Goldman's Blankfein & Trump

Among the many prominent companies and CEO's Goldman Sachs has joined the ranks denouncing Donald Trump's recent immigration ban.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s more than 34,000 employees arrived to work Monday to find a voice mail waiting. "This is Lloyd," it began.

Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein then delivered a denunciation of President Donald Trump's immigration ban, which restricts immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries and freezes the U.S. refugee program. "This is not a policy we support," he said. "Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be."

With that, Mr. Blankfein, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton for president, drew a sharp distinction between himself and Goldman alums who have embraced Mr. Trump.

Personal politics aside, looking at this from a business stand point this looks to be the main reason for their response... or perhaps it is Blankfein's own background that has pushed him into this response.

Their responses reflect that in finance and tech, big, global companies rely on the ability to recruit overseas and move their employees around freely. Goldman has identified about 100 employees world-wide that might fall under the umbrella of the ban, a person familiar with the matter said Monday.

Goldman's Blankfein Gives a Wall Street Voice to Immigration-Ban Opposition

I have to wonder if this will impact the companies relations with the White House, or if its going to be business as usual. Donald Trump came out strongly against Wall St. during the campaign, but has since carried on the tradition of recruiting form Goldman.

What do you think monkeys, will this get in the way of government Sachs relations?

Comments (87)

Jan 31, 2017

If Trump intends on de-regulating Wallstreet in the near term, I don't think it would matter. They'll always find a way to profit and come out on top.

Jan 31, 2017

I am sure main streets heart is just warming over the squid complaining that 100 out of 33,000 employees is inconvenienced by Trump doing a 90 day, temporary ban on people coming from failed, ISIS riddled states.

Goldman should probably shut the fuck up. And considering they basically put it all on the line trying to get Hillary elected, I wouldn't take anything they have to say seriously.

Best Response
Jan 31, 2017
TNA:

I am sure main streets heart is just warming over the squid complaining that 100 out of 33,000 employees is inconvenienced by Trump doing a 90 day, temporary ban on people coming from failed, ISIS riddled states.

Goldman should probably shut the fuck up. And considering they basically put it all on the line trying to get Hillary elected, I wouldn't take anything they have to say seriously.

Has anyone ever punched you in the face?

    • 28
    • 10
Feb 1, 2017

Defeat the argument. You can't.

Feb 1, 2017

General advice, don't try so hard to be an internet tough guy. Some of us are either professionally trained on here (military/law enforcement backgrounds are more common in finance than you'd think) and others go get punched in the face for fun in our spare time.

And anyone watching any user's posts over time can probably figure out who they are or at least narrow it down to a small pool.

I guarantee you that there's a few people who have figured out who I am because I've seen them reading WSO as well, and trying to write my posts in a way that would hide my identity from people who don't know me is more trouble than it's worth given that I try to generally be professional on here.

    • 2
    • 1
Learn More

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

Feb 1, 2017

Hahaha sucking Trump's cock in every single thread

    • 12
    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

TNA has become WSO's Kellyanne Conway

    • 18
Feb 1, 2017

If you want to persuade him, start not by accusing but by asking WHY. Then answer those objections.

On that note I would be curious to hear TNA's reasons. I get the "lesser of two evils" arguments in favor of either candidate and can understand why someone would feel that way but I don't get people who actively love either one.

Feb 1, 2017
Feb 1, 2017

The outrage over the "Muslim ban" is one of the most disingenuous outrages I've ever witnessed in American politics. First of all, there are 50 majority Muslim countries; this temporary travel ban constitutes 7 of those 50. If this were a "Muslim ban" then Trump missed about 85% of the world's Muslim population. Second of all, each of the 7 countries was on Obama's list of highest-risk countries--these countries are all either failed states or terrorist exporters. Third, at least two of the countries (Iran and Syria) are on the list of countries banned from doing business with U.S. citizens and one (Libya) was on that list for a portion of time under Obama. Finally, the Obama administration was literally dropping bombs on one of the countries (Syria) on the list--so I guess it's ok to kill Syrians but not ok to restrict their travel? Seems to be a bizarre leap of logic.

How a temporary ban on travel for citizens of failed states and/or for citizens of declared U.S. enemies has turned into the civil rights issue of our era is beyond belief.

