If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Financial Post)   Much of the social unrest in U.S. is caused by unfair wealth redistribution says well-known Marxist... the CEO of Goldman Sachs?   (business.financialpost.com) divider line 95
    More: Ironic, CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, wealth redistribution, Marxist, United States, rebellions, Royal Bank of Canada, wealth distribution  
•       •       •

2472 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Sep 2012 at 1:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-21 09:54:24 AM  
Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-21 09:57:08 AM  
I suspect he doesn't think he'll be able to get any more mileage out of the whole "redistribution=welfare for lazy people" thing.
 
2012-09-21 10:05:02 AM  

bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.


I like the cut of your jib, comrade.
 
2012-09-21 10:30:52 AM  
And by redistribution he means from the Federal government to Goldman Sachs via Obama and his former Wall Street (Goldman Sachs) secretaries.
 
2012-09-21 10:43:07 AM  
He meant unfair in the sense that he only has 99% of it, not the full 100 that he feels he rightly deserves.

/ DRTFA, I got nothing.
 
2012-09-21 11:06:40 AM  
Yeah, that's like the fox telling you how to guard the henhouse.
 
2012-09-21 12:27:10 PM  
In other news, Goldman Sachs benefits from more people having extra money to invest.  As well, it hurts when previous investors default on loans through bankrupcy.
 
2012-09-21 12:41:39 PM  
Ironic?

OBVIOUS is more like it.

You were warned you about it too, but noooooo, capitalism can't fail, it just needs more tax cuts.
 
2012-09-21 01:15:31 PM  
Seems like he would have been in a good place to help correct some of that. And what did he do?
 
2012-09-21 01:32:21 PM  

I_C_Weener: And by redistribution he means from the Federal government to Goldman Sachs via Obama and his former Wall Street (Goldman Sachs) secretaries.


Is there another form of wealth redistribution I'm not familiar with?
 
2012-09-21 01:32:56 PM  

I_C_Weener: And by redistribution he means from the Federal government to Goldman Sachs via Obama and his former Wall Street (Goldman Sachs) secretaries.


Yup. No Federal money goes anywhere else - well, except Planned Parenthood and NPR. And Obama's overseas trips.

Nope, the rest all goes to Goldman Sachs, and not to other financial firms who took bailouts, Exxon-Mobil, Amtrak, GE, Philip Morris, poor people, T-bills, paying federal workers (like Congress and judges and the president), paying the debt (or interest on it), Medicaid grants, the National Endowment for the Arts, the military's four branches and ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the contractors (like Lockheed, McDonnell, Boeing, GD), Congress' pension/health plans, upkeep on federal buildings...

Do you listen to yourself?
 
2012-09-21 01:34:16 PM  
While you were out ...

N.S. Sherlock called. He wants his copy of Marxism for Dummies back.
 
2012-09-21 01:36:04 PM  

bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.


No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.
 
2012-09-21 01:36:07 PM  

bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.


Mine too! I'd leave him chained to the wall just inches away from the rest of his cronies as we methodically execute them all one by one, leaving him for last.
 
2012-09-21 01:39:13 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Nope, the rest all goes to Goldman Sachs, and not to other financial firms who took bailouts, Exxon-Mobil, Amtrak, GE, Philip Morris, poor people, T-bills, paying federal workers (like Congress and judges and the president), paying the debt (or interest on it), Medicaid grants, the National Endowment for the Arts, the military's four branches and ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the contractors (like Lockheed, McDonnell, Boeing, GD), Congress' pension/health plans, upkeep on federal buildings...


Indeed - Goldman is not the only recipient of corporate welfare.

And of course appropriations for Amtrak, Planned Parenthood, and NPR are totally comparable to what's spent on military contractors and Wall Street bailouts.
 
2012-09-21 01:42:29 PM  

qorkfiend: bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.

No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.


Would that be a variation of "Work brings Freedom'?

/ really hope we don't go down that path....
 
2012-09-21 01:43:50 PM  
"Wealth distribution" and "wealth redistribution" are two different things.

