What is Digg?115 Comments
- inactive, on 10/02/2008, -1/+65FTA:
"You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that a series of decisions and events have transpired to put Goldman at the top of the heap. Well before the credit crisis, people worried about Goldman's influence in the markets. Several former executives of the investment bank have senior roles in government and at the New York Stock Exchange, and its analysts are among the most powerful in the space."
===
Am I allowed to say "I told you so"? It's nice to have the MSM finally catch up with us "conspiracy theorists". The MSM definition of a "conspiracy theorists" is anyone who can put 2 plus 2 together and get 4. You see we're not supposed to think for ourselves and come to conclusions. We are supposed to accept the "facts" fed to us by the MSM without questioning them. Otherwise we are labeled kooks.
I wrote this article over a week ago when the bailout was first proposed.
"Goldman Sachs: Wall St. Gangstas"
http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/09/goldma ...
"In a scene reminiscent of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Goldman Sachs has emerged victorious in the recent Wall St. Gang Wars. Like all good Organized Criminals, the GS gang has high-level officials on their payroll that assist them in getting away with their nefarious deals. In this case look no further than Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, the former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs." - quesi, on 10/02/2008, -4/+50TREASON
- inactive, on 10/03/2008, -2/+30Default on your mortgage? You're screwed. Run a company into the ground? The government bails you out with tax dollars.
Something is wrong with this picture. - angusm, on 10/02/2008, -0/+24"Between the big thieves and the little thieves, it's the big thieves that rule the land. They put a penny in the pot for the poor with one hand. And with the other take another and a thousand more." -- Rory Macleod
- danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+18Guess what? This is a textbook example of why regulation of industries (just about any industry for that matter) does not work. The companies just lobby Senators and Representatives, as well as any other electable politicians, who pass legislation like this *in favor of the corporations that lobby them* in return for the campaign contributions to their re-election campaigns (as well as any other legal form of bribery possible). Small companies and individuals do not have the money to influence legislation like already-established corporations are able to and thus end up as losers in this system. Multi-billion $ corporations have to spend very LITTLE to influence legislation that can give them an advantage resulting in literally millions to billions of dollars more profit than they otherwise would earn. The return rate for lobbying is absolutely incredible in most cases with millions of dollars annually helping to increase profits by billion dollar multiples. But only if you have those millions to spare which most small businesses do NOT have. As I said earlier this obviously favors very large corporations and naturally tends to turn the industry into oligopolies with fairly large barriers to entry.
To add more regulation is to give the government more power to also be lobbied for. It means that The returns on lobbying will be even greater, advantages to large corporations who lobby will increase even more, and politicians will be up for even more sale since they can literally multiply their annual salary (as well as tons of other legal benefits they are allowed to receive from the companies who lobby them).
The banking and finance industry is and was one of, if not *the*, most heavily regulated industry in our economy. Even that regulation was not able to help prevent the recent crisis (as well as all the other horrible things that occur on a monthly and yearly basis in the industry).
It took me forever to put together a picture of how regulation, industries, and our government work together in a way that makes sense. Lobbying was that one piece that put the puzzle together. I can not emphasize enough the implication of how our lobbying system works... simply stated it is about as corrupt as can be while giving the average American a false sense of security that the regulators will work for the well-being of the country when in fact the opposite is true.
This is called *corporatism*, NOT CAPITALISM, and is unfortunately a system that seems to be supported really by both parties (naturally because every politician can make money off of it, money doesn't discriminate from party to party).
It is the economic model that is characteristic of a fascist government, meaning that fascist governments/nations almost always have this as their economic model... and this should scare the ***** out of you if you're an American (and even if you're not an American). - Dumbledorito, on 10/03/2008, -1/+19Paulson favoring his old employer? Pshaw!
You'll be saying that Cheney is in the pocket of Haliburton, next, and that's just crazy. - dha07030, on 10/03/2008, -2/+19His name is Henry Paulson
- Unicorny, on 10/02/2008, -14/+26Goldman Sachs $583,000 investment in the Obama campaign is sure paying off.
- chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -1/+13McCain received money from Goldman Sachs as well. In fact, both of them took money from a number of banks and finance groups that either have been nationalized or are part of the current bailout bill. No wonder they both agree on backing this bill. The front runners have special interests alright, it just isn't you and I.
- DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/03/2008, -2/+13Or they're just a smart investment company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Goldman ...
- stuartbryant, on 10/03/2008, -6/+17In other news, the vast majority of Digg users have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
- raisinbrainMMM, on 10/03/2008, -3/+13Buffet invested 5 Billion into Goldman Sachs in these last few days and is urging the government to pass the bailout or everything will collapse. ***** can't be anymore transparent about raping the poor and taking their money through this ***** up solution.
- DiscoLando, on 10/03/2008, -0/+10Technical term is 'Republocrat'.
Don't for a second think that the Democrats are somehow without blame in this mess. The kind of stupidity and sheer unconstitutionality we're witnessing unfold can only happen with help from both major parties. - chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -0/+9This is an excerpt from someone who did a hell of a lot more research than I. The full text can be found here: http://www.apfn.org/APFN/fed_reserve.htm
---
How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (Reference 17, P. 31).
Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12, P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.
If you think these politicians have your interests at heart, you are bat-***** crazy. We should be demanding the abolition of the Federal Reserve. These mega-corporations have been bleeding us dry since the early 1900s. - phuckpolitics, on 10/03/2008, -0/+7Could you predict next week's lotto numbers?
- rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6I'm disgusted. I've written to every congressmember from my state and urged them to fight this bill. This makes no sense at all. I'm saddened that both candidates support it. I wish someone had the balls to say it's unnecessary and actually bad.
- theutopian, on 10/03/2008, -5/+11Goldman Sachs did not invest in his campaign. Those were donations made by employees whom have to declare where they work when they make a donation.
Are you suggesting that only the unemployed and people who have no political views can donate to a candidate? - nugx, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Hey, just like Cheney, Halliburton and No-Bid Contracts!
- chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Goldman Sachs is also one of the largest shareholders in the Federal Reserve too. It's a conspiracy alright, not a theoretical one either.
- brad3378, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Notable People in favor of bailout:
Bush,
Obama,
McCain,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Henry Paulson - United States Treasury Secretary - Ex CEO of Goldman Sachs
Jim Cramer - MSNBC's Mad Money - Ex Employee of Goldman Sachs
Warren Buffet - Billionaire investor.& one of Obama's Financial Advisors - Recently purchased $5 Billion of Goldman Sachs preferred stock.
Ben Bernanke - Fed. Reserve Charmain - photographed at '08 Bilderberg conference. Violation of Logan Act?
Barney Frank - Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
See an interactive map of more of the major players and their connections here:
http://news.muckety.com/2008/09/30/bailout-support ... - StillAnonymous, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Primary investment: Politicians.
Paulson and Bernanke are the banking industry's "men on the inside". - StillAnonymous, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately, the country's fuel gauge is on "E".
- algaeturd, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6People were asking Buffett what to do, meanwhile he was cleaning up. Seems like greed occurs at every single level with the filthy rich. He'll profit off of the taxpayer bailout harder than anyone at this point.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 10/03/2008, -5/+10Republisheep = Not a word.
Die. - MrCashyCash, on 10/03/2008, -4/+9McCain was one of the Keating 5.
How much has he enriched himself at our expense? - Unicorny, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5That's why I'm going Independent this time!
That and the war.
And health care. - Ymeg, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Henry_Paulson_o ...
and my god does he look evil.
^^ - danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Ah I see what you did there...
Seriously though this is why neither is getting my vote. Neither really had a chance at getting it in the first place but this just helps solidify my choice even more (if that's even possible).
That candidates don't care about the common person. They never have. The Senate is where the worst of the worst are because they have enough power to get lobbied major by big corporations. The House of Representatives not so much because there are so many more of them *unless* the individual Representative happens to be on or leader of a committee. - eryximachus, on 10/03/2008, -5/+9Goldman Sachs should be shut down, or at least broken up under anti-trust legislation. The influence they wield in this country is far greater than the railroads or Standard Oil, or even Microsoft ever did.
The company is pure evil and contributes nothing of value to the economy or the people. - craftyguy, on 10/03/2008, -2/+6True we've had a Republican president the past 8 years, but the Democrats aren't without blame..
Clinton allowed certain institutions to act without regulation.
Democrats = Republicans = Gangsters - inactive, on 10/03/2008, -5/+9Good thing that Obama voted for the $700B bailout. Otherwise Goldman Sachs might fail and we will lose our Wall Street overlords.
- Mujokan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4My blame list:
(1) The banks
(2) The ratings agencies
(3) The Fed
(4) The government over the last 10-15 years or so
(5) House flippers and get-rich-quick artists
The reason I limit the government blame to recent years is because deregulation was understandable after post-WWII prosperity; but new regulations were needed to deal with new financial instruments, new complexity, and new understanding of the dynamics of bubbles and crashes.
It was unfortunate that this happened on the watch of a radically pro-big-corporation White House who wouldn't listen to mainstream economists and guys like Buffett and Soros. People have been watching this approaching since at least 2003, when Buffett called derivatives weapons of financial mass destruction. - regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Plus there's that $10 TRILLION CDO & CDS beast waiting behind the scenes...
You know what? Just give me time to get my family out of the country, and you can have your wet dream of America becoming the poorest nation on Earth. M'kay? - thegrantman, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Warren Buffet is donating billions of dollars to the Gates Foundation.
- brad3378, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4So why not name something specific?
- danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Now we all know why finance companies are such good/tight buddies with politicians. If you or I fail with our businesses they will not come in to bail us out, will they? To add insult to injury the money that will be used to bail out Mr. Wall Street will have come from your pocketbook which just may have been the amount you needed to keep from going out of business.
Also now that the big corporations (regardless of industry now, car manufacturing corporations are having issues as well currently) know that they can apply for a free bailout if they are big enough they have less incentive to fail. I'm not saying that they'll all openly want to just fail for no reason, just that it is dangerous in general to try to take away the negative consequences of making bad decisions... you have to remind people that it is naturally supposed to hurt when you make a poor decision. Heck maybe it'd help if they just let one fairly large one fail to remind these big suckers of who's boss. On the other hand though such an action would scare the ***** out of people invested in the stock market and, well, you know the rest...
