'Hundreds Will Die' at Goldman Sachs, Letters Warn

[halik]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jman19
About the power plant in Montana, your outrage should be more directed at the CEO of that company - GS didn't come up with the idea to transform the company, but they were hired to help make that become a reality.

Guess what, companies that shoot for the stars go belly up all the time.

Wrong, as I understand Goldman Sachs was behind the scheme and pushed it; ya, the CEO was greedy and went along and profited.

From the article I linked:

Goldman Sachs declined to comment on this story. But according to its contract with Montana Power, Goldman Sachs was to be paid a flat fee as financial advisor. It was also to be paid a transaction fee or commission on every asset that was sold.

Morrison says that it was in Goldman Sachs best interest to have Gannon and the board sell off the assets: ?The evidence is going to show that the weeks would go by and then there would be memos in which Goldman Sachs would just keep pushing, ?This has to be done now. No better time than now. The market for this can only get worse.? But they were definitely the driver. They were pushing it all the time.?

Morrison believes Goldman Sachs made about $20 million dollars on the deal, and his lawsuit outlines what he calls an end run around the shareholders.

The firm's contract with Montana Power stipulates that "any advice provided by Goldman Sachs...is exclusively for the information of the Board of Directors and senior management of the company..." Morrison translates that into "don't tell the shareholders."

?Because until this thing was finalized they didn't want people raising questions,? he says. ?It would be an extremely controversial thing if that got out.?

Does Morrison think that Goldman Sachs knew that this was not particularly a good deal for the stockholders? ?I don't think they cared very much,? he says. ?They were making money.?

That article only said that their arrangement made it better for them sell off assets, not that they were behind it. Guess what, you hire any bank and make certain stipulations for profits in their contract, and they'll do just that. Now tell me, who hired Goldman for this deal?

Reading comprehension problems?

This deal also pushed my home town based power company (Northwestern) into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and I lost all of my stock in the deal. Bad things happen to people all the time, but I lost a boat load of money in Kmart, so I went to a tried and true utility company and lost it all again, so I tried a CD from SMB and now the IRS has that tied up in court and it looks like the laywers are going to get all that money.

Funny how it works though, Kmart and Morthwestern are still in business, just the stockholders got screwed. How does that Dire Straits song go, "That's the way you do it, your money for nothing and you chicks for free".

Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

I never disagreed that the people not at the top got screwed on this one... you can stop now if you're not going to recognize my point and just bold the same crap again and again.

If your point is that you think you can lay the blame soley on the Montana boy who was CEO your sorley mistaken. Goldman Sachs sold this to the BoD, lock stock and barrel and the stockholders had NO say about it.

They should ALL be doing time IMO, but you apparently would rather try to lay the blame on him??? Whatever.

It's obvious to me the whole damn system is broken if one man's greed/ambition can affect so many people.

Keep on missing it buddy. Where did I say I lay ALL of the blame on him? My point was that he is the most to blame, and that GS was doing what they were hired to do - make the executives lots of money. I didn't say that was ethical or fair.

No, they weren't hired to make the executives a lot of money. They were hired for their professional expertise and they couldn't see the bust in the internet/telecomunications industry staring them in the face. I doubt they even gave them one good piece of advice.

They were motivated by the commisions they recieved when Montana P&L sold off all it's core assets. Their was NO good business judgement involved and Goldman Sachs won't even discuss the case. SLEAZY bastatages.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

I never disagreed that the people not at the top got screwed on this one... you can stop now if you're not going to recognize my point and just bold the same crap again and again.

If your point is that you think you can lay the blame soley on the Montana boy who was CEO your sorley mistaken. Goldman Sachs sold this to the BoD, lock stock and barrel and the stockholders had NO say about it.

They should ALL be doing time IMO, but you apparently would rather try to lay the blame on him??? Whatever.

It's obvious to me the whole damn system is broken if one man's greed/ambition can affect so many people.

Keep on missing it buddy. Where did I say I lay ALL of the blame on him? My point was that he is the most to blame, and that GS was doing what they were hired to do - make the executives lots of money. I didn't say that was ethical or fair.