Mr. CEO never mentioned "redistribution".
 
2012-09-21 01:45:01 PM  

qorkfiend: No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.


Dude, he grew up in a housing project in East New York.

It's considered to be the worst area of NYC.

He DID actually make his own money and work his way up.
 
2012-09-21 01:51:00 PM  
The two goals of the economy should be to "expand the wealth of the world and to distribute [it] fairly,"

"But still" he went on to say, "President Taxfart can go fark himself if he thinks I'm ponying up any more."
 
2012-09-21 01:53:18 PM  
I don't want "wealth redistribution", I want for assholes like the head of Goldman Sachs to not have special rules in their favor that prevent wealth from moving once it lands in his goddamn pockets.

Is he going to stop sending lobbyists to rewrite tax laws, further reduce basic common sense regulation and just generally keep stacking everything in his favor so that everybody who hasn't already made their fortune doesn't even have a chance? Is he gonna stop buying politicians for favorable access? Is he going to follow the same basic rules the rest of us schleps have to follow?

No?

Then fark off. Talk is cheap, even if it's coming off a silver tongue.
 
2012-09-21 01:56:20 PM  
The mere existence of Goldman Sachs is contrary to a free society.
 
2012-09-21 02:01:56 PM  

Mentat: Yeah, that's like the fox telling you how to guard the henhouse.


You know how some former hackers become cybersecurity consultants, and former fraudsters work for auditing firms? It's like that.
 
2012-09-21 02:13:57 PM  
So coutries where everyone is poor or everyone is wealthy should be some of the most peaceful countries on earth....right?

Anyone want to move to Somalia or a middle eastern petronation?
 
2012-09-21 02:14:01 PM  
Is there social unrest in the US I'm missing? There's OWS but they aren't anywhere near to what was going on in the 60s. The cops have a ton of new "non-lethal" crowd control items they can't wait to use. Ever notice how DHS funding bought every city in the US a mobile command truck that can network with everyone else? Coordinated police action is the wave of the future. The slightest significant sized protest will be met with an overwhelming response. Right wing survivalists stocking ammo? Good luck against an armored vehicle with air support. Want to do another march on Birmingham? You'll never be allowed pass the airport and bus terminals check points.
 
2012-09-21 02:16:50 PM  
jealousy is a biatch, ain't it?
 
2012-09-21 02:17:33 PM  

whither_apophis: Is there social unrest in the US I'm missing? There's OWS but they aren't anywhere near to what was going on in the 60s. The cops have a ton of new "non-lethal" crowd control items they can't wait to use. Ever notice how DHS funding bought every city in the US a mobile command truck that can network with everyone else? Coordinated police action is the wave of the future. The slightest significant sized protest will be met with an overwhelming response. Right wing survivalists stocking ammo? Good luck against an armored vehicle with air support. Want to do another march on Birmingham? You'll never be allowed pass the airport and bus terminals check points.


So you will be a collaborator or an informant for the police stae?

I mean you say they can't be beat...so the other half of the phrase is join them?

Whither_apophis will rat fellow farkers out.

naming names
and
dropping dimes

so to speak.
 
2012-09-21 02:36:14 PM  

Giltric: whither_apophis: Is there social unrest in the US I'm missing? There's OWS but they aren't anywhere near to what was going on in the 60s. The cops have a ton of new "non-lethal" crowd control items they can't wait to use. Ever notice how DHS funding bought every city in the US a mobile command truck that can network with everyone else? Coordinated police action is the wave of the future. The slightest significant sized protest will be met with an overwhelming response. Right wing survivalists stocking ammo? Good luck against an armored vehicle with air support. Want to do another march on Birmingham? You'll never be allowed pass the airport and bus terminals check points.

So you will be a collaborator or an informant for the police stae?

I mean you say they can't be beat...so the other half of the phrase is join them?

Whither_apophis will rat fellow farkers out.

naming names
and
dropping dimes

so to speak.


