There’s One Honest Man At Goldman Sachs – At Least, There Used To Be…

by R J Adams     March 14, 2012 at 11:27am



Greg Smith is a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

At least, he was until today. He just resigned.

He explained why to the New York Times:

Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief…”

Read more in the New York Times “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs” NYT, March 14th 2012

There used to be one honest man working for Goldman Sachs.


R J Adams     March 14, 2012 at 11:27am     2 Comments

US Capitalism & Christianity: The Love-Match Of Unlikely Bedfellows

by R J Adams     March 12, 2012 at 6:24pm



It takes real talent to meld the atheistic philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of evangelical Christianity, but over the last thirty years or so it’s exactly what the capitalist moguls of the United States have managed to do.

A BBC interviewer once asked the head man of an evangelical Christian organization, who had just alighted from his private jet: “Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven. How do you equate that with your lifestyle?”

The man replied with a huge grin, “Not in America, my friend. That doesn’t apply in America.”

There were probably only four individuals initially responsible for putting into practice the grotesque idea that Capitalism and Christianity could be combined. They probably had no idea the result would be a combination of the very worst aspects of both.

Ayn Rand was not one of those individuals. For her, the very word ‘religion’ was anathema.

Ronald Reagan is hailed by the US political right as a demi-god of the Republican Party. Margaret Thatcher holds a similar position in the hearts (if they have any) of the British conservative right wing. They’ve recently unveiled a bronze statue of her in the Houses of Parliament

In 1987, Reagan nominated Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the federal reserve. Greenspan remained in that office for nineteen years, until January 2006. He served (if that’s the right word) under Reagan, George Bush 1, Clinton, and George Bush 2.

Greenspan was Ayn Rand’s chief disciple. She called him ‘the undertaker’ due to his reserved nature and his liking for dark suits. Greenspan’s long tenure at the FED provided ample opportunity for his incorporation of Rand’s economic philosophies into US economic policy, including of course, the gradual deregulation of the financial industry – a freeing up of the ‘free market’ – free, that is, from any effective government regulation.

Greenspan was Reagan’s man. Margaret Thatcher was Reagan’s woman.

It was Milton Friedman who enthralled Thatcher and Reagan with his
‘monetarist’ philosophy. Although not one of Rand’s close circle like Greenspan, her influence on him is best exemplified by the obituary published by the Atlas Society on their website when Friedman died in 2006.

With his wife Rose, Milton Friedman helped produce a 10-part TV series in 1980 called “Free to Choose” with an accompanying book that popularized free markets as Ronald Reagan was coming to power with his free market policies and mantra that “Government is the problem, not the solution.” The leaders of free market revolutions in communist countries often looked to Friedman for their inspiration. Friedman’s works were especially popular in China…Milton Friedman was one of the most intelligent and articulate voices for economic liberty. He will be missed.”[1]

Friedman is a more difficult man to decipher than Greenspan. His economic philosophy of ‘monetarism’ certainly captured Thatcher and Reagan. It’s likely he truly believed free capitalism to be a liberating power. It seems unlikely he was welded to Rand’s beliefs as much as Greenspan, though he once described Rand as, “an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good.” Friedman was undoubtedly a libertarian and saw his monetary policies as a means to greater individual freedom.

Much has been made of Friedman’s association with the Chilean regime of Augusto Pinochet. There is no doubt Friedman took much criticism for his ties with Chile, though his only meeting with Pinochet lasted no more than forty-five minutes. Margaret Thatcher was far more of a pal to the brutal dictator. It’s unlikely the British would have been so successful in the Falklands War were it not for Chilean radar warning them of imminent attacks from Argentinian warplanes.

While there is no proof Thatcher ever became a devotee of Ayn Rand, there is ample evidence to show she held similar views on the burden to society of the poor and underprivileged. Pinochet’s brutal tortures and mass killings of his own countrymen obviously held no distaste for Thatcher. The two were firm friends. They would often take tea together when Pinochet visited the UK.

