Users who Dugg This
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
Steph Belsky
1499 Followers
Stephen Bailey
1034 Followers
George Clymer
794 Followers
Jeff Flowers
18279 Followers
The DorkKnight
2471 Followers
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Is this really NEWs?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
bababooey!
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
found loopholes in? I imagine their lobbyist had a hand in making sure these loopholes existed.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
And politicians made sure they were available.
inactiveuserAug 2, 2010
All for the sum of moneys paid to your local senator.
The Plutocratic Republic of the United States of America continues on...
agvanceAug 2, 2010
The politicians and there staff are too stupid to understand what they are trying to regulate so of course there are loop holes.
catboxeddieAug 2, 2010
Most of them used to work for Goldman Sachs.
ufcfanvtAug 2, 2010
Haters gonna Hate ...
creationismlolAug 3, 2010
daters gonna date
oxidaneAug 2, 2010
I guess in a way it's also the fault of the people/consumers. If you hate that company that badly, do something about it. Riot, boycott, kill it with fire, etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tarantulusAug 2, 2010
the problem is that this is not a consumer driven market anymore. it's the incestuous business infrastructure.
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
LOL.
Like GS and AIG and all the rest don't just swap paper all day long and manipulate the system to cover the phony VALUE they create on their fantasy transactions.
bimtottAug 2, 2010
It's not like Goldman is to blame for the loophole...pretty sure it was Congress who wrote it.
We should close the loop rather than whine about Goldman for doing what it's downright obligated to do on behalf of its shareholders.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggitydocAug 2, 2010
lobbyists?
spinningheadAug 2, 2010
Its funny that so many of us are raised with the idea of ethics and then excuse it when someone lacks ethics...so long as they are in business. There is nothing ethical about purposely violating the spirit of the law just because you can.
sabinAug 3, 2010
Because in business you have to practice due diligence to appease your shareholders. If GS ignored loopholes in a tax law that would make them more profitable then they are accountable to the shareholders for this decision. What I am saying is that GS would literally get sued if they find a loophole that works to their benefit and chooses to ignore it.
spinningheadAug 3, 2010
I understand the reasons, I just don't have any sympathy considering that its hurting the country.
acknotswAug 2, 2010
Congress doesn't write laws anymore, they are written by lobbyists or the congress members staff who are wined and dined by lobbyists. Large campaign donations are then made to the members who introduce the legislation as their own. Then the rest of congress holds out their hands and wait for the lobbyists who either support or disapprove of the legislation to fill them with enough money to vote the way they want. Our system at work.
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
"It's completely Evil and Goldman put most of those politicians in power -- but THEY are merely savvy businessmen"?
Why don't they just buy up the nuclear weapons and point them at us and each year we pay a ransom so that they don't launch -- isn't that a LOT MORE SAVVY?
Don't think some executive somewhere hasn't pencilled out this OPTION.
aaroncoAug 2, 2010
This is not new. For decades, firms have been using "division companies" to skirt regulation. Take for instance FINRA regulations, in order to keep them limited in scope most companies spin off affected operations so that the rest of their business can operate unhindered.
When these new "rules" were passed, many people (myself included) knew this was exactly what they'd do. And you know what? There ain't jack squat you can do about it. If you push too hard, they'll just go overseas and you'll lose all control. The tighter the federal gov't grips, the more banks will slip thru it's fingers.
These guys are only in it for themselves. They're capitalists, and they'll do whatever it takes to bypass as many rules as possible. It's funny that some people are just now figuring this out. Way to go, shortbus.
kalliusAug 3, 2010
These people took the maxim, "Life owes you nothing," and said, "Fine, then I owe life nothing in return." Look out for yourself first and foremost, and follow laws and ethics only when it is necessary, convenient, or beneficial.
aaroncoAug 3, 2010
No they didn't. They pay taxes, they hire a lot of people, those people they hire have taxes taken on their income. They pay their share. They also provide a number of services, and their existence makes the local economy of that region far more robust, perhaps even possible.
Nobody said "I owe you nothing in return." What they said was "We have morals all our own, they're not yours, but nobody said we have to agree. We have rules all our own, they're not yours, and we're not going to agree there either."
