Gary Cohn for Head of National Economic Council

After Headhunting Steve Mnuchin for Secretary of Treasury, Trump might have his eyes on no other than the COO and 2nd man of Goldman, Gary Cohn for Head of National Economic Council.

Cohn has been long rumored to lead Goldman after the departure of its current CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, which has given no hint so far of any plans to depart anytime soon. Cohn was also rumored to have grown impatient waiting for any evolution and this move might sound reasonable to him, as any move to government posts has its special financial incentives as well.

Goldman is starting to have a very strong record for placing its executives in top government posts, let's take Henry Paulson or Mario Draghi, the Head of ECB for example.

Im guessing that soon, we would see monkeys posting things like:
AMA: Target School -> IB Analyst -> Top 15 MBA -> MD BB -> Secretary of Treasury' hahaha

jokes aside, thoughts on these placements?

Comments (55)

Dec 12, 2016

Cohn is Intelligent and successful. I would vote for him for POTUS over Trump any day.

Dec 12, 2016

Pleased with this appointment

Dec 13, 2016

would you say this appointment gave you a raging....Cohner?

    • 1
Dec 12, 2016

One could call it that

Dec 13, 2016

Goldman Sachs bankers and now Exxon-Mobil's CEO, America's corporatocracy is REALLY being dealt with now. Drain the swamp!

    • 5
    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 13, 2016

Gary Cohn, Steve Bannon, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin ... it's kind of ridiculous

has crony capitalism ever looked so bad?

Dec 13, 2016

Butt Hurt is real. Drain the Swamp is in reference to lobbyists. Who exactly is Trump supposed to nominate for these roles?

I'm sure you'd be so supportive if Trump picked Joe the Plumber to run State or Treasury.

Dec 13, 2016

not tryna argue with you bro (notice I haven't responded to your Pro-Russia drivel), don't really give a fuck either way. I'm sure that the people who voted for him due to populism are overjoyed that his economic policy will be run by Goldman Sachs bankers and his foreign policy will be overseen by the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, possibly the most globalist company in the world.

    • 1
    • 3
Dec 13, 2016

The people who voted for Trump will be happy when TPP is killed, when immigration is enforced and when common core is done with.

I reiterate, who exactly should he have chosen? Pick someone from JPM and people will cry about Wall Street. Pick someone with zero experience and the markets will revolt.

If the goal is to make smart deals overseas which benefit Americans, then yes, I am sure his supporters will be happy with an Exxon CEO. Especially since a big policy point for trump was American energy production and global warming harming US jobs.

Bankers are Bankers. This idea that Goldman is any more or less worse in the eyes of everyday Americans is a joke.

Dec 13, 2016
  • Gary Cohn is probably for TPP: http://dealbreaker.com/2016/12/gary-cohn-explain-t...
  • don't think the ppl who voted for him based on anti-immigration and anti-trade really care about common core
  • I agree they'll probably get their way on immigration, though it's unlikely to actually affect the lives of his populist supporters
Dec 13, 2016

1) Individuals can be for TPP. If Trump isn't, it is dead.

2) Common Core was one of the things Trump talked about. Fair Trade (not anti-trade) is what Trump was talking about. People voted for him for a variety of reasons.

3) Reducing illegal immigration and establishing actual borders will impact all of us. Eating out will cost more as we have to pay reasonable wages to Americans to cook in the kitchen and do dishes. Produce will cost more in the short term until capital investment can offset the reduction in slave labor.

All of us will benefit from more school dollars going to teach US citizens. Lower police and prison costs. Lower healthcare costs.

4) We will all benefit if corporate and individual taxes are reduces, if the billions overseas can be repatriated, if the multitude of burdensome regulation is repealed and removed, if Obamacare can be fixed so it isn't the utter disaster that it is now and if Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice that isn't a proponent of legislating from the bench.

Dec 13, 2016

let's not get into a broad policy discussion here, we've had many of those. The point is populist America couldn't possibly have had Goldman Sachs bankers and a big oil CEO in mind as Trump's "outsider" picks. There really isn't much else to say.

