The plane carrying whistleblower
Edward Snowden has landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport. The former
CIA contractor, who left Hong Kong in a bid to elude US extradition on
espionage charges, is on his way to a 'third country' via Russia. Former
MI5 agent Annie Machon says America's whistleblower hunt gives it the
image of a major global aggressor - READ MORE http://on.rt.com/jqm8cb
RT
(Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and
Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion
YouTube views benchmark.
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.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and
mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was
selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to
appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus
we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program
in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made
the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look
students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect
that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the
president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch.
I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents
the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of
the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset
managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign
wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset
base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of
pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them,
even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming
increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time
to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about
leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and
doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and
are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position
of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s
“axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in
the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because
they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt
Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are
sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring
the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like
selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself
sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque
product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of
exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one
single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients.
It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them.
If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you
would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the
thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients
off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing
directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over
internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids?
No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of
any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch
lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the
simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s
goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If
clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with
you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about
derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers
me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they
are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now
project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the
corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and
“getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or
how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the
ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance,
getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they
defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from
South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar
national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the
Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come
through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too
much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t
feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the
client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will
not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally
bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And
get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right
reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this
firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director
and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in
Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Vice President Dick Cheney Exposed - Evidence of Murdering American
Citizens. Here is the list of people killed at the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001US Navy:Kris Romeo Bishundat, 23, Waldorf,
MDChristopher Lee Burford, 23, Hubert, N.C. Daniel Martin Caballero, 21,
Houston, TXLt. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.Captain Gerald
Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, MAJohnnie Doctor Jr., 32, Jacksonville,
FLCommander Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Florham Park, NJCommander William
Howard Donovan Jr., 37, Nunda, NYCommander Patrick Dunn, 39, Fords,
NJEdward Thomas Earhart, 26, Salt Lick, KY Lt. Commander Robert Randolph
Elseth, 37, NYJamie Lynn Fallon, 23, Woodbridge, VA Matthew Michael
Flocco, 21, Newark, DE Captain Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin,
NERonald John Hemenway, 37, Shawnee, KSLt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31,
Baton Rouge, LANehamon Lyons IV, 30, Mobile, ALBrian Anthony Moss, 34,
Sperry, OKLt. Commander Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, ILMichael Allen Noeth,
30, Jackson Heights, NY Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, PALt.
J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, MDJoseph John Pycior Jr., 39,
Carlstadt, NJMarsha Dianah Ratchford, 34, Prichard, AL Commander Robert
Allan Schlegel, 38, Gray, MECommander Dan Frederic Shanower, 40,
ILGregg Harold Smallwood, 44, Overland Park, KSLt. Commander Otis
Vincent Tolbert, 38, CALt. Commander Ronald James Vauk, 37, IDLt.
Commander David Lucian Williams, 32, ORKevin Wayne Yokum, 27, Lake
Charles, LA Donald McArthur Young, 41, Roanoke, VAUS Navy Civilian
Employee:Angela Houtz, 27, La Plata, MDBrady Howell, 26, Arlington,
VAJudith Jones, 53, Woodbridge, VAJames Lynch, Manassas, VARetired Capt.
Jack Punches, 51, Clifton, VAUS Navy contractors:Julian Cooper, 39,
Springdale, MDJerry Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, MDKhang Nguyen, Fairfax,
VAMarvin Woods, 58, Great Mills, MDOthers:Donna Bowen, Verizon
CommunicationsAllen Boyle, Fredericksburg, VARosa Maria Rosemary Chapa,
Springfield, VAGerald Fisher, consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.Sandra N.
Foster, Clinton, MDHerbert Homer, Milford, MARobert J. Hymel,
Woodbridge, VATerrance Lynch, consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.Shelley A.
Marshall, Marbury, MDPatricia E. (Patti) Mickley, Springfield, VAScott
Powell, BTG Inc.Charles E. Sabin, Burke, VAKarl W. Teepe, Centreville,
VAErnest Willcher,consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.Edmond Young, BTG Inc.
Obama's Plan for The Draft- MANDATORY SERVICE everyone 18-25
Is this the "Change" you wanted???...No rumor or falseness here,its real. Deal with it and shake your denial.
"
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
You have to ask,"If this is what the media is ready to tell you about, what MORE are they planning??"
BOTTOMLINE-
They both want to FORCE you (or your children/family) to serve in the
American Military, even though neither of them did.
*And Finally, they tell you this is for "Civil Defense", yet they have pushed horrendous gun control agendas before and plan to do so in the future.
