As you're aware, Lloyd Blankfein apologized yesterday for "participating in things that were clearly wrong," because Goldman is "very concerned" about its reputation, and who doesn't love a good "Sorry, I was wrong," particularly done in public to up the humiliation factor? Obviously LB and Co are hoping it's enough to silence all the peasants and Matt Taibbis out there, though the early reviews don't think Blankfein sufficiently proved he actually meant it. Really, though, it doesn't much matter because who cares what the plebes and the marine biology smut writers of the world think? They've been given $500 million to quit the bitching and honestly? Lloyd may have bigger, more important apologies to make, on the inside. Forget the populist pitchforks. Those are idle threats, and LB can take them. This is the shit he should recoiling his gold-plated scrot over.
Everyone knows that according to a simplistic calculation of average compensation, the typical person at Goldman Sachs earns a lot more than the typical person at almost any other organization you might care to think of. Now, an equally simplistic calculation, and one used by Lloyd Blankfein himself, implies that Goldman's London bankers are more handsomely rewarded than its bankers in New York.
Last week Blankfein claimed his people were "one of the most productive workforces in the world", earning on average $196,000 in the years 2000 to 2008, more than double the figure at other American banks. Alas, some sharp-eyed observers have noticed that this is much less than the £181,000 that Blankfein had previously said was the average among the bank's 5,500 workers in Britain. Has Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs chief executive, overstepped the mark -- again?