• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

"Goldman Sachs Are Scum" Max Keiser


Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
"They are literally stealing a hundred million dollars a day. Goldman Sachs is stealing every day on the floor of the exchange. They should be in the Hague, they should be taken on financial terrorism charges. They should all be thrown in jail"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6I04]YouTube - Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs story (pt1 of 2)[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoQrYa_NKQQ"]YouTube - Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs oligarchy (pt2 of 2)[/ame]
 

Colonel Kurtz

Active member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
122
"They are literally stealing a hundred million dollars a day. Goldman Sachs is stealing every day on the floor of the exchange. They should be in the Hague, they should be taken on financial terrorism charges. They should all be thrown in jail"
Absolutely correct imho
 

EarlyBird

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
324
Keiser is spot on. Goldman Sachs are criminal scum.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
Sounds like envy and jealousy of Goldman Sachs stratospheric pay. The lessening of competition in investment banking increased profit margins.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,628
Yep they are scum and sound terrible.

How do I get a piece of the action, are they on the Stock Exchange?
 

rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,544
Goldman are the shining light of this crisis - they saw it coming and dumped the toxic assets before any other large traders realised the problem.

Without people like them we'd have no honesty in trading - "Bertie Bubbles" would have continued in perpetuity

cYp
they created most of the toxic assets to begin with but made sure they weren't holding any when TSHTF - and they are continuing with front-running the market
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206
For the best insight into Golden Sacks it has to be Matt Taaibi in Rolling Stone. Devasting critique going back to its inception in the 19th century.
Quotes:
"From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again" Its long but immensely readable and no matter your point of view you will feel like your learned something:
Zero Hedge: Goldman Sachs: "Engineering Every Major Market Manipulation Since The Great Depression"
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
they created most of the toxic assets to begin with but made sure they weren't holding any when TSHTF - and they are continuing with front-running the market
Please cite proof for your assertion that Goldman created more than 50% of the toxic assets

cYp
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
Goldman are the shining light of this crisis - They saw it coming and dumped the toxic assets before any other large traders realised the problem.
They not only saw it coming they made it happen.

It was the FED who drove interest rates from 6% in 2001 to 1% in 2004 making money worthless.
It was the FED who allowed subprime to go from 2% of all mortgages in 2001 to a shocking 30% in 2006. When you say FED say Goldman Sachs.

As Max Keiser said in one of his shows, the collapse in the banking system was a controlled demolition just like the twin towers.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
They not only saw it coming they made it happen.

It was the FED who drove interest rates from 6% in 2001 to 1% in 2004 making money worthless.
It was the FED who allowed subprime to go from 2% of all mortgages in 2001 to a shocking 30% in 2006. When you say FED say Goldman Sachs.

As Max Keiser said in one of his shows, the collapse in the banking system was a controlled demolition just like the twin towers.
Indeed ... that is the zone this thread is in





cYp
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206
Even the Wall St. Journal are having a kick at Goverment Sacks:
Quote:
Goldman will surely deny that its risk-taking is subsidized by the taxpayer -- but then so did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, right up to the bitter end. An implicit government guarantee is only free until it's not, and when the bill comes due it tends to be huge. So for the moment, Goldman Sachs -- or should we say Goldie Mac? -- enjoys the best of both worlds: outsize profits for its traders and shareholders and a taxpayer backstop should anything go wrong

We like profits as much as the next capitalist. But when those profits are supported by government guarantees or insured deposits, taxpayers have a special interest in how the companies conduct their business. Ideally we would shed those implicit guarantees altogether, along with the very notion of too big to fail. But that is all but impossible now and for the foreseeable future
A Tale of Two Bailouts - WSJ.com

'Nuff said.
 

rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,544
Please cite proof for your assertion that Goldman created more than 50% of the toxic assets

cYp

BUBBLE #3 - THE HOUSING CRAZE
Goldman's role in the sweeping disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren't in IPOs but in mortgages. ...

None of that would have been possible without investment bankers like Goldman, who created vehicles to package those lovely mortgages and sell them en masse to unsuspecting insurance companies and pension funds. This created a mass market for toxic debt that would never have existed before; in the old days, no bank would have wanted to keep some addict ex-con's mortgage on its books, knowing how likely it was to fail. You can't write these mortgages, in other words, unless you can sell them to someone who doesn't know what they are.

Goldman used two methods to hide the mess they were selling. First, they bundled hundreds of different mortgages into instruments called Collateralized Debt Obligations. Then they sold investors on the idea that, because a bunch of those mortgages would turn out to be OK, there was no reason to worry so much about the lovely ones: The CDO, as a whole, was sound. Thus, junk-rated mortgages were turned into AAA-rated investments. Second, to hedge its own bets, Goldman got companies like AIG to provide insurance - known as credit-default swaps - on the CDOs. The swaps were essentially a racetrack bet between AIG and Goldman: Goldman is betting the ex-cons will default, AIG is betting they won't.

There was only one problem with the deals: All of the wheeling and dealing represented exactly the kind of dangerous speculation that federal regulators are supposed to rein in. Derivatives like CDOs and credit swaps had already caused a series of serious financial calamities: Procter & Gamble and Gibson Greetings both lost fortunes, and Orange County, California, was forced to default in 1994. A report that year by the Government Accountability Office recommended that such financial instruments be tightly regulated - and in 1998, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a woman named Brooksley Born, agreed. That May, she circulated a letter to business leaders and the Clinton administration suggesting that banks be required to provide greater disclosure in derivatives trades, and maintain reserves to cushion against losses. ...

