"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Goldman Sach

A recent letter from billionaire Leon Cooperman chastising the President for engaging in “class warfare” is written in a perspective that only some one-percenters can see things from.

 

 

In a Nov. 28 open letter to President Barack Obama, hedge-fund manager Leon Cooperman, the Omega Advisors Inc. chairman and former CEO of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)’s money-management unit, dresses down the President of the United States, charging Obama with creating “a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents.”

Capitalists “are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be” and the wealthy aren’t “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot,” Cooperman wrote. They make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas” and provide health care to millions.”  SOURCE

 

When you have lots and lots of money people tend to have grand delusions about their own sense of value and ability.  To pretend also that the President is guilty of anything other than what is obvious to a degree to most observers portrays Mr. Cooperman as one who is too closely tied to his wealthy class and fails to step back and look at the bigger picture.

People like Leon Cooperman do not “make” anything you can find on store shelves.  While they may have entrepreneur skills that generate capital in this country, they also are guilty of exploiting their great wealth and power as those who did in his former company,  creating toxic mortgage assets that they sold to unsuspecting investors and walked off with billions, robbing their clients’ savings while effecting a collapse in global financial markets.  Let’s not forget about all those liar’s loans either made by other wealthy financial bankers to unsophisticated, low-income first-time home buyers.  The notion too that they help other businesses make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas” is only true when you understand that the real people who make most of these products are mainly underpaid laborers in foreign markets like China, India and Malaysia.

Without labor, here or abroad, people like Cooperman may never have made it to the Columbia Business school he graduated from, paid for in part by his South Bronx plumber father and enabled by a public education at P.S. 75, Morris High School.  The other part of his higher education funding came from a federally funded National Defense Education Act student loan that ultimately enabled him to have a “successful run at Goldman Sachs”, finding ways to use other people’s money to create his own vast fortune.

It’s true that not all one-percenters are “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot”, and as Asawin Suebsaeng points out in his Mother Jones article that “the ‘few bad apples’ argument [they make] really is worth acknowledging”.   But this equally applies to the OWS movement where a “few America-denigrating ruffians at an Occupy gathering don’t automatically discredit the protest movement as a whole.”  Mr. Cooper wants to undermine the grassroots OWS movement with a media blitz paid for with aid of other members within the elite organization, Job Creators Alliance, a Dallas-based nonprofit that develops talking points and op-ed pieces aimed at “shaping the national agenda,” according to it’s founder, billionaire and Home Depot Inc. executive, Bernard Marcus.

 

Billionaire Cooperman takes a step further to expose his one-sided view of decency when he says that “You’ll get more out of me if you treat me with respect.”  Sure Mr. Cooperman.  Just as was done with those former Goldman-Sach clients I mentioned above.  Or are you referring to the kind of respect those corporate-friendly cronies in the government gave to financial “humanitarians” on Wall Street in the form of tax payer bailouts while Main Street took a nose dive grasping for some similar life preserver?

It’s one thing to point out the flaws in our economic system that have contributed to the greatest income disparity this country has seen in about a century and yet another to vigorously take action to correct it.  In his letter to the President, Cooperman makes us aware that “as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of [the OWS movement’s] targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today’s challenging fiscal landscape, with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance, and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless, or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.”

As magnanimous as this is, there has been little evidence that Leon Cooperman has stepped up to the public microphone as Warren Buffet and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, conveying his allegiance to the efforts that call into questions the “heartless” and “brainless” actions and words like the Koch brothers who work with elected officials to undermine labor unions and public employee jobs or GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich who incites ultra conservative crowds by falsely characterizing all Occupy protesters as deadbeat, smelly bums with his denigrating comment that they all need to “go get a job right after [they] take a bath”.  Only after Warren Buffet challenged the rich this last August to pay higher taxes for the sake of “shared sacrifice,” did Cooperman go on record and claim he supports “a 10-percent income tax surcharge for three years on those earning more than $500,000 per year.” He also said that he believes in the progressive income tax.”

However, to accuse Barack Obama along with his “minions’ role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us”, while ignoring those within his own economic and political circles of making equal or greater abuses, does in my opinion, weaken all of Mr. Cooperman’s more admirable comments in that letter of his that points out the speck in the President’s eye.

