10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76People are free to exercise their right to free speech regardless of whether corporations exist or not.
We're going in circles.
I never meant to assert that the corporation itself has rights. I meant to assert (which I thought I made clear, but maybe I didn't) that the people acting on behalf of the corporation have rights.
These people do not exist merely at the whim of the state. They exist with full human rights because of their status as human beings. ...[text shortened]... their capacities as managers of a company that they own or manage is, to me beside the point.
11 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeySeriously, did you even watch the video? Seems like another Google FAIL.
http://blogofbile.com/2009/07/17/glenn-beck-explains-the-federal-reserve-goldman-sachs-connection/
Let's go to the video:
He starts talking about Paulson (Treasury, NOT Fed), then talking about the bailout money for AIG (again Treasury NOT Fed), then talking about TARP (again Treasury NOT Fed), and so on. Geithner, NOT Fed. Stephen Friedman was appointed to the PFIAB. He used to work at the Fed but it wasn't at the Fed that he could be useful to GS. Michael Pease, Barney Frank again are in Geithner's team NOT the Fed.
Did I miss any of the names he said?
I'm sure if you're like spambot you'll come up with more crap links. Can YOU explain why you see a connection between GS to the Fed? Since you like videos, this is how much GS people love the current Fed people:
11 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaJust because you may not receive a pay check directly from someone does not mean that you don't work for them. In fact, financial commitments to GS and other deals regarding AIG were made always on a weekend with Tim Geithner "negotiating" alone in New York with the likes of the Chairman of the New York Fed, former CEO Stephen Freidman, who was in an oppurtune place to "scare" Tim Giethner into backing AIG which benefited GS. THis was all done without Ben Barnanke who is the chariman of the Board of Governors of the Fed who had no real financial understanding of the substance of the transactions or relationships between the people involved in the negotiations. Now was Tim Geithner qualified or legally empowered to "make deals" without the prior consent of the Fed Board?
Seriously, did you even watch the video? Seems like another Google FAIL.
Let's go to the video:
He starts talking about Paulson (Treasury, NOT Fed), then talking about the bailout money for AIG (again Treasury NOT Fed), then talking about TARP (again Treasury NOT Fed), and so on. Geithner, NOT Fed. Stephen Friedman was appointed to the PFIAB. He used to ow much GS people love the current Fed people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWksEJQEYVU
So the questions begin to mount. Was Giethner "scared" into acting on behalf of GS? Was Bernanke neglagent regarding such deals? You be the judge. What is interesting, however, is another article I read.
http://www.inthemoneystocks.com/n_rant_and_rave_blog_single.php?id=91
The article makes the case that the market follows GS. If so, it would behoove players such as Geithner and Bernanke to insure their "well being".
11 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe only thing between the Fed and AIG is that the NY Fed (Geithner) helped it by buying CDOs at 100 cents on the dollar, but that's because the market prices were already ridiculously low. In fact, it's kind of funny that they're being accused of overpaying when the market price of those CDOs is already 50% higher than what they paid originally. If anything the Fed may even make a profit AND rescue a key institution during the crisis.
Just because you may not receive a pay check directly from someone does not mean that you don't work for them. In fact, financial commitments to GS and other deals regarding AIG were made always on a weekend with Tim Geithner "negotiating" alone in New York with the likes of the Chairman of the New York Fed, former CEO Stephen Freidman, who was in an oppurtu it would behoove players such as Geithner and Bernanke to insure their "well being".
Of course GS is an important institution but you have shown nothing about the Fed favouring it over other similar institutions, except some cloak and dagger story about meetings in weekends about unspecified "deals".
11 Mar 10
Originally posted by PalynkaYou mean there is no paper trail showing without a shadow of a doubt that there was some "wrongdoing"? Shocking!!
The only thing between the Fed and AIG is that the NY Fed (Geithner) helped it by buying CDOs at 100 cents on the dollar, but that's because the market prices were already ridiculously low. In fact, it's kind of funny that they're being accused of overpaying when the market price of those CDOs is already 50% higher than what they paid originally. If anything ...[text shortened]... s, except some cloak and dagger story about meetings in weekends about unspecified "deals".
11 Mar 10
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat wrongdoing indeed. The entire world economy was brought to its knees, but somehow no heads have rolled. Perhaps it was just a bit of bad luck.
What wrongdoing? You haven't say anything except some vague comment about unspecified "deals" and obscure "weekend meetings".
11 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI never denied that they seem to have a lot of influence on the Treasury and other government bodies. But when you point the finger at the Fed in this case, then you're just making a fool of yourself.
What wrongdoing indeed. The entire world economy was brought to its knees, but somehow no heads have rolled. Perhaps it was just a bit of bad luck.
11 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are correct, I shouldn't have singled out the Fed. After all, they are just one of may cogs of the same wheel.
And never denied that they seem to have a lot of influence on the Treasury and other government bodies. But when you point the finger at the Fed in this case, then you're just making a fool of yourself.