GaryPDX: Clarence Potter: GaryPDX: You can't read? He was at the NY Fed for 5 years. You don't have to be on their payroll to do their bidding.

Oh, I see... your confusing conspiracy for fact. Got it, thanks.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what? How do you explain little Timmy at the NY Fed and supposedly being completely clueless of what was happening and now he's the Sec of Treasury?

Yea okay. Coincidences of this magnitude do not exist.

How is working for NY Fed equivalent to working for GS? The hell is this.

Looks like Matt Taibbi is getting tired of his 2004 Ohio conspiracy theory and appearing on Bill Maher. So now he's jumped head first into the world of Goldman Sachs conspiracies. I'm not surprised. Seems it's the next hot conspiracy theory, with lots of versions floating around. Some of which are found here: http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/01/07/Goldman-Conspiracy-Theo r ies

willfullyobscure: Farker T: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: ethically-challeneged dunce who trades off on histrionics to cover up logical and factual gullies you could hide a jumbo jet in.

[citation needed]


* - I am a professional, working journalist with a full and working knowledge of the standards and practices that go into good reporting and writing. This is inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat. The man does get good sources though; as long as they fit the story he already wrote in his head.*

there's your citation. I give a shiat about the politics of the issue; but this is textbook populist bullshiatrhetoric.

Sorry, I see that you already answered my last question - just as expected.

For your next trick, I suggest that you label Taibbi as an "anti-Semite" and a "neo-Nazi". Maybe that will make people ignore him.

/You can always hope

maybe I was unclear.

FORSOOTH, all ye now present:I giveth NOT the paltry weight and inconsequent value of a pile of Human Excreta in return for the value of my Opinions on the political nature of this Discourse, yea, even verily.

leaning on inflammatory populist barnburning is hack shiat whether it is Taibbi or O'Reilly. I stand by my professional assessment. this is all sizzle, no sausage.

Here's the scoop: When you critique an author, accusing him of writing "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat"and then fail repeatedly to SUPPORT those allegations, your critique comes off looking like "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat".

Get it?

Now, back to writing your scathing reviews of muffin recipes for the West Westchester Ladies Cooking and Baking Club quarterly newsletter, Mr. "professional working journalist".

t3knomanser: Cucullen: When "good business decision" includes sabotage, fraud and bribery, yes it is.

What sabotage? What fraud? There were a few institutional failings, and there was a lot of bad math being passed around. It's not some shadowy conspiracy- it's a bunch of greedy people doing what greedy people do. Even worse, they were blatantly transparent about what they were doing, because, let's be honest: it's what we all expected from them.

And it's not bribery- it's campaign contributions.

Masso: They're greedy and underhanded bastard, but I don't any conspiracy in what they do.

I'm not sure what you mean by conspiracy or what would constitute that in your mind. I don't think anyone's actually accused them of that per se though. I certainly haven't used that word. I think the premise of Taibbi's article is that they have a parasitic relationship with our economy, rather than symbiotic. I'd agree though that this is generally what greedy people do.

There certainly seems to be evidence that GS was a major player in inflating the bubble, got out while they were ahead and is now in a position to buy undervalued assets as a result. The role they played in inflating the bubble and the influence they bought in DC that allowed them to do so, that's where the fraud and bribery come in. When they started short selling the assets they had originally used their financial weight to inflate in value, that's the sabotage. Perhaps there are more polite words to be used and intent is difficult to prove. I think its clear that everything is not kosher with GS though.

This isn't the first time that Taibbi has written on the subject. For those who accuse him of failing to support his allegations of hanky-panky by Goldman et al, I suggest you read this:

The Big Takeover

The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution (new window)

Matt Taibbi, 1970-2009

eqtworld: /no idea what you mean

OK, different analogy. The Bible uses the image of building a house on the sand as a metaphor for building your spiritual life on God. If you build a house on sand and it's washed away, do you blame the ocean? Technically, you could, but it wouldn't have been an issue if you had had the foresight to build your house on a solid foundation. Likewise, the banks built a massive derivatives market built on the backs of borrowers who were over leveraging themselves. It's not as if there was no warning that this was the case, the banks, investors, government and people simply ignored it. Sure, technically it's the borrowers fault, but it was the banks and government that created the environment in which what should have been a relatively tame market correction became a catastrophic collapse.

But anyway, I like the image of sleeping ferrets so that's what I'm sticking with.

