Nearshore Journal

By Philip Peters

Why has the vitriol against Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, attracted such widespread attention media over his comments that banks serve a social purpose and that he’s doing “God’s work?”.

Or, is the outrage based on his violation of the old and sacred commercial maxim to never overtly mix religion and politics with business? Keith Oberman categorized him as the second Worst Person of the Day in his Monday night rant. Is he justified? Do you agree with his deductions? Certainly, bankers have a right to maximize shareholders value, personally reap the benefits of their talent, while they bring a service to society, as we also seek to do good for ourselves, our family and our network, don’t we?

When the economy is on full throttle and we are doing well these social and existential questions are ignored or perhaps they’re seconded to a sub- conscious nesting ground in our minds. If we assert that the system is unfair and need reform, how should we act? What should we do, if our legislative proxies aren’t achieving the outcomes we desire? Our classical class warfare dynamic is omnipresent, and is certainly intensified given our current economic challenges. Nonetheless, based on conversations I’ve had with several colleagues and clients – at core – my analysis of the outrage against Blankfein’s God attribution appears to be also existential.

Namely, arrogance associated with denial and lack of expressed gratitude for TARP funding salvation extended to the bank. Society feels a “thank you” is owed. Secondly, many conclude that the bank’s place of privilege and pervasive connection at the highest leavers of power implicitly renders its behavior as a kind of monopoly entity. By deduction, the public sees the bank’s profits as a sort of unfair gain. Finally, the open declaration by a business executive that he’s a representative or a direct channel of God, seem to strike most – not as humility – but sacrilege. In a sense those in the religious, social and wellness trenches seem to be silently expressing that those convictions could be felt but not so directly expressed.

The banker’s summary conclusion is true when he states that, “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. We have a social purpose,” Even his conclusion that a wealthy titan can be a divine conduit is valid – though not popularly embraced. I remember an old Sunday School lesson from the Old Testament reminding us that “God is no respect of person.” So, while it’s seductive to conclude that the Mother Theresa model has divine optimality, there is also value in sometimes suspending judgment against wealthy practitioners.

I learnt this lesson a few years ago when a friend – who’s a Warrant Buffet devotee – took me as a guest on his annual pilgrimage to his Mecca in Omaha. During the meeting I played the judgment card and asked, “If Warren is so wealthy, why hasn’t he given away large chunks of his money to charity?” The society in miniature of the 20,000 plus Berkshire Hathaway shareholders were minimally concerned about social and economic policy connected with equitable distribution of wealth. My friend tempered my judgment by affirming Buffet’s announced commitment to leave most of his wealth to charity and not to his children.

Soon, thereafter, the Oracle of Omaha announced his wealthy bequeathal to and partnership with the Gates Foundation for divestiture of his wealth. With that said, a recent Wall Street Journal article on “What’s wrong with charitable giving and how to fix” is instructive.

Mr. Blankfein and wealthy investment bankers may have to intensify their philanthropic time lines as Mr. Buffet did, in light of current public pains and demon-like giant squid metaphors ascribed to his firm by the often quoted Rolling Stone magazine feature story on his company. Perhaps, if the good side of investment banks and banks- wherever that good side is found – is authentically expressed and felt by society, when the December bonus season comes around, some journalist will not be tempted to resurrect the archival memory of Caligula on the Lake of Leme, with his opulent yacht ostensibly built with Roman tax payers money, to glorify the goddess Diana.

Many a bankers, software and real estate magnates enjoy their lives as the super wealthy, and many are major philanthropists. Wealth, or the lack of wealth, therefore, aught not to be necessarily used as a validating or invalidating argument about the actions of the divine – if one subscribe to a theistic life premise. Although, it’s noteworthy to point out that proponents of the “prosperity gospel” theory – now dominant within contemporary Christianity will argue the former. As in the Buffet scenario shared above, time seem to be the neutralizer. What may be concluded to be selfish and perhaps anti-God behavior today, can often transform into something of value and benefit to society tomorrow. While we need mammon, we all trying to do God’s work, aren’t we?

by Philip Peters