Did Goldman Sachs Engineer the Current Depression?
84
Conspiracy theorists are busy these days.
Especially financial conspiracy theorists.
You can't so much as go online to look at your checking account balance without running into someone who wants to explain why the Fed is an evil cabal that dates back to Middle Ages, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati; or that the U.S. really blew up the World Trade Center itself; or that FDR was really Elvis in disguise, squirreled away to the 1930s by time-traveling grey aliens who totally staged his untimely, undignified death for their own nefarious purposes.
Now Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi has penned a poisonous diatribe accusing the investment house Goldman Sachs with deliberately and singlehandedly engineering every major financial bubble of the past 100 years for the sole purpose of lining its own pockets.
The only problem is, Taibbi makes a really good case.
Hey, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean investment bankers aren't robbing me and my children and my children's children blind!
What I'm trying to say here is, it's not bunk.
Elvis is not involved on any level. And what's worse, Goldman Sachs will continue to get away with it because 1) they basically own the government, 2) they're 'too big to fail' by their own design, and 3) most people don't understand what is happening and are too busy arguing about crap that doesn't matter at all, so they rarely get called on it.
Taibbi's Rolling Stone article about Goldman Sachs triggered a flurry of online reviews (by financial analysts of course) accusing him of being hysterical, delusional, and bloodthirsty; and just as many blog posts saying, "Well, thank God somebody just said it. It's about time!"
Still, just because you identify a nice juicy scapegoat doesn't mean we all get to have goat for dinner. Not if the goat is the size of Godzilla and owns half the planet.
Right now, the scapegoat is busy eating the scapers. (That would be you and me.)
You know how goats are.
Pretty Bubbles
Taibbi accuses Goldman of creating no fewer than SIX major financial bubbles.
Taibbi claims Goldman was able to create these bubbles by interfering in government and skirting financial regulations so as drive competitors out by gaining unfair advantage.
Goldman also made out by rigging ratings agencies to overvalue junk securities, and by getting its hands on huge wads of taxpayer money it in no way needs. Taibbi accuses Goldman and the U.S. government (it doesn't matter which political party) of colluding with one another to engineer bubbles for the further enrichment of the already rich.
Here are the Six Goldman-Engineered Bubbles as Taibbi sees them:
- The Great Depression. Taibbi points to Goldman's intense involvement in the investment-trust game that brought on the Crash of '29. Investment-trust shares were small denomination securitized debt obligations. Goldman would make short term loans to businesses (not mortgages but rather, commercial loans), then securitize those loans and sell them to ordinary people at, for instance, $100 a share, making it possible for anyone to get into speculative investments. What Goldman would do was issue a bunch of these $100 shares, buy them all back from itself, then sell them at $104, then buy them all back again, and keep artificially pumping up the price this way in an endless investment pyramid. (Sound familiar?) It was these inflated values and the involvement of retail banks in this scheme that caused people to rush out and demand all their deposit money on Black Friday, leading to the near collapse of the entire U.S. financial system that we call The Great Depression.
- The Tech Stock Bubble. Taibbi charges that Goldman Sachs was much more aggressive about offering and trading tech stocks and artificially inflating their value through a process called laddering. During the tech stock bubble of the 90s, while most firms saw a 181% increase in value on their internet start-up stocks, Goldman's increase was 281%. Five trillion dollars of wealth was wiped out on the NASDAQ index alone when the tech stock bubble finally burst, but by then Goldman's traders had already collected yearly bonuses that averaged $350,000 per man and had moved on to greener pastures. During this time, Goldman Sachs paid out $7 billion per year in salaries. In 2005, Goldman was forced to pay $40 million in fines for its tech stock laddering violations. That slap on the wrist was worth every penny to Goldman Sachs: a real bargain.
- The Housing Bubble. Taibbi charges that Goldman was both aggressively selling and trading CDOs it knew were toxic crap AND shorting its own offerings to make money on both ends. Because Goldman insured much of its toxic housing porfolio with AIG's unregulated arm (the one that sold such policies to investment banks), at least $14 billion in federal money used to shore up AIG went directly to Goldman Sachs (in the form of insurance payouts). It's worth mentioning that Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary who showed up at Congress and said (behind closed doors), "Give me $700 billion NOW no questions asked or the economy gets it!" was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
- The $4 per Gallon Gasoline Bubble. Taibbi claims the insane gas prices of last summer were a direct result of Goldman convincing pension funds and other large institutional investors to put their dollars in oil futures. This made oil less of a commodity and more a speculative entity that could then be traded relentlessly, like a stock. In the summer of 2008 a barrel of oil was traded, on average, 28 times before it was sold and delivered.
- The Paulson Bailout. I don't know that it's really even necessary to explain this one. When the former head of a major investment bank with a shady history and a reputation for market manipulation is appointed Treasury Secretary and allowed to extort and unheard of amount of money from the US Congress, much of which ends up at said investment bank and little of which is ever accounted for---When that happens, and is allowed to happen, then the rot has gotten so deep there just isn't a whole lot more to say. It is what it is. And incidentally, it still is what it is. No changes at this point.
- The Emerging Energy Bubble. Taibbi notes that Goldman Sachs was a major contributor to the Obama campaign ($981,000 in employee contributions), and that maybe not so coincidentally, the cap and trade bill for carbon emissions favored by the administration will create a $1 trillion dollar securities market that Goldman can exploit. Why? Because every year the carbon credits generated by the cap and trade system will become more scarce, and as corporations vie for their share of the dwindling credits their price will skyrocket. The bones of the next bubble are already in place, and Goldman is poised to reap the spoils. Last year alone Goldman spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. The next time you hear some politician complaining about why we can't tax carbon emissions directly, keep that coming bubble in mind.
So What?
So nothing has changed. Not only are the same gangsters running Treasury and the Fed, but the Obama administration's financial policies are basically being written by investment banks and their lobbyists; chief among them Goldman Sachs.
The financial regulations removed during the Clinton era (by McCain and Phil Gramm, among others) to make it possible for investment banks to cause a Depression Era mess once again have not only not been put back into place, the U.S. government is actually helping to engineer the next stock market bubble so that the gangsters who actually run our country can go on creating funny money and enriching themselves at the world's expense.
Just so you know.
To be fair, it certainly would not have been any better under John McCain and Phil Gramm, but if we don't stop arguing with each other over Jesus and gays and start demanding some financial accountability and soon, we're going to see a situation in the U.S. that makes the Great Depression look like the good old days.
Frankly, I think that situation is coming no matter what we do or don't do.
Elizabeth Warren, head of the TARP oversight committee, has been dissed and pushed around by these guys since she came on board on day one, right after Paulson said, "Stick 'em up!."
Take a look at this video clip of Warren's June report and try to watch it all the way to the end. You'll hear the desperation in her voice, and you won't have to read between any lines:
http://cop.senate.gov/video/index.cfm#tab15
Today Paul Krugman wrote another desperate plea for some semblance of realiy-based decision making regarding finance. He was calling for another stimulus package, which really, at this point, is a joke. It's not the main problem, it won't fix the main problem, and even if it's needed, it will never get through Congress in this environment.