 

RELATED ARTICLE

The Post-Truth Campaign  (Paul Krugman NYTimes)


I’ve been recently introduced to the naked capitalism website by fellow blogger Ronni Bennett over at Time Goes By and it has been rewarding beyond my expectations.  It’s a website that, as its name implies, lays an intelligent, critical eye on capitalism as it strips the emperor bare.  Its reports question and often embarrass billionaire Investors, CEOs and their corporate tentacles, giving us a more realistic picture of “corporate personhood”.   There’s also a fascinating animal picture added with each daily submission of their selected links to review, such as this one

The story that caught my eye yesterday may seem small in comparison to bigger events around the world but it serves as a perfect example of why people are out in force at OWS protests across the country and how serious some amongst the top 1% in this country are at crushing every facet of this grass roots movement.

We discover that when Goldman-Sachs chose to become more than an financial investment firm and turned its sights to banking it was subject to the rules and regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) whereas all banks are encouraged to “help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.”  Once they sign on to this agreement the appropriate federal financial supervisory agency will “examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions”.

Goldman did this with a small bank in their New York neighborhood, People’s Bank, where over 80% of its member-owners have low incomes and at least 65% are Latino.  Since Goldman was itching to get its greedy hands even deeper into the accounts of everyday people, People’s was a great choice and Goldman was even willing to donate $5000 to help the bank celebrate 25 years at its location.

But herein lies the rub.  Goldman-Sachs’ name was on a donation list with a special honoree – Occupy Wall Street.  This grass roots movement  has labeled one-percenters like Goldman as those who engage in questionable practices that not only widens the income disparity between people like themselves and those  member-owners of People’s Bank, but had a direct hand in the economic collapse of 2008 with their bundled credit default swaps that were intentionally sold to unsuspecting investors, knowing full well that the mortgages they insured were destined to default.

When Goldman discovered this affront to them they insisted that People’s return the $5000 donation and threatened litigation and action that could limit the small bank’s ability to receive funds from other wealthier banks to serve their mission.  Read the full account about this bowel movement by G-S here.

This incident raised the analogous one for me about the self-centered rich kid who takes his ball (the one his dad paid for) and goes home with it when not allowed to dominate the game.  He may discover that some of those playing in the scrimmage are what he views as “undesirables” from another neighborhood.  He refuses to play if they are part of it.    Everybody else doesn’t necessarily go along with this view but they want to play football, not having one of their own.  Besides, the arrogant owner of the ball is a popular jock at school and they want to remain on his good side.

The prevailing tension between these two groups is perpetuated as a result.  That’s been the tradition between them for years and the opportunity to smooth ruffled feathers and perhaps foster a more symbiotic relationship is killed because of the prevailing attitude of an elite group.

Yves Smith, who appears to write most of the material for nc feels, and I agree, that Goldman’s reaction to this was vane and just simply mean-spirited.

“This low grade thuggish behavior over a mere $5,000 illustrates how deeply narcissistic Wall Street has become. Anything that threatens their image, no matter how small, must be beaten back.  Goldman could have been punitive (by threatening never to do anything for the bank ever again) without going to the ridiculous step of threatening litigation over a charitable contribution. How charitable is it, exactly, when you try to attach retroactive conditions?”

Goldman’s “Nelson” character revealed intimidating People’s Bank “Milhouse”

They probably spend $5000 on business lunches routinely.  Their self-serving egos however has only brought home what is fundamentally flawed with the socio-economic structure in this country today.

Goldman-Sachs could have come across as someone willing to close the partisan divide between the haves and have-nots by acknowledging their loan as a move in this direction.  They could have taken the high road and ignored that a perceived enemy shared the limelight with them.  It would’ve been seen by many as a goodwill gesture and disarmed some of their critics who attack them for such arrogance.  Surely FOX and many right-wing bloggers and pundits would have elevated this to a sainthood state.

Corporations have worked feverishly to be seen by the courts as a “person”.  This incident shows that perhaps being an adult person is asking too much of them.  They own the football.  Play by their rules and meet their demands or they will make the game all about them and take their ball home.

Is this the message that hangs over most Wall Street office doors?

“It is really not so repulsive to see the poor asking for money as to see the rich asking for more money.”  – G.K. Chesterson



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers