That seems awfully vague - like one of those accusations people throw out there when they don't actually know. How much of the money they made was from "criminal activities" vs legal methods? If a business made $10 billion through completely legal things and $5 million through illegal things, should that company be completely shuttered? Do we regularly do that with other companies? If not, should we? Or why would GS be different? When making those decisions, do we consider what adverse effects there would be on main street or other parts of the economy?
It's hard to nail down specifics...but honestly, for a company like Goldman, $600 million is a drop in the bucket.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511 I refer once again to the fact that criminal punishments for if not fraud, then perjury should be laid on Goldman executives, and fining what for them is the equivalent of a month's work is truly a slap on the wrist for a company that may have cost America its' future---and in maintaining risk-preferring attitudes and deregulation AGAIN, will probably cost America even more later down the road. Goldman's cozy relationship with the Obama Administration would seem to have some relevance in this matter, especially since the SEC seems to be filled with zombies, and we need governors and senators to pursue their own independent investigations to bring these facts up to the light.
It was a dumb question. Had the bailouts not occurred, GS would have gone the way of bear stearns. In that regard, any money they made was forfeit, as far as I'm concerned. Legal or illegal, they were screwed.
Sure - but that's irrelevant. You're pointing to their total profit now. Before, you said: Disingenuous considering how much GS made off of their criminal activities, and how much they continue to make. If you have no idea how much they made/make off of their criminal activities, how can you make such a claim? It was a random, unsubstantiated accusation. There is an ongoing investigation, no? These are not simple matters - a fairly straightforward perjury accusation against Barry Bonds took years. Anything that may come from this will take far, far longer. Again, what can you specifically point to? The FinReg Bill aimed to beef up the SEC. Is there anything that you can show that points to the Obama admin protecting Goldman or deterring the SEC here? Or is this a general "I don't see the results I want when I want them, so let's blame Obama" rant?
So would lots of other companies that didn't commit fraud. If you're going to be upset with GS for something different, it seems like you'd want to know if they made $7 off of fraud or $7 billion. I have no idea what that number is, but it seems to be important in evaluating just how corrupt or problematic the company is.
Also, Zell Miller will co-chair the Gingrich campaign. Has there ever been a more powerful symbol for the future?
Wow. But with Huckabee bowing out, there's a huge void waiting to be filled be a social conservative. Will be interesting to see if he can get any traction from that or not. On a side note, 538 seemed to think Perry could win the nomination by taking the Huckabee votes in Iowa and then dominating the early south (Florida, South Carolina) since there was no other Southern candidate. And then from there, just roll as the new front runner.
I considered it in terms of the overall impact too. What the hell is the point of fining a company 600 mill, if they earn 3.5 billion in a quarter? That's not even a deterrent. If you, however, tabulate the tens of millions Sam refers to, as well as the pending amount of money we don't know about in an ongoing subprime mortgage crisis, and the amount of cash garnered from selling short on various securities while lying to clients---this btw, is a HUGE amount. It can be implied that Goldman earned billions doing illegal things. Without question, there is AT LEAST $10 billion of money that I will not hesitate to say is dirty. This does not include the amount of money Goldman and other banking giants allegedly launder from drug lords, which so far has only caught Wachovia with its' pants down. So I can't give you an exact, scientific figure---because only the crooks at Goldman know! but, in EVERY thievery case in America, the crook has to give back the stolen goods. And in this case, $600 million DEFINITELY does not come close. read more here->http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?page=2 so either he's doing this on purpose. or he's the most incompetent president EVER in terms of financial regulation. I mean, the SEC might as well not exist. anyways, you can float back on topic, but it is without question that the Obama Adminstration has floundered when it has come to taking Wall Street to task. whether or not anyone else would do better is a little beyond me---I think the banks will buy out anyone. a change to the system has to happen for there to be any true and meaningful difference.
