Picasso and Praying Mantis
Baboon by Picasso
Picasso Trigger Fish
COMPASSION
3/18/2012
3/16/2012
Quotes
“The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.” --Walt Disney
No matter how tough you are, you won’t make it through a brick walls. The trick is knowing when, and how to go around them.
-- Harvey Mackay
Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" animated
Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" animated - YouTube
Thanks to the person who created the animation:
Uploaded by TimwiTerby on Aug 19, 2008
This is my attempt to animate the famous Elements song by Tom Lehrer. (If you want the lyrics, just do a web search for "Tom Lehrer Elements lyrics".)
I used the following software to create this:
• Visual C# Express
• AviSynth
• VirtualDub
It took me about 9 hours in total.
(This is a second version. The original version had a few errors which I've corrected.)
Category:
Education
Tags:
tom lehrer
License:
Standard YouTube License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer
Uploaded by TimwiTerby on Aug 19, 2008
This is my attempt to animate the famous Elements song by Tom Lehrer. (If you want the lyrics, just do a web search for "Tom Lehrer Elements lyrics".)
I used the following software to create this:
• Visual C# Express
• AviSynth
• VirtualDub
It took me about 9 hours in total.
(This is a second version. The original version had a few errors which I've corrected.)
Category:
Education
Tags:
tom lehrer
License:
Standard YouTube License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer
Tom Lehrer - The old dope peddler
Tom Lehrer - The old dope peddler - YouTube
Thomas Andrew Lehrer (born April 9, 1928) is an American singer-songwriter, satirist, pianist, and mathematician. He has lectured on mathematics and musical theater. Lehrer is best known for the pithy, humorous songs that he recorded in the 1950s and 1960s.
His work often parodies popular song forms, such as in "The Elements", where he sets the names of the chemical elements to the tune of the "Major-General's Song" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance. Lehrer's earlier work typically dealt with non-topical subject matter and was noted for its black humor, seen in songs such as "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park". In the 1960s, he produced a number of songs dealing with social and political issues of the day, particularly when he wrote for the U.S. version of the television show That Was The Week That Was.
In the early 1970s, he retired from public performances to devote his time to teaching mathematics and music theatre at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He did two additional performances in 1998 at a London gala show celebrating the career of impresario Cameron Mackintosh.
Tom Lehrer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Tom Lehrer | |
|---|---|
 Lehrer performing in 1960 | |
| Background information | |
| Birth name | Thomas Andrew Lehrer |
| Born | April 9, 1928 New York, New York |
| Occupations | Mathematician, teacher, lyricist, pianist, composer, singer/songwriter |
| Instruments | Vocals Piano |
| Years active | 1945–1971, 1998 |
| Labels | Reprise/Warner Bros. Records Rhino/Atlantic Records Shout! Factory |
| Associated acts | Joe Raposo |
His work often parodies popular song forms, such as in "The Elements", where he sets the names of the chemical elements to the tune of the "Major-General's Song" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance. Lehrer's earlier work typically dealt with non-topical subject matter and was noted for its black humor, seen in songs such as "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park". In the 1960s, he produced a number of songs dealing with social and political issues of the day, particularly when he wrote for the U.S. version of the television show That Was The Week That Was.
In the early 1970s, he retired from public performances to devote his time to teaching mathematics and music theatre at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He did two additional performances in 1998 at a London gala show celebrating the career of impresario Cameron Mackintosh.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer
3/15/2012
As Goldman Thrives, Some Say an Ethos Has Faded - NYTimes.com
Goldman has had its detractors in the past
As Goldman Thrives, Some Say an Ethos Has Faded - NYTimes.com
As Goldman Thrives, Some Say an Ethos Has Faded - NYTimes.com
As Goldman Thrives, Some Say an Ethos Has Faded
Just over a week ago, on the evening of Dec. 7, Lloyd C. Blankfein hosted a reunion of one of the most elite clubs in American finance: former partners of Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street giant he has led, with remarkable and controversial success, since 2006.
The gathering, held at the venerable New York Athletic Club, both celebrated Goldman’s past and looked toward its future. What, Mr. Blankfein was asked, did he want his legacy to be?
Mr. Blankfein replied that like his predecessors, he hoped to position Goldman Sachs to capitalize on whatever opportunities might arise during his tenure. As bland as that might sound, few on or off Wall Street have seized opportunities in these troubled economic times as skillfully as Mr. Blankfein.
But as President Obama prods the financial industry to do more to help ordinary Americans — he chided “fat cat bankers” on Sunday for increasing their pay — some current and former Goldman executives say Mr. Blankfein has built a money machine that, while it still values its customers, culture and reputation, puts profits above all.
