Comments on: Praise Goldman Sachs And The Other Big Banks

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:09:14 +0000

Bah! Humbug. Are there no emergency rooms? And no payday and title loan shops, and pawn shops?

By: rfyork

rfyork — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:17:18 +0000

Anyone ever heard of the "Divine Right of Kings"? Or, "This hurts me more than it hurts you." Maybe, "The poor will always be with us."? (See the following for a legitimate understanding of that old chestnut: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/dawson231205.html)

There are now, always have been and always will be explanations, excuses and rationalizations for pure old fashioned and unbridled greed.

Many of the people who lead the business world, particularly those in the financial sector, have lost all sense of shame. We have to give it back to them.

By: Personal Finance Questions | Personal Finance

Personal Finance Questions | Personal Finance — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:47:34 +0000

[...] Praise Goldman Sachs And The Other Big Banks (themoderatevoice.com) [...]

By: Almoderate

Almoderate — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:05:31 +0000

Speaking of Goldman Sachs and the other big banks… You guys might want to be paying attention to the Larry Langford trial that started Monday. It's quite clear that their string of indictments for public corruption are leading somewhere, and if you look closely at the questioning… There are some familiar names. It's clearly leading up to a federal investigation (and possibly indictment of some sort) into these banks. Birmingham Weekly has a good roundup of articles by Kyle Whitmire to check out.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:46:11 +0000

"every cent that was given as 'bailout' has been returned "

Yes. Insist on prompt repayment, and of course, they don't "need" any more money.

Maybe some anti-trust exemption and other regulation of them is in order, too, not just consolidation and feel-good "consumer oriented" superficialities and paperwork requirements.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:15:14 +0000

In general, I agree, Shannon. The problem is that once a private company becomes so important to the public that it cannot fail without hurting hundreds of thousands who are not part of the company, so that we take the public's money and give it to them, then the public has an interest in how such companies are managed. Since they are rewarding the same short-sighted behavior that got them in trouble in the first place, they are clearly poorly managed.

I have no desire to have the government involved in their management practices, so the primary solution appears to be to split them apart so that they are no longer too big to fail. Then they can reap the rewards and the problems of their management (most of these banks would no longer exist and they'd have no bonuses at all) without anyone getting upset.

FYI, I just saw an article that the administration is planning on cutting all executive salaries of banks who took money by 50-90%.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:05:50 +0000

I don't have problems with high salaries or bonuses…not a bit…as long as every cent that was given as “bailout” has been returned to the tax payers.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:04:36 +0000

“Lord Brian Griffiths, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International”

Yes me Lord, it is not shocking to find that Kings think it necessary to live like Kings….or dictators…depending on your point of view.

The entire industry is in the hole as far as I am concerned…if they received money or bought a company that received money…they should be paying it all back. We gave them billions…no strings attached…and not even Congress can tell what they did with it.

Our tax dollars are paying those bonuses. If this kind of behavior continues, there will be violence in the streets.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:44:59 +0000

Unfortunately, the following (which appeals to childishness, and which is morally depraved) is the wrong antidote:

"The U.S. pay czar will slash compensation for the 25 highest-paid employees at seven firms receiving large sums of government aid and demand a host of corporate-governance changes at those firms, according to people familiar with the matter. ..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125615172396299...

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:24:30 +0000

I can't believe I didn't realize the answer was so simple! Inequality for everyone!!!

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:33:11 +0000

Guess we will just have to have violence. Hang them from the street lights, public canning, burn down their mansions…storm the Bastille and free the cubical workers….

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:31:38 +0000

At least one outfit has said it's “approaching financial stability” (though another bailout may be needed).

I have to wonder how “stability” is defined, since the word doesn't actually require profit in its definition, and the bank in question is profitable already, anyway. Does “stability” mean “growing profit” or more likely, “corresponding to expectations”?

By: Zzzzz

Zzzzz — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:57:15 +0000

Let's have a "Tolerance for Inequlity" bash. I'll bring a six pack of beer...Goldman Sachs can bring the champagne.

I'll bring my pitchfork and some torches. Par-tay!

By: tidbits

tidbits — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:48:40 +0000

“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,”

Love that quote from the link. Let's have a “Tolerance for Inequlity” bash. I'll bring a six pack of beer…Goldman Sachs can bring the champagne.