The federal gov't assumes it has infinite power in these regards. Congress believes it can just pass and enforce whatever it wants. That is merely a fantasy, there are very real limits on their power. Goldman Sachs and institutions (BP, anyone?) like it make this distinction very clear, they openly make a mockery of the process because they can. Unless we are willing to give the federal gov't communist-level authority over our lives (a a losing trade-off), we are not going to be able to do anything here. The power here is money, not politics. That's the game we have to learn to play.
peaceninjaAug 2, 2010
Corporations only do the right thing when it is financially beneficial to them. Let's hold them accountable for their immoral actions. No this is not a fight against capitalism, this is a fight against a grotesque lack of accountability. Let's shine light on all these lawyers and lobbyist roaches that are destroying our society.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I'm all for that, but how exactly do you suggest we do it? The government has time and time again proven itself incapable of regulating and holding corporations like this accountable -- main reason being they're both very much in bed together. In some cases... quite literally. Chelsea Clinton just married a f**king Goldman Sachs banker over the weekend. If you don't think this kind of thing has some kind of effect on public policy, think again. The Clinton family is powerful. Goldman Sachs has a lot of money and power. You figure out the rest.
azathoth43Aug 2, 2010
First and formost, stop calling ourselves consumers. We'er people damn it! We are not born to buy goods and services from corporations. Second: Corporations are amoral by definition, actually it's against the law for them to not be driven by profits alone. And corporations are not people why are they protected by the constitution? If a corporation commits a crime they don't go to jail. If I kill someone, my ass go's to prison. If giant mega-corp™ murders someone who go's to prison? No one.
acknotswAug 2, 2010
@azathonth43
And that's what needs to change, but the only entity that can do it is congress, the very ones benefitting from the current system. We the people have failed to act as the final check and balance to congress and until we do our jobs, congress will continue to serve corporate interests instead of the peoples.
countess666Aug 2, 2010
make investees and chairmen responsible for the actions a company takes. put them in jail for them.
basically stop treating a corporation as a separate legal entity that can be punished separately from the people controlling it.
of course implementing this would cause mass panic in the markets.
zsavisAug 3, 2010
Well said.
macrozonarisAug 3, 2010
Let's make it financially beneficial to them to do the right thing.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
They are just following the law
Blame the lawmakers
topcat5Aug 2, 2010
Haha. The bill was put forth by the bank lovers Dodd & Frank. It was Dodd who slipped in the original bank bail out, the provision that let the huge bonuses continue to flow to the bankers including those going to Goldman. Follow back the whole trail of excesses of of bank deregulation, increasing powers at the Fed, and a whole host other items leading to the financial collapse and you will find those two there enabling all of it.
This bill did not fix anything that is broken and the reason it is 2000+ pages long is to make sure that it doesn't get fixed.
bloodwineAug 2, 2010
Are there any existing laws or regulations that don't have loopholes big enough to drive trucks through? That would be the real news if there were.
firesphotonsAug 2, 2010
I'd like to see the logo and name changed to Goldman and Ball Sacks,
f**king you just like the real thing.
celotilAug 2, 2010
It's already saying that,
Goldman Sachs => Gold Man-Sacks
gizram84Aug 2, 2010
Why is it that the new financial reform will empower companies like Goldman Sach's while making it almost impossible for any reputable small business lender to stay afloat? Why does this administration continue to encourage the growth of the corporate state in America? Why is Obama hellbent on fueling the ultra-rich and stomping down the hardworking small businesses?
The corporatist state we are in is absolutely sickening. He is just a continuation of Bush. Appalling.
catboxeddieAug 2, 2010
"Why is Obama hellbent on fueling the ultra-rich and stomping down the hardworking small businesses?"
Because the ultra-rich told him to?
hyperianAug 2, 2010
Wait, Obama wanted this? I thought he wanted a much tougher bill but it didn't pass in congress, because the republicans rejected it all together.
tsk05Aug 2, 2010
Meh, haters going to hate. To all government regulation, there is a response. Goldman Sachs employees people who figure out ways for them to make the most money - no problem there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
simunsezAug 2, 2010
I agree 05 ... make the most of what you're dealt.
Nobody is forced to do business with GS.
mbst2000Aug 2, 2010
Oh that's alright then. I'm sure all those people employed by Insurance companies to invalidate peoples claims are just doing what they have to do eh?
