Lloyd Blankfein and His Plutocratic Pronouncements About Goldman's Poor Results
(I started writing about this before Lloyd Blandfein announced he had a curable form of Leukemia. I wish him well in his effort to fight the disease.)
Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein dutifully explained that his firm's poor Q3 results weren't all that bad. Really. He's just doing his job here, so why be critical.
Pushing past the quarterly results, though, we might spend a moment or two on the head of Goldman as prominent representative of the cream of the oligarchy in these United States. His recent pronouncements on various subjects gave us a flavor of the thinking of this plutocrat as he gazes down on the rest of us from his privileged perch high above the Valhalla of Wall Street. Before looking at one rather startling pearl of wisdom that dripped from his lips, let's first make an important distinction between oligarch and plutocracy.
Plutocracy refers to a country or society governed by the wealthy. You gotta be rich to rule. Oligarchy, on the other hand, refers to small group of people having control of a country. If one argues control of government and the power it wields rests more and more in the hands of the few in the U.S., you'd have to go with "oligarchy" to describe those few. It's not just the rich who pull the strings (although they arguably exert the strongest tug). Add to them careerists who run mighty bureaucracies, selected academic henchmen, and the oily layer of politicians who rise to the top beholden to various cabals of power brokers. We could add more to the list, but you get the point.
So if Mr. Blankfein might be categorized as a plutocrat, being ultra-rich and - as you must know - an integral part of the governing elite of the U.S., we'd more accurately refer to him as a member of an oligarchy, that more inclusive, expansive group that mixes money with power, whose members don't all have to be rich (although it helps). As such, he feels free to opine on the State of the Union and, one assumes, expects to be taken seriously. Off he therefore goes bouncing from one subject to the next, beginning with the Chinese government's handling of its swooning stock market, sniffing:
With the Presidential campaign in full swing, some wait with bated breath to know who garners the approval of this grand pooh-bah. No surprise that it's not Trump. Then again, from his perch above it all, Blankfein concedes that "The Donald" may have tapped into the emotional longings of us little people:
In the end, fellows like Blankfein truly believe they know better. That's why they're ensconced as oligarchs. That's why they opine on "the country" with such assured authority. The Goldman chairman may be a financial wizard, but does that make him a particularly valid, interesting or, more importantly, good source of ideas on public policy?
Then again, celebrities of all strains, whether or not they exhibit the faintest glimmer of reason and common sense, aren't shy when they yammer about what's best for the country. Of course these nitwits allow themselves to be manipulated by the real powers that be. So it's the the plutocrats and oligarchs, sometimes behind the scenes, but, as we've seen with Blankfein, sometimes in the public eye, who actually have some impact on our lives. You know they'll use their money and power to get what they want. The question, of course, always remains: Is what they want in the interests of the common good, or does it simply serve their own interests? Yes, maybe at times, a combination of the two. But is that the exception or the rule? And what push comes to shove, is it the common good that wins out, or the interests of the ruling class?
Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein dutifully explained that his firm's poor Q3 results weren't all that bad. Really. He's just doing his job here, so why be critical.
Pushing past the quarterly results, though, we might spend a moment or two on the head of Goldman as prominent representative of the cream of the oligarchy in these United States. His recent pronouncements on various subjects gave us a flavor of the thinking of this plutocrat as he gazes down on the rest of us from his privileged perch high above the Valhalla of Wall Street. Before looking at one rather startling pearl of wisdom that dripped from his lips, let's first make an important distinction between oligarch and plutocracy.
Plutocracy refers to a country or society governed by the wealthy. You gotta be rich to rule. Oligarchy, on the other hand, refers to small group of people having control of a country. If one argues control of government and the power it wields rests more and more in the hands of the few in the U.S., you'd have to go with "oligarchy" to describe those few. It's not just the rich who pull the strings (although they arguably exert the strongest tug). Add to them careerists who run mighty bureaucracies, selected academic henchmen, and the oily layer of politicians who rise to the top beholden to various cabals of power brokers. We could add more to the list, but you get the point.
So if Mr. Blankfein might be categorized as a plutocrat, being ultra-rich and - as you must know - an integral part of the governing elite of the U.S., we'd more accurately refer to him as a member of an oligarchy, that more inclusive, expansive group that mixes money with power, whose members don't all have to be rich (although it helps). As such, he feels free to opine on the State of the Union and, one assumes, expects to be taken seriously. Off he therefore goes bouncing from one subject to the next, beginning with the Chinese government's handling of its swooning stock market, sniffing:
“They don’t have a lot of experience in this market stuff,” Mr. Blankfein said. Some of the decisions, he noted, have been “sloppy” and “ham-handed.”The condescending tone can't be helped, of course. A Goldman Master of the Universe would have handled the Chinese stock market debacle differently - and in a much more skilled manner. Naturally.
With the Presidential campaign in full swing, some wait with bated breath to know who garners the approval of this grand pooh-bah. No surprise that it's not Trump. Then again, from his perch above it all, Blankfein concedes that "The Donald" may have tapped into the emotional longings of us little people:
Turning to U.S. politics, Mr. Blankfein sought to explain Mr. Trump’s surprising appeal as a presidential candidate, noting the real-estate developer and reality-television star may have tapped into voters’ longing for more pragmatism in Washington.We're then treated to his assessment of how the political system works in Washington:
“We’ve put together a country that lets everyone into Washington with an absolute pledge not to compromise on anything,” Mr. Blankfein said. “And then Trump comes along and talks the language of dealing.”Mr. Blankfein, a Democrat, wants us to believe that each side draws irrevocable lines in the sand, implying they stand on some sort of imaginary principles. He cites Donald Trump, king of the deal, as bringing a fresh perspective. Really? You mean there's been no wheeling and dealing in Washington lo these 200+ years since 1787? Maybe I'm missing something, but principle rarely plays a role in the outcomes of our two-party system of wheeling and dealing, Trump or no Trump.
In the end, fellows like Blankfein truly believe they know better. That's why they're ensconced as oligarchs. That's why they opine on "the country" with such assured authority. The Goldman chairman may be a financial wizard, but does that make him a particularly valid, interesting or, more importantly, good source of ideas on public policy?
Then again, celebrities of all strains, whether or not they exhibit the faintest glimmer of reason and common sense, aren't shy when they yammer about what's best for the country. Of course these nitwits allow themselves to be manipulated by the real powers that be. So it's the the plutocrats and oligarchs, sometimes behind the scenes, but, as we've seen with Blankfein, sometimes in the public eye, who actually have some impact on our lives. You know they'll use their money and power to get what they want. The question, of course, always remains: Is what they want in the interests of the common good, or does it simply serve their own interests? Yes, maybe at times, a combination of the two. But is that the exception or the rule? And what push comes to shove, is it the common good that wins out, or the interests of the ruling class?
Comments