Interviews with nearly 20 current and former Goldman partners paint a portrait of a bank driven by hard-charging traders like Mr. Blankfein, who wager vast sums in world markets in hopes of quick profits. Discreet bankers who give advice to corporate clients and help them raise capital — once a major source of earnings for Goldman — have been eclipsed, these people said.
Mr. Blankfein has surrounded himself with a tight circle of executives drawn from Goldman’s trading operation. Many of these executives, like Mr. Blankfein, cut their teeth in the commodities division, J. Aron & Company. Gary D. Cohn, Goldman’s president, as well as the heads of the bank’s asset management division, are J. Aron alumni. So is the head of human resources.
With the traders ascendant, Goldman’s bankers are being urged to generate bigger profits. In what former partners called a significant shift, Goldman now uses “profiles” to track how much money its bankers are bringing in.
Granted, money is what makes Wall Street run, and Goldman Sachs is no exception.
“I don’t buy the argument that the old Goldman was more principled and less greedy,” said Arthur Levitt, a Goldman adviser and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But even Goldman concedes it is changing with the times. “This business is all about serving clients, and if you don’t evolve, you die,” said Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman.
After first guiding Goldman through the near collapse of the nation’s financial system and then deftly extricating his bank from a federal bailout, Mr. Blankfein is now presiding over one of the richest periods in the bank’s 140-year history. Mr. Blankfein has accelerated a decade-long decline of Goldman’s old partnership ethos, which was built around the principle that its bankers and traders can do well — indeed, very well — while putting their customers first, former partners said.
Some Goldman alumni worry that Mr. Blankfein is jeopardizing the culture of success that defined the bank for much of its modern history. They wonder if Goldman will become, as one former partner put it, “just like every other bank on Wall Street” — that is, focused on short-term profits rather than long-term gains.
Publicly, Mr. Blankfein espouses the Goldman Sachs way. But privately, current and former partners say that he has fundamentally changed the way Goldman views its customers and the broader marketplace. The changes began when Goldman went public in the late 1990s, but have accelerated under Mr. Blankfein, they say.
None of these people were willing to speak out publicly about Goldman, which, for most of them, has been the source of sizable fortunes.
Bowing to pressure from shareholders and the public to rein in runaway pay on Wall Street, Goldman announced last week that its top executives, including Mr. Blankfein, would forgo cash bonuses this year. Instead, the executives will be paid in the form of special stock — an arrangement that, while eliminating big paydays this year, nonetheless may turn out to be enormously lucrative if Goldman’s share prices rises in the future.
Even so, many Goldman employees are stunned by the public resentment directed at the bank in general and Mr. Blankfein in particular, who, after first steadfastly defending Goldman’s profits and pay, recently offered a vague apology for “mistakes” that led to the financial crisis.
“Would John Weinberg ever be in this situation?” asked one former partner, referring to the legendary senior partner who ran Goldman for many years. “No way. He would have thought about the firm over 50, 100 years, not what people will get paid this year.”
Since the modern Goldman emerged during the Depression, its executives have cultivated a ruthless professionalism tempered by what might best be described as Goldman Sachs Exceptionalism: a sense that Goldman stands apart from, if not above, Wall Street rivals.
This sense, strengthened by a tradition of government service among senior executives, runs deep inside the bank’s headquarters at 85 Broad Street in Lower Manhattan. Indeed, from the day they arrive, employees are steeped in the firm’s 14 principles. No. 1 is: “Our clients’ interests always come first. Our experience shows that if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow.”
Almost from the start, however, two camps inside Goldman competed for profits and power: investment bankers and traders.
Today, the traders — Mr. Blankfein’s camp — are firmly in power. While Goldman employs nearly 31,000 people, in business ranging from money management to traditional investment banking, the bank makes the bulk of its money from trading. Mr. van Praag said 50 percent of Goldman’s revenue came from fees that it charged for services like investment banking. The other half is generated by Goldman, using its capital for itself and its clients. While Mr. Blankfein’s traders are minting money, his investment bankers are being pressed to keep a closer eye on the bottom line. Bankers who once spent years cultivating corporate clients in hopes of one day landing lucrative work like advising on a big merger, are now being urged to squeeze more revenue from their customers.
In 2006, Jon Winkelried, a Blankfein lieutenant who was then Goldman’s co-president, stunned some bankers by suggesting that the bank make more money from its powerful corporate customers. One goal was to have Goldman wear several hats in deals, for example, by advising on a merger, financing it and investing in the transaction.
