PDA

View Full Version : Interesting fact.



Qtec
06-14-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To fully grasp the case against Goldman, one first needs to understand that the financial crime wave described in the Levin report came on the heels of a decades-long lobbying campaign by Goldman and other titans of Wall Street, who pleaded over and over for the right to regulate themselves.

Before that campaign, banks were closely monitored by a host of federal regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. These agencies had examiners poring over loans and other transactions, probing for behavior that might put depositors or the system at risk. When the examiners found illegal or suspicious behavior, they built cases and referred them to criminal authorities like the Justice Department.

This system of referrals was the backbone of financial law enforcement through the early Nineties. William Black was senior deputy chief counsel at the Office of Thrift Supervision in 1991 and 1992, the last years of the S&L crisis, a disaster whose pansystemic nature was comparable to the mortgage fiasco, albeit vastly smaller. Black describes the regulatory MO back then. "Every year," he says, "you had thousands of criminal referrals, maybe 500 enforcement actions, 150 civil suits and hundreds of convictions."

But beginning in the mid-Nineties, when former Goldman co-chairman Bob Rubin served as Bill Clinton's senior economic-policy adviser, the government began moving toward a regulatory system that relied almost exclusively on voluntary compliance by the banks. Old-school criminal referrals disappeared down the chute of history along with floppy disks and scripted television entertainment. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>In 1995, according to an independent study, banking regulators filed <u>1,837 referrals.</u> During the height of the financial crisis, between 2007 and 2010, they averaged just <u>72 a year.</u> </span> </div></div>

So much for deregulation.

Q

Qtec
06-14-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Goldman and the other banks argued that they didn't need government supervision for a very simple reason: Rooting out corruption and fraud was in their own self-interest. In the event of financial wrongdoing, they insisted, they would do their civic duty and protect the markets. But in late 2006, well before many of the other players on Wall Street realized what was going on, the top dogs at Goldman including the aforementioned Viniar started to fear they were sitting on a time bomb of billions in toxic assets. Yet instead of sounding the alarm, the very first thing Goldman did was tell no one. And the second thing it did was figure out a way to make money on the knowledge by screwing its own clients. So not only did Goldman throw a full-blown "bite me" on its own self-righteous horseshit about "internal risk management," it more or less instantly sped way beyond inaction straight into craven manipulation.

"This is the dog that didn't bark," says Eliot Spitzer, who tangled with Goldman during his years as New York's attorney general. "Their whole political argument for a decade was 'Leave us alone, trust us to regulate ourselves.' They not only abdicated that responsibility, they affirmatively traded against the entire market." </div></div>


Read it all here. The People vs. Goldman Sachs (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?page=1)

Q

Gayle in MD
06-14-2011, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Goldman and the other banks argued that they didn't need government supervision for a very simple reason: Rooting out corruption and fraud was in their own self-interest. In the event of financial wrongdoing, they insisted, they would do their civic duty and protect the markets. But in late 2006, well before many of the other players on Wall Street realized what was going on, the top dogs at Goldman including the aforementioned Viniar started to fear they were sitting on a time bomb of billions in toxic assets. Yet instead of sounding the alarm, the very first thing Goldman did was tell no one. And the second thing it did was figure out a way to make money on the knowledge by screwing its own clients. So not only did Goldman throw a full-blown "bite me" on its own self-righteous horseshit about "internal risk management," it more or less instantly sped way beyond inaction straight into craven manipulation.

"This is the dog that didn't bark," says Eliot Spitzer, who tangled with Goldman during his years as New York's attorney general. "Their whole political argument for a decade was 'Leave us alone, trust us to regulate ourselves.' They not only abdicated that responsibility, they affirmatively traded against the entire market." </div></div>


Read it all here. The People vs. Goldman Sachs (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?page=1)

Q </div></div>

Thanks for the great links!

Too bad the right has been so thoroughly brain washed.

If you saw the Repiglicans last night, still touting for deregulatory insanity, we're probably doomed.

G.

LWW
06-14-2011, 09:17 AM
So why were so many G-S employees working for Billy Jeff ... and why did dear leader hire so many of them?

LWW
06-14-2011, 09:19 AM
So democrooks hired, and took the advice of G-S under Billy Jeff ... and dear leader hired so many G-S execs because the republicans made them do it?

That was just precious.

Tell me some more about how Hitler wasn't a statist.

Soflasnapper
06-14-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why were so many G-S employees working for Billy Jeff ... and why did dear leader hire so many of them? </div></div>

Based on the known hiring of one GS guy-- Robert Rubin-- how many others beyond 1 (one) do you think he hired?

Wasn't it just Rubin's own assistants?

LWW
06-14-2011, 04:16 PM
A few dozen more than that.

OH DEAR! (http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/)

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few dozen more than that.

OH DEAR! (http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/) </div></div>

So now you, using your own magisterial Humpty-Dumpty standards, refer to Obama as Billy Jeff?

My apologies. I presumed you meant William Jefferson Clinton. But for now, you use a nickname of Clinton's to mean OBAMA?

Odd, but thanks for providing that Rosetta stone to decode your true meaning. Because your link has nothing in it regarding the Clinton administration hiring of GS-associated persons.

Or if I missed where it does, please cite it. Thank you.

Soflasnapper
06-17-2011, 04:11 PM
Still waiting for the listing of 'several dozen' more than 2 for the G-S alumnae hired into the Clinton administration.

&lt;crickets&gt;

Gayle in MD
06-21-2011, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still waiting for the listing of 'several dozen' more than 2 for the G-S alumnae hired into the Clinton administration.

&lt;crickets&gt; </div></div>

Again, his usual M.O.

He Ignores all of the many, many times, when his standard BS has been completely exposed, blown away by the facts, then relentlessly denies his demise, with a self described claim of brilliance, though we've all seen you, and Q., blow away his BS over and over.

Totally delusional.

What a con artist!

G.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 10:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few dozen more than that.

OH DEAR! (http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/) </div></div>

So now you, using your own magisterial Humpty-Dumpty standards, refer to Obama as Billy Jeff?

My apologies. I presumed you meant William Jefferson Clinton. But for now, you use a nickname of Clinton's to mean OBAMA?

Odd, but thanks for providing that Rosetta stone to decode your true meaning. Because your link has nothing in it regarding the Clinton administration hiring of GS-associated persons.

Or if I missed where it does, please cite it. Thank you.
</div></div>
See what he did? Burried his BS with more BS.

Flooded the forum with posts, to cover up his moronic statements!

What a joke!


I don't know any anyone even bother to read his BS. It's all a figment of his imagination.

G.