Dec 13, 2016

I reiterate, the populist message was about pro American free trade, stopping illegal immigration, breaking the logjam that is Washington. I really doubt the people who voted for Trump will care who is doing what if we see things improve.

And at the end of the day, all the big banks were in the pocket of Hillary. Ex Bankers going into the Treasury or Economic Forum shouldn't surprise people.

Also, you'd think people would be happy about this. If Trump picked someone with no clue what to do the left would jump on him. He picks established people and the left says he isn't honoring his promises. What a joke.

Dec 13, 2016

Lol Trump literally ran campaign ads slamming HRC being in the pocket of the big banks (or the other way around w/e) then turns around and hires Goldman bankers to run his economic administration (not to mention his actual policies are going to be better for big banks than they could've dreamt of under HRC). If HRC won and hired these same people you'd be talking about how corrupt she, and the system, is. Only thing more hypocritical for Trump is if he'd have hired Petraeus as Secretary of State.

    • 1
Dec 13, 2016

Hmmm.

So Bankers donate money to Hillary to influence her. She owes them.

Bankers don't donate to Trump, but get hired by him. They owe him.

It isn't a correct analogy. Furthermore, all the big banks donated to Hillary. If Trump refused to hire anyone, we'd have no one to run Treasury.

Dec 13, 2016

If you say so man, she was in the pockets of the big banks m(according to you) but Trump is going to be the one to roll back more regulation than they could've dreamt of under HRC. I mean at the end of the day Goldman may have funded HRC (no doubt b/c they thought she'd win and Corps back winners) but they are now celebrating the fact that Trump won.

Dec 13, 2016

No, not "if I say so". It is fact.

Wall Street gave nearly exclusively to Hillary. You donate for influence. If she hired them after the election she would be rewarding influence.

They gave nothing to Trump and resoundingly disliked him. Him hiring them shows he wants good people for the job. Trump owes them nothing.

Goldman is celebrating? Get real. The whole fucking market is celebrating. Everyone with a dime in the market is loving it.

2% or Skim? I want to know the order of milk you want me to send so you can cry into it.

Get Woke.

Dec 13, 2016

You must have a loose definition of what a fact is. Wallstreet gave nearly exclusively to who they thought would win (as opportunistic corps do) to buy influence, doesn't mean they'd have actually had much influence. Now let's talk about what's real and not speculation disguised as fact. Donald Trump is the most pro wall-street president we've had since 1990 imo. So the point is, does it really matter what influence Sachs would've had in HRC's administration? I mean, there's no way she would've been as pro wall-street as Trump apparently is, Sachs could've given her a trillion dollars and they wouldn't have had as much influence/ favor as they currently do under Trump. It really is that clear cut to me. I find that hilarious.

p.s. you somehow think I am upset about this, it's all comical to me.

Dec 13, 2016

Wow, I can't keep track of the goal posts since you keep moving them.

1) Wall Street gave to Hillary because she is the ultimate establishment politician. In past elections corporations (including Wall Street) have given to both sides. It is called hedging your bets.

2) They gave nothing to Trump because Trump rejected standard big business Republicanism. He made a stand against what Hillary stood for.

3) Donald Trump is talking about rolling back regulation to benefit smaller/mid-sized banks. Donald Trump is against TPP. Donald Trump is talking about penalizing companies for outsourcing. Donald Trump is talking about lowering corporate taxes.

So no, Trump isn't the most (hyperbole anyone?). He is nominating financial professionals for finance and economic roles. This is called being smart.

Influence means you wield power over someone. You do understand this, correct. When you donate millions of dollars and bankroll someones campaign, you have influence over them. When you are hired for a job after verbally coming out against someone, you are an employee and owe your good graces to your employer.

Do you wield influence over your boss? No. If you catch him cheating on his wife, do you now wield influence? Yes.

Nuanced, but very simple.

Stay Sleepy.

