Goldman Sachs- Our congress just doesnt get it

[Jarhead]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.

 

[Jarhead]

Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.

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.

 

[VaYank5150]

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.

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??

 

[rightwinger]

Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.

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.

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

 

[Ravi]

Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.

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.

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

Making money BECAUSE they failed. That's manipulating the market.

I thought Jarhead left.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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??

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.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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

Making money BECAUSE they failed. That's manipulating the market.

I thought Jarhead left.

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.

 

[Jarhead]

Goldman didn't balk at taking a hundred cents on the dollar taxpayer bailout of their bad trade with AIG.

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.

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

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?

 

[editec]

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.

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.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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.

That is strictly your opinon and the opinion of many.

Now logic: They screw their clients, they lose their clients.

Without clients they go out of business......sport.

 

[California Girl]

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

Making money BECAUSE they failed. That's manipulating the market.

I thought Jarhead left.

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.

What? You didn't come back because of my begging letters? Ouch!

I love it when congresscritters show the country how totally stupid they are about business. They are such assholes.

 

[Jarhead]

Making money BECAUSE they failed. That's manipulating the market.

I thought Jarhead left.

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.

What? You didn't come back because of my begging letters? Ouch!

I love it when congresscritters show the country how totally stupid they are about business. They are such assholes.

Yeah. The letters played a big role in my decision.
Not as big a role as the pictures though!

 

[Jarhead]

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.

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.

Oh yeah. And sport. Please offer me those "hard cold facts" you are talking about.
Give me one.

 

[Cuyo]

I have to break rank here a little I think, so sorry for that.

I listened to a substantial amount of testimony yesterday, in my car and then out back while I was painting my fence. Probably about 3 hours or more in all.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced by anything I heard that Goldman is guilty of a crime or even a tort. I think they, among others, are very destructive, and operate just this side of the law, and exploit they're clients, while throwing them under the bus when it's a smart business move.

However, all I heard yesterday was a bunch of guys asking the same questions over and over to another bunch of guys. They delivered some harsh criticism regarding the way the bailout was handled (including McCain among other Republicans) and they (the congressmen) seemed to do a disturbing amount of campaigning/stumping during the proceedings, either for or against the reform bill; But if they think Sachs committed a crime or even that one trader Sachs offered up as the sacrificial lamb; I don't think they proved it in any real way or even presented a real case.

Just my opinion, I actually missed far more than I saw, but that's the cross-section of what I did see.

 

[Claudette]

Ditto.

Thats just about what I heard as well.

Seems to me GS and companies that invest in the high risk deals are playing a game of oneupmanship among themselves. Seeing if they can say I gottcha. Sharks.

Doesn't make sense that they would risk their investors to play such a game.

Anyone else kinda get that feeling or heard anything like that???

The Clowns on that panel didn't seem to understand much about business. Jeeze. They were downright laughablae at time.

Anyone trust these Clowns to run Wall ST?? I sure don't.

 

[Truthmatters]

Cox?s SEC Hindered Probes, Slowed Cases, Shrank Fines, GAO Says - Bloomberg.com


Under former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, the agency instituted policies that slowed cases and led enforcement-unit lawyers to conclude commissioners opposed fining companies, the Government Accountability Office said in a report today. An unidentified attorney said it was “widely felt” commissioners prevented the division from “doing its job,” according to the report.

“Some investigative attorneys came to see the commission as less of an ally in bringing enforcement actions and more of a barrier,” the GAO said. Cox’s policies “contributed to an adversarial relationship between enforcement and the commission.”

 

[Jarhead]

Ditto.

Thats just about what I heard as well.

Seems to me GS and companies that invest in the high risk deals are playing a game of oneupmanship among themselves. Seeing if they can say I gottcha.

Doesn't make sense that they would risk their investors to play such a game.

Anyone have anything on this????

It is basic investing logic.

If you invest in an opportuity with a potentially high return, it is becuase it is a HIGH RISK opportuntiy.

Anyone who believed they would get a high return with no risk is only a victim of their own greed.

GS would not jeopardize their client base for one or two years worth of windfall. They may make bad decisions, but that is not a crime nor is it unethical.

 

[Truthmatters]

The told their customers that they were triple A rated.

They lied to their customers and preetending they would not lie to them is just silly

 

[Jarhead]

Cox?s SEC Hindered Probes, Slowed Cases, Shrank Fines, GAO Says - Bloomberg.com

Quite irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Do you read your links before you post them?