Clinton's reigning economic foursome - "especially Rubin," according to Greenberger - called Born in for a meeting and pleaded their case. She refused to back down, however, and continued to push for more regulation of the derivatives. Then, in June 1998, Rubin went public to denounce her move, eventually recommending that Congress strip the CFTC of its regulatory authority. In 2000, on its last day in session, Congress passed the now-notorious Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which had been inserted into an 1l,000-page spending bill at the last minute, with almost no debate on the floor of the Senate. Banks were now free to trade default swaps with impunity.

But the story didn't end there. AIG, a major purveyor of default swaps, approached the New York State Insurance Department in 2000 and asked whether default swaps would be regulated as insurance. At the time, the office was run by one Neil Levin, a former Goldman vice president, who decided against regulating the swaps. Now freed to underwrite as many housing-based securities and buy as much credit-default protection as it wanted, Goldman went berserk with lending lust. By the peak of the housing boom in 2006, Goldman was underwriting $76.5 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities - a third of which were subprime - much of it to institutional investors like pensions and insurance companies. And in these massive issues of real estate were vast swamps of crap.

Take one $494 million issue that year, GSAMP Trust 2006-S3. Many of the mortgages belonged to second-mortgage borrowers, and the average equity they had in their homes was 0.71 percent. Moreover, 58 percent of the loans included little or no documentation - no names of the borrowers, no addresses of the homes, just zip codes. Yet both of the major ratings agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, rated 93 percent of the issue as investment grade. Moody's projected that less than 10 percent of the loans would default. In reality, 18 percent of the mortgages were in default within 18 months.

Not that Goldman was personally at any risk. The bank might be taking all these hideous, completely irresponsible mortgages from beneath-gangster-status firms like Countrywide and selling them off to municipalities and pensioners - old people, for God's sake - pretending the whole time that it wasn't grade-D horse********************. But even as it was doing so, it was taking short positions in the same market, in essence betting against the same crap it was selling. Even worse, Goldman bragged about it in public. "The mortgage sector continues to be challenged," David Viniar, the bank's chief financial officer, boasted in 2007. "As a result, we took significant markdowns on our long inventory positions .... However, our risk bias in that market was to be short, and that net short position was profitable." In other words, the mortgages it was selling were for chumps. The real money was in betting against those same mortgages.

"That's how audacious these ***********************************s are," says one hedge-fund manager. "At least with other banks, you could say that they were just dumb - they believed what they were selling, and it blew them up. Goldman knew what it was doing." I ask the manager how it could be that selling something to customers that you're actually betting against - particularly when you know more about the weaknesses of those products than the customer - doesn't amount to securities fraud.

"It's exactly securities fraud," he says. "It's the heart of securities fraud."

The Great American Bubble Machine | Corrente

Did you get that? They were selling products (that they knew to be worthless) and betting against them.

And their buddies at the Fed and Treasury will make sure no one at Goldman will ever take the rap :(
 
Last edited:

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
Even the Wall St. Journal are having a kick at Goverment Sacks:
Quote:
Goldman will surely deny that its risk-taking is subsidized by the taxpayer -- but then so did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, right up to the bitter end. An implicit government guarantee is only free until it's not, and when the bill comes due it tends to be huge. So for the moment, Goldman Sachs -- or should we say Goldie Mac? -- enjoys the best of both worlds: outsize profits for its traders and shareholders and a taxpayer backstop should anything go wrong

We like profits as much as the next capitalist. But when those profits are supported by government guarantees or insured deposits, taxpayers have a special interest in how the companies conduct their business. Ideally we would shed those implicit guarantees altogether, along with the very notion of too big to fail. But that is all but impossible now and for the foreseeable future
A Tale of Two Bailouts - WSJ.com

'Nuff said.
Neither Goldman nor Citi wanted, nor needed the bailout - and Goldman have repaid theirs in full

cYp
 

PaddyJoe McGillycuddy

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
206
This Daily Telegraph rebuttal should prove useful to read



cYp
A rebuttal? I don't think so. Main points are that GS have had insiders in power in Washington going back to the 80's. Their rivals were allowed to fail.
Quote: "The second is that, thanks to Washington's bailout of AIG, Goldman was able to recoup a $13 billion exposure to the failed insurer – though Goldman insiders insist the matter is much more complicated than it appears.
Which is folowed by no further explanation.
And another quote:
It is debatable whether Goldman would be quite where it is today without this helping hand from its friends in high places
The piece is a load of waffle. Have a closer look and you'll see that its a lot of smoke. GS can pretty much do what it likes.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,630
Website
www.google.com
A rebuttal? I don't think so. Main points are that GS have had insiders in power in Washington going back to the 80's. Their rivals were allowed to fail.
Quote: "The second is that, thanks to Washington's bailout of AIG, Goldman was able to recoup a $13 billion exposure to the failed insurer – though Goldman insiders insist the matter is much more complicated than it appears.
Which is folowed by no further explanation.
And another quote:
It is debatable whether Goldman would be quite where it is today without this helping hand from its friends in high places
The piece is a load of waffle. Have a closer look and you'll see that its a lot of smoke. GS can pretty much do what it likes.
The only salient point is that Goldman did benefit from the fact that the US government paid AIG's debts... but it was AIG was the big failure there

cYp
 

rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,544
Neither Goldman nor Citi wanted, nor needed the bailout - and Goldman have repaid theirs in full

cYp
they had a big hand in crashing the market (which so conveniently ended up wiping out their main competition) - got bailed out at taxpayers expense - then they get to buy back positions for pennies on the dollar - monopoly capitalism at it's finest
 
Top