That was partially my point. We didn't need to directly bail out GS and they didn't want to be bailed out. GS figured that if everyone else was they would be fine.
University of California. They contributed $1.6 million of the ~750 million or so he raised. Correction: University of California system employees, acting independently - gave the most. Though that pales in comparison to the amount that other groups like the SEIU spent on his behalf.
I don't know if this is serious but I didn't know a state institution could donate to a Presidential campaign. That said. GO BEARS!
Was that meant as a dig at a me as a Cal grad? A bit esoteric but OK. Whoops just saw your edit. Personally I would've enjoyed it more if it was a dig at me. GO BEARS!
Goldman Sachs are evil crony corporatists, and it's a good article, but the author needs to be careful about distinguishing between unethical and illegal behavior (both of which GS may be guilty of). For example, convincing a client to purchase something you know isn't a good deal, salesmen do this all the time. It's unethical, it stains their reputation, but it may not be illegal, depending on the nature of the contract between GS and the client.
Valid point---the initial charge of fraud is something that can be tied up in legal red tape. However, the important point to take from this is that these individuals took an oath to Congress and lied, and these emails prove it. Even if their crimes were not crimes, denying that they ever did anything to Congress is, in of itself, a crime. it's the reason why Clemens is indicted. and it's probably the only reason why we might see something close to a legitimate court case against Wall Street.
Reminds me of one of my favorite legal cartoons. There is a picture of a little guy standing before an enormous bench with a judge sitting very far above him; and the judge looking down at him says: I'm sorry, son, but crime does not pay at your level.
You are sort of correct. Supposedly 12 of the largest 13 US banks were underwater. Goldman was under water iirc, but once the government allowed the insovent AIG to pay Goldman 100% on the dollar on their insurance contracts on all their worthless mortgage bets, Goldman might have been marginally solvent. Edit: Aggh the problems of posting before reading the whole thread.
Anyone doing business with Goldman as a client should know they make most their money trading on their own book. They don't do retail business so these allegedly 'sophisticated' investors and institutions should be able to make their own decisions and not rely on the salesman to convince someone they need the premium package, rims and upgraded leather on their car. Rather than illegal its more reflective of the foolishness of people to trust an institution like that rather than use them to facilitate ones own desires within the marketplace.
Contagion is going to be prevalent in any banking or systemic financial collapse. The real issue is leverage levels and the net capital rule which would have prevented or mitigated much of this debacle. The net capital rule limited institutions to leverage ratios of 10 to 1.....as this loosened for the mega institutions their leverage ratios shot up limiting their ability to withstand losses of any instruments. Bubbles and busts are part of any successful economic system and are in my opinion unavoidable as opportunity leads to returns which leads to euphoria.
