God's Gold on Wall St.: A Vaunted Self-Assessment of God's Work

A year after the financial crisis of 2008, Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs,  found himself vilified for his firm’s quick return to risky trading in spite of its new bank holding company status. Populist resentment at the time was especially pitted against the hefty bonuses from the trades. Also, people were upset about the benefits that the bank had obtained from the decisions of its alums in the U.S. Government—specifically, in the U.S. Department of the Treatury. For instance, Goldman Sachs and other AIG counterparties got a the dollar-for-dollar payout from AIG thanks to an infusion of funds for that specific purpose by Treasury. Regardless, in an interview with the London Times, the highest-paid CEO (at least in the financial sector) dismissed such talk and defended his money-making machine and its compensation.  In addition to being the engine of economic recovery, according to Blankfein, Goldman Sachs provides a social function in making capital available to companies so they can expand. Stunningly, he adds, “I’m doing God’s work.”[1]  Such a claim is a far cry indeed from Thomas Jefferson’s warning that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.[2]  Perhaps God intends to undo our liberties by bailing out the banks.

Besides these rather obvious problems with Blankfein's religious claim is his presumption to know what God's work is, and, furthermore, that he is doing it.   Even though a feckless system of corporate governance can enable a CEO to essentially function as his or her own boss, including doing the board's job of evaluating his or her own performance, it is a tall order for a human being to be able to evaluate his performance as God's work.   To be sure, it is possible that God is an intelligent being that bestows favor on his golden stewards for doing His work.

Lloyd Blankfein may have been involved in two conflicts of interest: 1) that of having excessive power over the board whose principal task it is to oversee him, 2) having communicated with GS alums in high posts in the U.S. Government (e.g., Hank Paulson) and perhaps having them enact policies on GS's behalf.   It may be that institutional and personal conflicts of interests can become so ubiquitous that they are simply not seen by the culprits. Furthermore, it could be that the denial enabled by a tacit presumptuousness is like a white movie screen on which even doing God's work can be projected. How ironic it is, that sordid proprietary interest could operate not merely under the subterfuge of being a neutral "market-maker," but also as God's work. Such work is two degrees of freedom away from squalid greed. So it is remarkable that the two could become conflated in a mind.

---

[1] John Arlidge, I’m doing ‘God’s work. Meet Mr. Goldman Sachs, The Sunday Times, 11/9/09.

[2] Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, May 28, 1816, in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892-99),  XI, 533.

See related book: God's Gold and Essays on the Financial Crisis

Off Target: Corporate Spending as "Speech" against Gay Rights

In a 5-4 decision on January 21, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that federal restrictions on corporate spending in elections constituted a violation of free speech. Critics called it wrong to equate corporate “speech” with individual speech and said the ruling would allow special-interest money to flood election campaigns. The bipartisan nature of the opposition to this ruling is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it. Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. In addition to overwhelming opposition to the decision, there’s also bipartisan support for Congress to try to reinstate restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

So when Target sent a check for $150,000 to MN Forward, a Minnesota-based political group backing a gubernatorial candidate with penchant for opposing gay rights, people wondered what business Target has in taking sides on that issue, even if the group was also pro-business. MN Forward endorsed and was paying for ads for the Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. On Emmer’s website he defines marriage as a “union between one man and one woman” and he has come under fire for his $250 contribution to a Christian rockband that has been known to speak harshly of gays. Emmer told the Minnesota Star Tribune that the controversial rock band “You Can Run But You Cannot Hide,” were “nice people,” following band member Bradlee Dean’s reported comments that Muslim countries that support execution of gays are “more moral than even the American Christians.” To be sure, the managers of Target were not spending their companies’ “free speech” in defense of such a view, but that the wealth qua free speech was nonetheless being spent on a candidate who had made such a comment makes the Target CEO an unwitting accomplice.

Rather than viewing Target managers distancing themselves from Emmer’s view of gays as corporate social responsibility, I contend that the problem lies in taking spending as speech. Put another way, Target would have better stores if it sticked to its knitting, as it were.

Diverting money even to political campaign groups that further a pro-business agenda is off from the business’s main business, which in the case of Target is to sell retail. Besides the collateral damage from unwittingly helping campaigns on issues that are not even pro-business, diverting cash reserves to political campaigns puts corporations in the business of electoral politics, which is another sort of retail. In the case of Target, it is not as though the stores could not be improved from a business standpoint.  Once I accompanied a foreign friend of mine to a Target to return the coat he had given his wife for Christmas. Because he had paid by check, he had only the option, according to the “customer service” employee, of exchanging it. He could not get his money back—though he could have had he paid cash or by credit card. The “reasoning” of Target’s managers was that a check is “like kind” to an exchange voucher.  My friend and I left the store committed not to return, and I have not. Even in terms of influencing electoral politics in a pro-business general direction, Target’s management has plenty else to do closer to home—if indeed it is a home.  Rather than being socially responsible, a company ought to focus on its knitting.  That—doing business well—is the responsible thing to do because it is what a business’s owners expect from the managers of their property. Rather than being able to influence electoral politics beyond their expertise, managers ought to be restrained more by stronger corporate governance. To be sure, managers have a tendency to over-reach. Treating their spending decisions as “speech” only enbles them.

Sources:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/target-best-buy-fire-campaign-contributions-minnesota-candidate/story?id=11270194