29 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusSo are you saying that GS did not benefit from the short selling?
Whodey, whodey, whodey, always typing before thinking.
Haven't you read the many posts citing such people as Roubini for predicting the crisis.
If nobody was making money from predicting the credit crisis (or at least betting on there being rough days in 2008), then do you think the SEC would have bothered to ban short-selling on 10/1/08?
"Tem out plans at one point. Here comes their cumuppence (predictable... by some of us anyway)
I don't really care if GS did not initially go along with the bail outs. In fact, I care about this as much as I do GS being investigated by the government. If the two are involved in a cabal, don't you think they would use smoke and mirors?
29 Apr 10
No, remember it was YOU who was saying that nobody predicted this and nobody made money, except for Goldman. I have been correctly pointing out that many companies and individuals were selling short and making money that way. There are ways to make money in a down market, and many parties were barred from selling short, and that means many parties who understood the concepts of swings in the credit market affecting vulnerable, leveraged economies.
29 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusFair enough. It just strikes me odd that one of the major beneficiaries, namely GS, seems to be so intimately intwined with government.
No, remember it was YOU who was saying that nobody predicted this and nobody made money, except for Goldman. I have been correctly pointing out that many companies and individuals were selling short and making money that way. There are ways to make money in a down market, and many parties were barred from selling short, and that means many parties who ...[text shortened]... nderstood the concepts of swings in the credit market affecting vulnerable, leveraged economies.
After watching the hearings I don't see how anyone can think that GS was not benefiting from knowingly stealing other peoples money. I just hate to see it continue with cap-and-trade. They are truly an evil corporation.
29 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusBelieve that fairy tale if you want; God knows your grip on reality is tenuous.
You're gonna need another edit.
Goldman Sachs would have survived, but the US government simply got all major investment banks to agree to take the money so the deal wouldn't stigmatize the few "problem banks" that did take the money.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june09/bankbailout_04-14.html
"JEFFREY BROWN: And you and your coll basically have no choice but to allow healthy banks to get out of the TARP program."
EDIT: Actually nothing in the article you cite actually supports the claim that Goldman Sachs wouldn't have been bankrupted without Federal government aid the situation 6-9 months later notwithstanding.
EDIT2: And far from being dragged into a government bailout by the entreaties of the Obama administration, Goldman Sachs actually changed its business organization to a "bank holding company" just so it would be eligible for TARP. From the Wall Street Journal:
Both Goldman and CIT converted into bank holding companies at the height of the financial panic last fall, which made them eligible for TARP injections. Goldman also benefited at a crucial moment from the Federal Reserve takeover of AIG, and it received the additional filip of FDIC-guaranteed debt issuance through the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124762129423442667.html
Reality check, ElfBoy.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyRepeating over and over and over again the same stale lies does not convert them into truth.
I admit that I was duped. At first, people, like myself, were outraged that they wished to bail these banks out. Then as they saw their IRA's cut in half overnight, people began to get a little nervous and caved. It was tantamount to them putting a gun to our heads and saying, "Give us your money or else!!" Looking back I admit I was wrong, however, I dar ...[text shortened]... ill avert another crisis. In fact, they probably will no doubt help lead to the next crisis.
29 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeythe problem is that you insist on blaming Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA for EVERYTHING that went wrong. Why? Why do you let everyone else off the hook?
I admit that I was duped. At first, people, like myself, were outraged that they wished to bail these banks out. Then as they saw their IRA's cut in half overnight, people began to get a little nervous and caved. It was tantamount to them putting a gun to our heads and saying, "Give us your money or else!!" Looking back I admit I was wrong, however, I dar ...[text shortened]... ill avert another crisis. In fact, they probably will no doubt help lead to the next crisis.
Perhaps the left wing goes too far in trying to blame the private sector for EVERYTHING. But your approach is just as bad. Why not list ALL of the parties that are to blame, figure out exactly what each party did, and then take the necessary steps to learn from this and make sure it never happens again?
And your pessimistic approach seems to be like the doctor who argues after a patient dies, that we should stop all medical research because patients will die in the future no matter what we do.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's a right wing talking point and whodey rarely strays from them.
the problem is that you insist on blaming Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA for EVERYTHING that went wrong. Why? Why do you let everyone else off the hook?
Perhaps the left wing goes too far in trying to blame the private sector for EVERYTHING. But your approach is just as bad. Why not list ALL of the parties that are to blame, figure out exactly what each ...[text shortened]... e should stop all medical research because patients will die in the future no matter what we do.
29 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesWho said I was only blaming the government? In fact, who started this thread about GS? It seems to me they played a pivotal role in all this. I just find it hard to believe that such partisan shills as Maurauder consitantly are unable to point the finger at those in government as having ANY culpability.....unless it is pointing to Republicans who "deregulated" some of the laws. For people like Maurauder, any and all government regulation is welcomed and beneficial and no one on the left is "guilty".
the problem is that you insist on blaming Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA for EVERYTHING that went wrong. Why? Why do you let everyone else off the hook?