Basically you're saying that it's perfectly alright for a bank to actively work against the interests of the populace. This isn't a game, this isn't cat and mouse, there are brutal consequences to their actions and that this can even get a counterpoint is baffling.
They're wrong, pure and simple what they're doing, and what they have done is wrong. The barely checked agression of banks and corporations has wreaked more havoc on the world than any terrorist could hope for. It's not OK
tsk05Aug 2, 2010
Correct, it's ok for a bank to do whatever its customers allow it to. Switch banks and leave that bank a bad review if you're not happy. Or you can try to pass more regulation which doesn't work, ala, this article.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbst2000Aug 2, 2010
You see that's not the point I'm getting at. Sometimes we are so caught up in the mire of this kind of dehumanising behaviour by corporations that we don't just step back and look at the whole situation.
The fact that there needs to be regulation, and that we are all perfectly aware of the intention of that regulation (at least in how we would want it to be implemented), and that the banks actively try to sabotage and get round it for their own aims, shows that there is absolutely no remorse or responsibility whatsoever.
I know, it's hardly a big revelation, but it doesn't mean we should be any less disgusted by it.
Case in point, I don't speed, not because I'm worried about getting caught, but because I don't want to kill or injure someone due to my own recklessness. The rule of law is not the only thing keeping me from blazing along at 100mph. If I were caught speeding I wouldn't contest the charge, I'd have been acting like an assh**e and I'd deserve my punishment. It's a responsible attitude.
The question we need to ask is how these banks have displayed a complete inability to self-regulate. This is like someone speeding because they actively found a stretch of road with no speed cameras, hit and severely injured someone, and the reaction being, "well we should have better speed cameras"
And as far as taking your business across the street, the financial system we have means that these institutions influence are far reaching. I think you'd be hard pressed to opt out entirely. The system and culture are broken.
solistusAug 3, 2010
Welcome to capitalism. Financial institutions that are basically outside the reach of democratic institutions make all the real decisions and control the globe, and all you can do is impotently switch your personal buying habits and hope your new God, the invisible hand of the market comes and fixes everything. That's worked out so well so far, right?
falconearAug 2, 2010
The administration is going to have to step up their game if they want to snare Goldman. They've been finding ways around regulations and getting special exemptions for decades before most of these people were born. They're assh**es, but they're very good at what they do.
richmomzAug 2, 2010
Why would they do that? Goldman was Obama's single largest source of campaign donations in '08.
catboxeddieAug 2, 2010
DING DING DING
falconearAug 3, 2010
Then why doesn't the right support laws to make contributions a matter of public record?
bxrwxrAug 2, 2010
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
richmomzAug 2, 2010
Except in this game the players own all the refs, and can pretty much do as they please.
solistusAug 3, 2010
Hate both.
mbst2000Aug 2, 2010
Comments like "they're just doing what they're supposed to do" just depress the hell out of me.
So basically the conclusion is "well they're d**kh**ds, but they have to be d**kh**ds to make money", I mean is that all we've got? Our entire financial system is brought to its knees by tactics such as this and we look on and just say that's the way it is?
They don't have to be d**kh**ds, they can choose to be human f**king beings instead. No one ever said putting a suit on means you have to leave your soul in the changing room. There needs to be a huge change in attitude from agressive, reckless profiteering and move towards a more responsible capitalism that favours slower growth but with less speed bumps.
So many people across the globe lost so much because some assh**e looking at numbers on a screen f**ked up horribly. This money doesn't even physically exist, it's just a bunch of virtual numbers, nothing is made, its just one big casino with imaginary money. They want to do it again because they got away with it the last time. They aren't the ones suffering.
Take your money out of a bank and put it in a co-operative or something. Seriously this has to stop and the only thing you can really do is call your representative or move your money to somewhere that hopefully has ethics.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
"Seriously this has to stop and the only thing you can really do is call your representative or ..."
Oh for the love of god... Why does everyone want to empower the government with things like this, when they are the main reason for all of this.