Reagan was not the most intelligent of men, though he managed a BA in economics and sociology. His legend has certainly been stretched to the point of incredulity by history. While supporters will rant of his great victory over communism, it was the forward thinking Gorbachev who probably deserved a lion’s share of the praise. Reagan’s most notable achievement was to turn America sharply to the political right. It’s really for this alone that he continues to be lauded by Republicans.

‘Reaganomics’ set the stage for a steep decline in corporate and financial regulation. It gave Greenspan and his financial buddies the opportunity to milk the US economy over the next thirty years, having ensured there was no efficient regulating body to prevent them.

Meanwhile, in Britain, Margaret Thatcher was busy copying the Friedman/Greenspan initiative. Deregulation, privatization, and stifling trade unionism were her goals, just as Reagan’s government was committed to similar in the US (the firing of 11,345 US air traffic controllers in 1981 sent a clear message to the private sector that unions were no longer to be considered a problem).

Reagan is championed for lowering taxes during his terms in office. It only applied to the rich. In 1981 the top tax bracket was reduced from 70% to 50%. The lowest bracket was reduced from 14% to 11%, but by 1986 the top bracket had been reduced further to 28%, while the lowest was increased to 15%. Reagan’s ‘Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982′ was described by Forbes as the “largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

Margaret Thatcher introduced the Poll Tax as her means of milking the less well off in favor of the wealthy. Couched under the term, “Community Charge”, it replaced a rating system based on the value of one’s dwelling house. The Poll Tax was based on the number of people living in a household, and was heavily biased against the less well off, though the very poor did receive some reduction.

Unlike Americans, who seem to suffer fools gladly even when the fools are leading them, the British rightly rebelled against Thatcher’s tyranny, and public opinion eventually forced her to relinquish her role as Prime Minister in 1991.

It’s a measure of the woman that she then took a job with the notorious tobacco company, Philip Morris, as a ‘geopolitical consultant’, (otherwise known as a lobbyist), for an annual salary of $250,000

Ironically, both Thatcher and Reagan eventually succumbed to Altzheimers Disease.

There can be no doubt a battle is raging on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s not obvious warfare. There are those who would vigorously deny its existence. They have their heads firmly entrenched in the sand.

The Ayn Rand philosophy of unregulated greed and selfishness works only for the wealthy, or the criminal who lives by stealing from others. Indeed, the definition of one defines the other.

The remaining majority are what has lately become known as the ninety-nine percent. It is this majority that do battle with the rich and powerful who would subjugate them and enslave them, to better control them.

Ayn Rand despised the poor and unsuccessful. She was too short-sighted to realize that the capitalism she worshiped must create poverty and failure as an incidental byproduct.

The capitalist moguls of America went one step further than Rand. They saw the devout moral structure of America as a means to further their greedy ambitions, in a way that could never be done in secular Britain.

By marketing their own brand of Christianity, ignoring the New Testament Gospels and publicizing the hellfire and damnation of the Old Testament, coupled with the unfathomable, crazed, ramblings of Revelations, they created a whole new method of control over the populace and are making lots more money in the process.

The new American brand of Christianity allowed the rich to become richer and still go to Heaven. Let the poor go to Hell. In America a camel could pass through the eye of a needle. Heck, if necessary we’ll just make bigger needles.

By marketing this new brand of Christianity, many Americans were eventually persuaded to put aside the old ‘Christian’ ideas, though the corporate bosses ensured their media always ended a news show with heart-felt stories of Americans helping each other. There’s nothing like a nice ‘feel-good’ factor.

In Britain, Prime Minister Cameron struggles to replace the old socialist system, set in place after the second world war, with the New World’s free-capitalist society. He’s finding it difficult. The British know what freedom means. They fought long and hard, paid a high price, to keep their small island free of Hitler’s invaders. They earned the right to free healthcare, proper state pensions, and welfare entitlements when times get hard. They’ll not give it up easily for a ‘winner takes all’ society.