Mentat: But anyway, I like the image of sleeping ferrets so that's what I'm sticking with.

I think the image of a brain slug is more apt.

Though Taibbi's image of a vampire squid or Alien facehugger are good too. He seems like a sober version of HST.

Congress Has 43,457,362 Reasons to Help Goldman Sachs(new window)

"Goldman Sachs bankers are also the number one contributors to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, giving $691,930 to his campaign in this cycle, according to the records. "

"In the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs bankers have come up with $4.8 million in contributions to federal candidates, according to the records. 72 per cent of Goldman's money this year has gone to Democratic candidates and the national party, the majority party in Congress"

helix400: Looks like Matt Taibbi is getting tired of his 2004 Ohio conspiracy theory and appearing on Bill Maher. So now he's jumped head first into the world of Goldman Sachs conspiracies. I'm not surprised. Seems it's the next hot conspiracy theory, with lots of versions floating around. Some of which are found here: http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/01/07/Goldman-Conspiracy-Theo r ies

Actually...Taibbi didn't propose a conspiracy theory...I think that's Goldman Sachs' language you've borrowed.

The actual article simply provides a comprehensive history of the many dealings and relationships between Goldman Sachs, the government and the economy. Each and every relationship examined is a matter of public record.

I think most people who see all of those events and revolving door positions compiled into a single article naturally come to the conclusion that there is, at the very least, a conflict of interest being clearly presented.

While it may be "natural" for most financial experts to have previous careers in the largest financial institutions and for government officials to retire from public service back into those same institutions after overseeing policy and regulation of those same markets, it is also a clear sign of an incestuous relationship that by its very definition exemplifies a weakness in the system. He does not claim it is unnatural or centrally planned; the corruption and ensuing dangers are simply a natural result of the too-close relationship between the two entities.

While you may be fine with it, others are not. Large speculators are actually only a minority of the population. Such undue disproportionate influence and representation within a democratic republic is repulsive to most people.

I think we can all agree they are the "experts" on financial devices, but whether that expertise has proven valuable to the nation is extremely questionable in light of the volatility their speculation introduces.

mloree: I say we kill them all


I say we kill him!
YEAH!!!
I say we hang him, then we kill him!
YEAH!!!
I say we stomp him!
YEAH!!!
Then we tattoo him!
YEAH!!!
Then we hang him!
YEAH!!!
And then we kill him!
YEAH!!!

_{I say we let him go.}
NO!!!

Here's the map of the Goldman Revolving Door.

Lumi: Some of us weren't raised in anti-Semitic environments. Care to enlighten those of us as to the anti-Semitic connotations of "blood-sucking?"

Attacking the messenger gets you nowhere, son.

Goldman and Sachs are Jewish names, I believe. Just sayin'.

Rolling Stone, occasionally a good article and occasionally a credulous conspiracy theory.

Like the interview with St. John Hunt. Obvious fraud was obvious... But apparently not obvious to RS.

that_other_internet: Here's the map of the Goldman Revolving Door.

I think I'll need my GPS to navigate that one...

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: Lumi: Some of us weren't raised in anti-Semitic environments. Care to enlighten those of us as to the anti-Semitic connotations of "blood-sucking?"

Attacking the messenger gets you nowhere, son.

Avoiding the question get you to ignore.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: can't Goldman Sachs really just be short hand for 'da joooooooooooooooooozzzz'? is it ok to say 'it' as long as it's a company name and not the actual ethnic group?

There are many people in the world. Some of them are sleaze bags.

There are Jewish people in the world. Some of them are slease bags too.

Pointing out sleaze bags who happen to be Jewish is not anti-Semitic.

I suspect that many Farkers are unaware of the numerous deep ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama Administration. A few for instances:

Obama has put his trust in the advice of menâ"Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Chief Economic Advisor Larry Summers, and, informally, former Clinton Treasurer Robert Rubin, all linked to the investment bank Goldman Sachs."

"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Mark Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman until April 11, 2008, according to public filings."

"If AIG had managed to not collapse and not require $180 billion in taxpayer money, Goldman Sachs would be sitting today with some very very shaky investments. But since AIG collapsed, the folks at Goldman cleaned up. Goldman Sachs employees gave just shy of a million dollars to the Obama campaign, ranking second in contributions. Citigroup and JPMorgan ranked sixth and seventh. Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain."

