Goldman Executive Named as Obama Adviser

[QC]

President Obama said Friday he would nominate Robert Hormats, a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, to a top economic position at the State Department. Mr. Hormats, 66, will be under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs. He was deputy trade representative from 1979 through 1981 and held other posts at the State Department throughout his career. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, said in a speech on Wednesday that she hoped to make economic policy and trade a larger part of United States diplomacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/business/18bizbriefs-GOLDMANEXECU_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=obama&st=cse

[rurallib]

1. Maybe somebody can send Obama Matt Taibbi's story

on Goldman Sachs.

[DJ13]

2. Im glad change meant "whats best for Goldman Sachs"

Meanwhile, for the rest of us its looking more like.......

[rockymountaindem]

3. I predict this will mean the continuation of the BS trade pacts

(which we don't enforce) which have led to the massive outsourcing we all condemn but do nothing about. It's a shame to see the Obama administration embracing these destructive policies, but hey, Clinton did the exact same thing so I guess we shouldn't expect better.

[FrenchieCat]

4. New Boogey man = anyone remotely related to Goldman Sachs.

Guess we must have a boogey man in this country, and Golman Sachs might as well be it until further notice.

[MercutioATC]

5. "Vice-Chairman" is hardly a remote association.

...just sayin'

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm trying to figure out if Goldman Sachs is the one that brought on the meltdown

of financial institutions in this country, or if it was a combination of various players, that in tantum, taking advantage of lax regulations and a Pro-Business atmosphere, generated gigantic profits without regard, with each playing its part....including the government, financial institutions, individuals including brokers and sellers and buyers. Bottomline is that Goldman Sachs employees are no more evil than everyone else who had a hand in this, and if we start indicting each individual by association without regard to their personal role, than we are no better than virtual vigilantes.

Now, this character may be a bad egg who did some terrible things, or maybe not....and that is where the issue of who to deride comes into play. Some are on automatic pilot on this, and will skewer anyone associated, and yes, Vice-Chairman certainly would indicate that we could justify letting the dogs out after him and while we are at it, out on Obama. However, I tend to believe that there is more to the story than simply Obama picking an evil-for-profit-villain and uncaring capitalist for the post. But then, that's because I am guilty of oftentimes giving this President the benefit of the doubt, something that I wouldn't do for the last President. Some will call that naive Obama worship, but I simply call it using my common sense to believe that everything this administration does is for a reason; and so I believe that there is a reason for this, and it isn't because Obama wants to kiss Goldman Sachs ass and continue to rip off American Taxpayers and whomever else. There would be no political advantage in selecting someone that on association, is so terribly odious to the American people.....so with this evidence, I consider this move something that I cannot invest a whole lot of angs into.

Of course, those who feel the need to wring their hands some more, should certainly go ahead and do so. After all, an evil checkmark next to Obama's name may just help the cause of those who believe that this president ain't no different from the last one, or that at the very least he is a professed capitalist who is willing to look the other way while Wall Street rapes us some more (as though Obama believes that this will make his presidency that much more popular or solve this nations' economic problems....Not).

[babylonsister]

19. The prejudging is what gets me, too.

He sure sounds like a real bad egg with lousy credentials. How could Obama do this? :sarcasm:

Gets tiresome, doesn't it. I like Hippo Tron's post #12. Makes sense, but nah, lots of knee jerkin' going on.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/17/white_house_announces_pick_for.html?wprss=44
By Al Kamen

The White House announced Friday afternoon that, as expected, Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs (International) and formerly deputy U.S. Trade Representative, assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs in the Reagan administration, deputy assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration and a senior international economic affairs aide on the Nixon National Security Council, has been tapped to be under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

[tabatha]

6. Maybe it is a case of keeping enemies closer.

Find out how GS functions, and dismantle.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Perhaps, or perhaps not......

This person may have dealt with the exact folks that Obama needs to deal with on trade now with success, or there may be some other reason that makes perfect sense....or Obama is just this major asshole on the economic front who is putting foxes in charge of the henhouse. The point is that we don't really know....we just make a lot of assumptions and speculations based on few facts, call them correct, and deride from there.

