the financial system creating more problems for us, or having a chance of saving the world?" Yep the financial

"Would you rather have your children engineering the financial system creating more problems for us, or having a chance of saving the world?" Yep the financial system has a whole host of problems that everyone knows but "saving the world" is just meaningless marketing mumbo jumbo for SV - lets be clear that Google is not saving the world nor is any other SV company. We by and large push ads in exchange for information - its a valuable business model but lets get over ourselves.

lingben 13y ago
Perhaps it is a bit exaggerated but I don't think anyone would argue with a straight face that GS does more good in the world than Google. To me this is a question not of intelligence, IQ, or ability but rather morals and soul. There are so many great individuals who propelled the world forward into a better state because they make a conscious decision to use their gifts for the betterment of fellow human beings. Goldman Sachs' culture does NOT encourage that. In fact, if you have even a tiny amount of that within you, it will crush it with the power of a thousand black holes.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  If GS does more harm that Google, perhaps that is a reason to go work for, and try to fix, GS?
  - lingben 13y ago
    That is certainly a noble sentiment however from a practical point of view I doubt that you would have any effect considering that they are a massive company employing 33,000 people around the world. Also, the culture is set from the top-down so unless your plan is to penetrate Goldman Sachs with a fifth-column cadre that would somehow climb the corporate ladder continuously - while miraculously not losing sight of their real goal! - to one day be able to enact change from the top down, I don't know how you could possibly succeed in making even the smallest dent from your position as a corporate 'peon'.
- derefr 13y ago
  Dang. Where can you work when the culture is "we compete to get horribly rich by making the world a better place," then?
- jackbravo 13y ago
  Sounds to me like the same thing happens in politics. At least in Mexico it seems only the greedy and self-interested people get involved in politics, when in fact politics should be an area where people with more interest in the public wellness than their own should be.
- CoolGuySteve 13y ago
  Not Google, but I did move from Apple to GS. At Apple I felt like I was making toys for first world adults. Nothing I did really did much to improve the situation of anyone unless they were interested in renting movies on iTunes. Whereas at GS, I was writing software to sell municipal and corporate bonds. Companies and city infrastructure were funded more cheaply as a direct consequence of my work. There was simply no comparison between the two, my work for GS was far better for society.
  - lingben 13y ago
    You may find the work more rewarding personally but I seriously doubt that GS is due any credit for it. If any good comes from work done by GS it is certainly a by-product that simply can't be helped.
  - austinz 13y ago
    You bring up a good point, though. There's a spectrum of financial industry activity, ranging from stuff necessary for the modern economy to function to stuff that many observers would consider dangerous, irresponsible, immoral, and rent-seeking. Maybe Goldman Sachs touches every part of that continuum, maybe it doesn't - I don't know.
atmosx 13y ago
I agree with that. "Saving the world", "Changing the world" and other big words are often recited by Apple and Google. They didn't change a lot in my view. If it wasn't Steve Jobs inventing the PC another guy would have invented it a year or two later. As Linus Torvalds said "If Linux was not released in 1992, probably in 1993 someone would have come up with a similar idea, because at the time it was the natural thing to do". Kids in Africa are still starving though.
- jpatokal 13y ago
  When I grew up, "searching for information" meant thumbing through boxes of index cards at the library, scribbling down book titles and Dewey decimal codes, going on a hike down the dusty shelves to hunt down the books (half of which would usually be on loan, in the wrong place or just lost), and then sitting down and flipping through your meager find page by page, hoping that you could find something relevant somewhere in there. The fact that this alone has changed into "type something into Google, get back relevant results in milliseconds" has already changed the world. (And yes, I know there was Altavista etc as well; but there's a reason Google won the search wars.) Also, compare these two for kicks: Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Goldman Sachs: Our goal is to provide superior returns to our shareholders. (http://manonamission.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/goldman-sachs-gs-groups-mission.html http://manonamission.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/goldman-sachs-g...)
  - Qworg 13y ago
    Which of those two mission statements are more honest? I'm genuinely interested - I can consider it from both sides.
    - jpatokal 13y ago
      Any company has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. I just find it interesting that GS seems to have adopted that as its only goal.
    - marincounty 13y ago
utopkara 13y ago
LOL for an "objective" question.
ye 13y ago
If google self-driving cars project succeeds (and it looks like it will), it will save dozens of thousands of life per year in the US alone. If google life extension project succeeds, it will be a game changer, better than just saving lives. (Why? Because now humanity is stuck in a short cycle - study till you're 20, work for 40-50 years, spend 0-20 years in retirement. If we can increase the life span, it will all go towards the work phase).
- vasilipupkin 13y ago
  and the google life extension project, if it is to succeed, will require a lot of financing. Here is a thought experiment: if investment banks are useless then why do companies, including Google, pay them high fees? The simplest explanation is they have their own role to play
  - refurb 13y ago
    Good point. I was talking to a CEO of a biotech start-up. He is not a huge fan of the banks, but he said "If I decide to do an IPO, you can dam well be sure I'll go with Goldman. I would be leaving money on the table with anyone else."
    - ye 13y ago
      Goldman PR team has arrived.
      - refurb 13y ago
        Good lord. I'm just relaying a story that is relevant to the topic at hand. I thought it was interesting because, before talking to this CEO, that all banks were the same. He corrected me on that.
        ye 13y ago
        And he is wrong. Check out how Goldman ripped off Facebook investors on their IPO.