I'm saying there will be no future challenges, we already lost. When you have a huge portion of the population that has bought supply side hook, line, and sinker you'll never get enough people into legislatives bodies around the nation to begin the corrective actions needed.

/Giltric is a double agent.
 
2012-09-21 02:39:42 PM  
Things to remember about wealth / equality:

1) Just because anybody *can* become a millionaire does not mean everyone can. If you put a fancy steak dinner in a room with 20 hobos in a room, only one can eat the dinner. everyone else goes hungry.

2) Rich people only hold the wealth because there is a society in place that prevents people from walking up to their front step, shooting them in the face, and taking their stuff. They are successful because the society they belong to let them succeed.

3) If life is a game where you try to get rich, not everyone will enter the game with the same starting cash and not everyone starts at the same time. The 17 year old working 3 shiatty part time jobs to pay rent is competing in the same world as the 53 year old billionaire.

4) Life ain't fair. You can either deal with it and suck it up, or you can start trying to murder everyone who has better shiat than you.

END COMMUNICATION
 
2012-09-21 02:41:05 PM  

Giltric: So coutries where everyone is poor or everyone is wealthy should be some of the most peaceful countries on earth....right?

Anyone want to move to Somalia or a middle eastern petronation?


The wealth in the oil sheikhdoms is maldistributed. They have way too many young people, and way too few jobs for them all, and no fledgling industries they can develop when the oil runs low. The only people driving around in Ferraris are in some way related to the royal family. In Somalia, there's too many people for the available basics, like clean water and arable land, so of course there's conflict. If everyone has enough to get by in some half-assed fashion, things tend to be a lot less unstable.
 
2012-09-21 02:41:21 PM  
If you'd really like to help fix the problem, Mr. Blankfein, you could start by shooting yourself in the farking head.
 
2012-09-21 02:41:35 PM  
More of the same from Mr. Blankfein. Color me unsurprised.


"This is all normal, unfortunately. Time has to go [by], some of the pain has to recede and we have to roll up our sleeves and get to work."

Translation: You'll forget who was responsible, eventually. After which we can go back to deregulating.

Once banks are seen to be playing their role in the economy, making loans and generally enabling the economy to function, then the public will be more receptive to banks' concerns.

That would represent "a step in the right direction," he said.


Translation: We failed at keeping the curtain up 100% of the time. We just need to make sure it goes back up.

One of the challenges the industry faces is that the meltdown that began in 2008 is still very fresh in the public consciousness, so there is strong aversion to allowing financial companies to take on risk that may end up costing taxpayers.

But as the economy recovers over the next few years and people start to realize the trade-offs between tougher rules and growth, people may decide to rethink their attitude to risk.


Translation: That's a nice economy. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Indeed, he argued against making too much of the new regulations put in place since 2008, pointing out that the same thing happened after the stock market crash of 1929, with law-makers rushing in with new securities laws meant to prevent a repetition of the collapse. But the rules were modified repeatedly over the next decade as regulators and the industry sought out the right balance.

"I think banks should have more capital" and liquidity, said Mr. Blankfein, who cautioned that encumbering players with higher requirements than necessary could end up hurting not just the financial industry but the whole economy.


Translation: So eventually we'll be able to 'attune' what the right level of regulation is. Meaning, none.
 
2012-09-21 02:44:24 PM  
His argument (which isn't his alone, people have made this argument for years) is that excessive regulation actually contributes to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. As you increase the regulations on businesses you increase the costs of doing business and create barriers to entry. Those barriers serve to keep those with relatively little capital or insider experience out of the market, which reduces competition and concentrates the earnings from a particular sector in the hands of those who are already wealthy and successful enough to either absorb the costs of the regulations, or hire people in government (errrr, lobby the government) to pass regulations that are favorable to you and unfavorable to your competition.

Two recent examples looking at it from two different ways.