Feb 1, 2017

Agreed. I'm personally somewhat surprised that the Left has decided to pick this issue as the one to run with. Its a temporary ban from countries that Obama had listed as the most at risk. It has nothing to do with barring immigrants from coming into this country, and everything to do with trying to keep the country safe. In fact, go look at how many Syrians Obama let into the country...

Somehow this has been construed into the Left saying Republicans hate Muslims... Bizarre if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IaAZxG0g4

    • 1
    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Cause the left is obsessed with feelings or "morals" aka what they think is right is moral.

Gotta love how a small % of people being inconvenienced causes and uproar, but when we talk about illegals killing people they dismiss it and say it's a statistical anomaly.

Feb 1, 2017

Yeah, the outrage over the countries he picked and the immigration is a bit screwy, considering that these countries were singled out in the Obama years. That being said, unsubstantiated outrage isn't unique to liberals (remember "death panels"? Or how gun sales skyrocketed under Obama because "they're gonna take our guns"?).

Personally, what I disliked about the EO was that it set the level of refugees we are going to take in from anywhere at the lowest level it's been in at least 35 years, and its effect on legitimate travel by legal residents of the US. The administration has since walked back a decent portion of that second issue, but as it is written, the EO pretty explicitly bars entry and re-entry by Visa and green card holders (unless the DHS gives them a waiver).

    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

Hyperbole isn't group specific, but holding guns is a little different than shutting down airports and endless protests.

Feb 1, 2017

John T. Reed sums it up fairly well. Trump's travel ban is NOT unique. To put things in perspective, the US is one of the only countries that does not have such a list of countries that are banned.

In conjunction with my research on putting money in other countries and perhaps taking refuge in them during a US hyperinflation, I was amused to note all the countries who discriminate against other countries.
.
Citizens of many countries may visit many other countries without getting a visa. The list of countries whose visitors must get a visa in advance to visit other countries is quite lengthy and amusing--and resembles the list where Trump has suspended granting visas.
.
Here, for example is the map showing the countries whose citizens may not enter Mexico with getting a via in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Mexico... (the gray countries)
.
Here is the map for visiting Germany:
http://www.germany-visa.org/do-i-need-a-visa/ .
Here is the not-unless-you-get-a-visa list for Iceland:
.
http://www.utl.is/index.php/en/who-needs-a-visa .
Is suspending all visitors from a country the same as requiring an advance visa to visit? If they refuse all the applications, yes. But what is interesting is that almost all countries force citizens of lousy countries to get a visa before they come. In other words, they discriminate against categories. Muslim passports are especially bad if you want to be a world traveler.
.
The point is all countries have a shit list of countries who cannot just go there as Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and a few others can. The difference between Trump's shit list, which he got from the Obama administration, and the shit lists of the vast majority of countries is minimal--another molehill being exaggerated by liberals.

    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

These are Visa requirements, not nationwide ban lists. You apply in advance, you wait, you get Visa, you go.
Even Indians and Pakistanis can apply for visas and visit each other. Iranians and Saudis can do so too. Even Arabs and Israelis can do so.
Trump's ban removes the possibility of even applying for a Visa. That's different lad.
And I don't see how a "Muslim passport" has prevented my ex from travelling to almost 90% of the countries around the world.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."

Feb 1, 2017

I would be curious to know of the people who have expressed an opinion on this EO, what % have actually read it.

Feb 2, 2017

are you implying that I must read something and understand it in order to comment and opine on it? its 2017!!!!! I don't need to read the rulebook to know the rules are unfair

    • 5
Feb 1, 2017

lol 'nana

Feb 1, 2017

If the cozy relationship between the government and Goldman Sachs gets ruined, THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I know half of you all want to go work for Goldman and worship GS TMT, but it's bad for any industry when one or two players are favored by the government at the expense of the rest of the industry.

And yes, they do....it's fairly well known on the buy side that if you ever end up in a lawsuit with a large NY bank you do everything in your power to make sure that the court case is decided outside of the New York court system. The reason for that is that there are so many ex-Goldman judges that any court case against them will lose. Judges like Alan Cohen and officials like Mary Jo White are notorious for their blatant bias in favor of large NYC investment banks (mostly Goldman Sachs/MS/JPM).

It doesn't even help the firms themselves. The regulatory changes that the Clintons passed towards the end of their administration admittedly made those firms a LOT of money.......right up until their own incompetence at risk management blew up the market, killing some and crippling others.