Mr. Winkelried and executives under Mr. Blankfein changed the way investment bankers were measured. Goldman instituted banker “profiles,” a sort of daily profit and loss statement, to see how much business its employees and clients were doing. While such assessments have long been common elsewhere on Wall Street, Goldman disdained them until Mr. Blankfein became chairman and chief executive.
Mr. Winkelried, who has since left Goldman, declined to comment for this article.
The shift had two effects, Goldman bankers said: It focused employees on the customers who might generate the most money for Goldman, and it prompted bankers to fight more aggressively for credit for their deals.
“It was more efficient,” one former partner said. “But it changed the way we ran the business.”
Mr. van Praag, the Goldman spokesman, said that banker scorecards were traditionally used only for so-called relationship bankers, who cultivate customers over time. But starting in 2001, investment bankers became responsible for a wider array of products — debt, complicated securitized products, and other types of financing — and the new system kept a tally on all their activities, not just advisory work with clients.
The profiles update automatically with revenue tallies. Bankers may review them at any time.
Former partners said that while Goldman had always sought to maximize profits, the bank used to take a longer-term view. For instance, if a corporation that Goldman was advising decided against a merger, the bank would not necessarily drop the customer, figuring that it might reap profits from a deal in the future.
“You probably had a little more tolerance for longer-term perspective,” one former partner said.
Given Goldman’s plans to pay out billions of dollars in bonuses this year, many outsiders might think the bank pays little attention to its public image. In fact, current and former executives say, Goldman is acutely aware of its diminished public standing.
But even people close to Goldman acknowledge that as long as the bank is making a lot of money, public opinion does not matter all that much.
“Their reputation has suffered,” Mr. Levitt said. “So has every other financial institution. And I’d rather suffer the way Goldman suffers.”
Still, Goldman’s tarnished reputation has become a hot topic inside the bank. A few months ago, at a meeting of Goldman’s in-house leadership program, known as the Pine Street Group, the bank’s image came up. The group of 30-odd people wrestled with questions like how to talk to family members about Goldman and its role in the financial world.
Another question that came up was what to do if someone at a cocktail party started criticizing Goldman. Mr. van Praag, who ran the meeting, suggested that the executives should explain how Goldman made its money. But another Goldman executive offered a different answer: change the subject.
The gathering, held at the venerable New York Athletic Club, both celebrated Goldman’s past and looked toward its future. What, Mr. Blankfein was asked, did he want his legacy to be?
Mr. Blankfein replied that like his predecessors, he hoped to position Goldman Sachs to capitalize on whatever opportunities might arise during his tenure. As bland as that might sound, few on or off Wall Street have seized opportunities in these troubled economic times as skillfully as Mr. Blankfein.
But as President Obama prods the financial industry to do more to help ordinary Americans — he chided “fat cat bankers” on Sunday for increasing their pay — some current and former Goldman executives say Mr. Blankfein has built a money machine that, while it still values its customers, culture and reputation, puts profits above all.
Interviews with nearly 20 current and former Goldman partners paint a portrait of a bank driven by hard-charging traders like Mr. Blankfein, who wager vast sums in world markets in hopes of quick profits. Discreet bankers who give advice to corporate clients and help them raise capital — once a major source of earnings for Goldman — have been eclipsed, these people said.
Mr. Blankfein has surrounded himself with a tight circle of executives drawn from Goldman’s trading operation. Many of these executives, like Mr. Blankfein, cut their teeth in the commodities division, J. Aron & Company. Gary D. Cohn, Goldman’s president, as well as the heads of the bank’s asset management division, are J. Aron alumni. So is the head of human resources.
With the traders ascendant, Goldman’s bankers are being urged to generate bigger profits. In what former partners called a significant shift, Goldman now uses “profiles” to track how much money its bankers are bringing in.
Granted, money is what makes Wall Street run, and Goldman Sachs is no exception.
“I don’t buy the argument that the old Goldman was more principled and less greedy,” said Arthur Levitt, a Goldman adviser and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But even Goldman concedes it is changing with the times. “This business is all about serving clients, and if you don’t evolve, you die,” said Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman.
After first guiding Goldman through the near collapse of the nation’s financial system and then deftly extricating his bank from a federal bailout, Mr. Blankfein is now presiding over one of the richest periods in the bank’s 140-year history. Mr. Blankfein has accelerated a decade-long decline of Goldman’s old partnership ethos, which was built around the principle that its bankers and traders can do well — indeed, very well — while putting their customers first, former partners said.
Some Goldman alumni worry that Mr. Blankfein is jeopardizing the culture of success that defined the bank for much of its modern history. They wonder if Goldman will become, as one former partner put it, “just like every other bank on Wall Street” — that is, focused on short-term profits rather than long-term gains.