Currently in the U.S. there are basically three companies who are allowed to rate bonds. Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. Those three companies have been around forever, and they all make a ton of money rating bonds. They make a ton of money for two main reasons. 1) You have to get your bonds rated before you can sell them and 2) You have to have significant experience rating securities before you can get approved by the government to rate securities. Combined, that means that everyone who wants to sell bonds has to go through one of those companies, and if you want to start up a new business to compete with them you can't. Regulation has created a government enforced oligarchy that drives huge profits to the hands of a few people who are insulated from competition by the very regulations that were intended to control them.

Alternately you can look at the recent regulation of debit card fees by the federal government. While sometimes viewed as a victory for consumers over the banks, in reality the regulations were lobbied for, and written by, huge retailers like Wal-Mart in an effort to improve their profits. The regulations had nothing to do with benefiting consumers and everything to do with the government shifting profits from one group of already wealthy people to another group of already wealthy people. If the regulations were really going to be about helping consumers, the regulations would have contained requirements that retailers like Wal-Mart show that their debit card transaction savings were passed to consumers. Of course, the regulations didn't contain that language because Wal-Mart lobbyists wrote the regulations. In practice what has happened is that banks have made up for the lost debit card transaction fees by either charging consumers more for debit cards, raising deposit requirements on accounts that get free debit cards, or pushing people to use other forms of payments like credit cards or pre-paid cards that remain unregulated.

tl;dr: This guy isn't calling for more government intervention in order to have better wealth redistribution, he's calling for less.
 
2012-09-21 02:48:32 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: I_C_Weener: And by redistribution he means from the Federal government to Goldman Sachs via Obama and his former Wall Street (Goldman Sachs) secretaries.

Is there another form of wealth redistribution I'm not familiar with?


There are all kinds of wealth distribution

Slavery - all wealth creation automatically becomes the property of another
Company towns - This is when an individual or business controls all aspects of the local economy and can capture almost all wealth creation by the workers
Anarchy - no law and order means that anyone can kill anyone else and take their stuff

There are others...

Personally I like the system we were under up until Reagan. Give businesses a lot of autonomy, but don't let them control the entire market or destroy the environment. The problem is that trickle-down and offshoring devalued manual labor in this country and made them dependent on the government.
 
2012-09-21 02:55:29 PM  

Lord Zardoz: Things to remember about wealth / equality:

1) Just because anybody *can* become a millionaire does not mean everyone can. If you put a fancy steak dinner in a room with 20 hobos in a room, only one can eat the dinner. everyone else goes hungry.

2) Rich people only hold the wealth because there is a society in place that prevents people from walking up to their front step, shooting them in the face, and taking their stuff. They are successful because the society they belong to let them succeed.

3) If life is a game where you try to get rich, not everyone will enter the game with the same starting cash and not everyone starts at the same time. The 17 year old working 3 shiatty part time jobs to pay rent is competing in the same world as the 53 year old billionaire.

4) Life ain't fair. You can either deal with it and suck it up, or you can start trying to murder everyone who has better shiat than you.

END COMMUNICATION


That can't be right. Everyone knows from Public School is all you have to do is show up and you get a trophy.
 
2012-09-21 02:57:13 PM  

madgonad: Personally I like the system we were under up until Reagan. Give businesses a lot of autonomy, but don't let them control the entire market or destroy the environment. The problem is that trickle-down and offshoring devalued manual labor in this country and made them dependent on the government.


Ain't Globalization grand?
 
2012-09-21 03:01:39 PM  

Talondel: His argument (which isn't his alone, people have made this argument for years) is that excessive regulation actually contributes to a concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. As you increase the regulations on businesses you increase the costs of doing business and create barriers to entry. Those barriers serve to keep those with relatively little capital or insider experience out of the market, which reduces competition and concentrates the earnings from a particular sector in the hands of those who are already wealthy and successful enough to either absorb the costs of the regulations, or hire people in government (errrr, lobby the government) to pass regulations that are favorable to you and unfavorable to your competition.

Two recent examples looking at it from two different ways.

