Goldman Sachs Ripped Off And Misled Clients, Senate Report Says

[wuliheron]

The entire bureaucratic system evolved to be large, slow, and awkward to make it difficult for any single individual or business to corrupt. Too big and it becomes too expensive and difficult to get anything done, too small and its too easily corrupted and the wealthy walk all over everyone else. Anyone stupid enough to spout ideological nonsense while these assholes make a bundle committing fraud, provide 40% of congress's campaign funding, ruin the economy, get the government to bail them out, collect million dollar bonuses, and then walk away Scot free deserves to get screwed.

 

[nobodyknows]

But, but, Self regulated free market global finance is the most wonderful thing EVAR! Behold the Ownership Society!

Saint Ronnie told us long ago that Government is the problem! If only we'd believed him!

Freakin' chumps.

+1

 

[halik]

And you'd know that, how? Ouija board? Maybe like the one that AIG's counterparties used...

It's impossible to know the counterparty's total exposure. And it's also customary for one party to pay for protection.

And synthetic derivatives are, as I offered and you confirmed, pure gambling, not investment in any sort of asset at all. As such, they siphon off funds that would otherwise have to be invested in real assets to show a profit or loss. That's not capitalism, at all, because it's a zero sum game.

Pretty FUDy response.

You look at the balance sheet, risk capital, CDS etc to see how they're doing. The bigger issue is the interconnectedness of the system, so credit events tend to reverberate back and forth (the systematic aspect of it and also where gov't regulation needs to step in).

Synthetics aren't any more pure gambling than the underlying assets, both of them show P&L in the same fashion. Crazy leverage combined with underpriced probability of asset depreciation is the real issue here; not instruments that majority of the public don't understand.

 

[Darwin333]

If I suggest a book explaining a lot of why this hasn't happened, would you read it?

I would most definitely consider it.

 

[Darwin333]

My point is that black letter law went out the window with the bailout of Wall St. Maybe we should prosecute so that the firms will spend govt money defending themselves from... govt prosecutions, right?

Why would an entity getting bailed out by the .gov absolve an individual of crimes committed? Besides, even if what you say was true, which I don't believe it is, would the .gov do the time in jail for them? Should poor people no longer be brought up on criminal charges because the .gov pays for their defense?

Had the banksters been nationalized, taken into conservatorship like the GSE's, it'd be different, but the fix was already in with the Bush Admin before it all fell down, anyway.

I agree completely, that would have actually eliminated most of the bad debt from the system instead of hiding it and papering it over.

Obama inherited the whole enchilada, along with the beans, rice and a margarita to wash it down.

Which is not to say that I think he'd have done it differently, but we'll never know.

What does that have to do with prosecuting people who broke, and continue to break, criminal laws?

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty FUDy response.

You look at the balance sheet, risk capital, CDS etc to see how they're doing. The bigger issue is the interconnectedness of the system, so credit events tend to reverberate back and forth (the systematic aspect of it and also where gov't regulation needs to step in).

Synthetics aren't any more pure gambling than the underlying assets, both of them show P&L in the same fashion. Crazy leverage combined with underpriced probability of asset depreciation is the real issue here; not instruments that majority of the public don't understand.

I understand the uses for derivative hedging against real assets, to spread risk wrt capital ventures. Synthetic derivatives don't spread risk at all, but rather create it out of thin air. They actually increase systemic risk. A real event causing the transfer of $1M in asset based derivatives can demand the transfer of hundreds or thousands times as much money in synthetic derivatives, money that isn't readily available for the purpose. The enormous liquidity required to pay off all the round robin synthetic derivative bets in the recent credit collapse simply didn't exist, for example, which caused the system to lock up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would an entity getting bailed out by the .gov absolve an individual of crimes committed? Besides, even if what you say was true, which I don't believe it is, would the .gov do the time in jail for them? Should poor people no longer be brought up on criminal charges because the .gov pays for their defense?



I agree completely, that would have actually eliminated most of the bad debt from the system instead of hiding it and papering it over.



What does that have to do with prosecuting people who broke, and continue to break, criminal laws?

You're not paying attention to anything other than what's happening in your own head, to what you already believe to be true.

The bailout was a "get out of jail free" card for the banksters.

Yep- it sure was. And it's a done deal, one that can't be rescinded w/o invoking the collapse that the bailout prevented. It's a form of extortion, and was part of the plan on the way up, courtesy of the banksters, the Bush Admin, and the FRB. Opening that up would expose a level of malfeasance and corruption that would destroy the financial system as we know it, and basically the whole economy.

It was the best planned and executed looting spree in the history of finance, the collapse perfectly timed to occur while the Bushistas were still in office, cutting off honest solutions entirely. I don't have to like it to know it's the ugly truth.

 

[Darwin333]

You're not paying attention to anything other than what's happening in your own head, to what you already believe to be true.

What I believe to be true:

1. The President of the United States is in charge of the Justice Dept.
2. Crimes have been committed (you agree with this).
3. Statutory limits have not been reached.
4. Those crimes cost normal people, tax payers, municipalities, entire countries, and many more untold sums of money.
5. Regardless of if the bailout was necessary to save specific companies blatant violations of black letter law should be prosecuted.

