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".[1] 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

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Goldman Sachs Places Moratorium On Campaign Contributions

FOX Business Network’s (FBN) Charlie Gasparino is reporting that Goldman Sachs has put a moratorium on political campaign contributions while more politicians are reaching out for donations from the firm.
This looks like just another attempt at creating positive PR.  The moratorium is just until the financial reform laws are passed.  So, if financial reform happens tomorrow, then the moratorium is lifted.  However, this new report by Charlie G. is worth watching.  He does make some very good comments and observations.   Watch and post your comments.
From Charlie Gasparino:
“FOX Business Network has learned that Goldman Sachs has put an internal moratorium on giving campaign contributions to either Republicans, Democrats, the President, anybody, at least until financial reform is over. We have got this from senior sources inside Goldman that they are at this point – this has been going on for about a month – not giving contributions because they think it doesn’t look good.”

“Inside Goldman, there is a degree that they don’t want to be seen as influencing the process but there is a lot of anger inside Goldman Sachs about the way financial reform worked. How they have been singled out as the culprit in this entire meltdown of the financial system.”

“Kristin Gillibrand, the junior Senator from New York, is asking for contributions. Chuck Schumer is always asking for contributions. There is a lot of anger directed at Schumer and Gillibrand from Wall Street.”


Anonymous said...

Who cares if Goldman gives less to politicians...that's a good thing...maybe we'll get policy that serves "the people" versus the "embedded" interests.

July 6, 2010
Implications of a Likely Economic Downturn

Policy Implications

To-date, our policy makers have placed bondholders ahead of ordinary citizens, largely out of fear of disastrous consequences predicted by precisely those who stood to benefit most from government largesse. We have directed massive and ultimately real (not simply "paper") resources of the public to ensure that holde rs of bank debt, financial debt, and GSE debt get back 100 cents on the dollar plus interest.

With regard to "stimulus" plans, my difficulty with last year's policies is not so much an aversion to government spending as it is a rebuke of the notion that government spending is by its nature stimulative or beneficial to the economy. The issue is how this real value is used. Is it used to advance socially useful outcomes which private individuals, through some failure of coordination, could not achieve? Or is it used to defend bondholders, industries, and institutions with which the policymakers are most closely aligned?

The only difference between Keynes and Tim Geithner is evidently that Geithner prefers to place the bottles a bit closer to Wall Street.

Post a Comment