Goldman Sachs- Our congress just doesnt get it

[Jarhead]

Why? Because FM/FM are favored and protected patronage organizations for the Dems.

It was rhetorical Ms. Bond.

And the lack of a response pretty much asnwered the question anyway.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.

Hey Jarhead, happy you changed your mind and stayed a while.

I think GS operated differently and within the law, in the year 2007, after which policies or law changed. Not sure, but recall economists mentioning this. I agree with CaliforniaGirl on her statement. [what's new there? I usually do agree with her]

Congress shows their lack of business expertise, often because most of those reps. have never had much, if any. [haven't had a chance to read most of the comments here ]

 

[boedicca]

Why? Because FM/FM are favored and protected patronage organizations for the Dems.

It was rhetorical Ms. Bond.

And the lack of a response pretty much asnwered the question anyway.

Indeed. The silence on the part of the lefties after one provides facts which contradict their spin is often quite deafening.

 

[HUGGY]

Okie dokie huggy.

Throwing in the triple A rating is a talking point. The investors knew the potential return. And it was high. That makes it a high risk.

Learn about the investment world before you arrogantly say something that is foolish.

What exactly is your point anyway? The system failed..Why? Somehow I get the idea that you are not really interested why our country was almost brought to the edge of a very tall cliff. Let's cut to the chase. I believe those that had knowledge of what they were doing should be assasinated. Not tried..and sent to Club Fed..but have thier fucking throats slit.

Now stuff THAT into your briefcase you slimey fuck!

Quite mature of a response Mr. Huggy.

If you are being honest, then I suggest you start with those that referred to them as triple A. Fannie and Freddie. Butr something tells me you are not interested in their role whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned these people are sabatures and domestic financial terrorists. They have easily caused more monitary damage and phsical public damage as those that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe not as spectacular but how much suffering was caused by all the safety nets, retirement, health care benefits lost? Yah the ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting and losing, some with purpose and willfull disregard...shouyld be held accountable to the full extent of the law and beyond. Example must be made. Like China...when someones greed causes the government and the GNP unneccesary pain..the fuckers get executed. That sends a message that enough is enough ...you fuck with the bull..you get the horns. Immature...I could not care less what it looks like to you. How it sounds to those of whom I speak is all that matters.

 

[Jarhead]

What exactly is your point anyway? The system failed..Why? Somehow I get the idea that you are not really interested why our country was almost brought to the edge of a very tall cliff. Let's cut to the chase. I believe those that had knowledge of what they were doing should be assasinated. Not tried..and sent to Club Fed..but have thier fucking throats slit.

Now stuff THAT into your briefcase you slimey fuck!

Quite mature of a response Mr. Huggy.

If you are being honest, then I suggest you start with those that referred to them as triple A. Fannie and Freddie. Butr something tells me you are not interested in their role whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned these people are sabatures and domestic financial terrorists. They have easily caused more monitary damage and phsical public damage as those that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe not as spectacular but how much suffering was caused by all the safety nets, retirement, health care benefits lost? Yah the ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting and losing, some with purpose and willfull disregard...shouyld be held accountable to the full extent of the law and beyond. Example must be made. Like China...when someones greed causes the government and the GNP unneccesary pain..the fuckers get executed. That sends a message that enough is enough ...you fuck with the bull..you get the horns. Immature...I could not care less what it looks like to you. How it sounds to those of whom I speak is all that matters.

Well, as I see it, it sounds like you are babbling about something you know very little about.

Ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting on them.

Yet the best they got after 2 years is, at best, an ethics case against Goldman Sachs.

Sure. Sounds like you are one intelliegent person.

 

[HUGGY]

Quite mature of a response Mr. Huggy.

If you are being honest, then I suggest you start with those that referred to them as triple A. Fannie and Freddie. Butr something tells me you are not interested in their role whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned these people are sabatures and domestic financial terrorists. They have easily caused more monitary damage and phsical public damage as those that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe not as spectacular but how much suffering was caused by all the safety nets, retirement, health care benefits lost? Yah the ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting and losing, some with purpose and willfull disregard...shouyld be held accountable to the full extent of the law and beyond. Example must be made. Like China...when someones greed causes the government and the GNP unneccesary pain..the fuckers get executed. That sends a message that enough is enough ...you fuck with the bull..you get the horns. Immature...I could not care less what it looks like to you. How it sounds to those of whom I speak is all that matters.