No, they weren't hired to make the executives a lot of money. They were hired for their professional expertise and they couldn't see the bust in the internet/telecomunications industry staring them in the face. I doubt they even gave them one good piece of advice.

They were motivated by the commisions they recieved when Montana P&L sold off all it's core assets. Their was NO good business judgement involved and Goldman Sachs won't even discuss the case. SLEAZY bastatages.

You live in funny world, where the poor, poor management of Montana were duped in to making millions at the expense of others... :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: halik


Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

$20 million? is that all they made for braking several utiltity companies and wrecking thousands and thousands of retirements?

Oh well, then i guess it's no big deal, no wonder they refuse to talk about it, it obviously isn't worth their time. I wonder why they even bothered with such a small potato deal in the first place?

:roll:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

I never disagreed that the people not at the top got screwed on this one... you can stop now if you're not going to recognize my point and just bold the same crap again and again.

If your point is that you think you can lay the blame soley on the Montana boy who was CEO your sorley mistaken. Goldman Sachs sold this to the BoD, lock stock and barrel and the stockholders had NO say about it.

They should ALL be doing time IMO, but you apparently would rather try to lay the blame on him??? Whatever.

It's obvious to me the whole damn system is broken if one man's greed/ambition can affect so many people.

Keep on missing it buddy. Where did I say I lay ALL of the blame on him? My point was that he is the most to blame, and that GS was doing what they were hired to do - make the executives lots of money. I didn't say that was ethical or fair.

No, they weren't hired to make the executives a lot of money. They were hired for their professional expertise and they couldn't see the bust in the internet/telecomunications industry staring them in the face. I doubt they even gave them one good piece of advice.

They were motivated by the commisions they recieved when Montana P&L sold off all it's core assets. Their was NO good business judgement involved and Goldman Sachs won't even discuss the case. SLEAZY bastatages.

You live in funny world, where the poor, poor management of Montana were duped in to making millions at the expense of others... :laugh:

I'm not surprised an asshole such as yourself would think this was funny. I hope you get yours and the sooner the better AFAIC. I'd give you the middle finger if we were face to face and see how funny you thought that was. Consider yourself flipped off.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: jman19
Al Qaeda USA eh?

Seems totally against their standard practice... I would expect them to either not advertise their presence or to do so only to misdirect attention

Many Islamists can claim to be Al Qaeda and follow in their footsteps, but hopefully they'll be just as incompetent as the doctors in the UK.

They may not be Al Qaeda, but from their own self description we should treat them no differently. They need to be found and, if deemed a legitimate hostile, swiftly executed.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: halik


Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

$20 million? is that all they made for braking several utiltity companies and wrecking thousands and thousands of retirements?

Oh well, then i guess it's no big deal, no wonder they refuse to talk about it, it obviously isn't worth their time. I wonder why they even bothered with such a small potato deal in the first place?

:roll:

You might want to re-read what I wrote. $20mil on commission is hardly worth any kind of reputational risk.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: halik


Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

$20 million? is that all they made for braking several utiltity companies and wrecking thousands and thousands of retirements?

Oh well, then i guess it's no big deal, no wonder they refuse to talk about it, it obviously isn't worth their time. I wonder why they even bothered with such a small potato deal in the first place?

:roll:

You might want to re-read what I wrote. $20mil on commission is hardly worth any kind of reputational risk.

So you say, what does Goldman Sachs say? Nothing, not even "Opps!" or "Sorry". I really don't think they care anymore then Ken Lay or any of the other buttholes who were flying so high back then.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: halik


Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

$20 million? is that all they made for braking several utiltity companies and wrecking thousands and thousands of retirements?

Oh well, then i guess it's no big deal, no wonder they refuse to talk about it, it obviously isn't worth their time. I wonder why they even bothered with such a small potato deal in the first place?

:roll:

You might want to re-read what I wrote. $20mil on commission is hardly worth any kind of reputational risk.

So you say, what does Goldman Sachs say? Nothing, not even "Opps!" or "Sorry". I really don't think they care anymore then Ken Lay or any of the other buttholes who were flying so high back then.

If there was a single drop of truth to your story, state of Montana / FTC / DOJ would file a suit against Goldman...

