Goldman Sachs- Our congress just doesnt get it

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jarhead, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    Congress is bent out of shape over the "conflict in interest" as it pertains to Goldman Sachs and its service to it's client base. "You make money even if your client loses money" was the premise many used during their "15 minutes of fame" speeches. "That is a conflict of interest and must put you in a position to decide to poorly advise if your profit is larger than if you properly advise" was the unfounded conclusion many of them wanted us, the people to deduce from their premise.

    There is a basic fundamental philosophy used in a free market economy; and nearly all businesses follow it. The ones that dont, usually go out of business in a short period of time. And this philosophy is why a conflict of interest is a faulty premise. To summarize this philosophy:

    "whereas I may be able to make more money by offering less quality, my goal is to retain and increase my customer base over a period of time so I should do my best to ensure customer satisfaction"

    For example, Burger King can maximize profits by using some additive in place of 25% of the beef. They dont becuase they would lose their client base.

    I dont know what is more disturbing. The fact that our law makers are so clueless as to how business works or the fact that over half the country votes them in.
     
  2. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,040
    Thanks Received:
    11,266
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,242
    Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.
     
  3. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    I am not supporting Goldman Sachs as it pertains to their "bailout". Heck, I dont even know if Goldman is innocent of wrong doing. But we are looking into it.

    But that has nothing to do with my concern.

    I was very much taken aback by the lack of business saavy of our congress. Their premise is very naive. If they believe it, we should all be concerned. If they dont believe it, we should all be concerned that they are showboating while ridiculiong the intelligence of the American People as they try to convince us of such an absurd premise.
     
  4. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    So, what your saying is, that you are perfectly fine with GS telling it's clients (AIG) to buy, buy, buy while all the while, GS themselves are selling, selling, selling? And in the end, you and I ended up bailing them all out. See? This is why I don't understand why so many "conservatives" are against our government helping it's citizens get affordable health insruance, yet seem to have no problem with big business bending us all over while we bail them out??
     
  5. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,321
    Thanks Received:
    19,835
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,379
    I don't think their issue was buying and selling financial instruments and making a commission. It seemed to be more of Goldman setting up shaky derivitives and then making money when they failed
     
  6. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,335
    Thanks Received:
    12,695
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,785
    Making money BECAUSE they failed. That's manipulating the market.

    I thought Jarhead left.:confused:
     
  7. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    You are being quite presumptuous. Whereas I did not make my stance on GS clear in my first post, I most certainly did in my response to NYcarbineer. I am not supporting GS in any way shape or form and I challange you to show me where I did.

    I simply used the GS hearings as a tool to identify one serious flaw in our congress. They are clueless as to how a true business owner thinks and operates, yet they are the ones telling us they know what is best for our business arena.
     
  8. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    No. Making money whether they failed or not. Seems like a perfectly sound business model. Whether or not GS manipulated is another story and we will find out in time.

    And I left for a few days to allow myself to calm down. Thanks for your concern.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    I need to correct something you said. You referred to those derivitives as "shaky". That is inappropriate as there is no such thingt as "shaky" when you invest.

    Shaky implies corrupt; or not sound or unethical etc.

    Those derivitives were known as "high risk" investments. Anyone who invested in derivitives were aware that they were high risk. The allure was the return if they were successful. But the liklihood of being successful is not as great as a low risk investment, but thus the greater return.

    Now, as I see it GS did not want the risk so they sold out. Many of their clients opted for the risk with the hope of a high return. What is wrong with that?

    Again, maybe they lied and manipulated. We will find out. But if they didnt, then exactly what is wrong with what they did?
     
  10. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617

    You need to get out of theoretical land and start looking at the hard cold facts of that case, Jar.

    Goldman set out to fuck its own clients, sport.

    That's obvious.
     

Share This Page