digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Goldman Sachs is getting the best of the credit crisis

marketwatch.com — Opponents have been vanquished and bad bets wiped away. Funny how that works since their ex-CEO is Henry Paulson - the man at the center of all the bailouts.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • FrankHope, on 10/02/2008, -1/+65FTA:
    "You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that a series of decisions and events have transpired to put Goldman at the top of the heap. Well before the credit crisis, people worried about Goldman's influence in the markets. Several former executives of the investment bank have senior roles in government and at the New York Stock Exchange, and its analysts are among the most powerful in the space."
    ===
    Am I allowed to say "I told you so"? It's nice to have the MSM finally catch up with us "conspiracy theorists". The MSM definition of a "conspiracy theorists" is anyone who can put 2 plus 2 together and get 4. You see we're not supposed to think for ourselves and come to conclusions. We are supposed to accept the "facts" fed to us by the MSM without questioning them. Otherwise we are labeled kooks.

    I wrote this article over a week ago when the bailout was first proposed.
    "Goldman Sachs: Wall St. Gangstas"
    http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/09/goldma ...
    "In a scene reminiscent of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Goldman Sachs has emerged victorious in the recent Wall St. Gang Wars. Like all good Organized Criminals, the GS gang has high-level officials on their payroll that assist them in getting away with their nefarious deals. In this case look no further than Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, the former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs."
    • rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6I'm disgusted. I've written to every congressmember from my state and urged them to fight this bill. This makes no sense at all. I'm saddened that both candidates support it. I wish someone had the balls to say it's unnecessary and actually bad.
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I was actually trying to call my guy today as well. I encourage everyone to do so... it's quick and easy.
      • fokov, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul did and does speak out against it. However, the rest of the crooks are more powerful than him.
    • chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Goldman Sachs is also one of the largest shareholders in the Federal Reserve too. It's a conspiracy alright, not a theoretical one either.
    • brad3378, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Notable People in favor of bailout:

      Bush,
      Obama,
      McCain,
      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
      Henry Paulson - United States Treasury Secretary - Ex CEO of Goldman Sachs
      Jim Cramer - MSNBC's Mad Money - Ex Employee of Goldman Sachs
      Warren Buffet - Billionaire investor.& one of Obama's Financial Advisors - Recently purchased $5 Billion of Goldman Sachs preferred stock.
      Ben Bernanke - Fed. Reserve Charmain - photographed at '08 Bilderberg conference. Violation of Logan Act?
      Barney Frank - Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee

      See an interactive map of more of the major players and their connections here:
      http://news.muckety.com/2008/09/30/bailout-support ...
    • anagai, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891 ...
    • kirkh, on 10/03/2008, -2/+1Paulson has nothing to benefit from the support of Goldman Sachs. He was required to sell his entire stake in Goldman Sachs before becoming the Treasury Secretary.

      Aside from that, the people who are against this bill don't seem to understand the drastic effect that not passing this bill will have on Main Street. Constricting the credit market even further than it already has been will just make things worse. No one likes the fact that we have to pass this bill, but the fact of the matter is that we need to stop the bleeding.

      The majority of the banks that created this horrible situation have been absorbed into other banks in the past months. We've seen them fail and we're really at an end game here where we can either provide the capital to relieve the credit market or continue to let it bleed, taking the credit markets and all investments in publicly traded companies down with it.

      Again, no one likes the fact that we have to shell out 700 billion dollars to fix this situation, but it really is a necessary evil to take the first step in the right direction to fixing this situation. Further constriction of the credit markets affects EVERYONE.

      Looking for a student loan? Do you work for a company that relies on credit to buy inventory to sell? Do you work for a company that has clients who rely on lines of credit to keep their business going? Do you need to buy a car any time soon?

      If you saw the deal that Warren Buffett made with GE recently, you can see that even huge corporations are hurting for credit. They bent over backwards for his capital investment. If one of the biggest US corporations is feeling the heat of constricting credit, it will definitely hurt a majority of US businesses, which will result in even more job losses and/or closing of businesses.
  • quesi, on 10/02/2008, -4/+50TREASON
    • cheezintern, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5..umm, yea or it is a better run firm that didn't expose itself to the risky investments that the others did.
    • DMCer, on 10/03/2008, -2/+3Exactly. There's a reason Goldman, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley aren't bankrupt or out of business. Goldman isn't the only firm that has come out on top. Suggesting that's the result of anything other than shrewd risk management and conservative investing is ignorance. Hank Paulson was tapped as Treasury Secretary because he was heading up the best firm in the business. Even with him gone, that's still largely the case.
    • quesi, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5Hmmm, Morgans Rockefellers, Goldmans - nope, no ties to the ownership of the FED or anything fishy like that. pfft! Look back at history and see who scoops up the competition for pennies on the dollar during engineered economic "downturns". Or, keep watching the news and believing what they say.