Also I somehow miss the whole "caring" part of it ... you're talking about a corporation...

 

[1EZduzit]

Actually I'm talking about Coporate America and I'm sure they own/owned the right people in Montana to prevent any repurcussions otherwise the law that enabled this wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

Apologize/rationalize away. The facts are there for anybody who pleases to read and interpret as they please. I'm old enough to have been wised up (several times) and I know how easy the sheeple are to manipulate. It's the old "those with the gold rule" at it's best. Capitalism at it's finest...... or perhaps I should say cannabilism at it's finest.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It couldn't happen to a nicer company. I oppose the threat against them for humanitarian reasons, and I oppose Goldman Sachs for moral reasons, too. It's a sleazy company who enriches the rich by screwing the rest of America.

Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

Yeah, I guess that's a good reason they should all be put to death :roll:

I sure hope your company has never done anything wrong.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

Yeah, like what?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It couldn't happen to a nicer company. I oppose the threat against them for humanitarian reasons, and I oppose Goldman Sachs for moral reasons, too. It's a sleazy company who enriches the rich by screwing the rest of America.

Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

So you support terrorists so long as they destroy victims you deem appropriate? 😕

Sometimes one has to wonder...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: jman19
Al Qaeda USA eh?

Seems totally against their standard practice... I would expect them to either not advertise their presence or to do so only to misdirect attention

Many Islamists can claim to be Al Qaeda and follow in their footsteps, but hopefully they'll be just as incompetent as the doctors in the UK.

They may not be Al Qaeda, but from their own self description we should treat them no differently. They need to be found and, if deemed a legitimate hostile, swiftly executed.

The way most moderate Muslims feel about Al Queda is the way I feel about Jaskalas.

Recognizing that his radical hatred, bigotry, calls for violence are not only wrong, but create a threat to our nation (his post here is not the basis for this statement, others are).

There's a problem when everything 'they' do wrong is noticed, likely exaggerated, and used to justify violence, and anything 'we' do wrong is minimized.

All it takes is two sides each doing that, and you have both feeling plenty justified in committing acts of violence.

*We* killed, for one example, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, mostly children, with our sanctions in the 1990's (yes, Clinton). Where is *our* accountability?

Can we really justify the price - to the point that we'd say yes, it's fine that the same was done to us, if another nation had done it to us for the same reason?

No - we just ignore the issue, the children are not given any importance by our side; the desire for revenge by the 'other side' is not given any weight by us.

But when we have a grievance for far fewer casualties against 'their' side, that's another matter.

This sort of biased weighting of things virtually guarantees war, unnecessary war.

What we need to do is to stop the bias, and start counting human lives each as important, and try not to do wrong ourselves, and *then* deal with the far smaller remaining threats.

There is a real problem with radical Islamicists - but it can be dealt with very well, *if* we're not doing things to make it worse, as we have for a long time.

We need to deal with the problem of our own radical anti-Ilamicists, too, though they're less anti-Islamicist than they are pro-do what the hell we like to take more from others.

It seems to me the basic situation is that some guys get together and look at the world and say "nowhere is freedom as good as the US - the Islamic world, China, Russia, Africa, everywhere things are a lot worse - and so we have to make sure that the US culture is the dominant one in the world, for the good of humanity, and so the evils done to help that happen are ok". That's the Neocon position, from my reading.

And like most causes of evil, it's not entirely wrong - we should push some values of the US globally, IMO. The problem is when the people saying that are wrong about how to do it.

Just as the effort in Viet Nam was *so* misguided as to do little more than kill millions for no good reason in actually *denying* liberty from colonialism, and staining the US reputation globally, not because we lost the war, but because of how wrong we were seen to be in pursuing the supposed value of democracy.

More enlighted Americans have long cited the importance of pushing democracy by being a good example, not use of force.

Is that enough? No. But one thing to do is to recognize that we don't have all the answers such that we should arrogantly try to tell every other nation what to do, and try to work the problems out of our own system (which currently involves the unsolved problem of a huge concentration of wealth, and corruption of our own political system). A second thing to do is to recognize how we need to be careful in our own policies abroad. Liberating France from Hitler good, liberating Iran from its democracy to install the Shah bad.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
It couldn't happen to a nicer company. I oppose the threat against them for humanitarian reasons, and I oppose Goldman Sachs for moral reasons, too. It's a sleazy company who enriches the rich by screwing the rest of America.

Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

So you support terrorists so long as they destroy victims you deem appropriate? 😕

Sometimes one has to wonder...

Yes, I support terrorists so long as they destroy victims I deem appropriate. For example, had the natives who Columbus was decimating in his frenzied search for Gold formed terrorists groups to protect themselves, I'd support them in that. Bus as the bolded text above shows, I do not support the threat of terrorism against Goldman Sachs. Learn to read, please.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Craig234
It couldn't happen to a nicer company. I oppose the threat against them for humanitarian reasons, and I oppose Goldman Sachs for moral reasons, too. It's a sleazy company who enriches the rich by screwing the rest of America.

Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

Yeah, I guess that's a good reason they should all be put to death :roll:

I sure hope your company has never done anything wrong.

Please join Pabster in reading school. I'm against the threat of violence to Goldman Sachs. I'm also opposed to Goldman Sachs for many of their actions.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: halik
Heh for $20 mil Goldman would definitely stay away from anything even remotely shady. Case point, the 17 banking deals that went down in China so far amounted to $7bil of proceeds...

Do you need a refresher course in the countless schemes that are wrong done by Goldman Sachs and others for amounts this small and less?

Sometimes the scams are for big amounts (see the tax avoidance industry for one example), and sometimes for small amounts. The $20 is no barrier to their doing this.

The facts speak for themselves - we're not debating the theory, we're reviewing the history.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Craig234
Again and again and again when I see the sleaziest finacnial scams, Goldman Sachs is in the middle of them.

Yeah, like what?

Read the thread before posting...

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

I never disagreed that the people not at the top got screwed on this one... you can stop now if you're not going to recognize my point and just bold the same crap again and again.

If your point is that you think you can lay the blame soley on the Montana boy who was CEO your sorley mistaken. Goldman Sachs sold this to the BoD, lock stock and barrel and the stockholders had NO say about it.

They should ALL be doing time IMO, but you apparently would rather try to lay the blame on him??? Whatever.

It's obvious to me the whole damn system is broken if one man's greed/ambition can affect so many people.

Keep on missing it buddy. Where did I say I lay ALL of the blame on him? My point was that he is the most to blame, and that GS was doing what they were hired to do - make the executives lots of money. I didn't say that was ethical or fair.

No, they weren't hired to make the executives a lot of money. They were hired for their professional expertise and they couldn't see the bust in the internet/telecomunications industry staring them in the face. I doubt they even gave them one good piece of advice.

They were motivated by the commisions they recieved when Montana P&L sold off all it's core assets. Their was NO good business judgement involved and Goldman Sachs won't even discuss the case. SLEAZY bastatages.

You live in funny world, where the poor, poor management of Montana were duped in to making millions at the expense of others... :laugh:

I'm not surprised an asshole such as yourself would think this was funny. I hope you get yours and the sooner the better AFAIC. I'd give you the middle finger if we were face to face and see how funny you thought that was. Consider yourself flipped off.

I guess losing all of that money pissed you off, huh?

Yeah, I'm a real asshole because I questioned why people here weren't giving the CEO of said company a hard time...

BTW, I don't think what happened to the shareholders and workers of Montana was funny at all - I was laughing at your ignornace.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: jman19

I never disagreed that the people not at the top got screwed on this one... you can stop now if you're not going to recognize my point and just bold the same crap again and again.

If your point is that you think you can lay the blame soley on the Montana boy who was CEO your sorley mistaken. Goldman Sachs sold this to the BoD, lock stock and barrel and the stockholders had NO say about it.

They should ALL be doing time IMO, but you apparently would rather try to lay the blame on him??? Whatever.

It's obvious to me the whole damn system is broken if one man's greed/ambition can affect so many people.

Keep on missing it buddy. Where did I say I lay ALL of the blame on him? My point was that he is the most to blame, and that GS was doing what they were hired to do - make the executives lots of money. I didn't say that was ethical or fair.