[edit - trust me, from the weakness of your argument, I know this is a joke to you]

Dec 13, 2016

Trump rejected standard big business Republicanism in name only, all of his fucking policies are pro big business, save his trade shit that'll never get through congress (penalizing companies for outsourcing LMAO). I'm going to stay sleepy af bro. Goldman bankers and a big oil CEO really shows he'll fight those corporations, my bad for not being as "woke" as you are.

Dec 13, 2016

Trump is one of the first Republicans to support labor. He saved 1,000 jobs already. Companies will invest in jobs in the US to get on his good side - (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/softbank-ceo-anno...).
You're just butthurt and looking for anything to bitch about. Trump picks a no one for Treasury and you'll say this is confirmation of him being a moron. He picks the BB&T CEO and you'll say he picked an austrian wacko who will tank the market. He picks a competent banker and you say he is selling out.

Trump looked at a lot of people, not just GS bankers. He picked someone competent for the role. Deal with it.

And I think you underestimate what can and cannot get passed in Congress. I guess we will see.

Dec 13, 2016

If he had picked the BB&T CEO I would've wondered why he picked some maniac who wants to go back to the gold standard but I'd have at least praised his commitment to upending the system, no way that happens with who he has currently picked (not that I believe the system needs to be upended anyway). Those 1,000 jobs were an irrelevant photo op, his supporters will eat it up though. That Softbank deal was going to happen regardless of who was president, Trump is a great showman so he took credit for it though and ofc Softbank is going to let him, why piss of the prez over nothing? Ofc, his supporters probably ate that up as well. I cannot stress enough how much a tariff on outsourced jobs/ imported goods large enough to bring some manufacturing jobs back will damage the American economy, it is idiotic so I pray it never passes. You should too.

Dec 13, 2016

You know what bro, piss off. Go tell those 1,000 people who would have lost their good paying jobs that it is irrelevant.

Talk about obtuse.

You don't know that investment would have happened. Furthermore, you have a number of CEO's and countries (i.e. Canada) open to renegotiating NAFTA and other agreements. I'm sorry, but any CEO will think twice about moving overseas in this climate.

If Trump can save jobs and bring back 50-100k new, well paying jobs to the US, bravo to him. At least he is trying. Hillary wouldn't even give a shit.

I find it shocking that a President who is trying to save jobs for every day Americans is getting grief. Also, I think you are poorly informed on the "fair trade" situation we are in. China and other countries are dumping in the US. Whereas our markets are wide open, the same cannot be said for them. See, those countries protect their workforce whereas we gut ours.

Whole lot of sour grapes going on. Pretty sad.

Dec 13, 2016

you should've had an exclamation point after pretty sad, would've been appropriate. I am sorry but, in the bigger picture, those 1,000 jobs saved don't mean anything to America as a whole, call it what it was; a photo op and low hanging fruit. In October, Softbank and the govt of Saudi Arabia announced a $100 billion fund to invest in tech companies around the world, are you saying a good amount of that wasn't already earmarked to go to the U.S.? No issues with renegotiation free-trade agreements, but we are behaving as if these countries will give up all benefits they currently receive because Trump is "the great negotiator" - that is bs. We are also acting as if our country hasn't benefited from free trade, which is also bs. Thing is Mexico/ China etc. had much more to gain from those agreements because their countries' economies were garbage and had massive room for growth. For us to receive equal/ more benefit as Mexico/ China would be similar to expecting a 2 ft toddler to grow as much as a 6ft adult. Overall, the concept I agree most with Trump is that we need to get tougher (economically) with China so you won't find much argument there.

Dec 13, 2016

Saving those jobs was a nice first start. He isn't even President yet. Furthermore, Obama could have done it, but he didn't. Jobs are jobs.

Maybe the investment was planned, maybe it wasn't.

"Masayoshi Son, the brash billionaire who controls Sprint Corp., said Tuesday he would invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 new jobs, following a 45-minute private meeting with President-elect Donald Trump."