But in discussing what he sees as a dire mess, Krugman talked a lot about the coming 'jobless recovery' (which I imagine is akin to the 'first green shoots' we keep hearing about).
Now I ask you, what the hell is a 'jobless recovery'?
If you don't have a job, and I don't have a job, and no one is spending money, yet we see a recovery, what exactly is being recovered?
Why not call it what it is?
The next bubble. A recovery for the already rich, who weren't suffering in the first place.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Amazing, simply amazing. I have this farfetched hope that exposure of the machinations of these greed mongers will lead to some good someday. Thanks for this great article.
Oh, ick! I'm not surprised, nor am I hearing anything I didn't know. So many people need to hear these things - and you have done an impeccable job of presenting this information. You are such a good writer and I always enjoy your intelligent and witty hubs. Sadly, this crap continues while we the people remain divided, mislead, and blinded. Aaaaarrgghhh, it's maddening!! Fantastic hub.
Hi kerry--Thank for forwarding info on this and for asking the question. I confess I get "those bastards!" burn out sometimes and just kind of hide under my bed. What really troubles me is that Obama does not seem to be deviating at all from same old same old when it comes to the financial sectors. I still am glad I voted for him because I think McCain would have been much worse (Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary??? OMG), but the degree to which both parties are in the pocket of mega banks and investment banks sickens me. It's been going on a long, long time too, with plenty of blame to go around, but they keep us divided with the stupid left/right fights.
I think we should have a straight carbon tax and use the money offset the cost of health care. Yes it will raise the cost of energy for us too, but that's going to happen anyway from all the speculation that cap and trade will generate. Americans are not ready yet to hear that they have major lifestyle changes ahead, including more expensive energy and less income. Until they are ready, I fear these guys will keep getting away with murder.
Tom--I hope you are right. Thank you for saying something upbeat and for your positive outlook!
Thanks Roo Bee! I agree. We need to stop fighting with each other and start demanding real change, not fake change. Thanks for your comments. :)
Have you been following Taibbi's posts on his "The Smirking Chimp" blog? By Taibbi:
"Again, this is a federal prosecutor quoting Goldman Sachs, admitting in open court that it has been using a computer program that can be used to unfairly manipulate markets."
Outstanding! I couldn't agree more with what you say. Here are a couple more links you might like to check out. This one explores the spike in gas prices last year:
http://leoweekly.com/newsfeatures/major-stories/fe
and this one looks at the general problems that led to the bubbles:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
enjoy!
Another classic Pee, loving your work. This is a worldwide situation and we can't get all protectionist about it. The corporations own our countries now and we have to take them back.
What we need is a political hubpage for every city,state, and a national one where people can write about their grievences to their political leaders so everyone and anyone can see what others are thinking about around the country
Better yet they can send their political leaders a link to!
Another intelligent, thought-provoking Hub from you. I hope our family's habits and resources will let us ride out these things, and that at some point the government does manage to get the financial controls into place again that need to be there. It seems like it's been going on for a long time and going to go on longer.
"Jobless recovery." Right. About the only way that would work would be to drop all self employment taxes and break up the whole employer-employee system. But I doubt that's what he meant.
Hiya Mike--I lost track of Smirking Chimp when I moved to Michigan a couple years ago. Thanks for the link! I've bookmarked it and I did read Taibbi's post about the computer at Goldman. We hear about the 'shadow banking' system but sometimes I think there's also a shadow media and that's where the truth is. You can dig stuff up in the mainstread media but you have to dig and infer and read between the lines. Investigative journalism is apparently not dead but it is underground and poor.
William R. Wilson--Thanks for the links. Great stuff. I remember the gas situation last year and at the time I felt convinced that speculation had little to do with it, but now, reading over some of this stuff, I'm not so sure anymore. And the price did come down, but all in all it's way too volatile to be due to shrinking oil supplies alone. In fact, volatile barely describes it--it's kind of insane really, and has been for awhile. No apparent rhyme or reason.
Hi knell63--Thanks, I appreciate your comment. You're the second Brit in as many days to remind me that this is a global issue not just a US one. That gets me to thinking that there may well be a global solution if there an be a global response. One of the biggest and most successful lies of this century is that there are still nation states with legitimate governments. There are corporations and pretend governments run by corporate lobbyists. This has been true for quite awhile now.
someonewhoknows--You should start that up! I would participate. I write to my Congresspersons but I feel like I'm just talking to myself .They send me form letters: Thank you for your concern blah blah blah... Actually I like our representatives but I'm not convinced they have the influence or the inclination to make this better.
Robert--Yes I thought that 'jobless recovery' phrase was kind of stupid too. I mean what the hell can that possibly mean? The only thing I can think of is that stocks do better but the rest of us are still screwed. Swell! Thanks for your thoughts.
Amazing - I just said something like this to a brother and, a day later, to a friend. And I'm not usually into conspiracy theories.
But it is funny, isn't it, that just when We the People get ahead a little, our houses are earning equity, we see a light at the end of the tunnel, we have somewhat more money to spend, we're feeling happy for the first time in a while - along comes a tsunami to knock the hopes and dreams right out of us again.
If you don't want the peasants to rise to your level and start eying what you have, the best way to take care of the problem is to knock 'em down, keep 'em confused, leave 'em listless and depressed. Oh, and tell 'em it's all their fault for daring to get so uppity. Soon they'll be grateful for whatever crumbs you throw them, including jobs that pay less and offer far fewer benefits.
Who wins? You know the answer.
Hi mindfield--I agree. It drives me crazy every time I hear somebody talk about how this catastrophe happened because people charge to much and bought houses they can't afford. That is SOOOOOO not even SORT OF it at all. Yes it's good to be frugal and sane about one's finances, but a whole city of profligate working people couldn't do as much damage to the economy in an entire year of spending as Wall Street can do in one day. Thanks for stopping by. :)
"One of the biggest and most successful lies of this century is that there are still nation states with legitimate governments. There are corporations and pretend governments run by corporate lobbyists."
Actually I disagree with you on that one, Pam. I remember Cold War Baby and ledefensetech having a big argument on another hub about this. I think that as long as politicians control the courts, police and armed forces, ultimately, they are still runnning things. I think they simply collude with big business to rip off the public and their only argument is over who gets the biggest share of the spoils, business in profits or politicians in taxes.
However, when not ripping off the public they are then trying to stab each other in the back as they both want to be ultimate No 1. Business can never achieve that as long as polticians control the means of violence, but politicians can't use that violence in day-to-day life without arousing the public. In the meantime business uses its wealth to corrupt the legislatory system to constantly try to swing things in their favour. Maybe one day it will blow up and end up out in the open and force the masses to pay attention to what is going on. Maybe.
But until it does the masses will choose to remain in wilful ignorance and a small group of people on the net aren't enough to force them out of it.
Unless you can think of a way?
Hi Mike--I suppose that living in the U.S. I am more cyncial. We are supposed to have representative government but that goes out the window all the time. Right now, a public option for health care is (almost) off the table even though 75% of Americans want a public option to be at least part of the package. There is real concern about whether a public option will be included, or whether it will be all private and we will just be required to buy private insurance whether we can afford it or not. An all-private system is directly contrary to what constituents want, yet our representatives are going with their corporate benefactors on this.
