The administration deserves credit for being able to pass the largest fiscal package in the US peace time history right after a terrible polical problem with bank bailouts yet Krugman had the nerve to complain how that was not big enough, now there is a man who wont stop till his visions of a almost fully managed economy takes place. All of that just to follow some dead economist whom he worships
When the president himself has elastic ethical views, what do you expect from his supporters? Bush Jr. sold govt. protection for unethical activities to the highest bidder for 8 long years of republican immorality. In some cases the imbecile did not bother to have another bidder competing with his favorites like Halliburton. We are here at the brink of economic collapse because of 8 long years of a miserable immoral presidency voted into office by illiterate imbeciles compounded by the activities of his immoral financial supporters.
Why are people outraged by success more than failures in America now? I guess it sells papers and it's an easy story to simplify and sell to the populace. Fascinating how the mgmt teams from C, ML, LEH, BSC, and others are the subject of less focus when they allowed their own exposures to take them down.
Did everything right? Goldman would be bankrupt if we hadn't rescued them through AIG. How hard is it to be a risk-taker when you all you've got to worry about is the upside? It's all a shocking example of regulatory capture.
Because they didn't deserve or earn success. They deserved to be bulldozed over and turned into a fucking park.
everyone who invested in structured mortgage derivatives was supposed to be a "professional" buy-side investor. You certainly had no access to this market nor anyone on the street. All professionals are supposed to know how the rating agency business works. What are you screaming about? That 80% of investment banks had a strong buy rating on Amazon right before the internet bubble burst and you got in right at the highest point? That means the whole system is crap? Sorry, but I dont buy into such flawed logic. Let's not forget after all that it was the politicians and home buyers who were not supposed to own a home who brought this mess about. Investment banks only sized their opportunities which is perfectly fair in a free market economy.
1) I also work in the industry and hardly see anyone on the sell-side who gives a whole lot about anything academicians pump out. I know buy-side firms such as Fidelity (including Panagora) and the likes love to buy this crap because they simply do not employ the capabilities to truely perform in-depth quantitative research on their own. But most sell-side quant and S&T desks, at least those who make money, give a darn what Krugman has to say. 2) That banks were allowed to walk away was the fault of politicians not the banks themselves. Had they not received bailout funds then 3-4-5 other banks would be gone by now and as a true proponent of free markets I would have really liked it. At least we would have had a real correction, something this inflated market really needs. Instead you have those crooks walking around in D.C. who have nothing else to do than serving their constituency. Goldman would have survived without a penny of bailout funds no question. However, Citi, BoA and couple others would be gone. So what...well...at least we can argue that the bailout saved a lot of jobs and so ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING GOOD TO SOCIETY ;-)
please name me one firm or a single analyst who publicly admitted he/she did not know that most of those products did not merit AAA? On the same token, name me one analyst or portfolio manager who buys stocks because most sell-side houses have a buy rating on them. Or do you go to dine in every dirty joint in Brooklyn just because it says "best burger in the world", "best steaks at the East Coast"..... Suddenly those who could not get their mouth full enough out of pure greed and got burned in turn are those who did not know. You are the one who is naive if you really think so.
Pragmaticideals says that the rating agencies were frauds, the commercial banks who made the loans were frauds, and the federal reserve is a fraud with their low interest rates. His conclusion: GS has no right to sell securities or short stock because all of these other entities are frauds. If GS can't market securities or trade for their own account, just what are they supposed to do? Well, it doesn't take long to figure out that pragamticideals thinks that GS 'rightful function' is to be the regulator on the street that reigns everyone else in. It's sort of a follow the money thing. Or as lawyers say, go after the deep pockets. If someone made money, get it from him. It's what put Obama in office.