Publicly, Mr. Blankfein espouses the Goldman Sachs way. But privately, current and former partners say that he has fundamentally changed the way Goldman views its customers and the broader marketplace. The changes began when Goldman went public in the late 1990s, but have accelerated under Mr. Blankfein, they say.
None of these people were willing to speak out publicly about Goldman, which, for most of them, has been the source of sizable fortunes.
Bowing to pressure from shareholders and the public to rein in runaway pay on Wall Street, Goldman announced last week that its top executives, including Mr. Blankfein, would forgo cash bonuses this year. Instead, the executives will be paid in the form of special stock — an arrangement that, while eliminating big paydays this year, nonetheless may turn out to be enormously lucrative if Goldman’s share prices rises in the future.
Even so, many Goldman employees are stunned by the public resentment directed at the bank in general and Mr. Blankfein in particular, who, after first steadfastly defending Goldman’s profits and pay, recently offered a vague apology for “mistakes” that led to the financial crisis.
“Would John Weinberg ever be in this situation?” asked one former partner, referring to the legendary senior partner who ran Goldman for many years. “No way. He would have thought about the firm over 50, 100 years, not what people will get paid this year.”
Since the modern Goldman emerged during the Depression, its executives have cultivated a ruthless professionalism tempered by what might best be described as Goldman Sachs Exceptionalism: a sense that Goldman stands apart from, if not above, Wall Street rivals.
This sense, strengthened by a tradition of government service among senior executives, runs deep inside the bank’s headquarters at 85 Broad Street in Lower Manhattan. Indeed, from the day they arrive, employees are steeped in the firm’s 14 principles. No. 1 is: “Our clients’ interests always come first. Our experience shows that if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow.”
Almost from the start, however, two camps inside Goldman competed for profits and power: investment bankers and traders.
Today, the traders — Mr. Blankfein’s camp — are firmly in power. While Goldman employs nearly 31,000 people, in business ranging from money management to traditional investment banking, the bank makes the bulk of its money from trading. Mr. van Praag said 50 percent of Goldman’s revenue came from fees that it charged for services like investment banking. The other half is generated by Goldman, using its capital for itself and its clients. While Mr. Blankfein’s traders are minting money, his investment bankers are being pressed to keep a closer eye on the bottom line. Bankers who once spent years cultivating corporate clients in hopes of one day landing lucrative work like advising on a big merger, are now being urged to squeeze more revenue from their customers.
In 2006, Jon Winkelried, a Blankfein lieutenant who was then Goldman’s co-president, stunned some bankers by suggesting that the bank make more money from its powerful corporate customers. One goal was to have Goldman wear several hats in deals, for example, by advising on a merger, financing it and investing in the transaction.
Mr. Winkelried and executives under Mr. Blankfein changed the way investment bankers were measured. Goldman instituted banker “profiles,” a sort of daily profit and loss statement, to see how much business its employees and clients were doing. While such assessments have long been common elsewhere on Wall Street, Goldman disdained them until Mr. Blankfein became chairman and chief executive.
Mr. Winkelried, who has since left Goldman, declined to comment for this article.
The shift had two effects, Goldman bankers said: It focused employees on the customers who might generate the most money for Goldman, and it prompted bankers to fight more aggressively for credit for their deals.
“It was more efficient,” one former partner said. “But it changed the way we ran the business.”
Mr. van Praag, the Goldman spokesman, said that banker scorecards were traditionally used only for so-called relationship bankers, who cultivate customers over time. But starting in 2001, investment bankers became responsible for a wider array of products — debt, complicated securitized products, and other types of financing — and the new system kept a tally on all their activities, not just advisory work with clients.
The profiles update automatically with revenue tallies. Bankers may review them at any time.
Former partners said that while Goldman had always sought to maximize profits, the bank used to take a longer-term view. For instance, if a corporation that Goldman was advising decided against a merger, the bank would not necessarily drop the customer, figuring that it might reap profits from a deal in the future.
“You probably had a little more tolerance for longer-term perspective,” one former partner said.
Given Goldman’s plans to pay out billions of dollars in bonuses this year, many outsiders might think the bank pays little attention to its public image. In fact, current and former executives say, Goldman is acutely aware of its diminished public standing.
But even people close to Goldman acknowledge that as long as the bank is making a lot of money, public opinion does not matter all that much.
“Their reputation has suffered,” Mr. Levitt said. “So has every other financial institution. And I’d rather suffer the way Goldman suffers.”
