Wrong on Blankfein
Published: Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, 8:53 p.m.
Wrong on Blankfein
I'm always amazed at Joseph Sabino Mistick when he writes about subjects that he has little knowledge of. His column “Honest work” (Dec. 2 and TribLIVE.com) was one of the worst offenders.
Besides his misstatements about Lloyd Blankfein's expertise on employment, Mistick also goes on to denigrate his work ethic. Blankfein started at Goldman Sachs 30 years ago as a commodities trader. To reach the CEO position, Blankfein would have had to work 60 to 80 hours a week for years in an ultra-stressful environment, taking very little vacation or time off. I know — I did that job myself for 20 years at three major investment banks.
I doubt very much that many of those construction or assembly-line workers that Mistick praises in his column could have borne up under the pressure or the burnout rate that Blankfein had to deal with for most of his career.
Also, Goldman did not get a TARP bailout to keep it “afloat.” If Mistick would have checked, he would have seen that Goldman was always very profitable. The Obama administration asked Goldman to take bailout money in order to not single out those firms that had not been profitable and needed the bailout. Please do some fact checking!
Jay W. Sukits
The writer is a University of Pittsburgh professor of finance.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare Obamination
- Maybe problem is kids
- Failing patients & public
- Menace unaddressed
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Thanks to our veterans
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Obama’s lies
- Privatization disastrous
- Nukes, not hoops