Obama nominated "Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission...Gensler is a reassuring figure to the moguls of finance; he was a partner at Goldman Sachs before being brought by Goldman honcho Robert Rubin to the Clinton Treasury Department."

"When it came time to name a vice presidential running mate, Mr. Obama turned to Goldman Sachs Board Member James Johnson. Mr. Johnson was forced to vacate the post under controversy."

This above list is by no means exhaustive. Nor are the sources cited above (The Huffington Post, The Nation, etc.) exactly known for their fierce and unstinting criticism of Obama.

See, this is why the term "anti-semite" has been deprived of all real meaning.

We're talking about a damned bank. A bank founded by Jews, yes, but a bank.

LawrencePerson: I suspect that many Farkers are unaware of the numerous deep ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama Administration. A few for instances:

Trying to link Obama to bank failures is like tying to link Bush to the Enron failure.

There is no smoking gun. Just people casting suspicions around.

Burn98: LawrencePerson: I suspect that many Farkers are unaware of the numerous deep ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama Administration. A few for instances:

Trying to link Obama to bank failures is like tying to link Bush to the Enron failure.

There is no smoking gun. Just people casting suspicions around.

Perhaps, but he's keeping the same "good ol' boy" cast of characters in place. Expect to see more of the same in the future.

MikeFallopian: It would be interesting to learn how much wealth was destroyed in the GS-underwritten CDOs, as a percentage of the entire wealth destruction from the housing bubble. Likewise with GS- financed IPOs in the tech bubble. I suspect it would not be nearly enough to justify Taibbi's thesis - and the fact that he doesn't seem to talk about the low interest rate regimes that preceded each bubble is fairly telling. After all, the Fed deliberately pumped up the housing bubble to fight weak employment and what looked like a really bad looming recession (not necessarily an irrational call on their part). My guess is that a world without GS would be a world that looks a hell of a lot like our world.

You're overlooking the influence that the Goldman Sachs exercised over the whole situation. The problem isn't that GS gave out the crappy mortgages, or sold all of the crappy CDOs, it's that their cronies had a direct hand in the policies that allowed and encouraged these things to happen. Then, when the shiat hit the fan, GS was right in line to benefit from bailout money.

You talk about what the Fed did, and the supposed reason for it, well who was running the Fed?'

The part where Friedman gets the conflict-of-interest waiver so he can run the NY Fed while owning GS stock and serving on the board is just the most blatant example of how interwined the Fed and GS are.

Your guess that we'd be in the same spot without GS might be right, but with GS cronies planted everywhere we'll never know will we. Godwin: It's like saying WWII would've happened the same without Hitler and Goebbels.

Enjoy sucking the cock of your ruling class while you celebrate your imagined Independence this weekend.

Here's a hint we should have all learned from The Revolution: When speaking truth to power, it works best if you first get its attention by driving a musket ball through its face.

that_other_internet: Here's the map of the Goldman Revolving Door.

A screenshot for those that don't follow the link:



Nothing to see here. Move along.

Thread incomplete without this:

Farker T: willfullyobscure: Farker T: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: ethically-challeneged dunce who trades off on histrionics to cover up logical and factual gullies you could hide a jumbo jet in.


Here's the scoop: When you critique an author, accusing him of writing "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat"and then fail repeatedly to SUPPORT those allegations, your critique comes off looking like "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat".


how's your fail taste?
see ------->willfullyobscure




Now, back to writing your scathing reviews of muffin recipes for the West Westchester Ladies Cooking and Baking Club quarterly newsletter, Mr. "professional working journalist".

LOL. listen, princess, I'm not trotting out my laurels to shout down a dimwit on a message board who can't even be bothered to PRETEND to understand the financial sector of the conutry's economy in the most rudimentary fashion before yelping about semi-fictional entertainment reporting.

you are the reason bandwagons were invented; now hop back on for your little hayride and don't bother with the most rudimentary critical thinking or trying to confirm or source any of the miles of conjectures, suppositions, assumptions and ommissions of context; you'll either forget about it a week, or you'll add it to your NWO crazy book and pat yourself on the head for "getting it"

At least i know what I don't understand- you don't even know where to start.

LawrencePerson: I suspect that many Farkers are unaware of the numerous deep ties between Goldman Sachs and the Obama Administration.

Oh, Goldman Sachs is linked to the Democrats? In that case, I agree 100% with whatever stupid crap this article said.