We can argue about heath care and whether or not government should be involved, but my point is not so much about health care as the fact that elected representatives routinely refuse to represent. So in a strict sense, yes I suppose we do still have national governments in the way you define government, but it's not representatiive of what the people want, it's representative of what corporations want.
You could say, well corporations are made up of people, Pam, so representing corporate interests IS indirectly representing the people (in terms of jobs, revenue to run government, availablity of products and services), but the problem with that is that corporations don't have national interests anymore, they are global. So what's good for a corporation may or may not be good for me in the U.S. in my daily life.
The U.S. has lost millions of jobs over the past ten years alone due to corporate lobbying, mostly in manufacturing. Much of the service sector has been outsourced too, and our government (the US) has helped this to happen. So in that sense, I think I am probably biased and see it more like Cold War Baby, but I do take your point.
But my argument is that if politicians didn't want globalisation and outsourcing to happen it wouldn't. They would simply pass a law and if business broke it they would be labelled criminals and sent to jail or killed in the streets if they resisted. Many politicians are happy to collude in globalisation because it also globalises American power and they lust after power.
Of course, globalisation is only for corporations and capital, not the people. We aren't allowed to go and live where is best for us, we are kept in a fixed location, which then effectively holds down wages by creating unemployment and insecurity. The UK has the same problems as the States. Globalisation has created a social underclass who are only ever going to be able to do simple manual labour jobs, but those jobs have all gone to Asia where labour is much cheaper.
But complaining about the selfishness and greed of the ruling elite isn't going to make them change. Unless you can set up some sort of social equivalent of Greenpeace and force them to change through social pressure they will simply keep on grabbing everything they can for themselves. But even that is incredibly difficult as long as those of wealth and power own the mainstream media and can pump out a constant stream of propaganda about the joys of free markets etc. Which have never really existed anyway. The American system is almost a form of corporate communism, funded by the public who get a free market imposed on them while those at the top look after each other, all courtesy of the tax payer.
But the problem is still finding a way to force them to change that, as they aren't going to do it willingly. As you've said elsewhere reducing the size of banks and business overall may be a start and especially the media businesses, to allow more voices to hit the news-stands rather than just one or two who are both singing from the same hymn sheet.
It maybe that a major financial meltdown may actually do that, by forcing some big businesses to divest parts of their business to stay afloat, but who knows. All we can do is keep on keeping on and see what happens, and try to capitalise on the good bits and avoid as much of the crap as possible. Never easy when you don't have the odd spare million or two to fall back on.
Anyway, stop slacking off in these comment sections and go and write another hub. Your public awaits you. Jeez, the Sarah Palin of HubPages- No! No! It was a joke! Put that gun down!
"Anyway, stop slacking off in these comment sections and go and write another hub. Your public awaits you. Jeez, the Sarah Palin of HubPages- No! No! It was a joke! Put that gun down!"
LOL! I couldn't shoot a gun if my life depended on it, but we do have some. :)
I don't think we even disagree on anything substantial, it sounds like semantics to me. The bottom line is people like you and me, we're impotently kicking ideas around the internet without any real money behind us, and yeah, that doesn't really change anything.
I disagree though that just "complaining about it" has no value. I think it has more value than not complaining about it. Identifying the problem is part of solving the problem. Well, I'm off now to hunt caribou... (Run for your life!)
Maybe the reason we all keep talking about Jesus and gays and numerology and alcoholism is because we can kind of get our hands around those things, or at least understand the issues. It's very hard to stay focused very long on this huge, amorphous, prevaricating mass which runs our lives without our permission. Especially when virtually our only source of information is the media which is very much a part of the problem.
Steve, I think you put your finger on it precisely. I'd add that focusing on these huge financial issues leaves us feeling powerless and enraged (the two are connected actually), and who wants to feel that for very long?
Sometimes I think this will all sort out by default. The crooks at the top will indeed go on to get all the toys in their possession and the rest of us will just quietly start over without them, outside of conventional society. That idea has been in my mind a lot lately. Because really, they don't want us to go away mad, but they do want us to just go away. They have no need for our labor in what they are up to, that's clear, so it would help if we just all wandered off and left them alone.
Maybe I'll write a sci fi story about it. That would be tons more fun than this! Thanks for your always excellent insights. :)
Beautiful Hub Pam,
Thank you again for your exquisite style. I think we should form an LLC and pool our resources and beat these bastards into the ground.
TMG
There is actually a tremendous amount of information out there on the internet but you have to be pro-active and go and look for it. And unfortunately all to many people want to sit on their backsides and have answers handed to them. Which of couse the politico-corporate axis of greed are only to happy to do.
Guys like Robert Higgs on The Beacon, the blog of The Independent Institute, is great. I think his analysis is usually spot on but I disagree with his solutions as he one of the right-wing libertarians who see the markets as the solution to everything and I would probabaly be closer to the left-wing libertarians like Arthur Silber, America's greatest blogger (in my humble opinion), and his Once Upon A Time... blog. Until he got felled by a dodgy heart a month or so back (and he is still struggling to recover) pretty much everything he wrote was spot on, to me, anyway. Or if you want to see political corruption at work in the UK look at Craig Murray's blog, or read almost anything by John Pilger.
Hi TMG-- Thanks! That means a lot to me coming from you! I'm up for beating the bastards into the ground but I'm afraid my resources are rather pathetic. I can bring cookies. :)
Mike--Another problem though is that lots of the 'information' on the internet is just crap, it's just totally made up. Without good critical skills and the ability to discuss this stuff without being a dittohead, most folks can't seem to separate the wheat from the chaff even if they do go looking.
Great stuff. I am going to have study up on this.
I get the feeling right now, you left on Al Core with all his green companies, that will make him one of the richest person on earth after the Cap and trade crap gets passed. Is he doing it for the environment or for lining his pockets.
Keep on hubbing!
"Another problem though is that lots of the 'information' on the internet is just crap, it's just totally made up."
I didn't know you had been to read my blog. But you're right, there's little capacity for critical thinking these days.
Hi eovery--Thanks for your thoughts. I don't know why Al Gore is doing it, but I don't think he needs to line his pockets. I mean, he's from a big tobacco family--he's rich as hell. I think he's sincere. I'd rather see a straight carbon tax.
LOL! Mike, I'll be sure to read your blog NOW. :)
I can't even stand to look at this stuff anymore... not saying you are writing crap, saying that the institution has me so bent that I can't look at it and not get pissed off.
I went and watched the video you left up and seriously. I can't understand why she or they can even lead people on to assume that anything will ever be returned.
Anyways... can't we just burn it to the ground and start over. lol. :D j/k. sorta...
Hi Sandra--Actually I feel the same way. People ask me to write these financial hubs every so often, and I'm glad to do it because I'm flattered they ask, but the subject kind of sickens me at this point. I'm writing more fun stuff just for Pam, less political and financial stuff, because honestly, what can any of us do about it? I"m sick of feeling helpless and crappy, so I figure yeah, let it fall down, just let it fall and we'll flush it and start again. Thanks for coming by. :)
Cookies are enough to get me working, we will need lots of energy to stick it to em.