Well, as I see it, it sounds like you are babbling about something you know very little about.

Ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting on them.

Yet the best they got after 2 years is, at best, an ethics case against Goldman Sachs.

Sure. Sounds like you are one intelliegent person.

You wish I was stupid. It's far worse than you can imagine. I'm really smart and really pissed off.

 

[mudwhistle]

What exactly is your point anyway? The system failed..Why? Somehow I get the idea that you are not really interested why our country was almost brought to the edge of a very tall cliff. Let's cut to the chase. I believe those that had knowledge of what they were doing should be assasinated. Not tried..and sent to Club Fed..but have thier fucking throats slit.

Now stuff THAT into your briefcase you slimey fuck!

Quite mature of a response Mr. Huggy.

If you are being honest, then I suggest you start with those that referred to them as triple A. Fannie and Freddie. Butr something tells me you are not interested in their role whatsoever.

As far as I'm concerned these people are sabatures and domestic financial terrorists. They have easily caused more monitary damage and phsical public damage as those that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe not as spectacular but how much suffering was caused by all the safety nets, retirement, health care benefits lost? Yah the ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting and losing, some with purpose and willfull disregard...shouyld be held accountable to the full extent of the law and beyond. Example must be made. Like China...when someones greed causes the government and the GNP unneccesary pain..the fuckers get executed. That sends a message that enough is enough ...you fuck with the bull..you get the horns. Immature...I could not care less what it looks like to you. How it sounds to those of whom I speak is all that matters.

So are you advocating that we execute Obama, Frank, Dodd, Geitner, Paulson, Reid, Schumer, and Pelosi?

I'm all for that.

 

[Jarhead]

As far as I'm concerned these people are sabatures and domestic financial terrorists. They have easily caused more monitary damage and phsical public damage as those that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe not as spectacular but how much suffering was caused by all the safety nets, retirement, health care benefits lost? Yah the ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting and losing, some with purpose and willfull disregard...shouyld be held accountable to the full extent of the law and beyond. Example must be made. Like China...when someones greed causes the government and the GNP unneccesary pain..the fuckers get executed. That sends a message that enough is enough ...you fuck with the bull..you get the horns. Immature...I could not care less what it looks like to you. How it sounds to those of whom I speak is all that matters.

Well, as I see it, it sounds like you are babbling about something you know very little about.

Ratings companies working hand in hand with those betting on them.

Yet the best they got after 2 years is, at best, an ethics case against Goldman Sachs.

Sure. Sounds like you are one intelliegent person.

You wish I was stupid. It's far worse than you can imagine. I'm really smart and really pissed off.

Yeah. That questioning your intelligence thing was uncalled for.
Really pissed off? I can see that.
I am not. I am on top of the facts and this was simply a case of investors acting greedily (which is the root of investing for all of us) and investment bankers capitalizing on the greed.
We shopuld not have bailked anyone out and we all would be passed it by now. Yes, after licking our wounds, but at least we would have learned our lessons well.

Instead, you are angry almost to a fault, GS got bailed out as did AIG and Fannie and Freddie.

 

[uscitizen]

Since 1989, the company's employees have contributed $31.6 million to federal political candidates, more than any financial firm, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said. About two-thirds of that money has gone to Democrats, including nearly $1 million to Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, the company's top recipient during that election cycle.

Democrats and Republicans have tapped former Goldman executives for key financial positions. Robert Rubin, a former Goldman co-chairman, served as Treasury secretary under President Clinton. Former Goldman Chief Executive Henry M. Paulson held the Treasury post under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009.

Goldman Sachs case likely to increase calls for Wall Street reform - latimes.com

And how about the recent Supreme court decision led by the right wingers about corporate campaign contributions?

The right naturally support Businesses like GS, The dems need more money to be convinced.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

What does this Congress get?...Besides our Tax $$? The Dems have been incredibly cozy with Goldman Sachs for many years. Now they're trying to scam the people by pretending they're so angry at them. The saddest part of these scams is that many actually buy into this chit. Just more political theatre in the end. Pretty sad stuff.

 

[FA_Q2]

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??

Hogwash, conservatives are not for this corporate bailout bullshit anymore than they are for the insane healthcare bill. Those are both liberal ideas. Corporate bailouts are what continue this type of behavior. If companies and investors that makes these bets were to have to pay the price for their actions then there would be no need of regulation as they would cease to purchase those bad bets. Now, since we can be assured that if my bet goes bad Uncle Sam will pay for it, we are ENCOURAGED to make the same mistakes. Regulation will not stop it either, the bankers are far smarter than out idiot representatives.

