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

Sunday, May 15, 2011

An Answer to an Apologist for Goldman Sachs

I've noticed a number of articles in cyberspace that support Goldman Sachs in spite of the role it played in bringing about the financial crisis of 2008.

Tenebrarum's article, Mat Taibbi, Squid Hunter in Seeking Alpha, makes the point that Matt's claim in The People vs. Goldman Sachs in RollingStone that "Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again" is "just an assertion without proof."

There is proof. The proof doesn't go back to the early 1920s but, for sure, Goldman Sachs guys manipulated many of the markets and many government agencies to reach the point where they are today: wealthy beyond compare, no worries about prosecution for fraud or perjury (as laid out in the Levin/Coburn Report) and continuing to manipulate by either placing their guys in government positions or by taking government guys into their bailiwick to carry on for Goldman! Then there are others who become useful to Goldman and gladly do Goldman's work.

Here's the argument that I would like to make in rebuttal and it comes from all our posts on "revolving doors." That means doors from Goldman Sachs leading to the government and doors from government leading back to Goldman Sachs.

I'll just name the names and give the links for Mr. Tenebrarum's perusal. You can decide for yourself whether or not such an army of Goldmanites could influence and manipulate government policy:

John Thornton, Duncan Niederauer, Jon Corzine, Joshua Bolton, Paul Deighton, Robert Rubin, Gavyn Davies, Jim Cramer, Robert Zoellick, Mario Draghi, Malcolm Turnbull, Hank Paulson.
See the article here for the roles played by the above people.

Stephen Friedman, William C. Dudley, Lloyd Blankfein, John Thain.
Each of the above names has links explaining their influences.

Then there are lobbyists, advisers, commissioners, etc: Robert K. Steel, Mark Patterson, Dan Jester, Steve Shafran, Kendrick Wilson, Neel. T. Kashkari, Reuben Jeffrey, Edward C. Forst, Gary Gensler, Joshua Bolten, Sonal Shah, James Johnson, Kenneth D. Brody, Sidney Weinberg, Richard Gephardt, Michael Paese, Faryar Shirzad, Richard Y. Roberts, Steven Elmendorf, Robert Cogorno, Chris Javens, E. Gerald Corrigan, Lori E. Laudien, Marti Thomas, Kenneth Connolly, Arthur Levitt.
Read the original article and see the linking chart here.

Then on a more international note, we have: Kathleen Brown, Mark Carney, Robert Cogorno, Dina Farrell, Randall M. Fort, Henry H. Fowler, Lord Brian Griffiths, Jim Himes, Robert D. Hormats, Chris Javens, Reuben Jeffrey III, James Johnson, Philip Murphy, Mark Patterson, Romano Prodi, Adam Storch, Massimo Tononi, Malcolm Turnbull.
Read the original article here.

More connections with Goldman: Blair W. Effron, Michael Froman, Howard P. Berkowitz, Anne Fudge, Michael D. Granoff, Edward Michael Liddy, Richard Perry, Laura D'Andrea Tyson.
Read the original article here.

You can find other affiliations of people with Goldman Sachs here and here.

Tom Donilon, David Markowitz, Theo Lubke, Gene Sperling, Eileen Rominger, Joseph Jiampietro, Ben Broadbent.
Each name is linked to a different article.

The newest member of the club: ex-Senator Judd Gregg

Another name to add is Peter Haller, aka Peter Simonyi


Anonymous said...

Not Nomi...
The Global Economy Burns, While its Leaders Fiddle
DateSunday, May 15, 2011 at 8:05AM
The time-honored scheme in which controlling capital cons ordinary people (or governments) to join it before crashing or heading for the hills has devastated many individuals and economies. That ploy ran rampant during the crash of 1929. Banks put up their ‘own’ capital, which was really borrowed capital, to spur individuals to do the same with their savings. When banks pulled out, people were hosed thrice – through the loss of their savings, the decimation of their bank accounts that the powerhouses used for speculative purposes - under the guise of – serving their clients, and by a raging Depression that killed jobs and hopes.

Not much has changed. Matt Taibbi’s recent excoriation of Goldman Sachs reveals how gray the line is between screwing and screwing, one’s clients. Only now, when banks lose money, governments and central banks reward them with trillions of dollars of subsidies, using the excuse of aiding the population and avoiding larger catastrophe. They say things like - it takes time to increase employment, but we can waste no time in propping up our financial system. Or - pensions and teachers caused budget failures, but we’ll keep holding excess reserves, borne of debt, for banks in case they need it, and pay interest on it.

Anonymous said...

Mario Draghi, former managing director of Goldman Sachs International and current head of Bank of Italy will take over from Trichet.

All we need now to complete the picture is for an ex-Goldman employee to run for president of the United States and for another ex-Goldman employee to replace Bernanke at the Fed.

Anonymous said...

Testimony, Goldman-Style; A Tour Through the Levin Report

The choice passage is right in the middle there. In it, White/Birnbaum express dismay that the committee did not inform Birnbaum that it actually had the evidence in hand when it asked him those questions previously. How could Birnbaum have known how to answer correctly, minus that important context? The emphasis in the text here is mine:

"Unfortunately, Mr. Birnbaum did not have a copy of that document at the time he responded to the May 24 questions and, therefore, could not use it to refresh his recollection of events that occurred several years ago. Curiously, nothing in the questions indicated that your staff had incorporated quotations from a document, unlike the many other questions posed where they [sic] your staff clearly indicated that it was quoting from documents that had been provided to Mr. Birnbaum. We cannot understand what legitimate reason the staff would have for neither providing the document nor even disclosing that it was quoting a particular document in posing these questions. Without the benefit of that document, Mr. Birnbaum was notable to answer all of the questions in his written responses. In fact, his response to the questions at issue specifically noted that he did not have the documents necessary to refresh his recollection.

Post a Comment