      What they have always been up to, it's called treason.
    • DMCer, on 10/03/2008, -3/+1Treason? You're an idiot.
    • geddon, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2WANTED: Ben Shalom Bernanke
      http://digg.com/users/geddon/gallery/8835063

      Economic Terrorism - Extortion - Corporatism - Racketeering
  • angusm, on 10/02/2008, -0/+24"Between the big thieves and the little thieves, it's the big thieves that rule the land. They put a penny in the pot for the poor with one hand. And with the other take another and a thousand more." -- Rory Macleod
  • Unicorny, on 10/02/2008, -14/+26Goldman Sachs $583,000 investment in the Obama campaign is sure paying off.
    • MrCashyCash, on 10/03/2008, -4/+9McCain was one of the Keating 5.

      How much has he enriched himself at our expense?
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Ah I see what you did there...

        Seriously though this is why neither is getting my vote. Neither really had a chance at getting it in the first place but this just helps solidify my choice even more (if that's even possible).

        That candidates don't care about the common person. They never have. The Senate is where the worst of the worst are because they have enough power to get lobbied major by big corporations. The House of Representatives not so much because there are so many more of them *unless* the individual Representative happens to be on or leader of a committee.
    • theutopian, on 10/03/2008, -5/+11Goldman Sachs did not invest in his campaign. Those were donations made by employees whom have to declare where they work when they make a donation.

      Are you suggesting that only the unemployed and people who have no political views can donate to a candidate?
      • Unicorny, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3As if the top executives who are giving the serious cash aren't well aware of what they're purchasing.

        Good read on Obama's cash and lobbyist ties to this mess:
        http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

        As to your question about unemployed..? Cute, but no. I favor public financing of campaigns, public counting of votes, publicly owned and operated debates. I'd like to see democracy thrive.
      • fokov, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Business owner: "I'll give you a raise of $X if you donate $x/2 to puppet Y's campaign."

        Employee: "Sure"
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2@theutopian: I'm not sure if you were quoting someone or not but the fact that it is the employees who donated doesn't make a difference. A company itself is a non-living entity and thus can't donate...

        What happens though is that when a company lobbies a candidate, they promise the candidate that they will strongly recommend to their employees to donate to that person's campaign because it will be good for that company (and thus their jobs and financial well-being, but not necessarily in the best interest for the nation). But just because it is done this way does not make it any less lucrative and corrupt in my opinion.
    • chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -1/+13McCain received money from Goldman Sachs as well. In fact, both of them took money from a number of banks and finance groups that either have been nationalized or are part of the current bailout bill. No wonder they both agree on backing this bill. The front runners have special interests alright, it just isn't you and I.
      • Unicorny, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5That's why I'm going Independent this time!

        That and the war.

        And health care.
  • ScienceDoc, on 10/03/2008, -8/+7Neocon wet dream. They screw you. Then they take all your money. Had enough yet Republisheep?
    • ProfessorRiffs, on 10/03/2008, -5/+10Republisheep = Not a word.

      Die.
    • DiscoLando, on 10/03/2008, -0/+10Technical term is 'Republocrat'.

      Don't for a second think that the Democrats are somehow without blame in this mess. The kind of stupidity and sheer unconstitutionality we're witnessing unfold can only happen with help from both major parties.
      • DarkPrincess74, on 10/03/2008, -2/+3Perhaps that's true but what with republicans controlling everything in the last 8 years so in that case they must be pretty incompetent or pretty lazy to have not noticed this and done anything about it.
    • LenBaird, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1Dugg down for playing the partisan blame game. BOTH PARTIES participated in this, and continuing to play partisanship only distracts us.
  • MforMike, on 10/03/2008, -7/+2good thing because my dad works for GS
    • bsingle, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4Yeah, my brother is a VP at GS, and he's about the most frugal yet generous guy you would ever meet, not to mention smart as hell. The people who think everyone who works in finance and trading is greedy and evil are just ignorant and probably don't know a single person at one of these firms. I'm sure there are people who fit that caricature completely (especially at Bear Stearns), but there are lots of decent people on the payroll of the i-banks.
  • dha07030, on 10/03/2008, -2/+19His name is Henry Paulson
  • kcmo08, on 10/03/2008, -2/+30Default on your mortgage? You're screwed. Run a company into the ground? The government bails you out with tax dollars.

