Truth be told, I had only made it partway through the movie “Inside Job” before writing the post below. As I returned to the movie the next segment was about the major investment firms such as Goldman Sachs using high priced call girls as part of their entertainment expenses.
This struck me as hilarious for reasons you’ll only find on a blog like this. I want to know why they would use something like this as a negative (which was their purpose) against these firms.
As you know, our thinking is different from what you will find elsewhere, we are international people mind you.
In the documentary, they interview the President of the high priced call girl firm that most investment banks used. Very tan, blond hair and huge breasteses. She points out that she had a MASSIVE amount of investment firm employees using her services.
My question is,,, Who cares?”
They put this in the film as a way to demonize these investment firms. But before I continue I must point out that this film had some major clout. They had access to just about everyone and it was narrated by Matt Damon! Yes MATT DAMON!
But getting back to the Prostitutes….. Well, you know what? I feel uncomfortable calling them prostitutes. By doing so in the English language this is seen as a negative, it seems degrading. Let me call them “Call Girls.” If you read my post before the one below you will see that I have nothing against prostitutes and feel very sorry, even friendly towards most of them.
Instead, why don’t we just call them Geisha which holds a much more revered standing for international people. Well, that wouldn’t be fair either.
You see, Geisha are highly trained in the entertaining arts. They play the shamisen, they know how to serve with the upmost delicacy, and are revered in Japanese culture. So maybe Geisha is too high for what the investment bankers… er.. … invested in. What they are looking for is probably more along these lines.
Instead, let’s just call them “Call Girls.” Why is it that this film would use them as a way to demonize investment bankers?
The answer is we have a puritan strain running through this country and to whose principles we adhere. This runs counter to our “free market” laissez faire mentality. There is a demand, there is a supplier, and in accordance with our market principles this would make a perfect match and Government should not interfere. (Tea Party anyone?)
So as not to seem elitist it is only fair to explain “laissez faire” since most writers just use this to sound highly educated. Laissez faire, in French means “Let it be.” So in market terms, we should just let supply and demand regulate themselves.
It would seem that our “free-market” mentality sometimes runs smack into our puritan,,, er…. Moral principles. Isn’t it weird how the Republican party on one hand wants less intervention/regulation unless of course it interferes with their “moral majority” voting block?
These Moralists are anything but Laissez Fair but instead adhere to religion as their guiding principles. Therefore, they do not want Government regulation but regulation by religion instead!
And by what authority to they ask for these regulations? Well the Bible of course! But in America it is ok to just make stuff up and interpret these rules as they want them to be. If the Christians were purists, they should probably be Catholic as Peter is the rock that the church was built on. But no, they reject Peter, they reject the government, and just want to make their own interpretations based on the Bible.
Wow, got way off track there. Where was I? Oh yes, Prostit… er Call Girls.
To get back on track let me tell you a story.
When I lived in Vietnam I had access to a lot of highly important diplomats, Country CEO managers etc. You know how they did business? Well, if they wanted to get things done in a certain country they would bribe government officials with prostit… Call Girls…. just being one trick up their sleeve mind you.
They could file this under the “entertainment” expense which was massive. It reminds me of a joke…
“How do you get a government official to approve your project?”
“Any way you can.”
Wow, that was a terrible joke. But it was true none the less.
In Asia, this is pretty much commonplace if not expected. But in America, we are puritans and this would be seen as “bad,” thus the documentary makers viewed it in such a light.
So my question remains, “Who Cares?”
Is it that in the USA such things are frowned upon due to our religious strain? Thus, entertainment by investment bankers should really be based on religious thinking? We do have separation of Church and State but how were the laws made? By religious people!!
Thus many laws are just an extension of religion.
So, who cares if the investment bankers paid a bit of money for lots of honey. Demand = Supply, to go against this basic principle would run counter to their very business and dare I say the profit making center the USA has become!
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Less regulation = more whoopee!
Let us end with a hymn.