Oh good! I'm in then. :)
Me too! MoneyGuy, I know you got something in the works, so when you gonna share? hmmm????
Love the goat analogy, and the final summation. Your background research on this is superb. I'm in on any strategy work, there is always a solution, looking forward to that information when you all put it out there.
Great hub. I would say more, but they are watching. Shhhhh. :O
Sadra & emohealer--Wow, TMG best have a plan. We have a movement already in the space of about four comments!
Paper Moon--THEY are everywhere, everywhere... :D
I subscribe more to the cock-up theory of history than the conspiracy version. The conspiracy version requires people to be super-clever, masterminding this, that and the other. But people just arn't that smart.
The cock-up theory is based on the idea that people arn't as smart as they think they are, and that crises are caused because they inevitably make mistakes (sometimes catastrophic ones). Given that most people I know make mistakes (including me!), this seems the most likely explanation of what has gone on. Those wizard traders were trying to apply the laws of physics (which are fixed and objective) to the world of the stock market (which is driven by irrational human emotion). They were bound to have come a cropper. If only there were sufficient engineering jobs in the economy that paid well, these wizards would have been gainfully employed doing something their math actually applied to, and they would have been of use to society. Unfortunately they were lured to the financial markets - greed (a powerful emotion) getting the better of their objective selves.
What's interesting to me is why people are so keen to believe in conspiracies than cock-ups. Is it that they yearn to believe that there really is someone out there who is super-intelligent and evil pulling all the strings? Or is it they simply want to blame someone and whip up an anger that they can direct somewhere? By contrast stupidity inspires irritation rather than fervant anger, because stupidity is the human condition! The best antidote to stupidity is checks and balances and regulation - not glamorous, but it helps catch mistakes.
Hi Silver Rose,
Totally agree with you about conspiracy theories. Don't like 'em, and yes, I feel people are not smart enough to engineer such schemes.
Goldman Sachs however has been quanitifiably naughty for a long, long time and they are barely getting their wrists slapped.
Here's a link the the latest:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/goldm
Thanks for your thoughts, and Happy Bastille Day!
Have you seen the movie Zeitgeist? It's a bit conspiracy theory-ish, but there's some really good info in it too, and it fits right in with the subject of this hub (although it goes well beyond the financial angle):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847
I subscribe more to the "cock up" theories than the conspiracy theories as well. And Zeitgeist goes out on a few limbs I think - but there's definitely food for thought there!
I see on the BBC news site Goldman Sachs have just reported a meagre $14 billion for the quarter, less $6.65 billion for salaries and bonuses. It's alright for some.
Hi William--I have seen Zeitgeist. Some of my friend here at HP are very taken with it, but I disliked it immensely. I wrote a hub about my feelings on it (it's been awhile back). If you want to look at it, it's at:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Devil-You-Know-and-the
Hi Mike--I saw that in the news this morning. Kinda sickening, huh?
Such a wise and well written hub. I don't beleive in the conspiracy babel. Greed doesn't need conspiracy...it only needs crusty old filthy rich people along with the up and coming of the same mindset who think they know what is best for the world and of course ...themselves.
Their pockets are filled with polititians and stolen money of the people. They weild a chilling power....we must at some point....take that power away and return it to the people. Again...wonderful hub...thank you.
Thanks Tom! I agree, greed and power is enough of an explanation. These folks who are stealing from all of us are not all that brilliant, they just think they are. :)
Yes I have something I am writing the Hub now.
TMG
If they knew about it they sure didn't say much about what was happening,that's for sure.
Here's a conspiracy fact for you to read.
Alcohol was used for the internal combustion engine.
Then when John D. Rockerfeller discovered that gasoline was usable as a fuel for the internal combustion engine .He desided to start selling it.He had to compete with Ethanol which is the purest form of alcohol that was being used for street lighting as well as the internal combustion engines that first came out on the market for consumers at the time The model -T and model -A both ran on pure ethanol.They could also run on varying combinations of ethanol and gasoline because they had carberator adjustments they could make using device called a choke to adjust the air-fuel mixture.Anyway John d. Rockerfeller wanted to get rid of the competition namely ethanol. So he found a babtist womens temperance movement and convinced them to get women all over the country to have congress ban the production of alcohol for any purpose including fuel for cars.That was in the late eighteen or early 1900's .It was the period in American history called the prohibition era when alcohol was bootlegged by mobsters as a result of the ban until about 1910 I think it was,when it ended finally. By that time John D. Rockerfeller had taken over the fuel market for cars and trucks selling gasoline as well as diesel fuel from crude oil which polluted the air of course unlike ethanhol. The worst part is he was dumping gasoline in the water supply before he found out that it could be used as a fuel as well as displacing ethanol which was clean burning,and non polluting.
The computer you can buy today, will be antiquated compared to next year's model when you consider RAM, hard drive capacity and CPU performance. In fact, it is possible even today to not only allow 2 CPU's to work together, but thirty two CPU's as well! This technology has not been made available to the public, and one can easily surmise that the greedy computing technology overlords are slowly leaking these advances out to the public to make the most of their technology profits from consumers - this way they have to work less hard creating new technologies while slowly milking our pocket books.
You would think that the information here is just a conspiracy theory,but it is a fact and well thought out ,and as you would say smart!
Does anyone remember the final scene in The Fight Club? Seems a little less outlandish than before.
Cool, TMG--I can hardly wait to read it.
someonewhoknows--All true. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Steve--I LOVE "Fight Club," it's one of my favorite movies. I think the scene at the end is awesome, one of the best I've seen in any film and not at all outlandish, as you say, given recent events.
Voice of reason LG. :)
And excellent writing Pam :)
But arguing over stupid stuff is so much FUN! Can't we do both? Please?
Seriously, this is good stuff. Nefarious is one of my favorite words. I like all the other words, too. MM
Thanks LG and Misha! Good to see you guys.
MM--Let's be nefarious! I love that word too. :)
Pam,
This is a really interesting hub.
I first began hearing conspiracy theories involving Goldman Sachs around 2006 when I started investing in precious metals. That isn't something I do because I'm a conspiracy theorist or even because I'm a Libertarian, but mainly because it seems prudent given the way the dollar is being managed lately.
However, as you may know, the ranks of goldbugs are full of conspiracy theorists, notably an outfit called GATA. According to them, there is a nefarious cabal centered around Goldman Sachs and backed by governments which supresses metal prices in order to make currencies appear more stable.
GATA commentators use this cabal thing as a crutch. On days when the gold price goes down, they write that the cabal is conducting its usual successful operations. On days when the gold price goes up, they write that the cabal is on the brink of a decisive defeat. With this M.O. being so transparent, it is difficult to take the whole thing seriously.
On the other hand, they do have some points.Governments do care about the gold market because of large central bank positions in the gold market. Goldman Sachs has connections with governments and does trade in these kind of markets. There are large concentrated short positions in both Gold and Silver.
What do you make of this? Do you think it likely that Goldman Sachs manipulates precious metal markets?
Hi nhkatz--I think it is not outside the realm of possibility that Goldman Sachs manipulates the price of precious metals, but the tough part is teasing out fact from hysteria. Since it's not too hard to see that short selling can be used (has been used, is being used) to manipulate prices in other areas and by Goldman specifically, it does raise questions.
