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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Goldman Sachs Sees Many Benefits in All Kinds of Destruction

Goldman Sachs knows all about "why destruction and the money spent to recover from destruction" is a net-benefit, but not to society.  To Goldman Sachs who brought us the meltdown of the financial system by selling worthless CDOs to investors (pensions and savings plans) so that the financial system would have been destroyed (according to Paulson) if the banks had not been bailed out for their bad behavior.

So Goldman gets billions selling toxic CDOs and billions more betting against the mortgage market they infected and then gets billions more from a taxpayer bailout in spite of their fraudulent behavior.  Yes, indeed, Goldman Sachs knows all about how destruction can be a profitable pursuit.

We are not surprised when Goldman states that "Sandy may end up being beneficial for the U.S. economy, pushing indicators like construction spending, industrial production, and retail sales above their pre-disaster trend-lines over the next few quarters."  Goldman is always about the profits even when they come from the destruction of others' wealth.

The comments on the Forbes piece are more to the point:
Greg gills states, "The way Goldman see’s it. Everytime your family member gets cancer, thats a good thing. $$$$$. Everytime a rainforest is wiped off the map. $$$$$$. Everytime a natural disaster wreaks billions+ in damages. $$$$$. Everytime there is a terrorist attack. $$$$$. Everytime they help wipe $30 trillion off the books of the American people, we all have to work harder and their profits increase! $$$$$. This is the kind of psychopath the corporation = being a person is.

and commenter David John Marotta links us to the following parable from Wikipedia:


Bastiat's original parable of the broken window from Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (1850):
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.[1][2] (Wikipedia, Emphasis Mine)


Post a Comment