Goldman Sachs CEO, Clinton Backer: Clinton Admin Would Have Resulted in More Regulation, Lower Market

January 25, 2018

Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein on Wednesday touted the Trump administration's influence on the economy, contrasting it with a hypothetical Clinton administration, under which he predicted there would be "more regulation" and the "market would be lower."

Blankfein, a longtime personal friend of Hillary Clinton and supporter of her 2016 presidential campaign, spoke on CNBC's "Squawk Box" about the economy and the Trump administration's role in shaping policy.

Co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin, talking to Blankfein during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, mentioned how Blankfein occasionally trolls President Donald Trump on Twitter. He then asked the Goldman CEO if his view of the president had changed at all in the first year, specifically referencing the successful passage of tax reform.

"Look, there's a lot of stuff that I like and probably if I just added, looked at it, I'd say I like a lot more stuff than I don't like, and some of the stuff I don't like, I really don't like," Blankfein said.

"But I don't want to be hypocritical, either," Blankfein added. "I've really liked what he's done for the economy and I think he's gone out of his way to be very, very supportive of the system."

"Are you now happy about the outcome of the election, or do you still wish the other candidate had won?" co-host Joe Kernen asked.

Blankfein said it was a "compound question" and one he didn't need to answer, prompting Kernen to prod further.

"But you like tax reform. Tax reform wouldn't have happened [under Clinton]," Kernen said.

"True, I think the market would be lower. I'd be dealing with more regulation compounding–too much regulation in some respects. I'd have more of it, not less of it," Blankfein said. "I'd say the animal spirits are out there and a little bit more vital than they would have been otherwise. The country might be a bit less polarized, but I'm not even sure about that to get to the point, because not one party is responsible for the polarization."