Hate to say it but Ron Paul was right and I really don't see any of this working out in the end. This idea that you can defy the laws of nature and make an economy immune to any sort of recession is ludicrous and unfortunately something that I believe we will pay for heavily It is like trying to cure the symptoms of a spreading disease without actually curing it. The longer you push it off the harder it will hit you when it eventually comes around.
Scary times. But what happens when a.) you have hardly any politicians in Congress who understand economics and b.) the economic "experts" you have just advocate plans that, while they benefit themselves, their companies, and their friends/acquaintances, unfortunately do not benefit the very large majority of people. Most economic analysts you see on TV advocating plans know that they will be safe regardless of what happens. Politicians with the hundreds of thousands they make off of lobbying money + their salaries will all most likely be safe and secure of what happens and thus don't have any major vested interest in doing what's right for the American taxpayers whose jobs rely upon the economy (compared to politicians whose jobs do not, and retired CEOs and economic analysts who don't have to worry about unemployment).
I've been appalled at how much disinformation has been going on within the confines of my TV screen. Business as usual for the media, politicians, and all those who make money off of the corporatist political system though... - DarkPrincess74, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4I had to stop looking at the picture after a second because I felt like he was trying to steal my soul
. - Rustymetal, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Right, and I can't see the moon at night.
- Draxius, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I honestly can't believe that the government and media actually figured out a way to fool people into thinking this was caused by deregulation. Yes, it was, but only if you look at the problem in about the most simplistic sense possible. If you actually believe that, you really shouldn't be debating this because you don't even have a foundation to start from.
Company stores...come on, advances in transportation have long solved that problem. Thank the free market for that one...believe it or not if you just let the market do its thing it yields great and just results. - Unicorny, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3As if the top executives who are giving the serious cash aren't well aware of what they're purchasing.
Good read on Obama's cash and lobbyist ties to this mess:
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
As to your question about unemployed..? Cute, but no. I favor public financing of campaigns, public counting of votes, publicly owned and operated debates. I'd like to see democracy thrive. - danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3What is a "dimple" depression?
- StillAnonymous, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3No, just your money.
- quesi, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5Hmmm, Morgans Rockefellers, Goldmans - nope, no ties to the ownership of the FED or anything fishy like that. pfft! Look back at history and see who scoops up the competition for pennies on the dollar during engineered economic "downturns". Or, keep watching the news and believing what they say.
What they have always been up to, it's called treason. - danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I was actually trying to call my guy today as well. I encourage everyone to do so... it's quick and easy.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3"The companies just lobby Senators and Representatives, as well as any other electable politicians, who pass legislation like this *in favor of the corporations that lobby them* in return for the campaign contributions to their re-election campaigns (as well as any other legal form of bribery possible)."
Or you could make the people in the regulatory agencies non-political appointees, and make the enforcement of said agencies not subject to the pressures of those in power.
And you really didn't offer any kind of solution. I presume you favor less regulation, which would mean that, say, banks/investment companies could still lie about their accounts (which helped land us in this current mess), companies could buy off politicians outright without the need for lobbying and not keep records of same, and large companies could crush competition via collusion and monopolistic practices? If not, what do you see as the ideal setup?
By the way, if you say "the invisible hand," you didn't actually read the above paragraph. - Ebacherville, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3here is some real information C-span footage.. there jamming this down the throats of Americans and threatening representatives:
http://digg.com/politics/Brad_Sherman_MARTIAL_LAW_ ... - regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3As far as rich investors go, Buffet is as close to a "good guy" as you can get--has often said that the fortunate 1% owe the 99%, and that he doesn't pay enough in taxes. But he loves money, and he's obviously not an idiot.
- danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Slight deregulation in a heavily regulated industry does not mean an industry is a completely free-market by any means. There is no completely 100% regulated market nor 100% free market (at least not that I can think of right now) but we can agree that ones that are combinations of both still can fail. Right?
I am open to your arguments against the lobbying system we have set up and ideas as to how to fix it though if you'd like to have a constructive debate/discussion though.
(I could say the same stuff back to you about Nazi, Stalinist systems but that's not what I'm here to do). And since when did I mention anything about the Federal Reserve or Libertarians? **I was just giving people who aren't aware of how lobbying works just that... an idea of how lobbying works** If there's anything about lobbying that I've said that is factually incorrect then feel free to let me know. - regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3"It was unfortunate that this happened on the watch of a radically pro-big-corporation White House who wouldn't listen to mainstream economists and guys like Buffett and Soros. People have been watching this approaching since at least 2003, when Buffett called derivatives weapons of financial mass destruction."
And the kicker is that this has set people off screaming for LESS regulation. What the hell? - Draxius, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I am not sure why anyone would want to copy and paste it beside their name.
You should have quit when you admitted you are not an economist. But alas you went on to prove it for many, many lines.
That being said, don't hate on free markets just because there are idiots out there spouting the term without having a clue what they are talking about. -
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 