But in America the Ayn Rand philosophy, combined with ‘Christianity’, has certainly proved a winner, at least, for the fortunate few.

It’s ironic that Rand will be spinning in the grave at the realization her self-beloved philosophy is working hand in glove with the very religion she so deeply despised.

[1] “Milton Friedman: 1912-2006″ Atlas Society, November 16th 2006

R J Adams     March 12, 2012 at 6:24pm     1 Comment

Haditha Revisited

by R J Adams     March 11, 2012 at 10:20pm



US soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians in shooting spree

Nine children and three women dead. President Hamid Karzai condemns ‘intentional murders’.



And they talk of going to war with Iran.

If it weren’t so grotesque, it would be laughable.


R J Adams     March 11, 2012 at 10:20pm     4 Comments

Ayn Rand: Thirty Years Dead, Still Very Much Alive

by R J Adams     March 7, 2012 at 11:58pm



It was my intention to utilize the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayn Rand to vent my opinion of her philosophy and its continuing impact on the modern world.



Today, reading George Monbiot’s column in the ‘Guardian’, I realized he had already done what I had intended, and much better.

I therefore refer you to the Sparrow Chat, ‘Latest Hot-Link’, in the right sidebar, wherein is a link to Monbiot’s excellent article.

R J Adams     March 7, 2012 at 11:58pm     3 Comments

Killed By A Tornado? How Did You Feel About That?

by R J Adams     March 6, 2012 at 12:10am




The US media seizes its opportunity to wring the last vestiges of emotion out of every unfortunate happening, and the recent spate of tornadoes has proved no exception.

Close-up camera shots of survivors, who’ve lost everything except the clothes they’re wearing, linger as inane questions are forced on these unfortunate people, in funereal tones supposedly suggestive of deep sympathy and emotional oneness.

“And how did you feel as the tornado ripped your house from its foundations?” asked one predictable female interviewer on a news channel tonight, of a woman still understandably in deep shock.

How do you think she felt, you stupid cow!? Bloody petrified! She filled her pants – just like you or any one of us would do in that situation!

The woman searched for some answer. “I just prayed to God to spare us,” she eventually whispered, “…and He did. Our house is gone, and everything we had, but He spared our lives.”

Now, let me make it clear from the outset, I have no quarrel with anyone who, faced with near-certain death, prays earnestly for divine assistance. We were all dragged to Sunday School as little kids and taught that Jesus was our friend who spent His time watching over us and keeping us safe.

When a dirty great swirling tornado is bearing down there’s no bugger else going to help us, so we become as little children again, looking to our friend, Jesus, or His Dad, to perform some great miracle and whip us out of the path of doom.

No doubt the woman felt obliged to be grateful.

“Truly a miracle!” breathed the idiot with the microphone.

Here’s where I get very testy with the US news media. What bloody miracle? There was no miracle. For God’s sake, people were lying dead all around! Was this woman some special saint whom God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to save? Did He look down from Heaven at the tornado, see this woman, and think:

“Yes, I’ll save her. Fuck the rest!”

What kind of God are these news people trying to market?

A tornado is a natural event. That’s the truth of it. It’s not controlled by any God, whether Jehovah or Zeuss or bloody Peter Pan. This woman lived because she wasn’t ten feet further to the left, or twenty yards to the right, or in her kitchen rather than her bathroom.

The news media is supposed to give us the facts. It has a duty to be informative, not dish out heavenly propaganda on behalf of the Church of the Stupid and Uninformed.

How many times of late have I heard news anchors ask their ‘weather people’, “Why are we suffering so many tornadoes at this time of year?”

The answer they get is always a load of gobbledygook. “Oh, well, there’s an upper level disturbance creating problems with unusually low pressure over Canada and the jet stream’s not in the right place, and anyway, it’s all down to El Niño.”

No it’s not. It’s all down to global climate change – global warming. And they know it. They just can’t admit it.