lingben 13y ago

Perhaps it is a bit exaggerated but I don't think anyone would argue with a straight face that GS does more good in the world than Google. To me this is a question not of intelligence, IQ, or ability but rather morals and soul. There are so many great individuals who propelled the world forward into a better state because they make a conscious decision to use their gifts for the betterment of fellow human beings. Goldman Sachs' culture does NOT encourage that. In fact, if you have even a tiny amount of that within you, it will crush it with the power of a thousand black holes.

sliverstorm 13y ago
If GS does more harm that Google, perhaps that is a reason to go work for, and try to fix, GS?
- lingben 13y ago
  That is certainly a noble sentiment however from a practical point of view I doubt that you would have any effect considering that they are a massive company employing 33,000 people around the world. Also, the culture is set from the top-down so unless your plan is to penetrate Goldman Sachs with a fifth-column cadre that would somehow climb the corporate ladder continuously - while miraculously not losing sight of their real goal! - to one day be able to enact change from the top down, I don't know how you could possibly succeed in making even the smallest dent from your position as a corporate 'peon'.
derefr 13y ago
Dang. Where can you work when the culture is "we compete to get horribly rich by making the world a better place," then?
jackbravo 13y ago
Sounds to me like the same thing happens in politics. At least in Mexico it seems only the greedy and self-interested people get involved in politics, when in fact politics should be an area where people with more interest in the public wellness than their own should be.
CoolGuySteve 13y ago
Not Google, but I did move from Apple to GS. At Apple I felt like I was making toys for first world adults. Nothing I did really did much to improve the situation of anyone unless they were interested in renting movies on iTunes. Whereas at GS, I was writing software to sell municipal and corporate bonds. Companies and city infrastructure were funded more cheaply as a direct consequence of my work. There was simply no comparison between the two, my work for GS was far better for society.
- lingben 13y ago
  You may find the work more rewarding personally but I seriously doubt that GS is due any credit for it. If any good comes from work done by GS it is certainly a by-product that simply can't be helped.
- austinz 13y ago
  You bring up a good point, though. There's a spectrum of financial industry activity, ranging from stuff necessary for the modern economy to function to stuff that many observers would consider dangerous, irresponsible, immoral, and rent-seeking. Maybe Goldman Sachs touches every part of that continuum, maybe it doesn't - I don't know.

atmosx 13y ago

I agree with that. "Saving the world", "Changing the world" and other big words are often recited by Apple and Google. They didn't change a lot in my view. If it wasn't Steve Jobs inventing the PC another guy would have invented it a year or two later. As Linus Torvalds said "If Linux was not released in 1992, probably in 1993 someone would have come up with a similar idea, because at the time it was the natural thing to do". Kids in Africa are still starving though.

jpatokal 13y ago
When I grew up, "searching for information" meant thumbing through boxes of index cards at the library, scribbling down book titles and Dewey decimal codes, going on a hike down the dusty shelves to hunt down the books (half of which would usually be on loan, in the wrong place or just lost), and then sitting down and flipping through your meager find page by page, hoping that you could find something relevant somewhere in there. The fact that this alone has changed into "type something into Google, get back relevant results in milliseconds" has already changed the world. (And yes, I know there was Altavista etc as well; but there's a reason Google won the search wars.) Also, compare these two for kicks: Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Goldman Sachs: Our goal is to provide superior returns to our shareholders. (http://manonamission.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/goldman-sachs-gs-groups-mission.html http://manonamission.blogspot.com.au/2005/07/goldman-sachs-g...)
- Qworg 13y ago
  Which of those two mission statements are more honest? I'm genuinely interested - I can consider it from both sides.
  - jpatokal 13y ago
    Any company has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. I just find it interesting that GS seems to have adopted that as its only goal.
  - marincounty 13y ago

utopkara 13y ago

LOL for an "objective" question.

ye 13y ago

If google self-driving cars project succeeds (and it looks like it will), it will save dozens of thousands of life per year in the US alone. If google life extension project succeeds, it will be a game changer, better than just saving lives. (Why? Because now humanity is stuck in a short cycle - study till you're 20, work for 40-50 years, spend 0-20 years in retirement. If we can increase the life span, it will all go towards the work phase).

vasilipupkin 13y ago
and the google life extension project, if it is to succeed, will require a lot of financing. Here is a thought experiment: if investment banks are useless then why do companies, including Google, pay them high fees? The simplest explanation is they have their own role to play
- refurb 13y ago
  Good point. I was talking to a CEO of a biotech start-up. He is not a huge fan of the banks, but he said "If I decide to do an IPO, you can dam well be sure I'll go with Goldman. I would be leaving money on the table with anyone else."
  - ye 13y ago
    Goldman PR team has arrived.
    - refurb 13y ago
      Good lord. I'm just relaying a story that is relevant to the topic at hand. I thought it was interesting because, before talking to this CEO, that all banks were the same. He corrected me on that.
      - ye 13y ago
        And he is wrong. Check out how Goldman ripped off Facebook investors on their IPO.