The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

Exactly (see the wiretapping thread for more on the above). If you think history or the law in any way supports the idea that justice is forthcoming for GS execs and other like them, you've drank all the propaganda and none of the reality.

 

Amusingly depressing observation from the tinyrevolution blog:

More at the link.

 

First we have politicians calling each other Nazis, and now we have writers stating that all world leaders and CEOs are sociopaths.

I love the level of discourse we participate in. Monkeys throwing poo indeed.

 

It would be bad taste for me to make any calls based on one writer.

Just like if I based all my opinions on the financial crisis on Matt Taibbi's writings in Rolling Stone magazine....that would also be foolish.

 

Your respect/view of the laws is irrelevant here. The government can only put people in jail based on the laws that exist.

Of course, that's all still irrelevant. Any regulations put in place would have been for actions that occurred after passage of the bill. The unethical things GS did were from before TARP.

Do you actually know anything about the FinReg bill? There is quite a bit in there that changes how the system works. Could more have been done? Sure. But the idea that nothing was done is simply stupid and ignorant.

And I present the same question to you that I did to NS: do you know anything about the status of the Justice Dept or SEC investigations? Or is your idea that nothing is being done based on ... well, nothing?

Anger is one thing. Demanding people be put in jail because you're angry is a whole different thing.

Actually, investigations are still continuing. If you want to ignore that, it's your choice but doesn't make it true.

Really? Your whole post was saying how pissed you are and how you have the right to be pissed. That's the very thing I was talking about - a bunch of hyper-emotional venting. You don't appear to actually care if anything they did was illegal based on our actual laws in place - you've already determined that these are bad people and they should go to jail for it. That's fine, and if we lived in some kind of insane dictatorship, I'm sure they would. But as a nation of laws, you need to actually prove a legal case rather than just yell and scream about how unfair it is.

 

Let's look at what you bolded out of that:

Everyone agrees with this. I don't think ANYONE would argue that.

So the Senate report says that what GS did "raises questions" about whether it followed the law. We again already know that. Raising questions does not equal "they did something illegal". It means exactly what it says - there are questions.

So one Senator says that in his personal judgment, Goldman misled people.

Nowhere in here did you present a clear case that GS did things that were illegal and could be proven illegal. We already know what they did was unethical - but unethical and illegal are two totally different things. In the context of securities laws and specifically what GS did, do you know if misleading their investors was illegal? As far as I know, none of their misled clients have even sued them for it. And for a civil case, they would have a far lower bar to clear than the government would need in order to not just prosecute GS but its executives.

 

1) Its not a closed case, it probably wont go to trial, and even if it does its unlikely to stick....despite the populist cries of outrage outside 200 West.

2) You may see Lloyd step down, however.

 

I stopped reading after this. You're quite thoroughly out-of-touch.

 

thread title is pure fantasy. reality has always been Wall Street's Handling of The Obama Administration!

 

The Major argument, illustrated (well, kind of):

 

So let me summarize. In other words you have basically ZERO KNOWLEDGE of the underlying subject, haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with it, did not read the the full report (or probably not even a part of it) but still passed judgement nonetheless.

I might also ask what is MattTaibbi's (or for that matter, the Rolling Stone) expertise on it?

The line you posted is so idiotic I'm not surprised it's part of the Senate report. Structured products DOES NOT "magnify risk throughout the U.S. financial system." Leverage does. As a matter of fact, structured products MITIGATE THE RISK to the U.S. financial system.

In this case it couldn't mitigate the sh1thole that is existent in the U.S. financial system, but anyone who claims that it magnify/amply the risk is completely unaware of the basic function of structured products.

This part is factually incorrect. Goldman was NOT the adviser/agent to those investors. It has ZERO FIDUCIARY DUTY to those investors NOR THE OBLIGATION to disclose its own positions and opinions. Had those investors been Goldman clients, it would have been an entirely different issue. They weren't.

Google the term "market maker" and actually find out what it means.

Not that I'm surprised by this type of comments from you (I've grown accustomed to them), but I still feel the need to clarify.

In other words, you are accusing him of being "quite thoroughly out-of-touch" for pointing out that laws in the United States of America generally are NOT ex post facto?







http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...could-face-criminal-charges-report?intcmp=239[/QUOTE]

 

The US has, throughout it's history, repeatedly incarcerated people without charge. To state otherwise is simply patriotic ignorance.

Am I advocating such for GS execs? No. I am simply pointing out that Major is, as usual, defending a system that does not exist.