The records show that from the start of this decade the numbers of tornadoes during the first three months of the year have increased every year, from 49 in 2002 to a staggering 359 in 2008 (the one exception being 2004 when the figure dropped by 2). Between 2009 and 2011, the figures fell slightly but were still around three times higher than those at the start of the decade. 2012 has seen a recombustion, with an alarming 274 tornadoes, and it’s still only the beginning of March.[1]

What these figures don’t show is the increase in ferocity. I’m sure it’s painfully obvious to any observer that tornadoes are becoming more ferocious, wider, and generally more deadly.

The painful truth is it is the slothfulness of governments in general, and the US Congress in particular, to tackle climate change that is resulting in more and more deaths from increasingly violent weather.

Not only has Congress failed to enact legislation, but in league with big business, it has demonstrably set out to hoodwink the American citizen into believing climate change isn’t happening.

The science is now unassailable. Climate change, global warming, is upon us. Our chance to avert it has past. The tornadoes and their resulting loss of life will continue to escalate, along with other violent storms and severe weather of the like never before seen.

Sadly, neither Jehovah, Zeuss, nor bloody Peter Pan, will be performing miracles to save us from these events, despite the efforts of the news media, and, no doubt, stupid cows with microphones will continue asking inane questions of the stunned and battered survivors.

[1] “Monthly and Annual U.S. Tornado Summaries” NOAA’s National Weather Service.

R J Adams     March 6, 2012 at 12:10am     3 Comments

Rush Limbaugh – A Rent Boy Of The Far Right?

by R J Adams     March 3, 2012 at 12:19am



It seems Rush Limbaugh doesn’t believe in contraception. As a stooge of the far right political wing of the Republican Party that’s hardly surprising.

Perhaps, though, one of his four wives might disagree. Four wives and no children?[1] Surely, they weren’t all infertile? Or, maybe the problem didn’t lie with his wives. Well, now, let me see – who does that leave?



Is it possible that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t believe in contraception simply because he doesn’t need any?

When Limbaugh took up the cause of the Catholic Church – somewhat surprisingly, as he’s a Methodist – he vented his nastiness on Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown University. Ms Fluke had previously served as president of the university’s ‘Students for Reproductive Justice’ group.



She had asked to testify at a Congressional hearing on the new rule that religious institutions, such as some hospitals and universities (including Georgetown), provide insurance plans to cover the cost of medicinal contraceptives. House Republicans had blocked her from testifying.

From the BBC:

Ms Fluke was invited to testify in front of a House committee convened by Democrats after she was blocked from the first panel…her testimony included the case of a fellow student who needed birth control to control ovarian cysts.

Georgetown, a Catholic university with a prestigious law school, does not cover birth control to prevent pregnancy in its student health plan, and the student, who is gay, could not convince the insurance company she was ill.

Ms Fluke also asserted that birth control prescriptions could cost as much as $3,000 (£1893) without insurance.”[2]

During his talk radio program, Limbaugh said of Ms Fluke:

“What does it say about the college coed … who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”…

…”If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”"[3]

Such despicable attempts at character assassination are a trademark of the Limbaugh message to America. Sandra Fluke is not the first to suffer at the tongue of this disgusting apology for a human being.

Of course, it has to be remembered that Limbaugh is well paid for his services to the more extreme members of the Republican Party. You don’t own a $24 million, 36,500-square-foot oceanfront mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, on the salary of an average radio-jock.

He’s just admitted (above) to lusting after pornography and dirty videos. Doesn’t the fact that he’s so well paid for his services make him eligible for the title: “Rent Boy Of The Far Right?”

[1] “The Marriages of Rush Limbaugh” About.com Guides

[2] “Limbaugh slut slur student Sandra Fluke gets Obama call” BBC, March 2nd 2012

[3] “Obama joins in assailing Limbaugh slur of student” CBS, March 2nd 2012

R J Adams     March 3, 2012 at 12:19am     5 Comments