The truth is I don't know. I was interested in Taibbi's article about Goldman because it does contain some factual information (as contrasted with the wild speculation most conspiracy theories are made of), but there's a danger in all this cloack and dagger market stuff no matter which way you go with it. Stay with it and check facts and you're going to be working very hard just to understand what is really happening--how many hours in a day do you have for that? Or, just believe whatever conspiracy theory sounds plausible and hope you don't morph into some kind of hateful nutcase. Either way, more transparency would be greatly appreciated, but we're not getting that.
I do think the rot is severe and goes all the way to the top, so at this point nothing would surprise me. If it looks like people are hedging their losses by buying precious metals and that gets traction as a major trend (instead of, as you point out, a thing kooks do), I look for something weird to happen regarding precious metals that hurts people like you. Is that a normal market process or something darker? You know the saying--Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get me. :)
I think I have put my thoughts on conspiracy's on one of your other hubs so if this sounds familiar that is why.
I really believe the appearance of conspiracy's will only increase over time. Since less and less hands control more and more of the wealth and capital.
And all greedy powerful people have similar traits and means that got them where they are. They like anyone else will act in their best interest, which means it is only logical that they make deals and buy politicians as that is the best way to accomplish their goals. Nothing sinister about how it happens it is just the logical approach.
No different than a bunch of hubbers banding together to take them out at the knees. No grand conspiracy just survival.
TMG
I am short in gold too - I keep my dollars in cash. :)
Brilliant article pgrundy. Whatever Taibbie has said of Goldman Makes sense. very well articulated. I just hope better sense prevails in future
Hi TMG--That's kind of what I think too, having worked for and around financial folks before. It's part of it, not so much a conspiracy as just who they are, and they're driven, so they will always push it as far as they're allowed to push it and then more too.
Misha--I'm short of gold too! Another thing we have in common!
jay--Thanks for reading this. I appreciate you taking the time. :)
Even if there is no conspiracy theory, the fact remains we've been screwed, intentially or not. So it's to find the solution that stops lining the pockets of the rich who don't need it, and to start lining our own. This means critical thinking at a grass roots level. "What is important to you individually?" and "If you could do it differently so as not to line the pockets of the already rich, how would you do that?"
Did Goldman Sachs engineer the current depression?
Is the Pope a Catholic? And if they didn't then Warburgs or one of the other Canaanite (Zionist) Jew banks did.
This year is the end of the 70 year bankruptcy cycle in Britain. In the USA it was 1999. Seventy years ago what did we have? 1939 and the end of another seventy year cycle and what took place that year another reorganisation and the commencement of WW2 when the banksters make their most money! This year it was the phony credit crunch.
Go back another seventy years and we have the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 when Britain was at the height of her supposed power. Try and find any info on this act is like looking for a needle in haystack. What does this tell us and why do they not want us to know?
"Canaanite Zionist Jew banks?"
See, this is why conspiracy theories bother me. I was going to delete your comment but I want people to see what conspiracy theories lead to so I'm letting it stand. Thanks for the illustration.
If you can't be an inspiration be a warning.
What is it that bothers you?
Hey,
Loved the article! I'm new on this and am trying to get my feet wet with 15 hubs at the moment. You're an exceptional talent!
Thanks Anthony! Welcome to Hub Pages and good luck to you!
Any chance of you answering my question?
I have to admit the turn of phrase "Canaanite Zionist Jew Banks" is really amusing given the confusion about some of those terms. To learn about Canaanites see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites_(movement)
Wikipedia defines Canaanites as an anti-Zionist movement,
although this has to do with shifts over time in the meaning
of the word Zionist. The Canaanites saw themselves as the logical conclusion of Zionism, and the founder of the movement, the poet Ratosh, was in fact a protege of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.
A major part of the ideology of the Canaanites was that they did not consider themselves jews.
Unfortunately, Ratosh didn't have a bank and as everybody has to make a living, he sometimes had to give sales of autographed and numbered, limited edition vellum poetry books precedence over political action serving the goals of his movement.
Hi Pam, I just waded through all the comments. Phew! They must have kept you busy! Like London Girl, I favour Cock-up theory over Conspiracy theory, but Goldman-Sachs seems not to be entirely innocent, so maybe I should moderate that to 'Cocked-up Conspiracy' theory. It would be difficult to predict the outcomes of these Machiavellian machinations with any degree of accuracy, so even if Goldman-Sachs is implicated throughout a long history of disasters, they could not even remotely have guessed with any accuracy what the overall effect might be.
SomeoneWhoKnows gives the perfect example with the ethanol/gasoline story. Would Rockerfeller (or even the Baptist women's movement!) have acted the way they did if they had had a crystal ball readily to hand? They might well have invested in ethanol production instead. Though maybe unbridled greed drives concerns about future events out of these people's heads!
nhkatz,
"A major part of the ideology of the Canaanites was that they did not consider themselves jews."
Obviously there are some honest ones in their midst who know who they are!
However, I am not talking about poorly informed and misguided weirdo movements, I am talking about what is recorded in the Holy Scriptures and even in their own book The Talmud.
Canaanite Jews are descended from Judah's relationship with Shuah or Bathshuah the Adullamite's daughter (Genesis 38). Judah being one of Jacob's twelve sons. True Jews or Royal Jews come through Taymar who was of Abraham's line. Jesus Christ was/is descended from this line.
Adullamites were just Canaanites by another name as were the Midianites and the Kenites amongst numerous others. All were descendants of Cain through Naamah (Noah's wife) and her incestuous relationship with her son Ham. This means that Canaanite Jews are Hamitic not Shemitic.
Yes2Truth - whatever you say. I stopped listening at the words "Jew bankers". I'd like to say something less polite but I won't.
Thank you for jumping in with thet info nkatz. I've read Aya's hub about her father and his research and it's clear to me that most people in the U.S. don't have a very clear understanding of the middle east including Israel and the Jews. The phrase "Canaanite Zionist Jew Banks" has an unpleasant ring to it whatever it means (or doesn't) IMO and kind of reminds me of an exhusband I have who exclaimed as I left,"You're a man! You're a whore!" When people are desperate and don't have to capacity or courage to understand what is going on they say weird ass stuff.
Hi Amanda--I agree. I don't so much see a conspiracy in Goldman as a very powerful institution that is good at what it does and has managed to skirt regulation to the detriment of the rest of us. That can be said about lots of big corporations though. It's in the nature of a profit driven business to grow to mammoth, unruly proportions if it can. We used to have antitrust laws to prevent some of that. They must not apply to investment banks. I don't think that dropping Glass-Steagall and letting investment banks and retail banks climb in bed with each other was a good idea at all--things started to get ugly almost immediately. Thanks for commenting!
Hi William,
One bad thing about writing for Hub Pages is crazy people show up and say ugly things and it's a downer. I usually just don't respond to stuff like that anymore. I have a couple of trolls who just follow me around and say "you suck" no matter what I write. It's sad, really, that somebody would have so little to do and so so little self-regard that that becomes fun for them. :)
William R Wilson
Thank you for confirming that you swallow Rockefeller media propaganda BS hook, line and sinker. And I didn't say Jew Bankers I said Canaanite Jew Bankers. If you do not know the difference all you are doing is displaying your ignorance.