    Something is wrong with this picture.
    • theutopian, on 10/03/2008, -2/+5Goldman hasn't been bailed out. They probably won't be. They didn't expose themselves to the crazy amounts of risk that the other banks foolishly did. Goldman is faring quite well, despite having to redefine what kind of 'bank' they are.
      • fokov, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2They did, they just got out of the game before ***** hit the fan.
    • mahadiga, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2aka Other People's Money
  • andy3109, on 10/03/2008, -11/+4You guys are turning into nut cases. Paulson had nothing to do with anything GS related. Every single large financial firm is getting bailed out equally, whether by the government or by Berkshire Hathaway.
    • Rustymetal, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Right, and I can't see the moon at night.
    • andy3109, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2good argument. of course no one can prove me wrong so they just digg me down.
  • DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/03/2008, -2/+13Or they're just a smart investment company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Goldman ...
  • CChandler2423, on 10/03/2008, -3/+2The Republicans are throwing the Election.

    All of this . At this time or disarray.

    These are smart white people that don't make these kind of mistakes.
  • exxi, on 10/03/2008, -6/+3throw the J** down the well
  • NoCommies, on 10/03/2008, -5/+9Good thing that Obama voted for the $700B bailout. Otherwise Goldman Sachs might fail and we will lose our Wall Street overlords.
    • Ymeg, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Think of the overloads!
    • Dejacque, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2I, for one...ah, ***** it.
    • regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Plus there's that $10 TRILLION CDO & CDS beast waiting behind the scenes...

      You know what? Just give me time to get my family out of the country, and you can have your wet dream of America becoming the poorest nation on Earth. M'kay?
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Amen. If this stuff is still going on once I graduate in a year then I'm most likely OUTTA HERE!
    • LenBaird, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1I saw a video where someone was telling a story to illustrate a different point, but it fits here.
      There is a group of people on an island, and they have to divide up the jobs. One guy is in charge of fishing. One guy is in charge of hunting. One guy is in charge of gathering wood and supplies. The last guy is in charge of eating. The eater claims he is the most important, because if he stopped eating, no one else would have anything to do.
  • raisinbrainMMM, on 10/03/2008, -3/+13Buffet invested 5 Billion into Goldman Sachs in these last few days and is urging the government to pass the bailout or everything will collapse. ***** can't be anymore transparent about raping the poor and taking their money through this ***** up solution.
    • thegrantman, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Warren Buffet is donating billions of dollars to the Gates Foundation.
      • fokov, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3And making more money than that. Watch/Read his recent interview. He basically tells everyone that these greedy people that caused this crisis will look good when they donate extra money to charity. So they get 700+billion (already had 650ish before this), and donate 30 in total to charities one of their friends controls. Yea that sounds like they are all for humanity.
      • parolax, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1fokov you are retarded, seriously. Buffet is donating 37 BILLION to charity, the largest philanthropic contribution in history. Please tell me how he's "making more than that" - right, you can't, you just spew whatever ***** that jibes with your world view without research.
    • regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3As far as rich investors go, Buffet is as close to a "good guy" as you can get--has often said that the fortunate 1% owe the 99%, and that he doesn't pay enough in taxes. But he loves money, and he's obviously not an idiot.
      • fokov, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Not a supporter of the top %1, but it is the other 99% responsibility to make sure the %1 pay fair taxes, but they choose not to. I mean that statement in trying to get the other lazy bastards to fix the government so everyone pays equal amount of proper taxes. Fair taxes, the more you consume/spend, the more you should be paying taxes.
    • parolax, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2I can't stand the groupthink at Digg. Maybe, just maybe, he's urging the bailout because its the right thing to do for the economy. You wouldn't know it from reading the comments from the brain trust here, but just about every economist agrees with it. Buffet actually has a pretty awesome history of championing the poor, you know, namely with the 37 billion to charity and favoring liberal social and fiscal policies. But carry on with the unfounded character assasination
  • eryximachus, on 10/03/2008, -5/+9Goldman Sachs should be shut down, or at least broken up under anti-trust legislation. The influence they wield in this country is far greater than the railroads or Standard Oil, or even Microsoft ever did.

    The company is pure evil and contributes nothing of value to the economy or the people.
    • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2For the record Standard Oil never was involved in price gouging and people who lived during that era saw the price of oil drop dramatically during the life Standard Oil. Also Microsoft's anti-trust case was garbage and consisted of Netscape crying about not having a decent browser (at least as I remember it).