His words. So yeah, it could be PR. It might not be. Either way, the fact that CEO's are looking to kiss the ring and create PR by creating jobs is a wonderful thing.

Did Obama renegotiate deals? No. Was Hillary? No. So if Trump can get better terms, why is this bad?

And I am sorry, but it isn't free trade if it isn't a two way street. Trump is talking about fair trade.

From your oracle of all knowledge, the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/japan-t...
These nations are protecting their industry and workers while we gut ours. I am sorry, but that is shitty trade, not fair trade.

Dec 13, 2016
  • Lol he discussed the investment after the meeting, trying to frame it as a result of the meeting is hilarious Trumpian spin.
  • No problem with renegotiating deals for better terms, but I will remain against crazy tarrifs or walking away from deals I feel have benefitted the country as a whole (Mexico also, hilariously, thinks they haven't gotten enough out of NAFTA). Again I repeat, Trump is framing it like he will negotiate deals that benefit us and only us, it is obvious this is bullshit and there will be give & take, just like there already is.
  • Japan's protectionism has led to terrible GDP growth and negative interest rates. Their nationalist anti-immigration policy has led to an aging and unproductive population, the country is slowly dying (quite literally). The only thing keeping the U.S. from facing this aging population problem (Nordic Europe is also facing it) is immigration.
  • the United States also protects certain industries already, pointing out how Japan protected its auto industry without acknowledging how the U.S. protects certain industries (agriculture being a big one here) is what I'd expect from the author of "free trade doesn't work" and the coalition for a prosperous America (an anti-free trade group)
  • trade deficits in and of themselves are not necessarily a bad thing (economists disagree on this)
Dec 13, 2016

1) Correct, he announced this AFTER meeting with Trump. The CEO HIMSELF said this investment was as a result of the election. So it is both CEO and Trump saying this.

2) It is common knowledge that Trumps game plan is and has been to start high and end in the middle. When you want a $5K raise, do you ask your boss for $5K or do you ask for $10 and "settle" on $5K?

Trump talking about tariffs and walking away from deals is starting high and when he gets concessions and better terms it will be him settling on the middle.

3) GDP "growth" is a function of 4 things.

Personal consumption
Investments
Net Exports
Government Spending

The only thing keeping the US "growing" has been debt fueled consumption and government spending. Japan has had low growth because it has very low consumer spending (a lot of saving) as well as lower levels for other components. So comparing that two and saying protectionism is bad is incorrect. The USA's debt fueled consumerism and government spending is what helps our GDP limp along.

Japan has a drastic negative birthrate. Educated immigration wouldn't help them much because educated and otherwise wealthy people, wherever them come from, have a slightly negative replacement rate. The only people who shit out 3-4-5 kids is uneducated, lower income immigration.

And putting more people into the work force only helps an aging population if those people work and are net contributors to the tax system. This is the lie that is fed to the US. Sorry, but illegal, uneducated immigrants are a net drag on this country. Japan would be better off providing financial incentives for people to have kids than to bring in people who will have kids, but not fit into their very homogenous culture. With automation and robotics where they are, we are maybe a generation from having articulated robots be able to do the manual labor jobs, thereby removing the need for lower skilled humans.

4) Yes yes, I know full well about the US protecting farms through agriculture tariffs or subsidies. Hence why HFCS is everywhere. This would be an appropriate analogy if farming employed people like it did 50-100 years ago. It doesn't. Japan protecting major industries that employ tens and hundreds of thousands isn't the same as a Senator from Iowa or Nebraska getting a corn subsidy passed.

I repeat. These nations (Europe as well) realize you need an employed middle class with a industrial base. Outsourcing these jobs will improve profits for the company and see a slight reduction in costs, but it will not offset the loss of salary, stability and purpose these well paying jobs represented.

5) No where did I say we should always have a trade surplus. They ebb and flow. My issue is with the level of deficit we have and the fact the US buys freely from the world, whereas many places (Japan, China, etc) are not an open market. We allow free trade, they allow limited trade. It has to be a two way street.