To pgrundy,
Why do you find The Truth offensive? Who do you think the moneychangers in the Temple were, trainee tooth fairies?
"One bad thing about writing for Hub Pages is crazy people show up and say ugly things and it's a downer."
I won't apologise for bursting your self-righteous bubble.
Don't worry I won't follow you around I have better things to do with my time.
Hi Pam - it is not just Hubpages. That particular guy spreads his venom on pretty much every UK media site going. I long since ceased responding - the UK has a lunatic fringe, too :|
Must agree with you and Amanda - I am of the opinion that this whole financial thing is a machine. It will roll over you and crush you, but it is nothing personal and there is no conspiracy. A machine piloted by greed.
Hey thanks for the compliment
And many of them said, He hath a devil, and IS MAD; why hear ye him?
John 10:20 (KJV)
Hi Sufi-I'm thinking there's got to be an outer limit to how much money the machine can just 'invent' though. It's all getting pretty surreal. Just got back from walking my dog and some lady screamed out her window at me that she's sick of my dog peeing on her tree---except, my dog isn't peeing on her tree! lol! Didn't then, hasn't ever, but if he had, I mean, it's a dog peeing on a tree. Dogs pee. She was frothing at the mouth insane-angry and all we were doing was walking down the street. I thought it was just the U.S. that was going insane--I guess it's somewhat comforting to know it's everybody. I think. :o
lol - that is crazy. Must admit (a little easier for men!), I would have opened my zipper and personally peed against her tree. Give her something to really moan about :D
lol! Bill said EXACTLY the same thing! I guess all great minds think alike. :)
I'm not sure this hub is good for my heart - but it does wonders for keeping my mind active!
Hi Mindfield! These are tough times for anyone with a heart, aren't they? I hope you are feeling better. All of our thoughts and prayers are with you. Thanks for stopping by!
In a nutshell, no Goldman Sachs did not engineer the bubble. Try reading "Meltdown" by Tom Woods. If anything, Goldman Sachs is trying to capitalize on our current woes, but what do you expect when the government opens itself up to corruption by getting involved in the economy. Do your really expect people to sit back and let that happen without trying to influence events? It sounds like Goldman Sachs is an old hand at this particular game.
Do you still expect politicians to save us, or have you come to the conclusion that our representatives don't represent all of us, but only those who give them money and vote for them?
As for how much money the machine can invent, well there's this thing called hyperinflation. Research Zimbabwe for a contemporary example, Germany in the 1920's and France during the 1790's for historical examples of hyperinflation. One distressing fact about the effects of hyperinflation is the tendency of nations suffering from the to go to war. France against Europe in their episode and Germany against the world in theirs. So far we haven't seen it in Zimbabwe, but that could be because they're not much of a world power. The US is.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/17558#post258845
That's a link to a discussion on how GS has placed top people in places like Treasury and gotten special dispensation to do what they've done. It's a Glen Beck piece, so be warned. I love his work, but some people think he's a nutcase.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/17547
I found some interesting studies done concerning power after reading about Iraqi prisoner abuses in the paper the other day. I expanded on that a bit by discussing the nature of power and how people rarely live up to the responsibility of exercising it. It explains, I think, why governments can't and don't protect all of us and why they so often do the things they do to our detriment.
This is interesting. I am not sure how true it is though but definitely a good read. Thanks!
Maybe Goldmen Sachs should change their name to "GET SOME" It seems appropreate from the picture you posted here lol!
While the death of Michael Jackson was still the top story every half hour on the radio, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan held 32% of the short contracts in the silver market. Hardly anyone noticed.
No company should be allowed to hold even 1%. But the government has given these two crooked companies exemptions. There is no legitimate reason for those exemptions for those two companies.
They did the same thing in the oil market. Last year when gas jumped to $4 a gallon, the supply was up and the demand was down. So the price spike had zero to do with supply and demand and everything to do with GS falsely pumping the market, all the while placing a ton of short sales. They made a huge amount of money from doing that.
The result is that a few people are making extraordinary amounts of money while the nations is suffering as a result.
Think about it, if gas hadn't gone to $4, the housing market might have struggled through. But the combination of the home loans AND the high fuel costs was too much all at once.
Then former GS CEO and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pulled the wool over everyone, and procured all sorts of money from the government for his buddies.
We are dealing with world class crooks. If they aren't brought to justice, this nation will turn into one of those countries where almost all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few...something like Mexico or worse.
No one company can manipulate an entire market like that. How do you figure oil supplies were high and demand was down? Oil supply was tight and demand was up, especially in China and India, two countries that have been driving demand up for several years. When you factor in less exploration, more money being paid to governments that have nationalized their oil, it's no wonder gas prices hit $4 a gallon. You also failed to factor in the effects of monetizing the Iraq war debt. Inflation always leads to higher prices. It was this fear that caused the Fed to raise rates and kill the housing boom in the first place.
It's the government that is trying to manipulate the economic system. All Paulson and his cronies are trying to do is rig the system so that they benefit. That's what happens when you allow the government to have a say in the economy. The real criminals are in Congress. How do you get justice from them?
Why should 29,000 people who work for Goldmen sachs get $700,000 bonuses made using bailout money while G.M.Executives are not allowed to fly their jets.Sounds fishy to me.Of course to me the whole idea of how the stockmarket can be manipulated up and down is unthinkable from a ethical standpoint.When someone like Martha Stewart does it,they make a big deal about it and she gets jail time,but when the too big to fail do it.It's ok!
Hi folks,
I was out shopping for a sofa yesterday and I can tell you for sure that Goldman did not seem to be manipulating the price of sofas.
I think their short selling activity sounds fishy though, and the gas thing I've read about in many places. Government has been in bed with finance (not just Goldman) since Carter. I can't go along 'it's the government' dogma on this one. It's the government and the banks working together and it's going pretty well for the banks.
The book I like for explaining the meltdown is Kevin Phillips' "Bad Money." It's not specifically about Goldman. Phillips pins the current mess on 1) debt and the 'financialization' of the US, 2) deregulation (the government collusion part of it), and 3) peak oil issues and energy speculation. I think he makes a good case and he lays out the reasons why solving this won't be easy. I don't think we're going to see a recovery anytime soon.
Pam, Phillips hits the nail on the head with debt issues we're facing, but misses the "deregulation" part of it. I think current events have pretty much shown that government is in the pocket of big business and that big business uses their influence to rewrite regulations to benefit them. That's not the same thing as deregulation. He's being a bit dishonest by calling it that. Thirdly, many people like to blame short selling, but short selling plays a very important role in the economy. It acts like a forecast on what people think the economy is going to do in the future. That's what allows them to plan and reduce unexpected situations that could bankrupt the company. If you mess with that, you mess with a businessperson's ability to forecast and increase the chances they'll make a mistake or series of mistakes that will cause them to close their doors.