You
really think they are going to train thousands of federal troops for
military action, but aren't going to use them? Don't be a fool...
Obama's "peace" and "change" are a sad joke.
*The Real Irony here is when Mr Immanuel is talking about "citizenship", he is an Israeli Citizen and fought in the Israeli Military (but not ours, the American Military), and Obama has yet to prove he is even a Natural Born American Citizen (which is required under the Constitution to be President)-despite repeated requests and even federal lawsuits...
"Obama's National Service Plan
Page 6, Section IV "ENABLE MORE AMERICANS TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY"
"Barack
Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops
and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help
units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the
strain on military families."
That "end strength" my friends, is our 18-25 year olds. "
(Palpatines voice) "The Republic will be reorganized into the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE!... for a safe and secure society!" Padme-"So this is how Liberty dies, with thunderous applause"
I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance, so how could it be lower.
Tens of millions will still not have coverage even once Obamacare is in
full swing, which is strange since the purported goal of the law was to
cover the those very people. There is also an “out” built into the
Affordable Care Act in the event they find it unaffordable:
This analysis suggests that the uninsured under Obamacare
will be heavily low-income, even though many of those people will have
access to subsidized health insurance. Still, some might not find it
affordable, and the health care law does allow for an exemption from the
individual mandate for those who cannot find affordable coverage
(defined as insurance that costs less than 9.5 percent of an
individual’s income).
Possibly the biggest failure of Obamacare is that it doesn’t provide
those who can’t afford the Affordable Care with a cheap mini-plan that
would at least cover their treatment for an accidental irony overdose.
Hard Questions for the Zeitgeist Movement - Live Discussion
StormCloudsGathering· OK its very long, and they covered a lot of topics, but one area that i
that i've been looking for answers for was covered and that is; Who is
in control (eg ensures all wants/needs are being met, is it a computer,
government, everyone or locals) and how are these decisions enforced
(does everyone just need to accept the decisions of the "system" if what
they are looking for is not available/recommended, will there be police
or enforcers) and also whats available to people if they feel the
system is not looking after them because they are in the minority or not
in line with the rest of society.
The standard generic answers of "science" or "society" were initially
put forward as the solutions, but then some specifics came up, which
didn't really answer the question to a level that most (or at least me)
people want.
But basically what i took the the answer to be : if someone has an idea
for an improvement the idea is proposed (to who and how?) and then put
through the system using scientific methods to come up with a
recommendation which is basically what will happen.
So the question i now have is, in the decision making process, are
options going to be produced (in situations where no perfect solution is
available, multiple options with differeent benefits/negatives will
need to be weighed up, taking into account if the are multiple
categories of entities that will affected differently depending on what
decision is ultimately made), or is only "the best" (the goals are
defined by who?) answer going to be put forward.
If the answer is various options, then who makes the final choice, if
it's only one, what happens if some people dont agree with it, will this
decision be enforced and if so by who?
It was stated that that experts should/can be challenged, but its
difficult to convience an expert (or the decision makers) they are wrong
when you are not and expert and unable to use their methods to prove
your point (as thats the method being used to determine the outcome), or
even if its a moral reason and not a difference in their interpretation
of the data. Also if two sets of scientists disagree using the
scientific method what happens then? Some decisions will need to be made
quickly due to need and maybe the decision making process will take
longer than the time available.....can decsions be made without this
process and if so under what conditions. Can morality ever overide the
outcome of a decision resulting from the science method?
Even in an RBE, people will still have different opinions/preferences
even if the they all support the basic premise of an RBE and have been
educated in it. I agree with the point raised in the discussion that we
are talking about an RBE with todays values and expectations of how
things work, which may not be helping things when thinking of an RBE,
since there are many issues today which wont be issues then like greed
or the quest for profit, but since we know that fact, answers should be
able to be formulated in todays "talk" so the people of today can
understand it, instead of "in and RBE that won't be a problem...society
will be different...trust me".
I think some rules or principles in this area need to be documented
(even if it changes over time) so people can make a decsion to get on
board. People want details, and i don't think there are details provided
to the level they want them or using a frame of reference they are used
to.
I agree with an RBE in principle, and so i'm also looking for an
understanding of the details of how it will operate, or the next level
down. The reason we can say the current system is bad is because we know
how these things work in it, and its hard to convience others that an
RBE is better if these questions can't be detailed for comparrison of
the two, ie not why an RBE is the best idea, but at least how it is
better than what we have now.
Another topic i feel worth detailing that was raised in the discussion
is that the purpose of an RBE is not to restrict what people can/cant do
but how to do the things that need doing. So its not saying you cant
have potato chips, but rather how to manage the creation of them in the
most effective manner.