Dec 13, 2016
  • let's agree to disagree on this deal: I think (and the announcement in October backs this) this investment was already happening, you think it was due to Trump. Okay, let's move on.
  • My point is we are likely much closer to "the middle" than the POTUS-Elect currently acknowledges, we'll see though.
  • lower income immigrants may "pop out kids" but their kids are more likely to graduate HS and college than the average American, this leads to an educated and productive work-force, keep telling yourself immigrants (illegal or not) are a "net drag" to this country - there isn't much evidence to support this conclusion though.
  • I disagree on your industrialist assertion, may have been true in the 50s-60s, I don't think that's true now. Robotization is going to make these jobs obsolete (like you said) - many economists agree that manufacturing in the U.S. has declined mostly due to automation and not due to trade- we need to focus on educating our citizens and keep pivoting towards a service/ white-collar economy so when the robots do takeover it's as painless as possible.
Dec 13, 2016

1) Fine.

2) Disagree, but fine.

3) Where is this low income immigrant kids are more likely to graduate high school statistic? Furthermore, the US, excluding the inner city, has education stats, including graduation statistics, as high as the rest of the world. At best these non-English speaking immigrants could achieve that level, not exceed it.

But lets give you your point. Let's suppose these kids are freaks and graduate at these phenomenal levels.

Graduating High School =/= Productive on a GDP or Net Tax level.

Also, in 18 years from now you think we will have more of a need for high school graduates? The 90MM or so that are out of the labor force most likely comprise a large amount of high school grads.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/unemployment-rat...
This is a year old, but high school or less have a double unemployment rate. These kids better do well in high school and go right into college because they aren't going to be doing shit otherwise.

The USA needs skilled, well off immigrants. We don't need poor, uneducated immigrants. Shut the borders down and allow well off people to basically buy a green card. Make this country and magnet for educated and rich people from around the world (basically do this for the Chinese already).

4) Robotics will make a ton of jobs redundant. But if you have the manufacturing here, you'll have some jobs in the short term and long term, you'll have the ancillary jobs related to servicing robots, building the robots to sell the the US companies, etc.

The problem we are all facing and arguing about it what to do with unskilled workers. You suggest retraining. I suggest temporarily bringing jobs back. We will both ultimately fail because these jobs will be automated and retraining only works when you have sufficient grey matter to retrain. It is unrealistic to assume a 40 year old auto worker is going to go back to school for nursing or learn to code.

But in a Democracy (Republic) you cannot tell them "tough cookies, you're fucked". You need to appease them. Bringing jobs back, albeit a temporary fix, it appeasing them. Telling them to retrain might as well be telling them to eat cake.

Dec 13, 2016
  • the U.S. is already getting skilled and well-off immigrants: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/05/to...
  • I am not against immigration reform, I am 100% against the way The Donald painted illegal immigrants throughout his campaign
  • America is going to get those jobs back anyway once robots are here, we are the largest consumers and companies will want to cut out shipping costs. Those ancillary jobs you speak of will be there, especially if we start educating our workforce for that now.
  • here are the education numbers from a liberal rag I actually read: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/6/1...

In your last sentence you speak from the perspective of a politician, I fully understand why Trump appealed to the masses in the way he did, it was political genius. But guess what? I hate politicians. They often sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term political gain. What is THE COST of temporarily bringing back SOME jobs (even with the carrier deal where Trump had the defense spending aspect to pressure united technologies, he still saved less than half)? Said costs could very well exceed the benefits of bringing back those jobs and ofc Trump wouldn't give a fuck as long as he has a political win to feed his supporters in order for a nice 8 year run in office.

Dec 13, 2016

1) Yes, I know we are already getting skilled immigrants. We have the EB5 program as well. My issue is with how difficult it is for US educated immigrants to get jobs in the US post graduation. I actually disagree with Trump on this one.

2) Trump painted them as illegal, as they are. I frankly blame the Democrats for politicizing this issue. I have no doubt that the majority are good people just looking for a better lot in life. Then the Dem's got involved and La Raza got involved. Started changing the language, started making this about racism, started talking about sanctuary cities and shit like that.