It really does come down to supply and demand. Energy demand is inelastic. That is despite rising and falling prices, demand will tend to "stick" at a certain level. Gas prices showed this last year. People were amazed that at $3 a gallon US drivers were not changing their driving habits. As price went farther up, however, you started to see a demand shift downward.
It might help to think of it this way. There's a difference between sliding down a pole covered in molasses and a pole covered in grease. The molasses covered pole signifies inelastic demand and the grease covered pole signifies elastic demand. Phillips doesn't even discuss this which makes me leery about his knowledge of economics.
You have to go a long way to make a credible case that collapsing the wall between investment banking, insurance, retail banking that allowed the creation and trading of CDOs was NOT 'deregulation'. I just can't follow you there, sorry.
Because you cannot accept the fact that deregulation means that government steps completely out of the market. That is what deregulation means. If anything *you* have to show what the "deregulators" did was step completely out of the market.
That is why having government in charge of the economy is so dangerous. The rich and powerful are able to get their privileges written into the warp and woof of our laws. Without that protection, a free market would take them apart.
I recall There being a lot of contraversy concerning short trading of the stocks of the airlines involved in the 911 disaster in 2001.There was a very unusual spike in the amount of short selling around the date september 11,2001.If was supposedly being investigated ,but I don't recall what if anything happened with that.
Nothing was found. Anytime you have an event like that the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork and things that would otherwise be unremarked take on a significance. Remember all the numerology stuff that was floating around at the time. Short selling is easily demonized because it predicts bad news, for the most part, and is easily misunderstood by the mass of humanity.
Are you saying that it's not possible that some individual or groups of individuals if they had "insider" knowledge that they wouldn't try to use it to their advantage? Or are you saying it it isn't possible at all?
Interesting. So governments can apparently be immoral and corrupt, but it's OK to let 'trustworthy' bankers and SEOs to have free reign?
No, I'm, saying that without government intervention on the behalf of offending companies, the consumers of the marketplace will punish any immoral acts by bankers and CEO's. Why do you think they ran to the government when the housing bubble collapsed? Do you really think they would have been allowed to continue to exist without government intervention? That right there is an example of how the market punishes immorality and how government steps in to save them from the consequences of those actions. Yet you still cling to the belief that government intervenes and makes things "fair" for everyone. It doesn't.
So,we are not living under the constitution and haven't been for a very long time ,probably since before I was born! We are just allowed to live a close approximatuion to it ,that is continually being eroded day by day.
Pretty much. Although if you delve into history, the closest we ever came to living under the Constitution as written was under Jefferson, yet even he did things beyond its scope like the War Against the Barbary Pirates and the Louisiana Purchase. Indeed it was mostly due to him that ideas like homesteading became popular. Yet he still had to put up with the influence of the Federalists, in which many of their policies we find enacted today.
ltd--Financial markets don't regulate themselves. That's been shown over and over again throughout history. I'm not don't have time to rebut your revisionist history. I have no interest in converting you to my position. You are committed to believing in something and nothing I say will dissuade you. I'm under no obligation to 'prove' anything to you. I write about finance, but I don't care if you agree with me. You're welcome to post your arguments and the Gospel of Ron Paul all you want here-- get into it with anyone else who wants to debate you but I don't have time for it. I already did this with Aya. I'm not interested.
My response to the rolling stones article: http://hubpages.com/hub/US-consumerNot-Goldman-Sac “Don’t purchase items you cant afford and save for a rainy day”. If the American consumer followed that simple saying Goldman or any other investment bank would not have been in a position to gain from last years economic collapse nor any other time in history.
How can you in any way be consistent? You claim that the medical market is different from any other and must be regulated, so is finance? Why are those two different from any others? I rather think it's because regulation and collectivization have been shown to fail in just about every other endeavor. Food, for instance. Which is far more important than either medical care or finance.
If you don't want to debate people, you shouldn't post topics like this and claim authority. People will disagree with you and bring up points for you to consider. If you don't like doing this, why post?
Write your own hub. It's not my job to debate you. I get to choose what discussions I enter, and you're free to post your own hubs and argue there, on your own hub, if that's your thing. It's not mine. And I'm especially not interested in wasting any more time on Libertarianism, which makes no sense to me, I think it's not a good or useful philosophy, and I've said so a million times.
Writing your own essays IS a way to make your point. I'm done now, I won't be continuing this if you decide to continue.
Well Pam, this conspiracy, just like the 911 conspiracy, is true. It is time the American people wake up to the fact that we have a bunch of thugs running our country. What I want to know is why Goldman Sachs alum Henry Paulson warned congress that there was a drain upon the money markets of 500 billion dollars in 2 hours in Sept, 2009, and yet no one has told us who did the draining. We have a right to know! We need to hold these thieves accountable. I think GS is on the minds of many Pam, and I hope you enjoy my take on the issue as well: http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Goldman-Sachs-Is-Commi
BTW I can't believe that a true libertarian position is the abdication of regulation of markets. After all, libertarian Ron Paul has called for the auditing of the Federal Reserve private bank, which I suppose the Fed thinks is very anti libertarian!
Hi bgamall,
Thanks for that link. I will definitely check out your hub. I do remember your hub about the run on money markets. As to Libertarianism, I'm just tired to arguing all these arcane points with Libertarians endlessly on my hubs. I feel like that is what the forums are for and that is why they have access to the same interface I do to write their own hubs. Glass-Steagall was a regulation. It was removed. That's called deregulation. I think it's a bad thing. I get tired of having to prove that paint is wet just because I wrote something on the internet and I'm not going to do it anymore. Usually, when I get into those kinds of exchanges it seems to be a Libertarian on the other end of the 'discussion'.
Actually bgamall, Paul would like to see the Fed dismantled. We argue about the Fed all the time, and we read and research the subject. How can you expect your average person to know anything about it when they're bombarded by nonsense from the media on a daily basis? The auditing of the Fed is a first step in its destruction. When it's audited and people finally see what's behind the curtain, they will destroy it.
Pam, the reason I give you so much stuff is because you use words like recidivism and ending the conversation because it's too hard. Also I don't really respond to argue with you, personally. You make certain claims that I don't agree with and I post rebuttals. It's not for you as much as it is for people who are new to the subject and my aim is to illustrate that things are more complex than they may initially seem. I've pretty much given up on the idea that we'll see eye to eye on much. :P
If it's a Libertarian you seem to fight with, I'd suggest learning more about them and attempting to use what you learn to rebut our arguments. Along the way, you might learn something new.
Paul wants to dismantle the Fed and in order to do that he wants the Fed audited and has introduced a bill with a lot of support (not enough) to do so.
Listen the libertarian position cannot be that hedge funds like Goldman Sachs be leveraged to the eyeballs in stocks and other markets. There is no free market in the Goldman Sachs manipulation of markets. Goldman is destroying capitalism and the free markets as we speak.
I am sure that GS played a huge role in the crisis but they were not alone. Too many of our large corporations are too greedy and hopefully this was the wake up call they needed.
ltd--I'm not ending the conversation because it's too hard, I'm ending it because I'm sick of it and I have no obligation to engage in a never ending political discussion with you. I suggest YOU educate yourself, read some history, and learn some respect for other people.
I wish I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth. Then I'd be one up on even Goldman.