In short a more fair regulatory environment (i.e. regulators aren't owned by Goldman Sachs) will be a GOOD thing. It might mean you get clipped for 15-20% on year end bonus check but it also means that the banks will have more even hiring, more demand for deals and more headcount(due to greater confidence in the financial industry), and much lower odds that you will be laid off during a crash.

Since I'm in it for total lifetime value rather than my next year bonus I'd take that every single time.

    • 6
Feb 1, 2017

Lol, Government Sachs is always winning bro. Doesn't really matter if the president is a "populist" or not. Doesn't matter if they voice dissent or not. It's Goldman dude, half the administration are alumni

    • 3
Feb 1, 2017

I don't even like Trump, but the reactions to a 90 day travel ban have been absolutely ridiculous. When Obama banned Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011 there wasn't a word said about it, but Trump does it for half the time and becomes Satan.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Obama's ban did not affect Visa or green-card holders... also he did not ban refugees, this is another alternative fact. He slowed down the process with extra vetting because they uncovered a terrorist plot by two refugees. Here is a quote from the Washington Post on the subject by John Fincher: "While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration's review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here," he wrote in Foreign Policy. "In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban."

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

So the bureaucratic nuances of the immigration bans are why there is mass protest and boycotts? Right. And I've got a bridge in New York to sell you.

NINETY DAYS. 90.

Feb 1, 2017
ThrowADart:

I don't even like Trump, but the reactions to a 90 day travel ban have been absolutely ridiculous. When Obama banned Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011 there wasn't a word said about it, but Trump does it for half the time and becomes Satan.

It's a combination of 3 things:
1. Pre-existing hostility from the left and moderates towards Trump. No need for further explanation.
2. Trump's previous statements. I mean it's still online: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald... Is that ambiguous at all? Is it just the stupid liberal biased media making us all believe that Trump's website says that? Please explain how CNN is causing this mass hallucination. It's pretty obvious what the intent/future plans are from this statement.
3. The manner of implementation. Again no need for further explanation. The suddenness of the implementation was a shock as intended.

Now in principle I don't even disagree with all of this. I know for a fact if you arrive in Israel and you have certain countries stamped on your passport you're going to get interrogated REGARDLESS of your religion. It's just common sense. But we already have a process for vetting refugees. We already have CBP checking passports and asking questions. Nobody from the Trump administration has communicated properly what changes are going to be made to the vetting and security process or how they will made or analyzed. Clearly this lack of communication and the shock factor was all by design (a design by Steve Bannon probably) for some nefarious end. It's all testing the water for far right radical change.

    • 5
Feb 2, 2017

thanks for perfectly summing up the reasons for the protests. Intellectually dishonest sycophants want to claim that talks of a "muslim ban" are made up out of thin air when all evidence says otherwise. The attempt at using Obama to mask this ineffective and divisive policy is hilarious. The reality is people are worried about the expansion of this policy (and rightfully see this ban as an opening salvo preceding a long-term battle) as well as making it permanent. The protesters and those decrying this ban are getting prepared for what's coming, not necessarily just this specific temporary ban.

    • 3
    • 2
Feb 1, 2017

I gotta give GS credit: I'm pretty sure my company doesn't even know how to leave a VM on everyone's phone.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Who leaves voicemails these days? It's not the late 1990s.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2017

Robert Duval, cool it with the GS threads.

Feb 1, 2017

I don't get it.

Feb 2, 2017

Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.
The issue isn't about banning muslims or select nations but about stranding legal aliens in the artificial shores of this nation's airports.
What's scary is that he banned green card and visa holders who just went outside for vacation or business in the middle east or cuba from coming back in. that is batshit insane. The POTUS went against the rule of law, the one thing America truly has for it.
Do you understand the gravity of this act ? these people pay rent and taxes, have all of their assets and liabilities in the US and you just decide that all of them will be barre from re-entry without telling anybody ? so the egyptian grocery teller and the iranian scientist who went abroad for x reasons are now cuffed and left at the door ?
Even more terrifying there are reports out there of people who were coerced into giving up their LEGAL RESIDENT PAPER WORK https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/tr... This is fucked up straight nazi level shit. white supremacists and their ilk dream about this: letting all the muzzis go abroad some week-end and then blocking all of them from coming back in.
You know what's funny about banon&co ? they hate brown people, blacks, muzzies, spics, yellows, jews and not white enough Caucasians equally.