I am fairly positive that you agree with all of the above but in addition you also believe:

Bush was such a genius that he was able to ensure the next President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, would be the banksters puppet.

The bailout was a "get out of jail free" card for the banksters.

I disagree. I haven't read one single law that grants them any kind of immunity. It might have been a get out of jail free card for their firms but they can still be held accountable for any actions they took.

Yep- it sure was. And it's a done deal, one that can't be rescinded w/o invoking the collapse that the bailout prevented.

Did the world end and mad max happen during the last banking crisis when the President had a set of nuts and had his justice dept. successfully throw a crapton of banksters in jail? Why would a bank collapse because the CEO (likely ex-CEO) or whatever position got thrown in jail for breaking the law?

More importantly you are claiming that the uber-genius Bush was able to ensure the banksters not only got away with crimes they already committed but would be able to continue to get away with crimes. If you believe that to be true then why do you waste your time arguing about other political issues?

It's a form of extortion, and was part of the plan on the way up, courtesy of the banksters, the Bush Admin, and the FRB. Opening that up would expose a level of malfeasance and corruption that would destroy the financial system as we know it, and basically the whole economy.

It was the best planned and executed looting spree in the history of finance, the collapse perfectly timed to occur while the Bushistas were still in office, cutting off honest solutions entirely. I don't have to like it to know it's the ugly truth.

It is much easier to believe the above than to believe the best and brightest people in the financial industry couldn't understand basic mathematics that even my dumbass understood. I don't buy the bullshit of "its too complicated for you peons to understand, only us smart guys know how these complicated instruments work and we goofed and if you don't cover our bad bets, that you can't understand, the world will end, cats and dogs living together, and the 2nd coming will all happen at the same time".

In my opinion, I think that you are likely a lot closer to being right than the bullshit fed to us. That is just my opinion though and if I am wrong then those firms should be shut down immiediately as they are a huge threat to not only the US but the entire world. I personally don't give Bush nearly as much credit as you do, I personally think he got duped with the rest of our politicians but again its pure opinion and not based on facts.

BTW, do you think that Bush also forced Obama to pass the backdoor bailouts such as the $8K housing credit that mainly helped the banksters and largely fucked the American public that purchased a home because of it?

 

[piasabird]

Whenever you go to any money management firm they are given a commission from the firm to sell you the firms product. They dont care if you make money or not as long as they got their commission. Then when you sell that bad product they will also get paid a commission. Woo Hoo that rocks.

 

[Craig234]

I would most definitely consider it.

http://www.amazon.com/Kabuki-Democra...102992&sr=1-59

In this agenda-setting essay, journalist and historian Eric Alterman explains what is really happening with the Obama presidency. While Obama's many compromises have disappointed liberals, Alterman argues that these concessions are largely due to a political system that is rigged against progressive change. These structural impediments to democracy have made the keeping of Obama's campaign promises all but impossible.

Brilliantly blending incisive political analysis with a clear agenda for change, Kabuki Democracy cuts through the clichés of conservative propaganda and lazy mainstream media analysis to demonstrate that genuine "change" will come to America only when people care enough to challenge the system.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.amazon.com/Kabuki-Democra...102992&sr=1-59

... in other words, more of the usual garbage. Evil conservatism getting in the way of good radical progressives. Yeah, sure.

 

[bfdd]

This is one of the many things about Goldman that is terrible - not the worst by far.

Yes, they're Obama's top private contributor from 2008.

But don't pretend it's a partisan issue.

Wall Street spent more on Bush in 2004 than Obama in 2008.

Three of Obama's top five private contributor's were Wall Street firms - but all five of McCain's top five donors were Wall Street firms (GS was his #4).

Wall Street has given more to Democrats than Republicans in recent decades - the economy has done better under Democrats than Republicans by almost any metric.

Jim Cramer said Wall Street 'wanted another Bill Clinton' who would 'concentrate on the economy, moderate spending, change from the problems of George Bush'.

Most importantly, Wall Street wants to donate to who wins, for influence. They dominate the US Treasury - under both parties.

Bush's Secretary of the Treasury was a former Goldman Sachs chairman (which he left to become Treasury Secretary); his Chief of Staff Josh Bolton a former GS exec.

Some Democrats have been some of the worst on bad de-regulation of Wall Street. Some Republicans have too.

The political faction who has done the best at putting the people ahead of Wall Street is the progressive faction. Do you support the anti-Wall Street abuse progressives?

believe me Craig, I'm anything but a partisan. I only called out Obama because he promised change and we got more of the same. Calling out Bush, who is out of office now, wouldn't really be prudent imo.

 

[airdata]

holler at me when they're going to send some of these guys to jail.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

nothing will happen. The revolving door between the FTC, Wallstreet banksters and the white house will continue. Screwing people on a large scale is rewarded. Only small time crooks are punished in this country.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

holler at me when they're going to send some of these guys to jail.

exactly.