Still, Goldman’s tarnished reputation has become a hot topic inside the bank. A few months ago, at a meeting of Goldman’s in-house leadership program, known as the Pine Street Group, the bank’s image came up. The group of 30-odd people wrestled with questions like how to talk to family members about Goldman and its role in the financial world.
Another question that came up was what to do if someone at a cocktail party started criticizing Goldman. Mr. van Praag, who ran the meeting, suggested that the executives should explain how Goldman made its money. But another Goldman executive offered a different answer: change the subject.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs - NYTimes.com
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs - NYTimes.com
Victor Kerlow
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
This op-ed demonstrates the power of the media and particularly the venerable New York Times. Goldman Sachs shares plummeted on the news of this article which went viral on the internet and Businessweek says lost $ 2.2 billion in market value:
Goldman Stunned by Op-Ed Loses $2.2 Billion - Businessweek
This article is today's reading assignment for the other 99% who have little influence in the world of finance. Occupy Wall Street wants to shine a light on the lack of morality and business ethics figuring into decisions made by the powerful financiers of Wall Street.
Victor Kerlow
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
By GREG SMITH
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.
Occupy Wall Street – Commercializing the Revolution — RT
This is a great video and the RT encouraged downloading or embedding....
Occupy Wall Street – Commercializing the Revolution — RT
United States, New York: Members of the Occupy Wall Street community join Teamsters in front of the auction house Sotheby's to protest the lockout of union art handlers in a contract dispute on October 18, 2011. (AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)
Edited: 21 October, 2011, 12:29
United States, New York: Members of the Occupy Wall Street community join Teamsters in front of the auction house Sotheby's to protest the lockout of union art handlers in a contract dispute on October 18, 2011. (AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)
Edited: 21 October, 2011, 12:29
United States, New York: Members of the Occupy Wall Street community join Teamsters in front of the auction house Sotheby's to protest the lockout of union art handlers in a contract dispute on October 18, 2011. (AFP Photo / Spencer Platt)
(21.7Mb) embed videoTRENDS: Occupy Wall Street
Could the Occupy Wall Street trademark be on its way to becoming a successful business trick?
Companies big and small have been swarming to the encampment like bees to honey. For example, there are 99-percent effective Occupy condoms helping Americans fight against being screwed.
“The attention we’ve gotten over this last week has been great. Orders have been coming in. We have sold a couple of thousand Occupy condoms,” said Adam Glickman of Condomania in Los Angeles.
A nice fresh pie, tomato sauce, mozzarella and pepperoni make up an Occu-pied meat pizza – a neighborhood special sold a few steps away from where the camp has been set up
Protesters don’t seem to mind that businesses are using the Occupy Wall Street name to stir up sales.
“Part of the reason why this movement is so successful is because people in business, people who theoretically profit off this exploitation, are also unhappy with the way things are working,” said Harrison Schultz, a member of the Occupy Wall Street PR team.
As they say – everyone is just trying to keep afloat in a terrible economy.
“It’s the 99 percent. They’re trying to make their own ends meet. Feed families. Keep their electricity turned on,” said protester Joey Piersen.
As well as so many having so little – that’s exactly why the protesters are camping out – with a little help from businesses spreading the word.
Companies big and small have been swarming to the encampment like bees to honey. For example, there are 99-percent effective Occupy condoms helping Americans fight against being screwed.
“The attention we’ve gotten over this last week has been great. Orders have been coming in. We have sold a couple of thousand Occupy condoms,” said Adam Glickman of Condomania in Los Angeles.
There are over 3,000 items of Occupy Wall Street merchandise – pins, T-shirts and even an Occupiers’ hygiene kit – starting at 12 bucks a pack – available for purchase on Ebay.
A nice fresh pie, tomato sauce, mozzarella and pepperoni make up an Occu-pied meat pizza – a neighborhood special sold a few steps away from where the camp has been set up
Protesters don’t seem to mind that businesses are using the Occupy Wall Street name to stir up sales.
“Part of the reason why this movement is so successful is because people in business, people who theoretically profit off this exploitation, are also unhappy with the way things are working,” said Harrison Schultz, a member of the Occupy Wall Street PR team.
As they say – everyone is just trying to keep afloat in a terrible economy.
“It’s the 99 percent. They’re trying to make their own ends meet. Feed families. Keep their electricity turned on,” said protester Joey Piersen.
“People making a couple of bucks here and there – nothing compared to the Goldman Sachs gang. Far too few have much too much,” said trends caster Gerald Celente.
As well as so many having so little – that’s exactly why the protesters are camping out – with a little help from businesses spreading the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)