Liar’s Poker, as depicted by Michael Lewis, is a game played by the big swinging dicks of wall street, the aim of which is to mislead and deceive your opponent slash co-worker. With this as metaphor, Lewis establishes the tenor of the book. He provides a tell-all account chronicling the excesses of Wall Street in the 1980s. His testimony is as much disturbing as it is hilarious. On the premises of Wall Street being the focal point of the time, Lewis claims that the narrative of his voyage from lowly geek to venerated bonds salesmen at Salomon Brothers forms the epitome of the attitudes that characterized an era (p.11).
Hence, to provide a comprehensive review, it is necessary to frame the book in its broader historic context. The portrayed period falls into the Reagan and Thatcher administration, which was shaped by a revived liberal capitalistic agenda (Niskanen, 2017). After the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, the government had grown disproportionally. Prior to Reagan’s administration the US economy faced a decade of surging unemployment and inflation and, thus, political pressure to provide economic stimulus. From a socialist stance, the trajectory “represented a significant retreat from a vision of society – the Keynesian welfare state – that had motivated state strategies […] to politically regulate the market economy and thereby reduce […] social conflicts” (Krieger, 1987, p.177). Michael Lewis certainly can be said to be of capitalistic mind-set, yet, he denounces Adam Smith’s notion of the invisible hand and provides evidence that capitalism in its rawest form is self-destructive throughout the book (esp. p.81), which leaves him in a position that is somewhat torn between the opposing views of the decade. With Wall Street as its microcosm, Liar’s Poker touches upon an array of critiques of the liberalistic agenda, especially ego-centrism (e.g. pp.75, 81), sexism (e.g. pp.79, 80, 281) and distributive injustice (e.g. pp.36, 56, 292). That is to say, the narrative provides an extreme account of the brute force capitalistic ideas develop when left unrestricted.
More importantly though, Michael Lewis calls into question whether monetary measures should be the “standards we use to measure ourselves” (p.11) and, thereby, attacks what lies at the heart of capitalism. With respect to the belief that financial success constitutes self-worth, the tone is shaped by negative connotations and cynical comments (esp. p. 69), giving voice to Lewis’ disapproval. Developing the argument further, Liar’s Poker highlights in gory detail how a community would look, in which individuals are driven by an ideology which justifies all actions in the name of money.
In this way, the book gains an ethical dimension, making Michael Lewis’ portrayal of Wall Street the subject of moral analysis. It is evident, that Lewis condemns the actions and attitudes as deeply unethical. For instance, one passage reads “[the investment banker] didn’t let morality get in the way” (p.105), another “[the investment banker] rarely stakes out the moral high ground” (p.268). Further, Lewis commonly compares the observed practices to primitive behavioural forms (e.g. pp.46, 89). On multiple accounts, acts of abuse (e.g. pp.53, 92, 124, 223), violence (e.g. pp.71, 85, 109) and dishonesty (e.g. pp. 72, 33) are mentioned. Hence, the reader is guided to interpret his narrative in a similar manner. Clearly, approaching the plot from the perspective of ethical absolutism, one can build a strong argument against moral behaviour at Salomon Brothers. Taking into consideration Kant’s categorical imperative, the conduct and practices of working at Salomon Brothers are certainly not in line with what Kant refers to as “good will” (2010). In fact, work, as described by Lewis, neither treats humanity as ends nor do all subjects behave as if their maxims could be universal laws of nature. Also, in light of utilitarian principles of common morality, behaviour at Salomon Brothers can be rejected to procure the greatest happiness for the greatest number and, thus, can be seen as profoundly unethical. Throughout the book numerous anecdotes highlight, how it was common practice to make decisions that benefitted Salomon Brothers on the cost of its customers (e.g. pp.211ff.).