Plain fact is that Mexicans, Salvadorians, etc, can all go through the same process that Indian's and Chinese people do. You apply for citizenship, go through a pain in the ass process and get it. You don't just show up and stay. This crap doesn't happen in any other country but the US. If you or I went to Canada and just decided to stay we would be deported in a flash.

This isn't about race or rights, it is about law and a country being able to control who comes into this country and how many people we need at any given time.

3) I agree with you and disagree with you. I think a lot of companies left because of labor costs, but also because of regulatory issues as well. We will get some of these jobs back, but I would imagine many companies will simply automate wherever they have the facilities now. Remember, automation isn't over night. It is a slow process.

But yes, some will come back. I'd personally rather have them here now, providing jobs for 5-10-15 years and slowly automating then having them overseas.

4) Vox blows, but it looks directionally ok. I do not doubt that immigrant children do better than their parents. This has been true throughout history. But this article is wrong all the same.

a) No one has an issue with legal immigrant children doing better
b) I am sure illegal immigrant children replicate the results of legal immigrant children
c) Outcomes of children do not change the fact that these people came here illegally

And ultimately, good for these kids for doing better, but it isn't the USA's responsibility to let people in simply because it will benefit their kids. We have an obligation to our citizens first and foremost. Every illegal in this country takes tax payer funds away from citizens. Every spot these kids take up in high school and college could have been filled by a citizen. And what is the social welfare cost to get these outcomes.

18 years of tax payer funded high school. Bi-lingual education. Medical costs for a family without citizenship and insurance. Lower wages for Americans. Reduction in automation and investment in machinery because artificially low cost labor exists.

Secure the border and give Central American's an expedited citizenship path owing to the common history we share. Cool. But we cannot allow millions of people to just come here, decide to stay and then demand that tax payers provide for them.

Citizens First.

Ultimately, we shall both see. Maybe it is long term less costly to tell these out of work people to suck it up. Maybe it isn't. There definitely is a cost-benefit analysis to be had. But much like Obama saying that people didn't get rich on their own (meaning that the roads, laws, society as a whole, all helped in this process) we need to say to ourselves and these companies, that you do not profit in a vacuum. I get that the goal is to maximize shareholder value, but these businesses must realize that there are other stakeholders involved. They benefit from our laws and country, they must return the favor.

Automation and robotics is a whole other convo as well. In the future there might need to be a minimum wage, realizing that there simply is no need for large numbers of people. We might need a tax on capital, as those with the ability to invest can see their wealth grown exponentially. Lot of complex things. I just think we've been far too "free trade" at the expense of our own citizens whereas other countries realize you need to protect your middle class.

I mean it is pretty absurd that we have protests at McDonalds for a living wage. When I was a kid you worked at these places at 16 and it was to save for your first car. Now it is a career for too many adults. We cannot exist on a service sector alone.

Dec 14, 2016

Hiring goldman bankers != being hired by goldman bankers.

Dec 13, 2016

Slave labor, huh?

Slave labor actually does exist, in most of these big corporation's supply chains. But a mexican working for $6.00 an hour untaxed is not slave labor. In fact... thats just about minimum wage less taxes, isnt it?

    • 2
Dec 13, 2016

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/11/farmworker-confess...
"The work is hard -- but many jobs are hard. The thing that bothers me more is the low pay. With cherries, you earn $7 for each box, and I'll fill 30 boxes in a day -- about $210 a day. For blueberries, I'll do 25 containers for up to $5 each one -- $125 a day. With grapes, you make 30 cents for each carton, and I can do 400 cartons a day - $120 a day. Tomatoes are the worst paid: I'll pick 100 for 62 cents a bucket, or about $62 a day. I don't do tomatoes much anymore. It's heavy work, you have to bend over, run to turn in your baskets, and your back hurts. I say I like tomatoes -- in a salad. Ha. With a lot of the crops, the bosses keep track of your haul by giving you a card, and punching it every time you turn in a basket."

