Goldman Sachs is not afraid of anything. As a Alessio Rastani said on the BBC, governments don't run the world, Goldman Sachs runs the world.
It's CEOs and executives become high officials in the government, and then they bail it out with taxpayer money. It has weathered all the storms of the 20th and 21st century, and come out stronger every time. It's profits grow unquestioned and so do it's misdeeds.
But what is Goldman Sachs afraid of?
I speculate here that it is afraid of Public Media, like NPR and PBS.
For decades, Goldman Sachs was incredibly secretive. There were few books written about the institution. It's headquarters did not even have the name Goldman Sachs on it - it was just a gigantic, monolith building with the address numbers on the front entrance in New York City.
Something happened at the end of the 2000s decade. Goldman Sachs started advertising.
Why does an investment bank (which is largely a hedge fund) need advertising? What product is it selling? Why do ordinary people need to know that Goldman Sachs does anything at all? They are not it's customers.
It is a good question - one you might ask about other companies like BASF &c. The Public Relations industry answered this question a few decades ago - defending polluters and companies who kill workers with campaigns like "Better living through plastics". Goldman Sachs and high finance are simply the latest people to the PR party.
Now, which outlets is Goldman Sachs advertising through?
Public nonprofit media, like PBS. I am right now, as I type, watching PBS Frontline, online, about US murderer and Mumbai attacker David Coleman Headley. Every ten minutes or so, in between the ambient music and dour, depressing Frontline-style narrative voice, I am told that Goldman Sachs is responsible for the 'mobile revolution'. SanDisk, in particular, is painted as 'engineers who see the future', whose creations are enabled only through the magic of the investment bankers at Goldman Sachs, who find them investors.
PBS didn't used to allow commercials. On broadcast television, they never did. Instead, they allowed only 'underwriting'. Corporations were allowed to provide very limited animations and graphics for the screen - but the voiceover was obviously some button down public television style of enunciation, and the text was bland and endeavored to be minimalistic in it's flaunting of the benefits of the donator corporation. Often they were simply under a single title with voiceoiver; for example: "Brought to you by the Mobil Corporation".
What has changed? I do not know what goes on inside the high offices of Public Media in the United States. There are many things one could speculate about, but I will refrain.
But something has to have changed - we can see it right there. The evidence is as plain as day.
But, one might ask, why has Goldman Sachs decided to become a major funder of public media?
It is certainly not to get customers. Their customers are billionaires.
It is to perform Public Relations.
But why Public Media? Why not daytime television?
That is the matter at hand.
Here I will speculate. Public Media is one of the few outlets investigating the financial crash of 2008. Shows like Frontline are one of the few means that ordinary people have to understand things like Credit Default Swaps, Collateralized Debt Obligations, and the relationship of Goldman Sachs to the government, the bailouts, and the Great Recession.
The introduction of Goldman Sachs to a public profile through advertising is an extraordinary event in it's history. The introduction of mass advertising to Public Media is also an extraordinary event in it's history.
I'm not saying there is proof they are trying to bribe public media into stopping doing stories on high finance and the corruption of our government and banking system.
I'm just saying.
If you were going to find out what is really going on inside Goldman and Public Media, it might be interesting to look into this possibility.