Considering that the last President never did anything that would remotely be considered real positive in the short or long term on the economic front (or any other for that matter), I understand where the reflex originates, and I can see why folks would be finding this particular move distastesful just based on who this guy is in relation to Goldman Sachs. So I don't have a problem with the criticism, even if I don't jump in both feet first.

[KoKo]

10. That's inviting a hive of bees into the Oval Office, and trying to

get the Queen with a stick. How long would he last up against them?

[tbyg52]

11. One can hope, but

that was a theory regarding Geithner as well, and look how *that's* worked out....

[FrenchieCat]

14. That is still working through.....

Although many folks have already judged Geithner, I have not.

Call me slow, or naive, or patient or whatever else......
I am observing some good things yet to come in the horizon,
so I'll wait to lasso him for the tar and feather.

Geithner to rein in derivatives
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/13/news/derivatives.fortune/index.htm

Geithner seeks more hedge fund regulations
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-03-26-hedge-funds-regulationt-geithner_N.htm

There has also been credit card and insurance reforms done or in the works.
My understanding is that more will be proposed with a December 2009 date
as to when all proposed reform regulatory will be announced.

So I can wait to judge, cause I ain't got shit else to do.

[tbyg52]

15. Oh, there's been some good stuff,

in this area and others. But, with regard to the economy, looking at the big picture, the money's still being sucked upwards.

[WCGreen]

21. Because it doens't effect Goldman.

[tabatha]

24. I think you meant affect.

[brentspeak]

28. Uh, no

[Hippo_Tron]

12. The fact is that most talented people who study econ/finance go work at an investment bank

Yes some of them go into academia or pick other paths but the vast majority do what is profitable, which is go work at an investment bank. It's basically akin to saying that somebody who graduated law school went to work for a big law firm. The only difference is that while there are hundreds of big law firms in the country, there's only a few investment banks.

[tbyg52]

16. >>there's only a few investment banks.

Bingo. And ain't *that* a big part of the problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. It is indeed a serious problem, but I'm talking about the immediate issue at hand

Which is that people expect Obama not to appoint anybody to Treasury who had anything to do with Goldman Sachs or another big investment bank. The reality is that that's akin to saying that Obama should not appoint anybody to the Justice Department who had anything to do with a big law firm.

[girl gone mad]

31. There is no truth to that statement.

Listen to Janet Tavakoli or any other non-biased financial expert. Goldman has screwed up time and time again because they hire politically connected individuals rather than economically intelligent individuals. They take foolish risks which should have put them out of business by now, yet they manage to profit through their use of planted government insiders. Goldman associates travel in and out of the Treasury department, making key decisions for the company and reaping the rewards with cushy jobs later on. Rubin is a prime example of this behavior. The man is an economic moron who made tens of millions by leveraging his political power to push short sighted deregulatory laws.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. It works that way in pretty much every other part of the government

People work as regulators and then go work for the people they used to regulate. At the end of the day everybody wants to make a buck. It just so happens that in the world of finance going to work for Goldman is the way to do that.

[girl gone mad]

40. There are many, many viable alternatives to Goldman executives..

for Obama to choose from. I could personally name dozens of qualified, talented individuals who are unaffiliated with the big IBs.

There is simply no truth to the idea that Golman has some kind of lock on all of the smart people in finance. I find that notion to be patently absurd, especially in light of the condition in which Goldman has found itself in recent years (in need of massive government bailouts because of horrible decision-making on the part of its employees).

The revolving door needs to be permanently dismantled.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. I'm not saying that all smart people go to Goldman

I'm saying that lots of smart people go to Goldman or another big investment bank and that saying "nobody from Goldman or another big investment bank can work at Treasury" is like saying nobody from a big law firm can work at Justice. Finding qualified people to fill positions in the government is not as easy of a task as most people think. It pays less than the private sector and it opens you up to a whole lot of public scrutiny and attention that most people don't want. The revolving door is inevitable because while a few people are genuinely motivated by a desire to serve their country or they actually like the public attention, most people will put up with that stuff to make money in the future.

Even more narrowing would be making a rule that nobody who has any connection to Goldman Sachs whatsoever, as many on DU would like to do, can work at Treasury. Geithner has never held any position at Goldman. But he is automatically deemed guilty by association for working under Rubin during the Clinton Administration.

[choie]

30. that's right,

why hire people who caused this damn mess in the first place?