      Of course I'm not saying that these companies are perfect... just sayin'...
      • Beylan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2As I recall they were accusing MS of altering the Windows operating systems so that when they detected a competing web browser running the OS would cause it to crash.
      • eryximachus, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1The Anti-trust act was not created specifically to address the higher prices that can result from a monopoly, it was created to promote competition - which serves the public good through efficiency and innovation. The cost benefit is a secondary concern.

        You are wrong in your analysis of Standard Oil. What you say is a common myth, because most don't know that price deflation was the rule in that era. While the price of oil did not go UP, it also did not go down at the same rate other goods, services, and wages did. Thus, oil did in fact become progressively more expensive, relative to other products.

        You also are apparently quite young. Microsoft was sued for anti-trust violations long before Netscape or the Internet was even before Mosaic or the world wide web existed. They were sued for forcing exclusivity contracts on vendors - they either could use a Microsoft OS exclusively, or not at all. This prevented competing operating systems, notably my personal favorite OS/2, from gaining market share. The case did change to focus on the bundling of Internet Explorer, but it didn't start that way.
    • cle2105, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2Goldman still faces competition on Wall St. The point of the article is that they are better at what they do, not that they have a monopoly
      • eryximachus, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1I realize that is the point of the article. The are better at what they do because they collude with the government, not for the reasons cited in the article.
  • fitzfan, on 10/03/2008, -1/+4Getting the best?

    Nah, they are just the smartest.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/03/2008, -1/+19Paulson favoring his old employer? Pshaw!

    You'll be saying that Cheney is in the pocket of Haliburton, next, and that's just crazy.
    • bleh19799791, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2God damnit! I was going to post something like that. Maybe mention that Oil McBush manipulated us into war to increase gas prices with no end of the war in sight if McCain has anything to say about it. But WTF also Obama voted for it if nothing else than a political checkmate to McCains vote after Bush has done his damn-dist to scare the hell out of everyone saying Wall street is crashing PASS IT! PASS IT NOW YOU WORTHLESS HOUSE MEMBERS! THE US IS BURNING! There is no time to debate this! We are ***** when the administration unabashedly contorts the facts and manipulates the masses.
    • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Nailed it. All of these companies have politicians whose pockets they are in and whom are part of their old boy's club. All of this stuff we are dealing with in our economy was started by these dirty little relationships and have you noticed how they are using fear to drive more money from the American taxpayers?

      Can any of us think of a time where scare tactics influencing our positions on an issue to be to our benefit?
  • stuartbryant, on 10/03/2008, -6/+17In other news, the vast majority of Digg users have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
  • aflaks, on 10/03/2008, -3/+5all I can say is welcome to business. Money is what runs America and its what America runs on.
    • StillAnonymous, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately, the country's fuel gauge is on "E".
  • zarxo, on 10/03/2008, -4/+2Doesn't matter since we will still experience a dimple depression. Only the frugile and die-hard will survive. Say bye bye middle class--once again.

    I predicted the housing crisis in 2005.
    I predicted a dimple depression in Spring 2008.
    I also predict a scale of many "little" wars for the U.S. to battle for the next 5-10 years.
  • nugx, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6Hey, just like Cheney, Halliburton and No-Bid Contracts!
  • stranglethorne, on 10/03/2008, -4/+6***** both these two ***** for sponsoring this bill

    ***** Obama and ***** McCain

    Hope and change my arse you godless sodomites.

  • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+18Guess what? This is a textbook example of why regulation of industries (just about any industry for that matter) does not work. The companies just lobby Senators and Representatives, as well as any other electable politicians, who pass legislation like this *in favor of the corporations that lobby them* in return for the campaign contributions to their re-election campaigns (as well as any other legal form of bribery possible). Small companies and individuals do not have the money to influence legislation like already-established corporations are able to and thus end up as losers in this system. Multi-billion $ corporations have to spend very LITTLE to influence legislation that can give them an advantage resulting in literally millions to billions of dollars more profit than they otherwise would earn. The return rate for lobbying is absolutely incredible in most cases with millions of dollars annually helping to increase profits by billion dollar multiples. But only if you have those millions to spare which most small businesses do NOT have. As I said earlier this obviously favors very large corporations and naturally tends to turn the industry into oligopolies with fairly large barriers to entry.

