Goldman Sach s are criminals and theives.

[krazykarl]

Quote from the1:

"We are taught that if we have a lot of money that it's "money of the poor"(i.e. if you have money then someone out there doesn't), and we need to be sure to give-back, particularly to educational institutions/programs.(scholarships, for some reason, are always looked on as a mitzvah)"

<b>This is interesting. I did not know that and I share your enthusiasm about giving back to educational institutions. I have been doing that for several years.</b>

"Blankfein may be a Jew, but not all Jew's are Blankfein."

<b>To use Blankfein as a brush to paint all Jews was definitely an error in judgment.</b>

"Personally, I don't have a problem with GS for the simple fact that the winners are always hated by the losers. I've seen way too much rhetoric by the uneducated: show me proof[objective] that is more than an opinion and I'll listen.(note: stringing together suppositions to arrive at a "fact" is not factual, but usually makes for good fiction.)"

<b>I don't have an issue with GS, or any other central bank, making money. Why else do we get up for work each day. It's the unfair advantage that is coordiated by the Federal Reserve that I take issue with. Aside from collecting internet information, or perhaps material from a library, I'm not in a position to produce such proof even if I did have the time or desire. No one was able to provide irrefutable evidence that Enron was engaging in criminal behavior until the house of cards came down. That will never happen to GS as long as the Federal Reserve remains intact. You have placed the onus of providing evidence to support my views knowing full well I can't possibly do that. Well done. You played that card well. I appreciate your non-offensive response because it certainly wasn't my intent, as others have suggested on this thread, to offend you, or anyone else who is Jewish.</b>

A lot of people that wax poetic on this topic claim "unfair advantage" yet fail to realize that's what capitalism is: competitive advantage. A bank with a trillion dollar balance sheet should be able to get money at a different rate compared to a single tax payer; I'm sorry for anyone that feels different as they are ignorant.

Want to get cheap money? Buy a bank charter. It's not hard and I know of several businessmen I've worked with over the years that have acquired them to create financing entities.

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from zdreg:

"I understand that you're not being anti-semtic but you're totally wrong."
don't bet your last dollar that he is not anti-Semitic or that he is totally wrong. instead of personalizing you should have left out that sentence entirely.

"wrong" was the wrong word - i should have said "off base". Either way I think the premise of the post was mis-informed.

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from the1:

"Hate" is a very strong word. You should be absolutely certain before using such a strong and offensive word. I have no hatred toward anyone. And I would never hate someone because of their nationality, skin color, or religious beliefs.

I don't particularly like Blankfein but I certainly don't hate the man. I actually admire Bernanke, putting aside my displeasure for some of recent decisions. I have studied his past extensively and it is nothing short of impressive.

There are times I actually feel sorry for the man because I believe he is a person of high character who has been placed in a very akward, uncomfortable, and challenging position.

Something we can agree on: Bernanke is absolutely the right man, at the right time, for this job. Bernanke is a finance geek that's mildly anti-social and comes from a small town, more so, as mild-manered as he is, he doesn't have a tolerance for bullshit. One of the best things I've seen in the past few years is when Bernanke is called to testify in front of those meat-bags on the hill. It's comedy gold.

 

[flytiger]

I'm absolutely thrilled, but what happened? It used to be me and stock 777. All of the sudden, everyone is awake. I was crucified for years here, and I'm sure it was from guys raking in the pot.

I don't post much anymore on OSTK, but Byrne never quit. He got to Gradient, Rocker, and now:

http://www.benzinga.com/life/politi...claim-to-goldman-sachsmerrill-lynch-suit-ostk

Redacted docs are there. It looks like TASR made a score in discovery, and when discovery is won, it is public. So OSTK could subpoena TASR and get the info. There's another company involved, but it's redacted out.

Of course, if they win civil RICO, criminal has to come in. You get a RICO conviction, you're done. No charter. Nada. A high gov official told me no way anyone lets that happen. Other guys I respect say it's so bad, they have to prosecute. It's going to be interesting as hell. But the change of attitude here is remarkable.

I do believe the powers that be are rather flustered. It 's pretty obvious, as we struggle for jobs, that Wall st. had no problem destroying thousands of them if it suited them. They'll be a big price for that. And it's not all money.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from krazykarl:
A lot of people that wax poetic on this topic claim "unfair advantage" yet fail to realize that's what capitalism is: competitive advantage. A bank with a trillion dollar balance sheet should be able to get money at a different rate compared to a single tax payer; I'm sorry for anyone that feels different as they are ignorant.

Want to get cheap money? Buy a bank charter. It's not hard and I know of several businessmen I've worked with over the years that have acquired them to create financing entities.

Correct... Only question is whether there's a point at which this striving for competitive advantage actually becomes detrimental to the interests of society at large. A good traditional example of this is the monopoly deadweight loss, a subject that's been beaten to death by economists.

 

[Visaria]

Quote from brokenmarkets:

"A new rule contained in the financial regulatory bill that passed last summer restricts such trading. The rule is named for presidential adviser Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker says this kind of trading is too risky for banks and also for the financial markets."

the rule isn't even implemented...or blocked...and will be watered down.


insiders of goldman sachs(partners,management,etc.) have no risk...if they fail the gov't bails them out of their bets. as for shareholders of Goldman Sachs they are sheep. it's the goldman sachs 'partners' who make all the profits at zero risk.

You're wrong about this (not that means you're right about anything else!). Both my trader friends at GS (one in NY and other other in London) are quitting this year precisely because of the implementation of the Volcker rule. They don't want to, but they have no choice. Traders I know at other banks have either already quit or will quit this year.

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Correct... Only question is whether there's a point at which this striving for competitive advantage actually becomes detrimental to the interests of society at large. A good traditional example of this is the monopoly deadweight loss, a subject that's been beaten to death by economists.

I've been thinking about some related topics a lot lately and am coming to the conclusion that CA is important and is where a lot of our economy's jobs come from. Only because there is a tiered system - multiple hands - can the economy support population growth and fluidity the way it does. Only because, for example, a large entity gets better pricing power compared to a small one can all the "middlemen" jobs and arb opportunities be created. Occasionally you'll see companies taking too much of that equity ladder, instead of it being spread to multiple entities, which is when regulation comes in and forces capital spread.(separate entities, 3rd-parties, independent auditing, etc.)