[CountAllVotes]

7. rely on these crooks Obama

you are going to get your fingers burned real fast.

Wake the fuck up would you?

:kick:

[tabatha]

25. Obama is not naive.

Look how he handled Bill Clinton in the primaries. And then afterwards.

[billyoc]

13. It'll be like old home week for him in the Obama administration.

[Amos Moses]

18. "If we judge Obama by his appointments,

with a few exceptions.... I'm very worried and very disappointed." - Chris Hedges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQDz1pP_vHo

It was becoming obvious then and it's more so now. The working class is of no concern to Barack Obama. Other than getting their votes, of course.

[WCGreen]

20. See the new boss....

Same as the old boss...

Did we really think that the powers that be would let anything happen to effect their profits?

I don't want to sound like some conspiracy nut be these people never seem to face the responsibility of their actions.

Nothing meaningful is going to change.

The only reason Health Care Reform has gotten this far is because they are sure their profit flow remains in tack.

It's all Bull shit...

[Amos Moses]

22. It makes me ashamed

but I'll go ahead and admit it. I bought into the rhetoric and actually urged my friends to vote for the guy. It seemed like the working class might finally have an advocate in the White House.

Now, I can't stand to listen to him speak. :puke:

[WCGreen]

23. Well, I supported him because I knew the needle would swing back

at least slightly to the left instead of continue to barrel on to the right.

[tabatha]

26. You are prejudging him.

He has to play with sharks.

[Amos Moses]

27. absolutely not

I am judging him based on what I've seen so far. Nobody forced him to pack the White House with his Wall Street cronies and run interference for Bush administration criminals. He did that on his own.

Listen to the commentary that I posted. Hedges could see it back then. A lot of us could.

Many of his policies will not bring about change. They will only reinforce the status quo and I don't need see it for 2-4 years before I can admit that is what is happening.

[FrenchieCat]

32. What is happening exactly? Do you know?

I think folks want to pretend they know things that aren't even happening.

Makes them feel like they are in the know along with the Kool Kids.

Anyone who is sorry to have voted for Obama 6 months in based on "what they see"
are so full of shit till it ain't even funny. One might have growing doubts or something
like that....but to have already made a determination ain't even rational.

[WCGreen]

33. Well I'm not sorry...

He was so better than the alternative but, I am disappointed about Wall Street having so many players at the table especially in the regulatory and economic policy setting part of the administration. That's were all the stuff happens. If Obama had been a liberal like all the people thought, commerce, treasury and all the economic advisor's on his staff would have included labor people, progressive economists and perhaps a couple of surprises.

I'm not disappointed as much as some of the people on here because Obama never presented himself as a progressive. A lot of people heard the term community organizor and just assumed.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I understand what you are saying,

but my question still hasn't been answered.

What exactly has been done that would require someone to walk away from this President
altogether as of today?

[WCGreen]

37. I wouldn't walk away...

I find it odd that other people are ready to bolt so soon.

Look I have a lot of reservations simply because the stakes are so high. These next few years are make or break it time for this country.

Would I like a more progressive person at the helm, someone who isn't so pragmatic? Yes, but I understand what Obama is doing. At least I hope I do. He is putting the GOP on the defense every single day and that is really good. He is fighting back andI like that too since we all know that a bully can't sustain him/her self if the object of the bullying fights back. I really like that he is exposing the GOP for what they truly are; narcissistic sycophant.

[tabatha]

35. Yep - they are holier-than-thou, I-know-better, judges on the bench of

their own choosing.

They miss the essence of the man.

[brentspeak]

29. Goldbama (n/t)

[billyoc]

38. Government Sachs.

[democracy1st]

39. speechless

[uponit7771]

42. *****EVERYONE IN FINANCE IS RELATED TO GOLDMAN*****

or a Goldman affiliate

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. Hope they dig up some dirt on this piece of shit

If he's a chair of Goldmine Sucks, he has to be a tax cheat at the very least. Obama couldn't hire another tax cheater after all the previous publicity over Dasshole and the other tax cheats.

[johnaries]

44. "He was deputy trade representative

from 1979 through 1981 and held other posts at the State Department throughout his career."

Sounds to me like he's qualified. Sorry, but you're not going to find any qualified people that haven't been tied to some controversial corporation at some point in their lives.