Are there quick answers to the following questions?
a) In an RBE do we need a government, if so what will their role be
b) In an RBE do we need a justice system, if so what will their role be
c) In an RBE do we need police, if so what will their role be
d) In an RBE do we need an army, if so what will their role be
and if so how are they selected or what privileges will they have over
others if any? Will an RBE require enforcement of some of its principles
for the proctection of its people?
I came across these videos by the same person in the original video,
which explores these ideas not just for an RBE (i think he doesn't like
an RBE actually) but for any social system or civilization thats in
place, that in my opinion need to be throught about for an RBE.
Now we all know these bad things occured in todays society or the ones
that have precededed it, so how do we think an RBE will stop these
things from happening under it? The removal of greed is probably an
obvious one, but if something else becomes "powerful" underan RBE, what
mechanisim will be in place to stop things like we know have happened
from happening again?
I think we will need someone/something to perform the role of
government/police/army/legal systems in one form or another(at least
intially since we are used to them now), although they will most likely
do less than they do now and be on much reduced scales, but from my
experience of discussing these topics, these are the things people i
talk to want to know about in an RBE.
Also, its most likely that the whole world will not come on board to an
RBE at the same time, however the person in the video has presented some
ideas (in other videos) on what could happen if everyone is not on
board :
The summary of which is most likely there will not be one system that
everyone agrees on at the point in time when a choice is needed to be
made, so a constitution should be written now (which may be quicker than
a test city) by each of the organized groups now for what ever systems
they want to happen after the current system ceases to exist, and ask
for people to get on board in principle, as well as getting involved in
the process, and that each different group should agree to allow other
groups to exist with a non aggression agreement, and to work out how to
get on with other groups before hand. Even if an RBE has a principle to
reduce the need for written laws, one would still be useful at the start
of the process where this situation will most likely be the state of
play when this happens. Sure this can split people into groups, reduce
numbers etc, but even in the zeitgeist movement there are diefferent
opinions on how to do things, but I still think this gives an RBE the
best chance to come into place and evolve over time.
"The
FBI's Next Generation Identification program is on scope, on schedule,
on cost, and 60 percent deployed. The Facial Recognition Pilot, which
began operation in February 2012, searches criminal mug shots and
provides investigative leads. The Facial Recognition Pilot is evaluating
and solidifying policies, procedures, and privacy protections. Full
operational capability for facial recognition is scheduled for the
summer of 2014."
Key points in the bill: Page 193: (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to establish, manage, and modify the System, which shall—
"(ii)
maintain records of the inquiries that were made, of confirmations
provided (or not provided), and of the codes provided to employers as
evidence of their compliance with their obligations under the System;
and
page 194: "(vii) to confirm identity and employment
authorization through verification and comparison of records as
determined necessary by the Secretary;
page 190: "(H) AUTHORITY
TO MODIFY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.—Based on a regular review of the
System and the document verification procedures to identify misuse or
fraudulent use and to assess the security of the documents and processes
used to establish identity or employment authorized status, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, after publication of
notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment,
may modify, if the Secretary determines that the modification is
necessary to ensure that the System accurately and reliably determines
the identity and employment authorized status of employees and maintain
existing protections against misuse, discrimination, fraud, and identity
theft
World war 3 has already begun. In this video we are going to prove it.
I am considerably less
qualified than Einstein to predict the weapons to be
used in WWIII, but I am pretty sure of what it will
be about, and who we will be fighting against. In fact,
the war has already begun. The war is about oil, and
our dance partner is China.
Wars over oil are nothing new, of course. Oil played
a significant part in both World Wars – indeed,
Iraq is an artificial
state created by a young Winston Churchill in the
aftermath of World War I exactly because of the growing
importance of oil to the ebbing British Empire. The
Allies occupied it during WWII for the same reason.
Oil is a strategic asset, as military types would say.
What makes a resource strategic is the likelihood that
demand will exceed supply – that is, that it may
become scarce.
And make no mistake, oil is about to be come very scarce
indeed. As many others
have noted, the endless “up” escalator
of increasing oil reserves and production is about to
become a slow but painful trip down. An increasing number
of experts are voicing the heretical notion that world
oil reserves are on the downside
of the bell curve. Some experts think the peak is
as much as a decade off; others think we are there right
about now.
