Why We Should Cheer Goldman’s Fat Profits

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
This goal-oriented way of surfing the web is largely based on short-term results. For example, finding facts to write a blog post, doing a comparison before making a purchase and reading a news site to find out what’s happening right now.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

somaie of KS 3:56AM December 14, 2009

I think they need to be investigated in their role of the high oil prices that were one of the matches of this recession. And punished if found to be one of the causes of $4.00 + gas when their were no problems with supply.

ob of NC 9:29AM August 04, 2009

This is an amazingly shallow, ignorant, and pathetic economic analysis.

brian fox of WA 3:17PM July 26, 2009

Give me a break. this is dribble of the highest order

j.o. krapper of AL 1:51PM July 21, 2009

Once again we have a piece written primarily to fill space on a web page. The bottom line is that we can't trust numbers reported by any corporations, our government, and especially reporters. The simple fact is that we are getting raped again by the Washington puppet masters who in fact dictate national policy. The endless political mud slinging that occupies so many people's time is a godsend for the puppet masters. What the ever-more-ignorant public cannot seem to comprehend is that both political parties are more than willing to screw us and in fact have been doing so for many years. Picture major league baseball or the NFL with only two teams. It's pretty obvious that regardless of which team wins the World Series or Superbowl, both will make a lot of money. And the odds are that both teams will win a fair share of the big games. As long as the two party system exists, we will have choice between bad and worse. Plain and simple. A much more important question is who is really to blame for the mess that we're in. Some would argue that John and Jane Q. Public inevitably get what they ask for. The problem with that argument is that time and time again the government insists that it knows best how to run our lives, yet the same government through it's repeal of certain rules and regulations not only allowed this mess to develop, but guaranteed it. Anyone with a bit of functioning gray matter should have seen the impending credit disaster looming. So now the corporations that fostered the mess are allowed to continue the charade by effectively handing the bill to whoever has anything left, which will drag the rest of us into the poor house. Meanwhile the fat cats in Washington make daily speeches reminding us how they feel our pain, pat themselves on the back for trying to fix the mess that they created, and laugh their asses off when they get together for fine dinners and drinks. Again, anyone with a shred of common sense knows that they are creating a bigger mess by printing money to give the illusion that the crisis is under control. The only true indicator of the nation's health comes from a simple question: Are you better off today than you were yesterday? The answer from most of us is no. Unless you are one of the elite few, your standard of living has or is going to take a real turn for the worse. I guarantee it.

Not-A-Lemming of ME 11:04AM July 20, 2009

During past 10-15 years of "global economic" reform and "free trade" our Feds and financial clans have been successfully working on conversion of our system into monopolistic body with socialistic engine. They wanted to give birth to an ugly mutant and they did it. I call the new system Mastrubism, or you give it your name. It's partly socialism due to high spending on people at the bottom and free huge money for selected by government leading giants/companies in their industries. This reminds me Soviet Union/USSR a lot. We used to have full government control of all industries starting with manufacturing, then distribution to warehouses and ending with large government controlled chains of small and large stores/retailers. That basically what's going on now slowly but surely here in USA. Government taking over large giants by borrowing them fresh printed money which costs government almost nothing. This is hidden type of step-by-step privatization of these formerly privately own chains. This is why government was demolishing our normal capitalistic economy starting from 1970 by almost uncontrolled import of import cars and other products and making local manufacturers go out of business. It started with manufacturers, then professionals such as programmers and engineers in 2000 and up. Then the most deadly hit was introducing and empowering by credits and patronage "small business killer chains" like Walmart, Kmart, HomeDepot, Lowe's, Staples, Target, BestBuy, Sears, Marshals, Liquidator, Ikea, etc. They all say to us "Save More, Live Better" or "More Saving, More Doing". Oh yes! However what they not telling us, that we eventually will close most of our small businesses operated by us, our family members, friends, neighbors, etc. Who will benefit from buying from these stores? Mostly people in need who are on government assistance, people with stable jobs with stable companies, government employees, and similar individuals. If you have more money then you can spend per month you will survive without going to this kind of large stores which are basically working for government now. The goal here is to socialize the retail industry by slowly and surely killing small independent retailers with "price beating"/ "wholesale to public" concepts and tools. Who is wining here? Nobody, but government and its direct investors/clans. What it does to our Capitalism and USA market? It kills it. The first rule of Capitalism is to protect small businesses and local manufacturers from monopolists in their industries. There are has to be no blood sucking giants, if we want to preserve healthy capitalism and its creative spirit. Government was created to protect small businesses from giant monopolies and uncontrolled imports. It failed to do so and sold its soul to clans. Every smart and talented small business owner knows that it's impossible to fight a wholesale to public giant, and most of businesses give up to fight or just not being given new births anymore.

