Goldman Sachs: ‘Learn to Live with Inequality’
Image via CrunchBase
We have to learn to “tolerate inequality as a way of achieving greater prosperity for all.” So says a Vice Chairman at Goldman Sachs International.
That was the logic offered by Goldman Sachs’ Brian Griffiths during a debate on ethics—no, you can’t make stuff like this up—at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London on Tuesday. The subject of the discussion: the role morality should play in the marketplace.
Apparently, there is no morality at Goldman on either side of the pond. Griffith, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher when she was in power, insisted he was not “ashamed” that his company was about to award record bonuses—estimated in the neighborhood of $20 billion by year’s end—after being bailed out by American taxpayers. Not when people like him spend money so that people like the rest of us can keep their jobs.
Wait, make that some people like us get to keep their jobs.
Now, where have we heard that spending by the rich benefits us all? Hmmm, wasn’t that the whole idea behind trickle down economics? That worked out well, didn’t it?
Griffiths also said Goldman only rewarded those who showed a commitment to company values and not simply to whoever brings in the most profit. So, what are those values, exactly? Well, they are putting $200 million towards an education fund. Just think what they’d do if they were able to put aside more than the $5.3 billion they’ve earmarked for bonuses in the third quarter.
And I think they are going to send holiday cards to the 3,000-plus employees the company laid off last November.
Apparently, $20 billion just doesn’t go as far as it used to.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] [...]
Goldman Sting Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxUW0FM6_Us
Goldman Sting Part III (the Payout):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nbXLN2Y60Q
The logic offered by Brian Griffiths seems backwards to me. It would stand to reason that if GS has this attitude of trickle down, then they SHOULD be rewarding those that create the profit, since that is what helps create “greater prosperity for all” not keeping the commitment to the company intact. By rewarding those company people who may or may not contibute to his belief in trickle down, he seems to be saying even we don’t believe our BS but we are shoving it down your throat anyway.
I can’t believe that these firms were “too big to fail” as the saying went, there would have been another right there to take up the slack. We would still be right were we are I am guessing but it would be with a few different people making the bonuses…. At least the general public might feel less duped.
…this is nauseating
“tolerate inequality as a way of achieving greater prosperity for all.”
French minister “Colbert” pronounced this sentence almost 300 years ago , it was at the beginning of interest in France for Luxury goods, please see our news about ” Superflu”
Jenny
http://www.business-tabloid.com