Currently in the U.S. there are basically three companies who are allowed to rate bonds. Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. Those three companies have been around forever, and they all make a ton of money rating bonds. They make a ton of money for two main reasons. 1) You have to get your bonds rated before you can sell them and 2) You have to have significant experience rating securities before you can get approved by the government to rate securities. Combined, that means that everyone who wants to sell bonds has to go through one of those companies, and if you want to start up a new business to compete with them you can't. Regulation has created a government enforced oligarchy that drives huge profits to the hands of a few people who are insulated from competition by the very regulations that were intended to control them.

Alternately you can look at the recent regulation of debit card fees by the federal government. While sometimes viewed as a victory for consumers over the banks, in reality the regulations were lobbied for, and written by, huge retailers like Wal-Mart in an effort to improve their profits. The regulations had nothing to do with benefiti ...


The experience of the late 19th Century, with things like U.S. Steel, or John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, suggests that without regulation, much the same thing will occur, only via private means. The real problem is that we're letting the farking lobbyists write our laws.
 
2012-09-21 03:04:15 PM  

Lollipop165: qorkfiend: No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.

Dude, he grew up in a housing project in East New York.

It's considered to be the worst area of NYC.

He DID actually make his own money and work his way up.


Yes. Like Al Capone in many ways
 
2012-09-21 03:05:41 PM  

Jacobin: Yes. Like Al Capone in many ways


Uh, as valedictorian of his HS, then on to Harvard, then as a corporate lawyer and on to Goldman Sachs?

I'm not defending this guy's views. But to say he didn't work his own way up is ridiculous.
 
2012-09-21 03:22:56 PM  

qorkfiend: bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.

No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.


He did work every day and became rich because he wasn't so lazy.

You see, people who aren't stupid or lazy don't work for minimum wage very long.
 
2012-09-21 04:07:49 PM  

MilesTeg: "Wealth distribution" and "wealth redistribution" are two different things.

Mr. CEO never mentioned "redistribution".


Shhh, don't confuse the inmates.
 
2012-09-21 04:10:53 PM  
He said that in a speech given in Toronto. He wouldn't dare utter those words inside the USA.
 
2012-09-21 04:16:49 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: The experience of the late 19th Century, with things like U.S. Steel, or John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, suggests that without regulation, much the same thing will occur, only via private means. The real problem is that we're letting the farking lobbyists write our laws.


Well, the problem is that people with money, power, and influence, will always find a way to use their money, power, and influence to shift things in their favor. They can shift the markets in their favor, or they can shift government regulators in their favor and the end result is exactly the same. More regulation doesn't mean that it happens any more quickly or slowly than it does without regulation, but more regulation does mean that when it happens it happens with the government's approval (either real or implied). Look at the situation with the 'too big to fail banks'. An appropriate regulatory response to banks that are too big to fail is to use the government's anti-monopoly power (which even the most die-hard free market advocates will acknowledge is a legitimate use of government power) to break the banks up into smaller units. Instead we codified 'too big to fail' into the law, allowed the banks to remain to big to fail, and implicitly guaranteed that if any of those institutions do ever fail the losses will end up borne by the taxpayers.

The solution is to get the government out of the business of regulating entire industries, and get them back to the business of breaking up monopolies. Government should get back to protecting tax payers, rather that using tax payer money to guarantee private industry.

If that means that the solution is 'deregulation' that's fine. It can't be much worse than the system of regulation we've had over the last two decades.

Everyone likes to say that the failures of the 2008 crash was due to a lack of regulation. But then people ignore the fact that the areas most responsible for the crash (mortgage lending, bond rating) were among the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, even *after* some regulations has been loosened during the Bush administration. People also ignore the fact that this wasn't a problem where regulators saw the problem coming and lacked the authority to prevent it. This was a problem where the regulators didn't see the problem in the first place. There's absolutely no reason to believe that a government appointed regulator (making a shiatty salary working for some massive bureaucracy) is going to be more likely to see and respond to a potential market crisis faster than an industry insider (who is probably making 10 times and much money as the regulator, and also probably has more relevant education and experience than the regulator).

tl;dr: There's no reason to believe the increased regulations make crashes less common or the results less severe, and there's no reason to believe the government regulators are more qualified to predict and prevent those outcomes than are people in the private sector.
 
