7 ms·

Yeah, it's not like those useless folks on Wall Street have ever helped manufacturers or tech companies. Oh wait[1][2]. [1] http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-fir

• yen223 12y ago
  Help me out here, because I have a very tough time imagining a world where society is worse off because financial companies didn't exist. Is it really the case that if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, Titan International somehow can't exist either?
  • Meekro 12y ago
    Companies don't exist to improve society, but to provide something of value to their customers in exchange for money. If society benefits along the way, that's a happy coincidence. A plumber will fix your leaky sink, and that benefits you personally -- whether it benefits society or not is really beside the point. Similarly, investment firms and hedge funds will benefit their clients by investing their money and (hopefully) getting them a good return.
    • aburan28 12y ago
      Well some companies exist not to provide something of value to customers but rather provide increased earnings per share, better P/E ratios, etc to stockholders.
      • blumkvist 12y ago
        Stockholders ARE their customers. Relevant: http://hbr.org/2014/03/choosing-the-right-customer/ar/1 http://hbr.org/2014/03/choosing-the-right-customer/ar/1
    • georgemcbay 12y ago
      "investment firms and hedge funds will benefit their clients by investing their money and (hopefully) getting them a good return" Ideally, but in the really-real world they often fuck their clients because conflict of interest rules rarely exist or when they do aren't enforced. Goldman Sachs (already mentioned in the thread) being a prime example of this, eg the Abacus deal, the whole "muppet" culture, etc.
      • icebraining 12y ago
        So how do they still have clients?
        • camelite 12y ago
          State-of-the-art salesmanship.
    • lazaroclapp 12y ago
      Sure, but as a society we (should?) also try to discourage business models that significantly harm society without benefiting it in any comparable way. Hitmen provide a value to their customers in exchange for money, doesn't mean we need to allow it as a valid business model. Granted, that's a extreme example and with financial firms is often very hard to know which of their many business models provide a net benefit, a net neutral or a net harm to society. But the base premise of "well, companies should be allowed to act as unethically as the hell they wish" is not really a good or reasonable premise to accept.
    • kriro 12y ago
      By definition, profit benefits society. Customers voluntarily buy products which companies sell voluntarily (at least in the typical case there are corner cases of course). Both parties profit which is evident by the exchange taking place. Society is made up of individuals, if individuals profit so does society. Companies exist because there's opportunities for profit. So I'd argue they do indeed exist to improve society. On a larger scale one might say they improve society by allocating factors of production to the places where they are most useful.
      • jjoonathan 12y ago
        > By definition, profit benefits society. No. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v4zI8gKuFug/T-vpFAjdXeI/AAAAAAAAB-c/un8iws6A1tI/s1600/Revelations_008.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v4zI8gKuFug/T-vpFAjdXeI/AAAAAAAAB-... More formally, Nash equilibria != global optima. It is not uncommon for companies to spend money destroying value for their customer -- and to profit from doing so! See: keurig DRM, speed grading in the semiconductor industry, Goldman Sachs cornering the Aluminum market, Enron shutting off power to create the infamous rolling blackouts. There are recordings of Enron traders literally giggling as they call plant managers to order them offline at times of peak load. Profit is about leverage, but value creation is only one of many ways to obtain leverage, and it's often not a very reliable or effective way (just ask Bengali sweatshop workers). Other methods for obtaining leverage are generally "evil" and most certainly do NOT benefit society, but they are very effective, especially in industries where best-practices have long since solidified and the only way to gain a competitive advantage is a sprinkling of "black magic". The most obvious dark patterns are illegal, but the lethargic whack-a-mole from our legislative and judicial branches is nowhere near sufficient to stem the tide.
        • conjecTech 12y ago
          You've shown profit is not necessarily optimally beneficial for customers. You haven't show that it isn't still beneficial.
          • jjoonathan 12y ago
  • conanbatt 12y ago
    I dont have sympathy to how the finance sector has behaved historically, but this opinion can only come from ignorance. Its like a 50 year old saying working for technology companies is useless because he can live without snapchat and whats app. Finance is the study and work of value, which is enough to believe it has important applications.
  • jcfrei 12y ago
    I have no problem with that statement unless you are working for a venture backed company yourself. The origin of a lot of growth in the valley is due to finance companies funneling money from pension funds and other institutional investors into VC firms. If it wasn't for the FED printing money like crazy and institutional investors scrambling to get any return on their assets Silicon Valley wouldn't have grown nearly as much in the past (and would also have had fewer bubbles).
  • snowwrestler 12y ago
    Not Goldman Sachs specifically, but without financial companies in general, specialized companies could not grow or persist for very long.
• dmpk2k 12y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Obviously finance can help. Vitamin A in small amounts is healthy too. I think most people realise this. A more interesting question is whether finance the past 15 years has become a net loss for society, not whether it sometimes does useful things.
  • rayiner 12y ago
    Highly unlikely. There is fat that can be trimmed, but the modern economy would collapse without the finance industry.
    • danenania 12y ago
      Given that it does bring the economy to the brink of collapse every 10 years or so (and requires massive bailouts), I'd say there's more wrong with the finance industry than a little extra fat.
      • rayiner 12y ago
        A 3-4% dip in GDP and a doubling of unemployment is nothing compared to what would happen without a finance industry. It's one of the bedrocks of civilization. If you want a historical perspective, research how England's finance industry was closely linked to its rise as a world power.
        • wavefunction 12y ago
          No one is saying get rid of finance, just put it back in its cage and hit it with sticks when it gets too uppity.
      • snowwrestler 12y ago
        This is like saying that there is something "wrong" with computers because they sometimes crash.
• kaonashi 12y ago
  A liver is a vital human organ. A liver that's three times normal size is a sign of a very sick human.
• Animats 12y ago
  Take a look at what happened to Titan's stock, and shareholders, after that deal. For background on what Goldman Sachs has become, read "Why I Left Goldman Sachs: A Wall Street Story", by Greg Smith. This was recommended to me by an angry former Goldman Sachs customer after they tried to put him into a sketchy deal.
  • 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    Goldman Sachs helped Titan raise capital. If you believe that Titan hasn't performed well as a company, how is that the fault of Goldman Sachs as opposed to say, Titan's senior management team? Do you have any knowledge of trends in the global tire market? Do you know about tire subsidies from the Chinese government and how companies like Titan may have been impacted by them? What do you think would happen to Titan if it didn't have access to capital? Wall Street firms structure countless financing deals for thousands of companies every year. Some of those companies are in better shape and better managed than others, and thus some of them are able to tap the capital markets on better terms than others. As for the book you reference, I'm sure Goldman Sachs, like any company, is not perfect. But judging a company based on one book written by a single person with a single perspective and that wasn't exactly the recipient of universal praise is silly. If Goldman Sachs, which has been around since 1869, offered nothing of value, took advantage of its clients, and was in fact responsible for leading them to their demise, you'll have to come up with a good theory as to why it's still in business.