The most powerful tool of the ultra rich, the huge corporations, the corrupt, etc IS the government.
solistusAug 3, 2010
You can't have a financial system based on greed, competition and endless capital accumulation and expect to solve all the problems this creates with "ethics". You have to apply those ethics to the system itself, and reorganize our financial institutions completely. Speculative and derivatives markets are no basis for the backbone of an economy. The US stopped producing goods and started producing Ponzi schemes, and it's finally catching up to us.
mattropolisAug 3, 2010
You can't regulate someone to have morals or ethics. People keep forgetting that. You can punish and punish and punish - but there are far more ways to be a dick than to be good - so those that want to get around things will.
One of the fundamental principles of law and society our founding fathers took for granted was that people were seeking the good of all. If that isn't present - then almost every government system will collapse under the weight of its own corruption/decadence/self-interest. Witness Rome and other great civilizations - we're heading that direction.
heliox2000Aug 2, 2010
Goldman is in existence to make money. If they can can call their traders "bananas" and allow them to make money...they'd do it.
If you found a tax loophole that would allow you to keep more money...you'd do it too.
Blame the people who wrote the law, and lobbyists taking our lawmakers on vacations in the Bahama (and the lawmakers for being bought).
spinningheadAug 2, 2010
Who do you think hired the lobbyists and provided the funds?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Who do you think accepted the bribes, vacations, and actually crafted loopholes into these laws?
spinningheadAug 2, 2010
I didn't let politicians off the hook. Heliox is letting Wall Street off the hook just because what they're doing is profitable.
heliox2000Aug 2, 2010
I don't think any one's hands are clean in this. But ultimately, it lies with congress (both Ds and Rs).
richmomzAug 2, 2010
"Blame the people who wrote the law" Uh, yeah... and guess who had a big hand in writing it?
mahadigaAug 2, 2010
Goldman Sachs has constantly violated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Yes, it's people's fault for poor laws...
edwarddouglasAug 2, 2010
What a dumb headline. Every company does this. Even people do this when they go to their accountant.
drsolaceAug 2, 2010
Imagine if everyone, everywhere, did not go to work for one whole day. Can you picture the absolute cluster-f**k of everything?
mattropolisAug 3, 2010
You mean like (almost) everyone on Sunday?
cwhite545Aug 2, 2010
THEY WROTE THE F**KING BILL.
catboxeddieAug 2, 2010
^ This.
richmomzAug 2, 2010
What do you expect when they pretty much control the U.S. Treasury Dept. as a subsidiary and write most of the financial reform legislation?
catboxeddieAug 2, 2010
^And this.
reeds1999Aug 2, 2010
The assh**es are the legislators and regulators who allow this to happen.
A pig is a pig, and Goldman is a pig.
Legislators and Regulators are not supposed to be pigs.
dushAug 2, 2010
Well in order to curb risky behavior the government basically legislated certain people out of a job at these companies.
So Goldman are reorganizing their internal functions to try and meet the regulatory requirements as well as avoid a bunch of layoffs.
What's wrong with that?
eraptorAug 2, 2010
What's wrong is that Goldman's behavior amounts to circumventing the intent of the new regulations. Since proprietary trading endangers the integrity AND health of our market, it shouldn't be allowed...PERIOD. If that requires a career change for a few traders, it's a small price to pay. Obviously, Goldman Sachs and the other Wall Street banks refuse to act responsibly.
Imagine where the economy would be today if credit default securities and the CDO's they insured had been regulated appropriately. We'd still have Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers while Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, AIG, and Countrywide would be independent companies. Yet, using similar business practices to what Goldman is NOW using, they were casualties of their own greed and irresponsibility.
It's abject stupidity from people who should know better.
tinzusaAug 2, 2010
When you live in a world where laws are not only made by corporations, but curtailed by them, you have to ask yourself what the fundamental meaning of justice or equity really is.
eraptorAug 2, 2010
If Goldman is intent on stealing from the American people, then perhaps it's time to return the favor. Since Goldman considers "stealing" and "deception" to be hallmarks of smart business, then it's time to practice what they preach.
Therefore, any American who finds themselves in a position to steal from Goldman Sachs, should do just that since they've set the new standard of ethics and morality (i.e., anything goes as long as you can get away with it). What goes around, comes around...
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
Yet all the people who saw this coming in the first place said; Re-instate Glass Steagal.
OF COURSE we can control these problems -- but that would mean putting back in place many laws passed when FDR took control and even some laws passed under Nixon.
Constantly, the apologists throw up their hands and say; "What are you going to do?" How about a firing squad now and then -- just to keep them guessing? Why don't we just privatize Banking? Since this is merely a facility for people to start businesses and save funds -- it doesn't REALLY need to be a way to make profit -- and since the taxpayer always backstops these ventures ...
Privatize it.
We don't want people making money on money -- we have to have people innovating and working to make money. IT would solve so many problems. And the solution is as easy as the People getting together and saying; "Banks are there to transact -- and should NOT be sources of plunder." And then it's over for these parasites at Goldman.
arkons24Aug 3, 2010
Goldman Sachs wouldn't be affected by Glass-Steagall. Their classification as a bank-holding purposes. If something as restrictive of Glass-Steagall was brought back, they'd simply revert to an investment bank.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
That assumes the government would allow them to switch their classification AGAIN.
While I'm cynical enough to believe they could pull it off due to the rampant corruption in D.C. (i.e., Republicans and "conservative" Democrat's), Glass-Steagall would put a MAJOR crimp in Goldman Sach's operations regardless of their banking classification. It is for this reason ALONE that I and many others support reinstating it.
arkons24Aug 4, 2010
Since GS doesn't do commercial banking services like taking deposits it doesn't technically have to be a bank holding company, it is simply for the fed window access. Under Glass-Steagall investment banks were banks that traded on their own account (i.e. prop traded) and commercial banks were banks that handled deposits. Any company that owned a commercial bank was designated a bank holding company and was prohibited from owning any other type of financial institution that wasn't a commercial bank. The only real difference between the two classifications is that commercial banks are the only ones allowed access to fed window. Once Glass-Steagall disappeared, eliminating the restriction that bank holding companies could not own other financial institutions, GS simply became a bank holding company (despite owning no actual commercial bank). So assuming they can shed the classification, they probably wouldn't be affected at all. And I'm pretty sure they can pull it off ;)
derangedpenguinAug 2, 2010
Jon Corzine Former Governor New Jersey Democrat is proud.
mattlaskAug 2, 2010
Gold man sacks.
u2canfailAug 3, 2010
Greed is not good. Money and politics make bad laws. I am surprised there was any financial reform.
richie311249Aug 3, 2010
Pretty sure this will get fixed...oh wait congress has to do this. Have fun Goldman.
gogog0Aug 3, 2010
I really don't see what Goldman is doing wrong here. If they don't try to do all they can to make the most money then other investment banks will and Goldman starts losing profits. I don't think you guys understand how cutthroat ibanking is. There is a reason you have to be a 3.5+ gpa ivy league grad to work for one of these companies.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
It's not just Goldman, it's also the financial services industry. This industry's "leaders" have become economic loose cannons and MUST be reined in before they COMPLETELY destroy the U.S. economy (assuming it's not too late).
As for those Ivy League grad's, they may have made good grades, but are SORELY deficient in ethics and morality. A high GPA can't compensate for the absence of common sense OR experience.
jlee2081Aug 3, 2010
I sat across from some Goldman bankers while I was trying to enjoy my dinner at Corner Bistro Thursday night. They kept going on about being hungry, net worth, and about how unstoppable they were. I wanted to throw my burger at their faces, but the damn thing was too delicious. douchebags
hurricanedcAug 3, 2010
wish those towelheads woulda taken out Goldman Ballsachs instead of the WTC
midgetmouseAug 3, 2010
But hey, Obama endorsed this. What can be bad about that?
A massive 2000 page bill that gives more control to the government HAS to be well thought out right?
These should be discussed thoroughly before voting, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
The uber rich have the best lawyers in the world. They can get out of anything and everything scott-free and usually do. They are above the law in every sense of the term.
When you accept banking corporations as your overlords, we can be done with it.
They own you and everything you think you own.
If more people would finally accept this has been going on for decades, there might be time to change it.
macrozonarisAug 3, 2010
How about just saying "no one is too big to fail" and see what happens.
arkons24Aug 3, 2010
I wouldn't blame Goldman Sachs since the legislation was written with these loopholes in mind.
eraptorAug 3, 2010
Blame them? They wrote most of the loopholes!