exactly. Funny how everyone focuses on GS while GS was pretty much the only firm that sold off their largest chunk of structures as a sell-side structured desk is supposed to. There is enough to blame about GS, fact is, GS has done the best job among all other banks, period. Working in the industry, I find it funny how the French pride themselves with having managed their banks the best (BNP, SocGen), however, they also took the least risk. Everything else about GS is envious chatter of those who have nothing else to talk and write about. I fully agree that when we have dealt with those firms that have harmed the U.S. tax payer as well as global markets the most then we can get to GS but its ridiculous to leave everyone else unharmed while attacking GS.
where have YOU rescued anyone? Have you paid a penny to anyone? If not SHUT UP, because its your kids who pay for it not you!!! GS would not have gone bankrupt even if they had not seen a penny from AIG/Govt. Please argue your case with numbers if you disagree without citing someone who believes GS would have not survived.
SocGen? Yes, the French have a way of re-writing history so that the whole Jerome Kerviel episode never happened. Great risk management all round.
the whole point is that under whatever administration the same would have happened. Its the people who got burned the most (mostly out of sheer greed) or who dont understand a thing about capitalism are the ones that scream the loudest. I am in favor of more regulation in CERTAIN LIMITED areas but the problem is that those who enact laws are the ones that understand the system the least, a pity really. Fact is that most Americans choose less government over more, less regulation over more regulation, less taxes over more taxes. What politicians have done is exactly the opposite. So, I strongly suggest that those who cant stand GS succeeding to take it up with the very same people they voted for. Why do those who think they postulate ethical corporate behavior have no issues with American companies profiting from child labor, oil corporations destroying whole land masses, logging companies bribing their way through foreign governments? Could it perhaps be that as long as it does not happen in front of our house we dont need to care about and we look away as long as others outside our country take the shit? Thats in my view the purest form of hypocracy. The system is what it is, taking advantage in whatever way as long as one acts within legal boundaries is how the country of America was discovered, conquered, expanded. Suddenly what GS is doing is wrong?
The 35-40% who pay zero, as in NO INCOME TAXES are indeed in favor of higher taxes on the people who do pay taxes. Just as those same people, plus a few others, want GS to be taken down a notch or two. As I said, i'ts what put Obama in office.
fair remark and quite possible those who have an axe to grind with GS here on ET fall into that zero income tax bracket ;-)
Goldman & Wall Street in general gave far more to Obama than McCain. Either they got their man or wanted to just back the winner, because shorting McCain was a big punch to the gut.
Are you saying a purported rogue trader is the perfect way to socialize a firms losses? -If so, I agree!
Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
You still don't understand! You asked about capitalism 2000-50 years ago. I am only looking at America - say 200 years. I would argure that there were "some" ethics - but it has been decreasing over time. I don't disagree with your child labor points - I would say they were following the ethics "of the day." Today - ethics count less and less. When we reach step 8 (you'll see below) then ethics will be completely gone - and even law won't matter! I would disagree with the "professor Olson" in the following link, I would have us in say step 7 - like 7.5 http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2008/11/03/the-life-cycle-of-nation/ -gastropod