There is no power in this country more powerful the the dollar and he who controls the most dollars becomes all powerful. We know the Federal Reserve has the most dollars and can create as many as they want therefore they have "the power". It is often stated that "the most powerful person in our countrey is the Chairman of The Federal Reserve, more powerful even then the President of the United States.
Next in line would be, of course, Goldman Sachs. The most profitable firm on Wall Street. They to have a lot of money and can create and borrow dollars when needed. How do they create money, you ask. simple. by being a Federally Chartered Bank - same as JP Morgan, Bank of America or that local commercial bank down the street, they are allowed to create (loan) up to ten times the amount they must keep in reserves. In other words, if they have one dollar in reserves they can loan you ten dollars. They just created ten dollars out of thin air. As a Federally Chartered Bank, they can go to the Fed window and borrow money at or near zero percent interest, invest it or loan it or better yet, gamble with it and earn high rates of return.
But what has all this to do with them being or running the "system"? A great deal. First, with the amount of money they have at their disposal, they can influence or actually determine the outcome of various elections. With this influence, they then control these candidates. Case in point; GS was one of Obama's largest campaign contributors. Did anyone notice a change in Obama the candidate to Obama the President? I did.
Now take into consideration the many GS folks that walk through that revolving door in the government and those in government walking through that same door into Goldman Sachs. there is even very unofficial talk - so unofficial that it can be considered heresay at this point - that if Geithner is removed from his current position as Treasury Secretary, there is a job wailing for him at GS. Perhaps even replacing Lloyd Blankfein (my thought, not even heresay).
A first summation. Goldman Sachs makes a lot of money, can create money and can borrow money at will and they have friends in high places - very high places - like the White House, Congress and The Federal Reserve.
With all of this money power they also have the ability to make or break markets. They have taken over the spot once held by Merrill Lynch in their ad campaigns, "when ____ talks, everyone listens. To be sure, when GS talks everyone does listen. Another case in point. They are predicting an oil shortage in 2011. What do they know that we don't. Possibly they know how they are manipulating the oil markets and the price of oil. Just a guess and a question.
Now comes the Supreme Court's recent ruling on campaign advertising. A ruling that certainly will benefit the "money machine" Goldman Sachs. Are Supreme Court Justices somehow influenced by them or their big brother the Fed? I wonder about this as the Court's ruling just doesn't make sense to me. A corporation is not a person, it is an entity. Persons eat, breath and sleep, are made of flesh and have emotions and feelings. None of these exist for a corporation - least of all the emotions and feelings part. So how does the First Amendment - meant for people - fit in here. What a stretch! I want to believe that justice still exists in this country but I see too much evidence that it does not and where it does it is not dispensed equitably.
Men, by nature are conspirators and those with power are more likely to do so while somehow believing it is for the good of all.
So the question really remains, how much power and authority does Goldman Sachs really have? It appears to me they have a great deal as everything our government did in the name of saving our economy worked best for GS - even better for them then their smaller brothers on Wall Street. Bail out money, free money loans, gambling losses covered (AIG) - all looks like they are our economic system and our economic system is them.
The issue with Goldman Sachs is not their highly overpaid executives as much of the media is obsessd with, the real issue is how powerful and influential they are. Are they the dictatorial leaders of our Plutocracy? Do they influence or even dictate foreign as well as domestic policy? they certainly have a big presence and economic commitment around the globe. Such a large influence that they are too big to fail internationally. If AIG's failure would have brought down the world's economy, what would a Goldman Sachs failure do? Basically I don't believe either failure would have "destroyed" the world's economy but we were certainly led to believe so. Again, for whose benefit were we told this?
Now Goldman Sachs is talking about giving up their Federal Bank Charter as well as becoming a private company, giving up their public status. Is this an effort to wield their power without any public scrutiny at all? Just think about it. When Halliburton was taking a lot of hits from the media and the public, they simply gave up their American corporate citizenship and became a Dubai corporation - no longer open to domestic scrutiny or regulatory oversight. Is GS planning a similar move to shield their operations with much more limited regulatory oversight and no public scrutiny without having to give up their American citizenship? Only time will tell but during that time, we, the people can take back control and our system from all those who threaten our Democracy.
Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
GoldmanSachs666 Message Board
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage". In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia