Goldman Haters

well, bush and obama used fear mongering to get people behind their spendulus plans.....and now, a mere few months later they post billions in profits when they were supposed to fail.....

bush/obama spendulus = fail

i'm sure you will say, but, but, but without the bailout or spendulus as i like to call it, they wouldn't have a profit....a profit of 3+ billion.....come on, it is clear they weren't hurting that bad and did not need the money
 
Yurt said:
well, bush and obama used fear mongering to get people behind their spendulus plans.....and now, a mere few months later they post billions in profits when they were supposed to fail.....

bush/obama spendulus = fail

i'm sure you will say, but, but, but without the bailout or spendulus as i like to call it, they wouldn't have a profit....a profit of 3+ billion.....come on, it is clear they weren't hurting that bad and did not need the money
Click to expand...

That is HARDLY clear.

There is a good argument to make that we would have easily seen a series of major bank failures without TARP, and a stock market in the 5K range.

The pain of that would have been staggering. Obviously, we'll never know for sure, but it's cool that some banks are paying it back so soon.
 
LadyT said:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/17/new...tude.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009071710

I don't get why people are hating on Goldman Sachs. They gave back the money and the government got a 5% return in well under a year. They didn't even want the TARP money to begin with. TARP is quickly becoming the scarlet letter of the financial services industry.
Click to expand...


Thanks, and good for them. It should be the scarlet letter. There are those that state they should not have gotten it in the first place. Economics isn't my strong suit. I leave it to the experts and hope they will do what is best for us, but I do try to read and find out who those experts are and so far, I am throwing my cards in with Buffet!
 
Yurt said:
well, bush and obama used fear mongering to get people behind their spendulus plans.....and now, a mere few months later they post billions in profits when they were supposed to fail.....

bush/obama spendulus = fail

i'm sure you will say, but, but, but without the bailout or spendulus as i like to call it, they wouldn't have a profit....a profit of 3+ billion.....come on, it is clear they weren't hurting that bad and did not need the money
Click to expand...

From what I understand, most of the banks didn't want to get stuck with the funds anyway, primarily due to the compensation restrictions.

And for the record, I blame the entire market plummet on Bush. You don't tell investors and everyone else the sky is falling.
 
LadyT said:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/17/new...tude.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009071710

I don't get why people are hating on Goldman Sachs. They gave back the money and the government got a 5% return in well under a year. They didn't even want the TARP money to begin with. TARP is quickly becoming the scarlet letter of the financial services industry.
Click to expand...

People are hating the deals that Goldman and JP Morgan are getting due to their strong influence in DC. These two 'too big to fail firms' are getting ever bigger. Now one will likely be the buyer of Citi.... making them even bigger.
 
LadyT said:
From what I understand, most of the banks didn't want to get stuck with the funds anyway, primarily due to the compensation restrictions.

And for the record, I blame the entire market plummet on Bush. You don't tell investors and everyone else the sky is falling.
Click to expand...

uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh

that is exactly what obama told people in order to get his so called stimulus and bank bailout passed.....

if you want to be objective, bush was criticized for saying the economy was sound when the dems were screaming it was going down.....then when bush "finally" got around to saying the economy was not so hot, the dems blamed him for speaking out to late....

really ladyt, really
 
Superfreak said:
People are hating the deals that Goldman and JP Morgan are getting due to their strong influence in DC. These two 'too big to fail firms' are getting ever bigger. Now one will likely be the buyer of Citi.... making them even bigger.
Click to expand...

Touchez.
 
Yurt said:
uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh

that is exactly what obama told people in order to get his so called stimulus and bank bailout passed.....

if you want to be objective, bush was criticized for saying the economy was sound when the dems were screaming it was going down.....then when bush "finally" got around to saying the economy was not so hot, the dems blamed him for speaking out to late....

really ladyt, really
Click to expand...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=05&b=1&c=2008&d=11&e=31&f=2008&g=d

The markets were definitely headed on a downward path in the last two quarters of the year, however immediately after Bush gave his the sky is falling state of the union, we saw bigger and more substantial decreases in the market and more frequently. Who's to say that in a few months time investors would have naturally migrated toward other businesses with solid financials. That could have led to a much 'softer' bump. Instead people were selling everything they could in droves whether or not stocks had a solid business structure.
 
LadyT said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=05&b=1&c=2008&d=11&e=31&f=2008&g=d

The markets were definitely headed on a downward path in the last two quarters of the year, however immediately after Bush gave his the sky is falling state of the union, we saw bigger and more substantial decreases in the market and more frequently. Who's to say that in a few months time investors would have naturally migrated toward other businesses with solid financials. That could have led to a much 'softer' bump. Instead people were selling everything they could in droves whether or not stocks had a solid business structure.
Click to expand...

so you deny that dems did not criticize bush for saying the economy is worse than it is? what you're really saying is....bush kept up hope as long as he could, until the dems whine became so loud he had to say something....

and you're being an A+ hypocrite because obama said much worse about the economy in order to fear monger people to pass his plan.....you're not a partisan hack are you?
 
Yurt said:
so you deny that dems did not criticize bush for saying the economy is worse than it is? what you're really saying is....bush kept up hope as long as he could, until the dems whine became so loud he had to say something....

and you're being an A+ hypocrite because obama said much worse about the economy in order to fear monger people to pass his plan.....you're not a partisan hack are you?
Click to expand...

I didn't say any of that. I said the market clearly reacted to Bush's hysteria fueled state of the union. I didn't like the speech and the market reacted quite negatively immediately following it.
 
LadyT said:
I didn't say any of that. I said the market clearly reacted to Bush's hysteria fueled state of the union. I didn't like the speech and the market reacted quite negatively immediately following it.
Click to expand...

why do you keep ignoring anything said about the dems? are you another example of the bush only fault crowd? why don't you try and address what the dems were saying then and what obama has said recently.....
 
Yurt said:
why do you keep ignoring anything said about the dems? are you another example of the bush only fault crowd? why don't you try and address what the dems were saying then and what obama has said recently.....
Click to expand...

Because HE was the president. He had a state of the union, which clearly resonated with the markets.
 
Yurt said:
so you deny that dems did not criticize bush for saying the economy is worse than it is? what you're really saying is....bush kept up hope as long as he could, until the dems whine became so loud he had to say something....

and you're being an A+ hypocrite because obama said much worse about the economy in order to fear monger people to pass his plan.....you're not a partisan hack are you?
Click to expand...

Can you give me quotes and dates please? (FYI, I was referring to Bush's September state of the union)
 
Superfreak said:
People are hating the deals that Goldman and JP Morgan are getting due to their strong influence in DC. These two 'too big to fail firms' are getting ever bigger. Now one will likely be the buyer of Citi.... making them even bigger.
Click to expand...

Yep too big to let fail is too big to exist. They are a threat to the USA.
Instead of letting them get bigger, break them up.
 
LadyT said:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/17/new...tude.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009071710

I don't get why people are hating on Goldman Sachs. They gave back the money and the government got a 5% return in well under a year. They didn't even want the TARP money to begin with. TARP is quickly becoming the scarlet letter of the financial services industry.
Click to expand...


Seriously? Goldman not only received TARP funds, but it also received shitloads of government money laundered through AIG together will who knows what kind of nonsense through loan guarantees without which it would have gone the way of Lehman Brothers. Goldman was saved by the government while its primary competition was permitted to die. And what did the folks at Goldman learn from this experience, being brought back from the precipice by the federal government though taxpayer money when their own risk-taking behaviors were to blame for their demise? Nothing:

“Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” Goldman’s chief financial officer tells Bloomberg News. Value-at-risk—a statistical measure of how much the firm’s trading operations could lose in a day—rose to an average of $245 million in the second quarter from $240 million in the first quarter. In the second quarter of 2008, VaR averaged $184 million.
Click to expand...

Basically, Goldman Sachs is saying thanks for the floater and giving us the finger all while expecting us to float them another loan when they need it while, in the meantime, they increase their risk exposure and rake in more short-term profits.
 
Goldman Sachs is representative of the terrible inefficiency of us wasting all our resources on these financial institutions that do nothing productive. Goldman bet on toxic assets, then sold them short around 2008. Goldman gained a lot, but everyone else in the US suffered. No one should congratulate Goldman Sachs.
 
Watermark said:
Goldman Sachs is representative of the terrible inefficiency of us wasting all our resources on these financial institutions that do nothing productive. Goldman bet on toxic assets, then sold them short around 2008. Goldman gained a lot, but everyone else in the US suffered. No one should congratulate Goldman Sachs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I'm applying for a job there.

Wish me luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top