http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230469280457728...
When Goldman doled out annual bonuses earlier this year, Mr. Smith's small payment became a point of friction, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Smith hadn't previously voiced his concerns about Goldman to his managers, according to people familiar with the matter.
Occam's Razor says that the NYT was masterfully trolled.
So no, it's not Occam's Razor: if he were merely unhappy with his bonus, he would call another i-bank and move on.
BTW, I notice you're always quick to defend the big money status quo around here (you were against net neutrality a while back, IIRC).
What's in it for you, as a mere SEO "consultant"?
Are you paid to post these talking points, or do you really believe what you say?
Do you know anyone who pays people for saying stuff like this on random message boards? I tend to say this kind of thing because I think it's true, and because I'm unimpressed with the quality of opposing arguments and would like someone to refute me. But if I can get paid while I'm at it, that's even better! I don't think the economics really work out, though.
Possible, but unlikely.
Smith must have known he'd be attacked personally (as in that ad hominem piece you posted), and it's unlikely another bank would want to touch him, regardless of their true feelings towards Goldman.
Do you know anyone who pays people for saying stuff like this on random message boards?
Sure: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/pku22/iama_former_koch...
I tend to say this kind of thing because I think it's true, and because I'm unimpressed with the quality of opposing arguments and would like someone to refute me.
I'll give you credit for the latter (if it's true), but not the former.
OTOH, there is a lot of PR spending on social media (e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/politics/obama-campaign...), so it wouldn't surprise me if Goldman has hired people to smear Smith on forums like this one.
What if all it took to "solve the problem" were a few choice words said to the right person?
This kind of smearing is almost certainly happening all over the place because there is tons of motive, tons of opportunity, and many people with a habit of being unscrupulous.
I cannot, no.
But a large (and dare I say ruthless) organization interested in limiting the PR damage?
Sure.
It reflects poorly on you that you'd rather accuse someone of being dishonest than take a little effort to check your paranoia.
I have often wondered, though, about his alacrity to side with the establishment, in defense of investment bankers, against net neutrality, etc., and what his motivation is.
He figures finance is dead as a way to make people wealthy, so he's setting himself up for a career change into criticism of the financial industry, which looks like it's a booming business.
Michael Lewis ended his career in finance by writing Liar's Poker. But he jump-started a successful career as an author and journalist. Something tells me he's doing better than he ever could have in his old career.