"Goldman wants this bill," he states, noting Goldman Sachs was the "leading private campaign donor" to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. I think Taibbi is unfairly implying that the some $981,000 Goldman Sachs employees contributed to his campaign has influenced the president. He also notes that they also contributed $4,452,585 to the Democratic Party in the last election. But his suggestion seems to be for a mere rough $6 million dollars, the Democrats are creating conservatively estimated as a $646 billion market in carbon credits, that Goldman Sachs is hellbent on exploiting.
But his suggestion seems to be for a mere rough $6 million dollars, the Democrats are creating conservatively estimated as a $646 billion market in carbon credits, that Goldman Sachs is hellbent on exploiting.
The $981k doesn't concern me so much. Obama raised over half a billion dollars, so $981k really isn't a lot of money in context.
What does concern me is the fact that Goldman is so embedded in the Village. A key point Taibbi makes is that this goes well beyond Democrats and Republicans and campaign contributions. A bigger problem is that nearly everyone at the finance-related agencies, regardless of which party is in power, has ties to Goldman. It's practically been institutionalized as both player and referee. Plenty of companies dole out campaign contributions. All of them expect to get something for it, of course, and many times they do, but no company (outside perhaps the oil industry) seems to have the institutional support -- of politicians, of the media, and on and on -- that Goldman has.
And nothing's going to change on it until someone openly hostile to Goldman is elected, and if you believe that's going to happen, I've got a bridge over the Euphrates I'd love to sell you. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
... In notable respects, the mature corporation is an arm of the state. And the state, in important matters, is an instrument of the planning system. This runs strongly counter to the accepted doctrine. That assumes and affirms a clear line between government and private business enterprise. ... In fact, the line between public and private authority in the planning system is indistinct and in large measure imaginary, and the abhorrent association of public and private organizations is normal. When this is perceived, the central trends in American economic and political life become clear. On few matters is an effort to free the mind from conventional myth more rewarding. ... Identification and adaptation cannot ordinarily be reconciled with political hostility to the state or any particular party or administration. ... the mature corporation has a continuing and intimate relationship [with the state] for which doors must always be open and access to public officials always be easy and without tension. Adverse political action or even hostile oratory lessens this ease of access. Men arriving with their briefcases for the day's meeting in Washington cannot have the added burden of explaining the testimony of a company president who has just attacked the current administration and all its minions hip and thigh. But this is not a mere matter of expediency. Identification and adaptation is a psychological phenomenon. If it is operative, there can be no mental or moral barriers to accepting the goals of the state. Such will be the consequence of political polemics and conflict. To denounce Democrats as destroyers of business and liberal Republicans as unwitting agents of Communism is to proclaim one's alienation from their goals. For the technostructure it means rejecting the identification and therewith the adaptation which are the source of its power. This, obviously, makes no sense. We have here a guide to the political tendencies of the modern large corporation. Its executives will, no doubt, continue their moral affiliation with the Republican Party. But they will not speak out on partisan issues. To some extent, their corporation will take on the political coloration of whichever party is in office. Clearly it will expect to have influence and access whichever party is in office. All of this by way of protecting a much stronger and more vital position of influence which follows from a continuing and intimate association with the bureaucracy. In this role the corporation can participate in the decisions that count. It can help shape the highly technical choices which, in turn, govern the demand for its own [...] products. ...
...
Identification and adaptation cannot ordinarily be reconciled with political hostility to the state or any particular party or administration. ... the mature corporation has a continuing and intimate relationship [with the state] for which doors must always be open and access to public officials always be easy and without tension. Adverse political action or even hostile oratory lessens this ease of access. Men arriving with their briefcases for the day's meeting in Washington cannot have the added burden of explaining the testimony of a company president who has just attacked the current administration and all its minions hip and thigh.
But this is not a mere matter of expediency. Identification and adaptation is a psychological phenomenon. If it is operative, there can be no mental or moral barriers to accepting the goals of the state. Such will be the consequence of political polemics and conflict. To denounce Democrats as destroyers of business and liberal Republicans as unwitting agents of Communism is to proclaim one's alienation from their goals. For the technostructure it means rejecting the identification and therewith the adaptation which are the source of its power. This, obviously, makes no sense.
We have here a guide to the political tendencies of the modern large corporation. Its executives will, no doubt, continue their moral affiliation with the Republican Party. But they will not speak out on partisan issues. To some extent, their corporation will take on the political coloration of whichever party is in office. Clearly it will expect to have influence and access whichever party is in office.
All of this by way of protecting a much stronger and more vital position of influence which follows from a continuing and intimate association with the bureaucracy. In this role the corporation can participate in the decisions that count. It can help shape the highly technical choices which, in turn, govern the demand for its own [...] products. ...