So pay ranges from $210 a day to $62 per day.

Assuming an 8 hour day, that is $26 an hour or $7.75 an hour. If you think these people are working 8 hours a day, you are nuts.

"We get there at 6:00 in the morning and, if I rush, I take a break at 1:00, drink and eat something, then work for another hour and head home. You pick the amount of hours you want to work, and you try not to take a lot of breaks so you can earn more. Some people will go until 5:00 in the afternoon and want to work and work, but I have my kids."

These people are working 12 hour days, in the field, breaking their backs with no overtime.

At 12 hours a day the pay rands from $17 an hour to $5 an hour. No benefits. Paying for everything from the ride to the corp to any damaged product.

So yeah, sorry, but this is slave labor nowadays. Love how you try and spin illegals working in a field for piece work as a casual minimum wage job.

Dec 13, 2016

Hey fuckhead,

realjackryan:

3) Reducing illegal immigration and establishing actual borders will impact all of us. Eating out will cost more as we have to pay reasonable wages to Americans to cook in the kitchen and do dishes. Produce will cost more in the short term until capital investment can offset the reduction in slave labor.

Sooo...

1) Your response has nothing to do with what I said. You are the one who brought up working in a kitchen as slave labor. I've worked in kitchens. These people are not slaves. They are also not citizens. they are freely coming to America, doing some illegal things to secure a job, and are happy with their prospects more or less. Otherwise they would go back. Again, I did not say anything about illegals in a field, we were talking about illegals in a kitchen, which you brought up. But, the point is still true for illegals in the field: See below.

2) Someone leaving their country to freely engage in work which is better than they can find at home and with no government involvement is definitionally not "Slave Labor" . In fact it is the epitome of free enterprise.

3) $12 an Hour untaxed is great fucking money, you moron. Even $5 is pretty good if you are not being taxed, its essentially minimum wage. So you are making my argument for me there. Also back of the envelop: 12 hour days for 6 days a week with 2 weeks of vacations at $12 an hour is ~$45,000 TAKE HOME PAY Annually. That is equivalent to nearly $60,000 nominally if it were taxed. Now double that for how far the USD goes in their home country. These guys are essentially bumping up against or nearing 6 figures in their home country if they come work their ass off in the US. Just because your privileged ass couldn't conceive of surviving on that much a year, or doing any kind of real work, does not mean it is slave labor. which is a real thing. A real BAD thing. A real bad thing that talk like this takes away from.

4) Just because you are a pussy who has never done a real days work in your life, and would die if you had to do anything on your feet for 12 hours doesn't mean these people are slaves. Slave labor exists. It's terrible. It involves stealing Visa's / passports, providing forced living situations, and oftentimes violence, and children.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 13, 2016

I don't really know anything about this guy and I'm sure he's brilliant, but come on--there are brilliant men and women all over the nation who could serve in these posts (heck, there are brilliant non-Goldman people in NYC if that's Trump's thing). How in the world does Goldman Sachs have such disproportionate influence in both Dem and GOP administrations? I mean, Goldman Sachs went out of its way to back Hillary Clinton, for goodness sake. I thought for once that corrupt financial institution would find itself on the outs. Guess not.

Dec 13, 2016

My guess it that it is actually far more simple than we think... If you had a friend who was definitely qualified for a job in your company, and you knew they may be looking for something, wouldn't you recommend them?

...

Dec 13, 2016

Government Sachs will never be on the outs, stop dreaming.

Dec 13, 2016

Man Virginia, I usually really see your posts as very fair-minded. Maybe it's just wishful thinking but the banks own the parties, not the other way around.

Besides, there are a few arguments (although not great ones) for the role of international investment banking partnering with US government... Worked well during and after WWII anyway.

Dec 13, 2016
realjackryan:

Man Virginia, I usually really see your posts as very fair-minded. Maybe it's just wishful thinking but the banks own the parties, not the other way around.