Until they are being hunted by drones there will be no justice.

willfullyobscure: Farker T: willfullyobscure: Farker T: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: willfullyobscure: Certainly You Jest: ethically-challeneged dunce who trades off on histrionics to cover up logical and factual gullies you could hide a jumbo jet in.


Here's the scoop: When you critique an author, accusing him of writing "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat"and then fail repeatedly to SUPPORT those allegations, your critique comes off looking like "inflammatory, poorly supported, lazy, hack shiat".


how's your fail taste?
see ------->willfullyobscure

Now, back to writing your scathing reviews of muffin recipes for the West Westchester Ladies Cooking and Baking Club quarterly newsletter, Mr. "professional working journalist".

LOL. listen, princess, I'm not trotting out my laurels to shout down a dimwit on a message board who can't even be bothered to PRETEND to understand the financial sector of the conutry's economy in the most rudimentary fashion before yelping about semi-fictional entertainment reporting.

you are the reason bandwagons were invented; now hop back on for your little hayride and don't bother with the most rudimentary critical thinking or trying to confirm or source any of the miles of conjectures, suppositions, assumptions and ommissions of context; you'll either forget about it a week, or you'll add it to your NWO crazy book and pat yourself on the head for "getting it"

At least i know what I don't understand- you don't even know where to start.

Wow, that was a hell of a long-winded way to say "I'm trolling".

Next time just come out and say it, or show you union card.

Interesting article. I've been thinking more along these lines.

Did you ever wonder where the money for things like the subversion of the world's immigration laws may come from? Recently, I'm also seeing an ad campaign, using money we don't have, to sell us on a new health plan.

It seems to me as long as we allow people to print up fiat money there will be no place in the world where freedom can flourish.

If the Globalist oppose your efforts, paid for with real hard earned money, all they have to do is fire up the presses and shovel the money to any group that will oppose you.

Not only that but it seems they do it in such a way that the money to achieve THEIR goals is borrowed from them. Then we pay interest to a group outside of our country, like the Federal Reserve, on the creation and borrowing of OUR OWN money.

IN ESSENCE THEY BEAT US WITH OUR OWN STICK!

willfullyobscure: LOL. listen, princess, I'm not trotting out my laurels to shout down a dimwit on a message board who can't even be bothered to PRETEND to understand the financial sector of the conutry's economy in the most rudimentary fashion before yelping about semi-fictional entertainment reporting.

Following in the same footsteps of such great debaters as found in this thread and in the Goldman Sachs letter directed at Rolling Stones for carrying the Taibbi piece.

In other words, no specifics, no quotes, uses insults or casts dispersions on other posters or the article while proving no particular knowledge of the subject themselves, and uses only the broadest of dismissals, "b-bu-but it's in a magazine about music! the author HAS to be wrong!", to "counter" specific arguments.

Of course, Goldman Sachs didn't do any better that this poster....I believe they pulled out the canard of "conspiracy theory", assuming that the thousands of inter-related influential positions between the public and private sectors could only be bad if a lizard man or reverse vampire were pulling the strings.

The utter lack of ideological variety within this group is what is dangerous. It's not a conspiracy, nor is it required to be one in order to be dangerous; what's dangerous is the retardation that ensues when a group of like-minded ideologues aggregate into high positions of power and begin to assume that they know what's best for everyone. No matter their intent, the fact that they are all drawing from the same culture of financial "experts" means that their definition of improvement derives exclusively from a shared and extremely limited background.

This article is relevant to my interests.

that_other_internet: willfullyobscure:

In other words, no specifics, no quotes, uses insults or casts dispersions on other posters or the article while proving no particular knowledge of the subject themselves, and uses only the broadest of dismissals, "b-bu-but it's in a magazine about music! the author HAS to be wrong!", to "counter" specific arguments.


dude. please. read the thread again, CAREFULLY (NB I suggest start around 12:45PM yesterday) and get back to me.

on the one hand, my critique of the article is based on my professional, qualified opinion AND a bare-bones deconstruction posted earlier, abetted by many other similar, supporting opinions. one the other hand, i didn't start with the insults (although I enjoy them to NO end)

dude.

Last One Left: This isn't the full article that appeared in print. The full version reads better, but is also more hyperbolic. Zero Hedge has it in PDF form.

I sure wish zero hedge offered the pdf as an actual file rather than some embedded thing. Even the vile scribd allows you to download the pdf if you log in.