This article just about takes the cake for stupidity. 1 What GS does is bad for America? Krug doesn't like the way they allocate capital? Of course he doesn't. He wants the gov't to allocate capital. And I mean you have to be dumber than a mud fence to think gov is gonna do it better. 2 Compensation for results is bad for America? Once again, that is just about the stupidest thing i've ever read. It's not going to take too long to find out just how stupid over the next several years when we see the results of Obama GM come in. 3 So krug wants barney and (friend of Angelo) chris to reform wall street, eh? Is he really too ignorant to notice what they did for the gse's, or that they are now, as i write, agitating for the gse's too AGAIN lower lending standards and get the money moving? It's almost too much to comprehend, this stupidity. Krug can't stand GS "slicing and dicing " and moving money around. He says it serves no useful purpose. Of course, you have to remember that he wants the gov't to move the money around, you know, to 'green' projects and the like. Who's stupid enough to think that this is going to be the 'model of efficiency'? And then he has to hint around at this idiotic reasoning that GS is private during the good times and socialist during the bad times. Did he not notice that GS and wall street give up half of their profits for decades while gov't shared in NONE of the losses? Only a freakin moron would go on about this capitalist during good times and socialist during the bad times. Hey, how about if you take away the bailouts, you also take away the confiscatory taxation of profits, too, krug. Anyone think he'll bite on that? And when the mortgage market topped out, GS shorted it. Wow, now that's a reason to hate them. Congratulations for being a schmuck.
As a major player in the financial markets, they shorted America. As a major financial player you would think they have a duty to help the country in which they operate. Thatâs just common courtesy. When you put money ahead of human beings youâre bound to fail. Donât get me wrong I see nothing wrong with making a profit you canât exists with out one, but Goldman is all profit. They have a major public image problem.
They met market needs. That's what profits represent. Doesn't count much for most libs, though, does it. The liberal version of doing something good is handing over major companies like GM to unions and making cars that liberals want, (customers sure don't want them), and drowning in red ink as a result. But I'm sure that liberals will all agree that GM is "doing something for the country". It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
For those of us without the data or the ability to read between the lines, can you explain what you mean? I don't see that, since GS went begging for government funds as its business blew up in its face. It's disappointing to see the start of another earnings season where Wall Street analysts are lowballing Wall Street favorites like GS and JPM to pump up prices, I don't see how anyone who actually works in this system trusts virtually any of the players inside it. Saying "they're just like everyone else" doesn't make it right, especially when they're using my tax dollars as a risk management strategy.
I can see that you TOTALLY fail to understand capitalism. Capitalism exists BECAUSE of good ethics. Without GOOD ethics there is no version of capitalism that will work. Mere laws on books will NEVER work for capitalism. That is part of the problem with MODERN capitalism. You have large companies that will go out and steal the smaller companies' patents - not because they think it is right...but, because they can get away with it LEGALLY - they can drag cases through the courts and the smaller company will never win the case, because they don't have the money to pay for extended court costs. Several banks just had to pay a fine for charging usurious interest rates on their credit cards. Had the case not been taken up by the "state" - the customers would have been completely screwed. Did the banks not know that usurious rates were illegal? No - they thought they could get away with breaking the law. Had the banks been "ethical" - they would not have pillaged their customers. This is just one example of "laws not working." Let me guess - you think that Madoff's only crimes were to the "victims" who he ripped $65 Billion out of...you are wrong - he injured the "American" brand - all Americans lost! Americans (of which I am one) have lost, because there are people out there who will no longer trust American products - financial or otherwise. Mere breaking of laws affects the direct victims of the broken laws. Breaking ethics has a more profound impact on society. -gastropod
Good post! I am scared shitless that this crisis can bring a situation where people expect that regulations can: 1. Remove the fluctuation out of the markets and bring a steady growth up 2. Punish capitalists who make too much and benefit from the market fluctuations 3. Put the government in charge of capital spending and planning 4. Increase people security for health care, pension, education, food supply, housing etc... Just make life secure. If this happens in the USA (happened?). We are screwed. Unless there are other major economies that could continue with a free market capitalism. But who? Europe, Japan or China? It is damn scary. Yes regulation could bring that but for a limited time and after that you will be royally screwed. What happened in the last few years will not even compare. Going to the grocery store and seeing people lined up for a mile to by the single item available for sale is what I am talking about. Do not seek security from government regulations. Life is random and unsecure no one can fix that. Learn to deal with it and you will be happy.
Life is random and unsecure, unless you happen to be a systemically important financial institution. If you have been anointed as one of the above, you can always count on a govt backstop, which would make your life orderly and very secure indeed.