Besides, there are a few arguments (although not great ones) for the role of international investment banking partnering with US government... Worked well during and after WWII anyway.

Again, I'm not disputing the validity of having bankers involved in the federal government, but the revolving door between government and Goldman Sachs is conspicuous, to put it kindly.

Dec 13, 2016

I agree that on the surface these appointments don't look great (bankers and CEOs). However, who is he supposed to nominate? In my mind the only people qualified for these posts are lifelong politicians or extremely successful business leaders. There are some politicians that I'd be ok with taking these positions, but by and large I am against rewarding lifelong politicians with these jobs. By process of elimination and meeting requisite experience, I'd be nominating a lot of business leaders as well.

I dont pretend to know much about him, but I may have found someone other than Tillerson if I were Trump, if only for perception.

twitter: @CorpFin_Guy

    • 1
Dec 13, 2016

I agree with you but there are literally millions of businesses in the United States. How in the world does Goldman Sachs end up filling so many roles in government? You have to admit that it's uncanny.

Dec 13, 2016

I would have loved for Trump to nominate the BB&T head. Although his austrian economic beliefs wouldn't have caused the market to go nuts.

And I think Trump was looking at a lot of well qualified people.

End of the day, if he can roll back some of the Dodd Frank legislation and make it easier for smaller/mid-sized banks to exist, I think this will be a benefit to main street as well as wall street.

GS is parasitic though, I agree. But I suppose you could make the same argument for all the TBTF banks. And with the recent press, which big banker was going to really compete for this role? BB&T CEO is too radical. Wells Fargo fucked itself with its recent bad press. Dimon said he didn't want the role. So now you have GS, MS, BAML and maybe some others.

Dec 13, 2016

Yeah, I dont know anything about Gary Cohn, so I'm certainly not cheerleading this appointment. However, for Secretary of Treasury specifically, it almost has to be someone from Financial Services. Not saying it should be another person from GS, but 2nd in Charge of a large financial institution seems to fit the bill.

twitter: @CorpFin_Guy

Best Response
Dec 13, 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)
Very interesting background. While a GS alumnus, he didn't take the typical Ivy League path. American University, deep Ohio roots (I am sure the swing state will love the love).

"Cohn started his career at the U.S. Steel home products division in Cleveland, Ohio.[7] After a few months, he left U.S. Steel and started his career as an options dealer in the New York Mercantile Exchange.[7] He lied to the hiring manager of the options department about his experience in options trading when he had none. He taught himself the basics of options by reading about it in the days between meeting the hiring manager and joining the New York Mercantile Exchange."

Love this gem:

"Critics of Cohn attribute to him an arrogant, aggressive, abrasive and risk-prone work style. They see his "6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs" as intimidating, as he might "sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader's desk, his thigh close to the employee's face and ask how markets were doing"

This should be a big message to the markets that we are open for business. Trump rally continues!

Dec 15, 2016

Wait, I thought you were against people doing things illegally (like entering the country), but someone illegally obtaining a job is to be lauded? Just curious..

Dec 13, 2016

If someone lies on a job application they get fired, not imprisoned. Coming into this country is a punishable offense.

Dec 15, 2016

Fair enough. I guess the distinction between illegal and immoral is enough for one to be hated and one to be celebrated

Dec 13, 2016

there are also hundreds of thousands of college football players, why is it so many from Ohio state make it into the NFL. Goldman produces

    • 1
Dec 13, 2016
RS39:

there are also hundreds of thousands of college football players, why is it so many from Ohio state make it into the NFL. Goldman produces

Then where are all of the "players" from the proverbial Alabama, Florida State, USC, and Texas? Why are these administrations stacked with "Ohio State" players?

Dec 13, 2016

Goldman Sachs bankers: paragons of the common man. Lol.

Dec 13, 2016

@BobTheBaker You need to get long GS and XOM, pop a few Valium, and ride the Trump Train

Choo choo!!

    • 1
Dec 13, 2016
Dec 13, 2016
Dec 15, 2016