Yes, We Do Need Goldman Sachs

Yes, We Do Need Goldman Sachs

Trying to ban “obscene” profits is a bad idea.

Single Page

Comments

  • 3 Total
  • • Pending Comments 0
  • • Login or register to post comments
Submitted by lancemh on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 9:39am.

NO IRONY

LOL -

I am reading this article and thinking to myself, "Mr. Gimein is either a very ignorant business journalist, or a shameless shill for Goldman Sachs." 

You pick!

The others commenting were making the connection in the same fashion as myself.  Mr Gimein, maybe you should read Andrew Sorkins (New York Times financial journalist) new book, "Too Big To Fail", so that you would know that AIG was given $85 Billion in "emergency funds" per then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (former Goldman CEO) in order to pay the money to other banks so they would not fail.  Want to guess who the largest receiptient of those funds was?  :) 

Do not insult me by saying you did not know any of this before sitting down to write this article.  Goldman Sachs was in DEEP SH&T if AIG does not get that liquidity injection from the Feds.  Now they are flush with cash, and back to taking the very risks that got us into this mess in the first place.  And it will be another former Goldman CEO at the head of one of our Fed financial agencies that will tell whoever is President when the next meltdown rears it's ugly head that we MUST save [fill in the blank with Goldman Sachs biggest debtor].

So how long has Goldman had your resume', Mr. Gemein, and when is that job offer coming through.

Your present employer should be ashamed of you, and your conclusions.

Lance M. Haley

screwedus.com

Submitted by SnapShot on Sun, 07/19/2009 - 10:16am.

Mark to Market?

Mr. Gimein also quickly downplays the network that "connects the dots between Goldmanites and former Goldmanites" without mentioning the only connection that matters: ex-Goldman CEO Paulson's decision as U.S. Treasury Secretary to funnel $13 billion in taxpayer dollars to Goldman Sachs through AIG. It's good to have friends in high places. Now, a question: Is Goldman Sachs a beneficiary in the change of "mark to market" accounting that benefited the other banks? If that rule hadn't changed would GS be posting profits?

Submitted by SnapShot on Sun, 07/19/2009 - 10:08am.

Unconvincing

Any article on Goldman Sachs profits that doesn't at least mention the 13 billion of taxpayer dollars passed through AIG to them or the hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees or, at least, the millions (of taxpayer dollars) they spend on lobbyists to block financial reform is pretty unconvincing. Try again.