If world demand for oil could be throttled back, the
impact of this trend could be relatively mild. But there
are a number of reasons why that is simply not in the
cards. One is of course our nation’s profligate
consumption: Americans consume nearly three
times as much energy per capita as Europeans do,
and nearly six times the world average. But even if
Americans were to suddenly abandon their dreadnought
SUVs en masse, world consumption would likely continue
to increase. And one of the primary reasons is China.
We all know that China's economy is growing like bamboo
(a mind-boggling 9%
annual rate for the 25-year period from 1978 to
2003), and that it is increasingly willing to flex its
muscles in politics and international finance. Less
well-known is the fact that China is already the
2nd largest consumer of energy in the world.
We tend to think of China as a backward country unused
to casting a global shadow. But as The Economist has
pointed out “China was the largest economy for
much of recorded history. Until the 15th century, China
had the highest income per head and was the technological
leader.” Perhaps in part because of its long history,
China tends to take a long view of events. While American
businesses worry about next quarter, China is making
decisions that will bear fruit a generation from now.
And so it invests in education and manufacturing while
we file dutifully into Walmart to buy their $30 DVD
players.
As China has become the world’s factory, it has
also become the leading consumer of many industrial
commodities including steel, coal and cement. And as
prosperity turns Chinese workers into acquisitive consumers,
their demand for the high-energy badges of modernity
like automobiles is exploding. Volkswagen
now sells more cars in China than in Germany.
How will China fuel its increasingly affluent economy?
It will have to secure access to a truly staggering
amount of oil – oil that would otherwise be targeted
for our Hummers and Suburbans. And China may well get
it without firing a shot.
A couple of months ago ChevronTexaco (remember when
anti-trust laws broke up what has again been joined
together?) announced that it was to acquire fellow big
oil player (and former
Taliban coddler) Unocal for $16.4 billion. But such
announcements do not always lead to the desired results;
in one of the essential rituals of American big business,
Unocal is “in play.” In other words, its
management, duty-bound to get the highest possible price
for its shareholders, must consider other offers. China
National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), the number three
oil company in China, is publicly contemplating putting
in a higher bid. The blogosphere yawns, but a bid from
CNOOC could be the Pearl Harbor of the next great war.
America's economy, foreign policy, internal future,
and wet dreams of another century of hegemony are all
tied to cheap oil. And the way we have kept oil cheap
is by being the 800-pound gorilla (also guerilla) of
the world energy market. OPEC controls some of the supply,
but make no mistake that Big Oil – American Big
Oil – calls the shots for the world energy market.
But Big Oil cannot change the decline in basic supply.
And even if they could change the effect that will follow
from that cause, they would have absolutely no incentive
to do so, because the immediate and primary effect of
even minor shortfalls in supply will be huge increases
in the price of a barrel of oil. In past disruptions,
note that
shortages of only 5% in supply caused 400% increases
in its price. But the oil crises of the 1970s were
short-term, artificial phenomena. The coming crisis
is real, systemic and terminal.
Put together the contraction in supply and the growing
ability of China to control some of that supply, and
you get a taste of the cataclysm that will follow when
China's growing productivity and affluence really go
toe-to-toe with our oil addiction. China, which may
be less than a true free market at home, has no problem
bitch-slapping us with Adam Smith's invisible hand at
the most macro level. So it seems rather obvious that
China will flex its growing muscles and buy its own
secure supply by bidding on bigger and bigger helpings
of Big Oil.
In most ways, the Bush Administration is simply the
policy arm of Big Oil. Who will man the marionettes
if the Chinese take control of Big Oil? Will the champions
of the free market stand by if the Chinese outbid us
fair and square for the energy (and control of that
energy) we have taken for granted?
One of the inherent flaws in the free market system
is that, left unchecked, it usually results in the accretion
of a great deal of power in the hands of one or a few.
The winners are known as monopolists to economists,
or bullies to the rest of us. Republicans have always
defended the system, and thus the bullies, but of course
they have coincidentally always been the biggest kids
in the sandbox. Last week, CNOOC in fact bid $18.5 billion
for Unocal. Numerous voices in the Administration
and Congress
(on both sides of the aisle) are already squealing.
Bullies tend to become crybabies when their reign ends
due to the arrival of a bigger bully. Time will tell
how our oil bullies will react, but I predict they will
squeal like stuck pigs when China assumes its inevitable
role as the bigger bully.
Whether the war this crisis triggers will be fought
with guns and bombs or money and lawyers, I do not know.
But war it will be. Due
to technical problems, this column was delayed nearly
two weeks. The CNOOC bid was actually made after the
first draft was submitted. John Steinberg bloviates
regularly @ www.bluememe.blogspot.com.
He is sometimes, but not always, this prescient..