Again, Pam, if you don't want to discuss, fine. But anytime you print something that has logical fallacies in it, people are going to point those fallacies out. You claim authority in these matters, it is your responsibility to actually see that you do, if you don't people will call you on it. I wish you'd quote history and some of these learned sources where you learn this stuff instead of just crafting great conspiracy theories without citing sources.
As for respect, I do. Have I descended into name calling and other playground behavior? No. Now you may consider someone disagreeing with you to be disrespect, but that's not the case at all, that's people disagreeing.
bgamall, I was commenting on the "supposed" 2 billion dollar "drain" on the economy. The very fact that is was Paulson doing the saying, should tell us that it is either a misrepresentation or a flat out lie. It's a way to get people to focus on the wrong thing. Like the bubble being caused by the Fed, the bursting being due to the Fed and basically all the problems surrounding the Fed.
Much like GS, the Fed is attempting to spin things and avoid responsibility for their actions.
There are no political parties. There are only deals made amongst and for the elite class who have been allowed into the game.
Hard working middle class citizens are nothing more than a ball of bait fish being corralled for the kill by the whales.
I remember as a young boy, asking my father," Why do we hate the Communist"?. He showed me an article in some publication that clearly stated that the Communist Doctrine called for world domination. It also said that Communism would destroy Capitalism "without firing a shot". I could not understand how that could possibly happen. Now,40 years later, I feel incredibly gullible, almost stupid, for not being able to understand how it could happen.
The current lack of integrity, leadership, character,etc. etc. is mind boggling.It has left me with a wide, deep, and dark void which I sincerely fear. I fear what may come to fill that void.
With Paulson at the helm of the initial bailout, is it any wonder how Goldman Sachs is still going strong when other investment bankers have gone belly up? I think there must be conflict of interest issues involved in its continued success.
Excellent and rather scary article. As someone directly affected by this mess, real estate business, it is amazing to see how everyone has been manipulated
Alright guys here is another spin. And this is not a joke. This I stick my eternal salvation on. There is a conspiracy, but it's bigger than the libertarians and the 911 mob are warning us about. The conspiracy which can be proven from Biblical studies consists of:
Religious power with links to ancient empires;
Militant American Protestantism;
Spiritualism/New Age.
Together they will create the economic/spiritual/moral disaster scenario for the acceptance of the mark of the beast. If you want the juicy secrets from history and prophecy and as well as guidance for the crisis ahead just contact the nearest Seventh-day Adventist Church or request a free prophecy study course.
http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/BibleStudies
http://www.cyberspaceministry.org/Lessons/Future/e
What you are seeing now is just the tip of the apocalyptic nightmare.
I recommend Pastor Mark Finley's video series:
I can't believe how anybody can argue against government regulation. Without regulation, the largest corporations will do anything they want. Government 'interference' ended slavery and child labor. Government regulations created safety in the workplace and the safer production of food products.
It is no longer Capitalism when monster companies buy up smaller ones only to close them down. It's not Capitalism when the value of a product is artificially inflated to enrich the powerful few.
Great hub, Pam. Keep 'em coming.
Thanks Dolores! We are of like mind. (BTW I love your new avatar! Very cheerful!) I am taking a break from these kinds of hubs while I work on a batch of freelance articles for a client, plus I am doing some paranormal articles for Examiner.com.
When I come back to them though, I'll post a disclaimer on each alerting readers to the fact that I won't engage in long debates with people who comment (I don't have time, and anyway they should write their own hubs if they have that much to say about it, not park it here arguing with me), and also that I will delete hateful or threatening comments so people should not bother leaving those.
I like writing on these topics but I have to set some boundaries with some of these commenters. Like you, at this point I don't understand how anyone can think financial regulation is not necessary. People who do think that can write their own hubs, and should write them. That's what this place is for after all. Thanks for your comment!
Pam, I'm glad but not surprised that you have some freelance work. You really are a wonderful writer. You are able to take a complicated subject and boil in down to terms simple enough for folks unfamiliar with the lingo.
Thanks Dolores! I try. :)
Excellent Hub Pam. About the only thing that I don't believe on it is "that FDR was really Elvis in disguise, squirreled away to the 1930s by time-traveling grey aliens who totally staged his untimely, undignified death for their own nefarious purposes." :-)
Good job
Mike
Hi Mike--You mean FDR wasn't really Elvis???? LOL! Thanks for stopping by. :)
Just got around to this Hub. Interesting. I'd heard about the Rolling Stone article about Goldman and had been meaning to look it up. Tnx.
Hi Ralph--Thanks for stopping by. :)
That was a great picture at the top! Very appropriate and funny.
Now I see why I missed the Hub. I thought I was a member of your fan club, but apparently I wasn't. Now I am.
Hi Ralph! Yes it's amazing what you can find at flickr. Some of the stuff there for public use is truly amazing. :)
I'll have to start using flickr and reduce my exposure to copyright issues!
I don't really think I have much exposure to copyright issues, but after being challenged a few times about my free use of images, I decided that if I don't want people to steal my text (and I do wish they would stop doing that), then I should stop using images without permission. I was a bit of an adjustment at first, but now it's actually more fun to go looking for them because I can see who made them and appreciate their efforts with a byline. :)
Hi pgrundy,
Excellent hub. How on Earth did the U. S. Government ever allow any entity to become "too big to fail". Many slept at the switch (best case), or were complicit ( worst case ). Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave.
The last big anti-trust case that I remember is the break-up of ATT. We have sufficient anti trust legislation on the books to prevent "to big to fail" from occuring. WE must insit that this legislated solution be applied to break up "too big to fail" entities on a very speedy basis.
I fear that no talk of doing so may imply the comlicity (worst case) option.
Hi Tom,
Clinton, Bush, and Obama all were heavily backed by the financial industry and now finance is such a huge part of the economy I fear they're kind of running the show. It's disturbing. So long as politics and big money are wedded this way, I'd say we're cooked.
If there is even a grain of truth to this...(I THINK THERE IS!) Do elections matter?
CJ--I have been asking myself the same question. I think a lot of people have.
kerryg says:
5 months ago
Thanks muchly for this analysis!
The news that GS is starting to repackage and sell the same sorts of securities, etc. that got us into this mess in the first place stunned me. It shouldn't have, I know, but somehow I hoped that Wall Street would have learned a little bit of a lesson. No such luck, it seems.
My area isn't even hit that hard yet, but it really seems like it's only going to be a matter of time, with this kind of behavior.
Crazy environmentalist that I am, I was immensely relieved that Obama takes climate change seriously, but I was skeptical of how effective cap-and-trade would be before I read Taibbi's piece, and am even more so now. The last thing we need is to simultaneously run our eonomy into the ground AGAIN while simultaneously putting up an inadequate response to climate change. That would be a disaster of epic proportions, potentially near-annihilation of the human race proportions, since the third world folks who still have the skills to live off the land are the ones, for the most part, whose land is going to be most thoroughly reduced to unliveability.
I don't understand why that seems to *bother* so few people. I look at my daughter and want to apologize for bringing her into the world when I did! So many others don't seem to care in the slightest what kind of world their children and grandchildren will inherit.