Although the above way of reasoning probably provides the stronger argumentative ground, an alternative way of engaging with the moral content of conduct at Salomon Brothers would be trough the position of ethical relativism. Based on Herder (1932), Häyry defines the subjective variation of ethical relativism as reminder that “every individual (and, metaphorically speaking, every culture and nation) has her or his or its own viewpoint.” (2005, p.9). Hence, if just for a moment it is assumed that the trading department or, more general, Wall Street constitutes a community in its own right, then it might be argued that within that community everyone behaves according to what in the eyes of the collective is seen as “right”. As per definition, a community can be formed through the sense of togetherness as shared ends are sought (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). In Lewis’ words traders were “fervent believer in the primacy of economic life” (p.27). Hence, organizational behaviour at Salomon Brothers to some degree resembles the system developed in Machiavelli’s The Prince (1989); where “making money” represents the end and any action taken towards that end is assigned the concept of “right”. Following this logic, abuse, sexism, violence and dishonesty have no ethical value or are even admirable if they generate the desired goal. With this in mind, a passage of Liar’s poker reads; “goodness was not taken into account on the trading floor. It was neither rewarded nor punished. It just was. Or wasn’t” (p.81), all that mattered was that a trader “kept swinging that big bat of his”. While this might sound deranged or even insane to readers outside of the community, it might not to members of said community.
Even though Lewis strongly distances himself from the extreme form, the question of whether he completely liberated himself from monetary motifs remains ambiguous. Despite stating that his “money belief” had vanished towards the end of his career at Salomon Brothers, his concluding remarks construe how deeply the trader personality is still routed within him.
Taking a step back, Lewis is not alike other investment bankers of the 1980s. He graduated cum laude in art history from Princeton, providing him with a degree of aesthetic sensibility, that greatly influences his writing. Lewis is able to write with a sense of detachment, withal making Liar’s Poker his story throughout. As any good piece of written argumentative work, Liar’s poker appeals to all modes of persuasion. By not excluding himself from his own judgement, Lewis avoids the accusation of being driven by motives other than the willingness to reveal the truth. In fact, in defining himself as a success of the system that he criticises, he establishes an ethos, that is hard to dismiss. Likewise, personal anecdotes and intimate reports draw the reader in on an emotional level. While Lewis hardly voices his criticism and disapproval directly, his writing tone is profoundly world-weary. He utilizes elements of humour to highlight the grotesqueness of the observations he made at wall street. In particular, his writing style is shaped by provocative comparisons and negative connotations. To illustrate, Lewis describes life at Salomon Brothers “like being beaten up every day by the neighbourhood bully” (p.47) or the treatment of a colleague “like leaving a goldfish in the care of an alley cat” (p.229). Reoccurring fields of comparison include fights (e.g. pp.24, 77), slavery (e.g. pp.25, 48, 92), jungle life (e.g. pp.167, 180), and childish behaviour (e.g. pp.67, 225). Taken together, it becomes evident, how the stylistic devices of Lewis’ writing lend the narrative its argumentative voice. Unfortunately, providing a humorous as well as degrading account of the life of the powerful, also, invites voyeuristic readership, that do not perceive of it as a form of criticism but rather as the pleasure of seeing the dark side of what appears to be a glorious life to the outside.
To a greater degree, however, Liar’s Poker sharpens the reader’s awareness of the ethical obliviousness of working for organizations, whose sole purpose is goal attainment. By all means, Michael Lewis’ account holds up a mirror to all those that follow a belief, because they are being held captive by their “own narrowly focused ambition” (p.25). In this way, the book surpasses being the epitome of the 1980s and establishes itself in contemporary culture. In nowadays capitalistic society, it is probably not far drawn to assume that many of the readers, have faced ethical dilemmas or experiences that to some extent resemble Michael Lewis account of Wall Street. Hence, Liar’s poker encourages its readership to address repressed encounters and critically engage with the field they work in.
In brief, Liar’s poker does not come short of the endless positive appraisals that garnish the first three pages of its newest edition.