2012-09-21 04:17:15 PM  

bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.


Right after the marketing department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
 
2012-09-21 04:24:29 PM  

Rationale: bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.

Mine too! I'd leave him chained to the wall just inches away from the rest of his cronies as we methodically execute them all one by one, leaving him for last.


You want to kill people because they didn't give you money.
 
2012-09-21 04:27:02 PM  

GoldSpider: Rationale: bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.

Mine too! I'd leave him chained to the wall just inches away from the rest of his cronies as we methodically execute them all one by one, leaving him for last.

You want to kill people because they didn't give you money.


No, I'm pretty sure it's because they game the rules of the system by which people are supposed to have a fair shot at earning money. Also because they literally steal money in some cases.

Idiot.
 
2012-09-21 04:30:41 PM  

Talondel: forgotmydamnusername: The experience of the late 19th Century, with things like U.S. Steel, or John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, suggests that without regulation, much the same thing will occur, only via private means. The real problem is that we're letting the farking lobbyists write our laws.

Well, the problem is that people with money, power, and influence, will always find a way to use their money, power, and influence to shift things in their favor. They can shift the markets in their favor, or they can shift government regulators in their favor and the end result is exactly the same. More regulation doesn't mean that it happens any more quickly or slowly than it does without regulation, but more regulation does mean that when it happens it happens with the government's approval (either real or implied). Look at the situation with the 'too big to fail banks'. An appropriate regulatory response to banks that are too big to fail is to use the government's anti-monopoly power (which even the most die-hard free market advocates will acknowledge is a legitimate use of government power) to break the banks up into smaller units. Instead we codified 'too big to fail' into the law, allowed the banks to remain to big to fail, and implicitly guaranteed that if any of those institutions do ever fail the losses will end up borne by the taxpayers.

The solution is to get the government out of the business of regulating entire industries, and get them back to the business of breaking up monopolies. Government should get back to protecting tax payers, rather that using tax payer money to guarantee private industry.

If that means that the solution is 'deregulation' that's fine. It can't be much worse than the system of regulation we've had over the last two decades.

Everyone likes to say that the failures of the 2008 crash was due to a lack of regulation. But then people ignore the fact that the areas most responsible for the crash (mortgage lending, bond rating) w ...


The derivative securities created from those mortgages were in fact hardly regulated at all, and had very little transparency. The misuse of these instruments was a major cause of the melt-down. Regulators who suggested that this situation be changed were silenced by various government officials and politicians who were severely ideologically blinkered or bought. The industry insiders rushed over the precipice like a bunch of lemmings, almost without exception. Those guys are not to be trusted, as even Greenspan finally realized. If we don't have any controls on them, our option is to bend over and smile.
 
2012-09-21 04:40:23 PM  

imontheinternet: If you'd really like to help fix the problem, Mr. Blankfein, you could start by shooting yourself in the farking head.


Don't hate da playa. Hate da game.
 
2012-09-21 04:42:45 PM  

qorkfiend: bdub77: Too little too late, asshole. Gosh I'm trying to think why the US economy went crashing down in 2008-2009.

In my revolution, you would be the first against the wall, Mr. Blankfein.

No, no. We don't want to kill him. Let's put him to work for minimum wage, and tell him every day that he'll be rich if he would stop being so lazy.


Throw in some student loan debt and I'm in.
 
2012-09-21 04:49:11 PM  
Maybe if poor people stopped having kids that they know that they can't afford it might help.
 
2012-09-21 04:59:03 PM  

madgonad: The problem is that trickle-down and offshoring devalued manual labor in this country and made them dependent on the government.


No the problem is that the newly computerized manufacturing process and quality control schemes has made semiskilled jobs a thing of the past. In my parents day you could get a manufacturing job and excell. Getting paid progressively more the more experience you stockpile and your ability to do more complex stuff. Now you can get a guy off the street with only a few weeks training to do the same job and get the same quality.

Trickle down did nothing for the loss of manufacturing jobs... it makes no sense that it would.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report