AC of NY 3:49AM July 19, 2009

is that the United States economy is believed systemically dysfunctional UNLESS we retain a few gold-plated corporations to keep robbing us at regular intervals.
Can anybody tell us HOW Goldman made this latest quarterly profit? From whence commeth this money? Can anybody tell us WHY they apparently will never be asked to pay taxpayers back the "counter-party" bailout money they got via AIG?

Muser of NM 3:58PM July 16, 2009

This is a very good example of greed at its greatest. Sure "rules" were followed but these rules were put in place in a clandestine manner, foisted on the public as a way to save our economy when all it was was a bailout of people who made bad decisions, made their money from handling other peoples funds, and produced nothing. Our government should support increase production to create jobs and salaries to promote spending not reward the moneylenders who detract from production through their quasi-legal schemes and fees.
This smacks of everything that is wrong with America. These financial institutions and their management should be punished for their mismanagement not be rewarded.

Joe Calabria of CA 8:15AM July 16, 2009

In following a reply to your request, I want to add a cordial challenge: To you Rick Newman: Can you locate or provide the legal statutes that allow Secretary of Treasury to perform in PPIP? I raise concern the Treasury does not have legal authority to engage in PPiP. See page 1 and 9-11, of "A 'Crisis' in Leadership." http://freepdfhost.com/form_page.php?id=3175
From where I sit, the only people giving him permission are paid lobbyists. Conversely, persons who sometimes duck their heads out of think tank *.org firms populated by (and paid by funds donated from) large bank executives.
Other than this corrupt, word of mouth, type permission, I do not think you will find a legal statute supporting what they are doing. Thus, they desire or act with furtive corruption in mind, to re-write the regulatory law, to make it appears as though they have acted legally, when in fact, they are presently in violation of the standing law.
Notice: The Treasury acts with possibly dishonesty behind the Federal Reserve, claiming the Federal Reserve or Board of Governors through "Rule 13(3)," can grant Mr. Giethner legal authority to violate important rules of law meant to protect Americans, or to act with others in an unlawful manner. Again, Rule 13(3) does NOT give the Federal Reserve, nor the Treasury any such right to violate important rules of law.
United States Statutory Code, has superseding authority over Federal Reserve's by-laws or agency by-laws.
The weightier provisions of 12 USC 1831 o Prompt Corrective Action, seeks to apply lessons learned after years of research and investigating Savings and Loan problems. This followed bank problems in dealing with real estate, during that time in U.S. History.
U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(B) ..."To carry out the purpose of this section, the Corporation shall by regulation or order— restrict the activities of any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and (emphasis added) at a minimum, prohibit any such institution from: ... (B) Extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction."
The above law has superseding authority over all Federal Reserve employees and the Secretary of Treasury. The law above represents a substantial legal mandate that cannot be broken without substantial injustice occurring.

Bruer of TX 4:07PM July 15, 2009

"Can anybody make a SPECIFIC claim against Goldman, rather than a generalization?"
Why certainly. The following is based of standing rules of law. http://freepdfhost.com/form_page.php?id=3175
The paper begins by citing imperative rules of law, in question, then provides evidence (should it ever go to trial), that Henry Paulson working in association with Goldman employees, have acted to circumvent and undermine the rules of law.
Pay particularly close attention to U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(C) ... To carry out the purpose of this section, the Corporation shall* by regulation or order— restrict the activities of any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and at a minimum (emphasis added), prohibit any such institution from doing any of the following: Amending the institution’s charter or bylaws.
And: U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 16, § 1831 o. Prompt Corrective Action (i)(1) and (i)(2)(D) ...To carry out the purpose of this section, the Corporation shall* by regulation or order— restrict the activities of any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution; and at a minimum (emphasis added), prohibit any such institution from doing any of the following: Making any material change in accounting methods.
*Shall, when used in the above referenced statutes, denote legal mandates @ required action. Mandates do NOT allude discretionary action. They are required action, that such failure to uphold that law, constitutes an effort to suborn or defeat the law, and the protections the legal mandate is intended to secure. See circumvent and concealment of the offense for more serious expansion on the subject.
Treasury under Mr. Paulson and understudy of Mr. Paulson, Tim Geithner have been claiming Federal Reserve gives them legal permission to violate the above rules of law under Federal Reserves Rule 13(3). However, Rule 13(3) does NOT give the Federal Reserve, nor the Treasury any such right to violate important rules of law.
You have raised an important question: "Can anybody make a SPECIFIC claim against Goldman, rather than a generalization?"
I provide the above in reply to your request.

Bruer of TX 12:13AM July 15, 2009