Same as the point of giving a $200 speeding ticket to a millionaire. We punish people relevant to the crime they commit, not based on their means. In this case, the $600MM settlement was for a specific case - not for all the wrongdoing Goldman may or may not have committed. Sure, if you tabulate all of this, you might get a big number that you can't identify. But can you even identify which of these things is illegal? All the clients that were lied to also have the option of suing Goldman - if they are such easy and clear cases of fraud, why isn't this happening? In our system of laws, implications and allegations are not enough to find someone guilty. Thus, the reason for ongoing investigations... So you have no numbers, aren't sure what is illegal, don't know where the federal investigation stands, are relying on implications and allegations, but are absolutely CERTAIN that Goldman is getting away with it. Gotcha. Or, you're being silly relying on the opinion of a former official or two and using that to create a wide-ranging indictment on an entire administration and agency. Why not actually wait until all the facts come out? It may be that they are doing nothing. Or it may be that they just can't prove anything so their hands are tied. Or it may be that a crazy indictment is on it's way. The simple fact is that, at this point, you have no idea.
Major, interesting discussion. In the interests of not derailing this topic further, and of keeping a good thing going, I've made a new topic with my reply.
I actually think Major is too deferential (or has been in the past) as far as wiling to attribute non-ill intentions to the banks - however t's incredibly remiss (in fact, basically, fraudulent, or at least willfully blind/reckless, by reason of omission....sound familiar?) to talk about the backdrop of financial regulation in the last year without mentioning the opposing party which has basically blocked, watered down, filibustered, and otherwise flustered every single significant initiative from legislation...to rulemaking, to plain old enforcement...that's effectively a triple play right there. From watering down Dodd-Frank, to blocking its implemention re: Warren, to actually hindering/voting against SEC enforcement (the Paulson/Fab suit proceeded on a 3-2 vote, on a party line vote before the Commission..guess how that worked?)...one party has been distincltly against regulation regardless of its merit (and it's the party that got less $$$ from the industry last cycle.........do you need to guess which one?)
I'm not saying the Republican Congress is not to blame too. Or the Republican deregulation "mess", and the Republican members that are voting against these measures. However, you can't just pass the buck and say the Obama Administration has just been flustered from regulating the banks when it is obvious there is very little intent to do so, from both sides. The SEC is staffed by wanna-be bankers. The DOJ has committed to financial crime as a high priority on paper---but where are the subpoenas? The jail sentences? In this particular thread however, I focused mainly on Obama's mishandling of Wall Street, since that was the original point that got me off tangent. But if you like, yes, the Republicans are responsible for this mess too. I would also note that I have more hope that a second-term Obama presidency, free a bit from the constraints of political pressures and money woes, would be able to clamp down a bit harder on the banks. That said, the corporate cronyism that runs deep in both parties, especially with regards to the banking sector, is an issue that has always pissed me off.
To get back on discussion, I think a smart republican would get in the primary enough to get his name famous but not dump enough money in to actually win the thing. Will be much better to go against Biden in 2016.
I think most Dems would consider running Hillary in 2016 over Biden, in which case all bets are off. I still can't see a superstar GOP candidate over the horizon, someone who can unite the big tent Republicans once more. Last I heard, the only such intriguing "prospect" was Jindal---but I haven't heard much of anything since. a bit too deferential methinks. that said, 5 years is a long time, and I don't think any of us were seeing Obama in 2004. So the GOP has some time I guess.
Actually I can say that with respect to SEC and securities regulation.... As a a general matter, new regulation can either proceed along 2 tracks, via legislation in Congress (problems here are obvious, no filibuster proof majority = no legislation) or agency rulemaking. Rulemaking unfortunately has to proceed along a very slow track and has to be traced back to underlying legislation, and most of that, due to the SEC's mission, is going to focus (by nature) on things like proxy regulation etc that isn't going to end up with Blankfein in handcuffs any time soon - that's just the way the laws are drawn up. It's also going to be forward looking, rather than backward looking. Second, as far as "where are the subpoenas" - there have actually been a ton...dozens, if not hundreds, in fact, to each major bank. Joseph Cassano - the clown who brought down AIG and ****ed taxpayers and stockholders to hell and back (myself in both categories) has been thoroughly investigated by both state and federal authorities - who have both concluded there's nothing they can do do to get him. Which sucks, believe me, I wish they could - but honestly, from experience, I can tell you it's incredibly difficult to prove these types of cases (which rely heavily on intent) with the laws on the books as written...and so if you can't do it by the book, how doyou propose we do it? BTW the SEC's staff (I know a number of them, at least in the NE office) are all not wannabe bankers, most of them are ex-firm lawyers. The SEC has its problems but its enforcement division wnating to be bankers is definitely not one of them IMO.
