ok, some fair points. I just do not understand the point of arguing the contribution to society at large. See, guys like Krugman are contradicting their own works. Most practitioners in finance really do not attribute a lot of contributional value to the works of Krugman and co. Like it or not but the values of works pumped out by academics is highly questioned on Wall Street. At least I have not seen much Krugman & Co. have contributed to a better economic system. In the end all comes down to the fact that simple capitalism works best and above all, is wanted by the majority of voters. If we start arguing about contributions to society then guys like Krugman should be shut down before anyone else. GS and the likes at least walk the talk. They take on risk and re-distribute it to those with appetite to risk, the most basic definition of the job of investment banks. Whether Ghandi would have liked everything those guys do is highly questionable but AGAIN if you start thinking along those lines then you should shut down pretty much every corporate entity. You got the choice: Take part in this economic system or emigrate, buy a tent, and become a nomad.
of course I am also in favor of intelligent regulation. But dont blame the guy who maxed out his benefits in line with past regulation. You would have done the same. Tell me you would not take the job if given the chance to work for GS's front office.
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssss. And what is wrong with that. Would you not have done the same? Would Apple, Cisco, Microsoft, P&G, ....not have done exactly the same? Give me a fuxxing break, hypocrites!!!
could not agree more. Most who blame and bash GS are utter morons who are not successful in this current economic system, so when it became utterly clear they failed they suddenly scream at those who navigated around regulation and maxed out on their benefits. In the end in a capitalist system this is exactly what is expected to happen. Some make it big (on average the smarter ones and the ones with bold balls yet prudent strategies) and a larger number of people lags behind. If some of you have a problem with that maybe you should stop bashing Russia or Chile and consider moving to a country run by socialists.
you ask the wrong questions. No company in a capitalist system has to prove what they do good to society. It helps selling your products but its not a prerequisite. But while you asked couple thoughts. How about a) transferring risk, employing people, paying people who in turn contribute huge amounts to worthy causes, adding liquidity,...should I add more?
buddy, take the emotion out of your post and take a deep breath and think again what you wrote. Because GS shorted the housing market means again what? That they sold out the American consumer? I would also have shorted the irresponsible American home owner who was in debt to the hilt. Anything wrong with that? Your family should have never set foot onto this country, you took the land away from someone else.
REALLY? So capitalism 2000,1000, 500,200,100,10 years ago was ethical? Gotta be kidding me. Dont get me wrong I prefer things done ethically but thats just not how this world operates. I commend you for your good intend but how about getting back to reality. Or is it ethical to employ minors to work for numerous American companies abroad? Is it ethical as long as they are not Americans? Come on buddy, your intentions are good but they just do not reflect how this world works.
a) thanks for educating us ;-) b) its a little bit trickier than just renting couple tankers but I guess you are not interested in those details as you assumed everyone else does not know about contango. c) GS has never been bankrupt at any point in time. Stay with the facts and dont mix everything up.
Asiaprop and the rest of the pro-GS crowd fail to understand that 'free capitalism' does not entail a right to fraudulently sell worthless securities that have been fraudulently labelled as AAA to fraudulent banks looking to making fraudulent short-term profits as the fraudulent bubble inflates due to the fraudulent manipulation of the Federal reserve (on the free market). All while shorting the market and fully knowing how the fraud would seep its way through the system to a critical point. Sure, nothing illegal may have been done, but does that make it good for society? --- Asiaprop's response: "GO CAPITALISM!!!!~~~~~"
Ha-ha, now you be talking completely loco, man... Firstly, your sweeping statements about the respect practitioners have for academics and their work are plain wrong. Secondly, the fact you haven't seen it doesn't mean it ain't there. Finally, even if it were true that the all-knowing, all-seeing and infallible Practitioner-Gods of Wall Street (of which, btw, I am part) don't value academic work, these people are sometimes WRONG, shocking as this may seem to you! So I am sure you'll forgive me for putting a wee bit more weight on the fact that Krugman has received the ultimate accolade an academic can aspire to. But that's exactly the point. Surely you do realize that the IBs have f*cked up that very basic job of distributing risk that they were paid to do. But even that is not the problem. The problem is that after screwing up, they managed to walk away virtually unscathed, free to screw up again in the future. Those are not the only choices. As I mentioned before, I will contribute to to the force of public opinion, in hopes that the collective weight behind it is powerful enough to change the poorly designed incentive structure of the system.