I am amazed at how this basic concept escapes people. These investments are only made because they are profitable. Take that profit away and the investments will go away. Bail them out and they will continue to make the same mistakes.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

You are just revealing your own lack of knowledge and regurgitating Leftwing talking points.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been bailed out with $400B, more than all of the banks combined. The mortgage industry is one of the most heavily regulated areas of business, and yet, here we had the creation of No Doc loans which FM/FM bought up. What's up with that? (Hint: The Boston Federal Reserve wrote a white paper encouraging banks to adopt "subjective lending standards" in order to increase minority lending. Regulators then used that as a hammer to threaten banks with revocation of bank charters if they didn't comply.)

Without that backstop by the government, the ability to package up the crap to sell it off would have been significantly limited, if it existed at all.

The funny part here is that the questionable lending practices were a goldmine because the government purchased all the risk. Freddy and Fanny are PRIME examples of why the government needs to get out of the way. No matter what the regulations on mortgages were, there would have been none of these loans that were made without proof they could be paid back if the loans could not be sloughed off to another party. It was not deregulation that killed the mortgage industry, it was deregulated risks being purchased but a government run entity!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Congressmen can't be everything, any more than judges can, even though they have to preside over very complex cases in very esoteric areas. That's just the way it works. That's why it's best to cut through the shoptalk designed to baffle everyone and find the heart of the matters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're leaving out an important piece. The fact that many of those derivatives were ultimately backed up by the Full Faith & Credit of the United States enabled their creation in the first place. This "crisis" was manufactured by socializing risk and privatizing profit. That is not a free market - it is cronyism. It needs to stop.

The financial reform bill will actually make it worse by expanding the governments ability to take over businesses and bail them out.

there isn't a thing in what you just said that anyone with any type of knowledge of the financial markets would agree with... mostly because your statement is fallacious and regurgitates rightwing talking points. the fund for 'bail out' as you call it, would be paid by the banks, not us. and if a market can crash the world economy, damn right the government should exercise some oversight LIKE IT USED TO... until greed allowed them to deregulate the banks.

You are just revealing your own lack of knowledge and regurgitating Leftwing talking points.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been bailed out with $400B, more than all of the banks combined. The mortgage industry is one of the most heavily regulated areas of business, and yet, here we had the creation of No Doc loans which FM/FM bought up. What's up with that? (Hint: The Boston Federal Reserve wrote a white paper encouraging banks to adopt "subjective lending standards" in order to increase minority lending. Regulators then used that as a hammer to threaten banks with revocation of bank charters if they didn't comply.)

Without that backstop by the government, the ability to package up the crap to sell it off would have been significantly limited, if it existed at all.

This is the 'blame the liberals, the poor, and minorities' talking point, once again, that the right has fallen in love with, and, as usual, it's simply crap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

By your logic, Goldman should have immunity by virtue of professional 'expertise'.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

The problem lies in the fraud.

To use your analogy If BK made that substitution and still tried to claim that they were serving 100% beef then they committed fraud.

Just as McDonald's did a few years back when they lied and tried to claim that they used 100% vegitable oil in their fryers when they actually add beef broth to flavor it.

If you sell a product claiming it's something it's not then you commit fraud.

 

[EriktheRed]

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

These are the two laws that the SEC is charging GS on:


United States Code: Title 15,77q. Fraudulent interstate transactions | LII / Legal Information Institute

United States Code: Title 15,78j. Manipulative and deceptive devices | LII / Legal Information Institute


They both basically say you can't lie. Evidence points to GS doing just that.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Exactly, they set it up to fail, then told their clients to buy it all the while they were betting against it and insuring it to make money off it's failure. At least that is the way i heard it. LOL

 

[MarcATL]

JarHead,

Clearly you are wiser than this.

Dude...the GS folks themselves called it a "SH!#TY" deal.

When is it ever a GOOD business practice to KNOWINGLY sell "SH!#TY" stuff?

Sincerely,
Marc

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Uh this whole thread is based on only YOUR opinion that "our law makers are so clueless as to how business works" when they seem to understand it quite well. However, that is only my opinion. LOL

Your "logic" has no bearing on whether or not they screwed their clients or not. You seem to be wishing to attack congress while not debating the underlying argument about what goldmann did. Is attacking congress all that you are interested in doing?