09 Mar 10
2 edits
I'm sure you are all familiar with Godmen, I mean, Goldman Sachs. They are the firm that had the cyrstal ball to position themselves to come out smelling like a rose after the credit crisis. In addition, they were able to survive amidst banks being bailed out left and right......except one of their largest competitors who was Lehman Brothers who was allowed to fail even though they were "too big" to fail. What a shame that was, eh Goldman? In fact, these men are such visionaries the Fed is being led by former Goldman Sachs employees. But now they are positioning themselves for cap and trade.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1724371820080117?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Apparenlty Goldman has set up a "carbon desk" in which they have begun buying voluntary and regional emission reduction credits that have been generated ahead of national regulations in the hopes that the credits will be worth more in the future after the national scheme forms.
All I can say is that they are batting a perfect 1000 in terms of making money and predicting the future. So how many think that they have more than a crystal ball guiding their steps?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyGet this straight....
All I can say is that they are batting a perfect 1000 in terms of making money and predicting the future. So how many think that they have more than a crystal ball guiding their steps?
GS does't predict the future. They make the future. It's easy to make money when you decide what the rules will be.
GS calls the shots..governments just do what they are told.
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessWhy not Lehman Brothers? It also seems to me that other large banks took a hit even though they were bailed out like Bank of America and Citi as where GS seems bullet proof.
[GS calls the shots..governments just do what they are told.[/b]
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyso would you support efforts by the statists to enact regulations to prevent companies like Goldman Sachs from becoming too powerful?
I'm sure you are all familiar with Godmen, I mean, Goldman Sachs. They are the firm that had the cyrstal ball to position themselves to come out smelling like a rose after the credit crisis. In addition, they were able to survive amidst banks being bailed out left and right......except one of their largest competitors who was Lehman Brothers who was allowed ...[text shortened]... the future. So how many think that they have more than a crystal ball guiding their steps?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28028
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeySo why not support legislation that would neuter these institutions? The way they work is the way we let them work. Heck, we've let a court decide that their rights are equal to actual humans! Now that there is no check at all on their power I figure it is only a matter of time before whodey is their paid shill just like all other Republicans.
Why not Lehman Brothers? It also seems to me that other large banks took a hit even though they were bailed out like Bank of America and Citi as where GS seems bullet proof.
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackWhy would you want to neuter Goldman Sachs? And why shouldn't they have the same rights as regular humans? Who runs and owns them? Machines?
So why not support legislation that would neuter these institutions? The way they work is the way we let them work. Heck, we've let a court decide that their rights are equal to actual humans! Now that there is no check at all on their power I figure it is only a matter of time before whodey is their paid shill just like all other Republicans.
When did banks become evil? Investment banks may engage in unsavory tactics and I have no problem with reasonable regulations to prevent that. But, investment banks are also a key cog in the engine that allows the economy to flourish in the first place; not just the reason for the economy's decline.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28028
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76Glass-Steagall must have worked. The current system has not. Corporation are not people. Governments are instituted among men. This would have been so self-evident to the founders that there would have been no argument or discussion about it. For anyone to even entertain the idea that they are equal to actual humans is to descend to madness. Someone said, "Economic growth is not an end in itself. It's a means to an end of making the people of society more comfortable and making their lives easier and more pleasant." I detect no clause in that sentence which equates a stack of legal papers to "people in society." Banks are not evil. What is evil is putting their interests above people.
Why would you want to neuter Goldman Sachs? And why shouldn't they have the same rights as regular humans? Who runs and owns them? Machines?
When did banks become evil? Investment banks may engage in unsavory tactics and I have no problem with reasonable regulations to prevent that. But, investment banks are also a key cog in the engine that allows the economy to flourish in the first place; not just the reason for the economy's decline.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackA corporation is not a stack of legal paper.
Glass-Steagall must have worked. The current system has not. Corporation are not people. Governments are instituted among men. This would have been so self-evident to the founders that there would have been no argument or discussion about it. For anyone to even entertain the idea that they are equal to actual humans is to descend to madness. Someone said ...[text shortened]... ople in society." Banks are not evil. What is evil is putting their interests above people.
A corporation is the shareholders who own it. Whether it has a fictitious legal status for purposes of liability and tax filings is not the point.
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76sh76: A corporation is the shareholders who own it.
A corporation is not a stack of legal paper.
A corporation is the shareholders who own it. Whether it has a fictitious legal status for purposes of liability and tax filings is not the point.
Is your toaster also the person who owns it?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderA toaster doesn't express ideas; and so it's freedom of expression is irrelevant.
sh76: A corporation is the shareholders who own it.
Is your toaster also the person who owns it?
The better analogy would be:
Is the keyboard I'm typing this on the same as the person who's manipulating it?