Goldman Sachs: Pic of the day

you must be burning caused by envy. Accept it, there will always be some that take money from those who are less fit to survive. If you dont like it send in your Goldman application tomorrow and lets see whether you are just a paper tiger or actually have what it takes.

Imagine dude, the AVERAGE employee earned more than you will have in your bank account at any time in your life time. That really sucks, no wonder you are so angry.


Quote from ByLoSellHi:

data

Thanks for the no interest loans, sucker American Taxpayers!

Goldman Sachs Nine-Month Compensation Totals $527,192 a Person

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaX80G_cnjBw
More...
 
wait...

a) "think it goes up"? Wow, thats easy, why are you not stinking rich by now but have to join the angry antiGS crowd on ET rather than joing the amused and entertained minority?

b) why would the losses go to the tax payer? If you borrow at zero and make a bunch and return the borrowed funds later where is the loss to the taxpayer?

Whats so hard to understand? Your complete lack of logic.

Quote from Shreddog:

Borrow at zero, buy anything that yields more or you think is going up. Losses go to the taxpayer. What's so hard to understand?
More...
 
wait, you and your buddies said GS is obscene because they borrow at zero and all they have to do is invest in those assets that go up. So why should GS ever be at risk of failing?

hmm...you guys are so contradicting each other.

Quote from Shreddog:

So the fundamental question: Is Goldman making obscene profits off the US taxpayer?

Let's ignore the the tarp funds, the zero interest loans, the ability to use toxic garbage as collateral at the discount window, the AIG bailout that allowed GS to get paid by AIG in full. Ignore all of this and ask yourself this simple question:

What if GS blows up badly enough to take the firm down next quarter? This is a reasonable question since it was conceivable they could have gone down in Q4 of last year. Will they be allowed to go under? The answer to this answers the fundamental question.
More...
 
Quote from asiaprop:

wait...

a) "think it goes up"? Wow, thats easy, why are you not stinking rich by now but have to join the angry antiGS crowd on ET rather than joing the amused and entertained minority?


b) why would the losses go to the tax payer? If you borrow at zero and make a bunch and return the borrowed funds later where is the loss to the taxpayer?

Whats so hard to understand? Your complete lack of logic.
More...


Quit acting like a 22 year old prop trader on a hot streak who thinks he's got it all figured out and think for a change.

Why WOULDN'T they go to the taxpayer? They did for FNM, FRE, and AIG which were all deemed too big to fail? As long as the losses are big enough the taxpayer eats them. You don't seem to understand that bonuses don't get clawed back in losing qarters. So why not bet big?

I'm not saying GS is wrong from their point of view in doing any of this. The incentives are clearly there. But to say they aren't making money off the taxpayer's back is the height of naivete.
 
Quote from asiaprop:

wait, you and your buddies said GS is obscene because they borrow at zero and all they have to do is invest in those assets that go up. So why should GS ever be at risk of failing?

hmm...you guys are so contradicting each other.
More...

I never said they would go up. I said buy things you think will go up. If they go up, you get a big fat bonus. If you are wrong you don't. If you are REALLY wrong, the taxpayer eats your mistake. You really aren't this dumb are you?
 
they make money off the back of much weirder animals, dont you worry about it...and there will always be the dont-haves who complain both about themselves and the world and those who actually take matters into their own hands.



Quote from Shreddog:

Quit acting like a 22 year old prop trader on a hot streak who thinks he's got it all figured out and think for a change.

Why WOULDN'T they go to the taxpayer? They did for FNM, FRE, and AIG which were all deemed too big to fail? As long as the losses are big enough the taxpayer eats them. You don't seem to understand that bonuses don't get clawed back in losing qarters. So why not bet big?

I'm not saying GS is wrong from their point of view in doing any of this. The incentives are clearly there. But to say they aren't making money off the taxpayer's back is the height of naivete.
More...
 
so how is this being different from your day time job in the cubicle? If you do well then you get promoted , if you do so so then you are stuck where you are and if you fuxx up then you get fired and knock on the door of another firm the next day. Just this time the shareholdes hold the bag. Any news you offer here?

Quote from Shreddog:

I never said they would go up. I said buy things you think will go up. If they go up, you get a big fat bonus. If you are wrong you don't. If you are REALLY wrong, the taxpayer eats your mistake. You really aren't this dumb are you?
More...
 
getting the taxpayers to eat the losses incurred by this banks is truly wrong any which way u look at it, awarding themselves bonus is really despicable
 
can you show us your receipt which shows you paid GS a single penny? And maybe you can also show us where AIG passed on a SINGLE penny to GS other than through contractual obligations. Its ridiculous how you guys look at GS while nobody is mentioning AIG at all, the company which actually wrote all those contracts in a reckless manner. Now you want to punish GS for demanding delivery on what AIG owed to GS? AIG would have never been bailed out without the BROAD support of the government and lawmakers. Its a blatant lie to state that GS was involved in getting this deal done.

Quote from dtan1e:

getting the taxpayers to eat the losses incurred by this banks is truly wrong any which way u look at it, awarding themselves bonus is really despicable
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top