Perhaps the left wing goes too far in trying to blame the private sector for EVERYTHING. But your approach is just as bad. Why not list ALL of the parties that are to blame, figure out exactly what each ...[text shortened]... e should stop all medical research because patients will die in the future no matter what we do.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyYour penchant for ridiculous, brazen lies have been shown many times on this board.
Who said I was only blaming the government? In fact, who started this thread about GS? It seems to me they played a pivotal role in all this. I just find it hard to believe that such partisan shills as Maurauder consitantly are unable to point the finger at those in government as having ANY culpability.....unless it is pointing to Republicans who "deregula ...[text shortened]... and all government regulation is welcomed and beneficial and no one on the left is "guilty".
GS "played a pivotal role" in that they were one of the largest sellers of securities based on subprime mortgages. Although they raked in billions in fees by doing so, by late 2007 this deck of cards had collapsed due to the inherent riskiness of the mortgages themselves and the even worse decision to create securities worth far in excess of the value of the mortgages themselves. When the mortgages started defaulting, the securities were worth less. When the securities were worth less the capital position of the financial firms rapidly deteriorated. Most stood on the edge of bankruptcy in late 2008 because of their poor business decisions. Then the big money parties, the Republicans and Democrats (not the "left"😉 saved them from the consequences of their own cupidity and stupidity. And you strongly supported that.
BTW, regarding the CRA "Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders
to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis." http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
No reputable economist or financial analyst blames the CRA, created in 1977, for the financial crisis of 2007-08. It's an absurd and brazen lie that for some reason you feel will gain credence if you keep repeating it.
29 Apr 10
It's rather interesting that Alan Greenspan says it was the creation of vast numbers of mortgage securities based on subprime mortgages and not the subprime mortgages themselves which were the main cause of the financial crisis. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greenspan-housing-bubble-was-not-created-by-fed-2010-04-07
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThat statement is a bit self-serving on Greenspan's part, since he did nothing to slow down subprime mortgages when he arguably should have.
It's rather interesting that Alan Greenspan says it was the creation of vast numbers of mortgage securities based on subprime mortgages and not the subprime mortgages themselves which were the main cause of the financial crisis. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greenspan-housing-bubble-was-not-created-by-fed-2010-04-07
While I certainly agree that the repackaging and selling of mortgage securities was a major reason for the collapse, it stands to reason that the lack of soundness in the underlying loans was also a major factor.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by whodeyBut you harp so continually about the evils of CRA, Fannie, and Freddie, (along with certain things done by Goldman Sachs) while ignoring or dismissing the roles played by anyone else. Perhaps there should be an investigation into what precise roles your villains actually played, and if reforms are needed, then by all means, bring on the reforms.
Who said I was only blaming the government? In fact, who started this thread about GS? It seems to me they played a pivotal role in all this. I just find it hard to believe that such partisan shills as Maurauder consitantly are unable to point the finger at those in government as having ANY culpability.....unless it is pointing to Republicans who "deregula ...[text shortened]... and all government regulation is welcomed and beneficial and no one on the left is "guilty".
The things that marauder has been saying here make a lot of sense. Of the things that marauder has been saying, can you state what specific things you disagree with? Let's put aside his ideology and focus on just what he's been arguing in this thread.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://seekingalpha.com/article/111026-did-geithner-bail-out-goldman-sachs
GS "played a pivotal role" in that they were one of the largest sellers of securities based on subprime mortgages. Although they raked in billions in fees by doing so, by late 2007 this deck of cards had collapsed due to the inherent riskiness of the mortgages themselves and the even worse decision to create securities worth far in excess of t ...[text shortened]... them from the consequences of their own cupidity and stupidity. And you strongly supported that.
Like it or not, GS played a pivital role in the Feds decision to bail out AIG. It was more or less a decision to help bail out GS. I've posted this before you know.
29 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76Which gets back to those ratings agencies. If they had been looking at those mortgage securities objectively, they would have at least raised an eyebrow about the lack of soundness in the underlying loans.
That statement is a bit self-serving on Greenspan's part, since he did nothing to slow down subprime mortgages when he arguably should have.
While I certainly agree that the repackaging and selling of mortgage securities was a major reason for the collapse, it stands to reason that the lack of soundness in the underlying loans was also a major factor.
If they had reserved the AAA ratings for only those mortgage securities that were backed by sound mortgages, and gave weaker ratings for the ones backed by subprime mortgages, the whole crisis probably doesn't happen.
And if the ratings agencies weren't having their salaries paid by the people whose stuff they were rating, those agencies wouldn't have been under pressure to give everything that moved a AAA rating.
29 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyGS probably did play a role.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/111026-did-geithner-bail-out-goldman-sachs
Like it or not, GS played a pivital role in the Feds decision to bail out AIG. It was more or less a decision to help bail out GS. I've posted this before you know.
But what about all the other things that marauder has been saying?