Goldman Sachs has likely found another corner of the world from where it can influence global finance and drive money into its pocket.
President Obama's nominee, Elena Kagan, for the soon to be empty Supreme Court position is a former associate of Goldman Sachs. Kagan served on a Goldman advisory council between 2005 and 2008, with the task of providing expert "analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients."
According to HuffPo,what ectly Kagan did for Goldman remains largely brief or unknown.
Indications that Kagan was totally clueless about the manner in which Goldman makes a hobby out of buying influence is evidenced by the fact that she did her work for Goldman for a paltry $10,000 stipend. That's clueless squared. I hear they give shoe shine boys at Goldman bigger sign on bonuses.
(ViaLRC)
Mr. Wentzel –
ReplyDeleteI know nothing about this person, so I have no stake in this game. So just take it as an alternative arms length observation that criticizing someone for receiving a humble stipend instead of requesting an outlandish one is refreshing? No?
You can’t post here day after day about the greed and arrogance of Wall Street and then turn around and admonish someone for doing the opposite.
That’s called damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
[Not the same Anonymous as above, who it appears entirely misses the point; besides, I can spell Wenzel correctly.]
ReplyDeleteIt is very intriguing how far the incestuous relationship between the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs goes.
The key point Wenzel makes (correctly) is that Kagan must really not know what goes on at Goldman. Does anyone think she really did anything for them for only $10K? You've got to be kidding if you think that she accepted a small fee out of some sense of altruism. Surely that's not what you're intimating.
Much of what Kagan did for anyone remains largely brief or unknown. That's the point, because the less that's known about her makes it easier to get her through the confirmation process.
I never thought I would witness this great country run by such a corrupt administration, nor as corrupt a Congress actively participating.
1. No, I did not “entirely miss Mr Wenzel’s point”. That’s why I suggested my observation is an ALTERNATIVE one. Try reading for comprehension sometime.
ReplyDelete2. Thank you for the spelling correction. Grammar nazi’s always bring a delightful straw man argument to any discussion. You make your 4th grade teacher proud.
3. Yes, I’m suggesting she acted reasonably in requested compensation. Call it altruism if you wish. But if the alternative explanation is that she is stupid, I find that hard to swallow.
Is that what you’re suggesting? Or is it that she got bought off, for whatever reason, for 10 grand?
4. You wrote: “Much of what Kagan did for anyone remains largely brief or unknown. That's the point…” No, that wasn’t Mr Wenzel’s point. His point was: “Indications that Kagan was totally clueless about the manner in which Goldman makes a hobby out of buying influence is evidenced by the fact that she did her work for Goldman for a paltry $10,000 stipend. That's clueless squared.”
And that’s what I responded to. Again, try reading for comprehension.
In my initial post, I offered up a reason for her behavior. You, OTOH, offered up a rebuttal to my post that’s filled with irrelevance.
So once you get done correcting grammar errors, wanna come back and offer up a specific reason as to why she did whatever for just $10K?
The two options on the table so far are cluelessness squared or humility. You gotta third?