    • 2
    • 3
Feb 2, 2017

Your rant is straight-up bullshit and you know it (or you don't, which is kind of scary). It's obvious to anyone intellectually honest enough to see what's going on, that you left-wing Marxists are pissed off about a fake, non-existent "Muslim ban." Blankfein explicitly states--in the ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD--that his core problem with the Trump order is its attack on "diversity." Virtually every article from the mainstream media on this topic--INCLUDING THE ARTICILE IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD--has some sort of "Muslim ban" language in it. This is not a Muslim ban! I'm not sure it's effective policy, but there is no civil rights violation here! This is NOT an attack on diversity. This has nothing to do with racism. In case you weren't aware, Iranians and Syrians are white, and if you're a white supremacist, anti-Semite (as is alleged, without basis, against Steve Bannon) then you have a long history in the United States of identifying Middle East Jew haters as racial cousins.

One of the problems with you race-baiting communists is that you're too fucking ignorant to even know anything about white supremacy, and your ignorance shows when you accuse American white supremacists, at large, of being both anti-Muslim/anti-Middle Eastern and anti-Semitic. Are you aware that David Duke, who Trump has laughably been considered too close to (despite countless denunciations going back 2 decades), is an Israel-hater and Palestinian supporter?! White supremacists, for decades, have considered Arabs to be their racial cousins and allies in their struggle against the Jews. You would know this if you weren't such an ignorant fuck.

Feb 2, 2017
  1. The first thing I do in my post is exclude the "muslim" theme.
  2. i've spent enough time on stormfront to know what david duke thinks of all these people i've mentioned.
  3. Trump is the commie here, striping legal residents from their assets by blocking them from getting back into the country when they were out temporarily. that's confiscatory, that's real commie shit.
Feb 2, 2017
dick_fluid:

Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever" and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

    • 2
Feb 2, 2017

They are scum because they disregard facts and logics and instead bullshit their way to whatever agenda they have. this is how trump does his business, this is how Kellyan Con-way does her business. We need to stop arguing with these folks and call them out for what they are: bullshitters with an agenda and 0 intellectual honesty.

Feb 2, 2017
CRE:

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

I strongly agree with CRE on this. I also think that personal attacks and vitriol directed at people are only going to increase partisanship and divisiveness. It makes it a lot harder for anyone to walk back on their support for a position (on any side of a debate).

If you want to convince people to change their minds, a good tactic is to make it relatively easy and humiliation-free for them to change their mind.

    • 2
Feb 3, 2017
CRE:

dick_fluid:Virginia tech 4 shit and the other guy, you guys are scum.

Stop this shit.

I disagree with @Virginia Tech 4ever and @TNA on a ton involving Trump, including this immigration ban, but people on this site, and in general, need to learn how to disagree on political matters without throwing a temper tantrum.

Someone isn't scum because they disagree with you. Someone isn't scum because they support the Cheeto Benito. Attacking the argument, not the person, is life advice that will extend far beyond politics.

Just offering some perspective on the matter, but VT has made comments that can be interpreted as very xenophobic. It's easier to understand where the "scum" comment comes from if you look at it from the perspective of being a legal, law-abiding Muslim in the United States, and reading such comments as:

Virginia Tech 4ever:

3) A large portion of America--myself included--support a permanent Muslim immigration ban. I don't see why a temporary ban on a group of people is fundamentally un-American. Please explain. Because we definitely banned communists during the Cold War.

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-busine...
Dude probably doesn't even see the irony in his post. Straight up saying he supports banning everyone, law-abiding and peaceful or not, for believing a certain religion he doesn't agree with. Probably their first instinct to start off with the "scum" comment.

Don't want it to devolve into name calling, and understand where you're coming from - I agree, but just showing some additional insight into what this dude is perpetuating here, it's gonna be hard to refrain for some people who are personally affected by the comments he's making.

And then of course he continues by throwing all the insults he can at any left-leaning at all, including this thread. "Left-wing communists like you"?? He can't refrain at all, just has to insult everyone himself.

Name-calling and personal insults should not be tolerated, from both sides of the political spectrum.

    • 2
Feb 2, 2017

Unbelievable. Just heard a guy in my office complaining about Trump's "Muslim ban." Don't fucking tell me that people aren't being brainwashed by the media in this country. Don't tell me that people are just upset that Libyan businessmen can't travel to the U.S. until April.

Feb 3, 2017
Comment
    • 2