<p>Maybe a little over the top but basically, yup.</p>
<p>[The</a> Great American Bubble Machine : Rolling Stone](<a href=“http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print]The”>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print)</p>
<p>“Rubin was the prototypical Goldman banker. He was probably born in a $4,000 suit …”</p>
<p>Just a little over the top?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>oh dear! Can I keep reading?</p>
<p>Free enterprise and Choice is the bedrock of a well tuned Democracy. We don’t want to disappoint the students who are majoring in business, economics, mathematics, various engineering and physics, who have the ambition for making money, and a lot of money. Including mine.</p>
<p>Making money is fine. Playing with marked cards is not. GS often crosses that line.</p>
<p>Pretty good article actually, but really only scratches the surface. The culture at Goldman is that they are better/smarter than everyone else and therefore are entitled to a privileged position, ie receiving special favors or inside information.</p>
<p>Goldman only exists today because of the AIG bailout. They exist only due to the generosity of the US taxpayer.</p>
<p>Marked. The cards were already marked. We just didn’t know how to read the markings. GS did.</p>
<p>
And by that you mean that the Secretary of the Treasury for the US government was a previous employee for GS?</p>
<p>Watch out for the Cap&Trade market if the legislation passes. That would be the next manipulation scheme for the likes of GS.</p>
<p>follow up: rehash with some additional detail. good stuff</p>
<p>hmmm… youtube link… can’t post can I?</p>
<p>go to u tube and search on:</p>
<p>Glenn Beck Clips 07-15-09 You Won’t BELIEVE The Goldman Sachs Governmental Ties Chart!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read them? They’re the ones who marked them!</p>
<p>What generosity of the American taxpayer? Last time I checked, we had no say in the bailout…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, Goldman was forced by the Treasury to take the TARP funds because the government was trying to prevent a catastrophic collapse of the banking industry from a public eager to withdraw funds because of a perception of insolvency.</p>
<p>Second, Goldman Sachs repaid the Government the entire $10 billion that it was loaned and included a one-time dividend of $425 million to be paid to the taxpayers. This charge was reflected in their second quarter results recently announced.</p>
<p>Third, AIG paid Goldman because it was bound to do so by contractual obligations. AIG was bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, of which Goldman represented just over $10 billion. Goldman was smart to insure itself, as an intermediary, against derivative-swap losses by insuring these losses through AIG. The terms of the contracts required AIG to provide Goldman with enough cash collateral to protect the bank against possible future loss. The cash infusion that AIG received from the government was used to pay off its debt and obligations which included hundreds of US and international institutions, 20 states, Goldman, etc. Standard thinking promoted the idea that the only way the government would have been able to negate those obligations was for AIG to file bankruptcy, reorganize, and pay back their obligations pennies on the dollar. However, that method would have literally killed AIG, not Goldman. If AIG was pushed to fail it’s assets would have been sold off to other buyers and various guarantee corporations. The original obligations would have been upheld by the new asset buyers and the result would be a severely weakened AIG. Goldman would not have to write off the $12.6 billion, like many I’m sure would have loved to see, but it would have been a while before Goldman would have seen its money show up on the balance sheet.</p>
<p>Finally, Goldman Sachs has represented my family and myself for many decades and I’ve been more than pleased with their professionalism and advice. As a Goldman stock holder, I will continue to support their bonus structure as deemed appropriate by the board and contingent on results.</p>
<p>1) They benefitted from TARP. [But they never asked for it. So your point is quite valid.]
2) They benefitted from the AIG bailout.
3) They benefitted by getting access to Fed discount window.
4) They benefitted by receiving federal backing of every Goldman bond.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every transaction Goldman does is to benefit the company and its shareholders in some way. That’s the nature of business however that is not the argument. Your post which included “Goldman only exists…” and “They exist only…” indicates that you believe that it was the solely the bailout which led to Goldman’s recent successes and that absent that money would have led to the imminent failure of Goldman Sachs. That isn’t so.</p>
<p>Obviously ScottZ was not one of the customers they dumped their mortgage toxic assets on while advising the buyers they were good safe investments. At the same time they were selling identical assets short and calling them junk. That is not providing professional advice. </p>
<p>Goldman does what is good for Goldman. If they gave you good advice it was because it was in their interest to do so at the time.</p>