No, they weren't hired to make the executives a lot of money. They were hired for their professional expertise and they couldn't see the bust in the internet/telecomunications industry staring them in the face. I doubt they even gave them one good piece of advice.

They were motivated by the commisions they recieved when Montana P&L sold off all it's core assets. Their was NO good business judgement involved and Goldman Sachs won't even discuss the case. SLEAZY bastatages.

You live in funny world, where the poor, poor management of Montana were duped in to making millions at the expense of others... :laugh:

I'm not surprised an asshole such as yourself would think this was funny. I hope you get yours and the sooner the better AFAIC. I'd give you the middle finger if we were face to face and see how funny you thought that was. Consider yourself flipped off.

I guess losing all of that money pissed you off, huh?

Yeah, I'm a real asshole because I questioned why people here weren't giving the CEO of said company a hard time...

BTW, I don't think what happened to the shareholders and workers of Montana was funny at all - I was laughing at your ignornace.

IIRC, Goldman Sachs created and pushed the scheme, and the CEO agreed. That's how they make a lot of their money - finding ways for the wealthy to screw others, and get a cut. That's how their tax avoidance scheme business works too, find ways for the wealthiest Americans to escape taxes by 'pushing the envelope', sometimes crossing the line - for example, finding ways for people who sell companies for tens of millions to pay *zero* tax on the gain with bogus tax shelters - and get a cut of the 'tax savings' we pay for.

I recommend reading David Cay Johnston's book for info on how abusive the scams are.

 

[dmens]

delete

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Read the thread before posting...

Like another poster stated, if there was any truth behind your accusation, lawsuits would have been flying. But as usual, they're just hollow claims.[/quote]

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Craig234
Read the thread before posting...

Like another poster stated, if there was any truth behind your accusation, lawsuits would have been flying. But as usual, they're just hollow claims.

[/quote]

A voice of ideologyand ignorance speaks.

Maybe you should check this or thissbefore spouting your 'hollow claims'.

This is the second major lawsuit filed over the breakup of Montana Power. A $3 billion class-action lawsuit that was filed in 2001 by investors against Montana Power remains active in federal court, with a partial settlement with Touch America needing approval from two bankruptcy courts, said Frank Morrison of Whitefish, one of the attorneys. Other aspects of the case are pending.

The two lawsuits ultimately will be mutually beneficial to each other, Morrison said. The plaintiffs' attorneys in the first lawsuit will able to gain access to some documents from the creditors committee that they weren't able to obtain earlier, Morrison said. At the same time, attorneys for the lawsuit filed Tuesday will be able to use the evidence that Morrison and the other attorneys developed in the first case.

As early as the mid-1990s, Goldman Sachs officials made presentations advising Montana Power officials to sell its generation assets, the hydroelectric dams that had provided the state with cheap power since the early part of the last century, and its more recently built coal-fired power plants, the new lawsuit said.

"During this time period, all the assets of Montana Power were potentially on the table for sale, and Goldman, Sachs was advising Montana Power that there was time pressure to dispose of these assets, especially generation assets, as more and more utilities were dumping similar assets into the market place," the complaint said. "The theory perpetrated by Goldman, Sachs and Gannon, in particular, was that a window of opportunity presented itself and if Montana Power did not dispose of its generation assets, it would potentially fail."

Although there was initial resistance among MPC officials to the sale of the core assets, it "was overcome by the greed of the potential for Montana Power to become a high-flying telecommunications company," the lawsuit said.

The investment bank and law firm concealed the profound implications such a move would have on customers, employees, creditors and shareholders and hid "the enormous financial gains" the two New York businesses stood to make.

It's not necessarily the case that there would be lawsuits; many schemes are 'legal' and not vulnerable to a lawsuit, they're simply legal corruption.

But this one just happens to have the lawsuits you said don't exist.

 

[StageLeft]

Oh no, the big bad AQ bogeyman will keep me awake at night and petrified to go anywhere.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: jman19
Al Qaeda USA eh?

Actually, no. I think Al Qaeda would just go ahead to commit the slaughter without any warning and then claim credit for it afterwards.