    To add more regulation is to give the government more power to also be lobbied for. It means that The returns on lobbying will be even greater, advantages to large corporations who lobby will increase even more, and politicians will be up for even more sale since they can literally multiply their annual salary (as well as tons of other legal benefits they are allowed to receive from the companies who lobby them).

    The banking and finance industry is and was one of, if not *the*, most heavily regulated industry in our economy. Even that regulation was not able to help prevent the recent crisis (as well as all the other horrible things that occur on a monthly and yearly basis in the industry).

    It took me forever to put together a picture of how regulation, industries, and our government work together in a way that makes sense. Lobbying was that one piece that put the puzzle together. I can not emphasize enough the implication of how our lobbying system works... simply stated it is about as corrupt as can be while giving the average American a false sense of security that the regulators will work for the well-being of the country when in fact the opposite is true.

    This is called *corporatism*, NOT CAPITALISM, and is unfortunately a system that seems to be supported really by both parties (naturally because every politician can make money off of it, money doesn't discriminate from party to party).

    It is the economic model that is characteristic of a fascist government, meaning that fascist governments/nations almost always have this as their economic model... and this should scare the ***** out of you if you're an American (and even if you're not an American).
    • regeya, on 10/03/2008, -2/+3"Guess what? This is a textbook example of why regulation of industries (just about any industry for that matter) does not work."

      So things getting out of control after deregulation started...is a sign that deregulation doesn't work...

      Yeah, I'm dumb enough to believe that! USA! USA! USA!

      Abolish the Fed and bring on the Libertarians! I want to stop being a credit slave and start being a factory slave! The wealthy land owners owning the place I work AND the stores? Surely they won't run company stores just like, well, everywhere, any time there were company stores! Capitalism is basically good! USA! USA! USA!!!
      • Draxius, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I honestly can't believe that the government and media actually figured out a way to fool people into thinking this was caused by deregulation. Yes, it was, but only if you look at the problem in about the most simplistic sense possible. If you actually believe that, you really shouldn't be debating this because you don't even have a foundation to start from.

        Company stores...come on, advances in transportation have long solved that problem. Thank the free market for that one...believe it or not if you just let the market do its thing it yields great and just results.
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Slight deregulation in a heavily regulated industry does not mean an industry is a completely free-market by any means. There is no completely 100% regulated market nor 100% free market (at least not that I can think of right now) but we can agree that ones that are combinations of both still can fail. Right?

        I am open to your arguments against the lobbying system we have set up and ideas as to how to fix it though if you'd like to have a constructive debate/discussion though.

        (I could say the same stuff back to you about Nazi, Stalinist systems but that's not what I'm here to do). And since when did I mention anything about the Federal Reserve or Libertarians? **I was just giving people who aren't aware of how lobbying works just that... an idea of how lobbying works** If there's anything about lobbying that I've said that is factually incorrect then feel free to let me know.
    • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2PS I should also emphasize the implications of this model with regard to our foreign policy:
      (If you have not seen "Iraq for Sale", then I would *highly* recommend you view it. It covers this topic specifically with regard to our conflict in Iraq)

      There are many large corporations who happen to make a lot of money off of war. You have most likely heard of many of them before, for example: Lockheed Martin, Blackwater, Haliburton, KBR, etc.

      Whenever we go to war, regardless of the size of the conflict, the government contracts certain duties to companies specializing in the fields related to those "duties". It might be something simple like washing the clothes of the soldiers for them to providing food for the soldiers, or something complicated like providing private security in certain situations to engineering and constructing certain buildings during reconstruction. In any case these contracts can span in value from hundreds of thousands to literally tens of billions of dollars, a huge amount relative to any company's annual revenue or profits. To add to their attractiveness (to corporations) they are sometimes given out without having corporations bid with each other for them and perhaps more importantly they are almost always *overvalued* for the amount and quality of work that will actually be done as well as being open for more funding in the case that the corporation still "somehow" can't get the job done budget (seriously meaning that the companies usually hoard most of the money and do a cheap and low-quality job that often needs to be redone).

      Every company in the related industry of one of these contracts would absolutely LOVE to get it. In fact the contracts are so attractive that the large corporations who can afford hundreds of thousands to (more likely) millions of dollars worth of lobbying money will do just that. They *legally* (that's the sad part) find ways to get money and gifts to the politicians who have most power over dishing out these contracts in hopes that they will get the contract(s) instead of the competitors in their industry(ies).

      Everything really works out as I posted in my earlier comment BUT we're talking about contracts and large profits that can only occur if we are *at war* or in a "conflict". There are no lucrative contracts to be awarded if our country is not at war and this poses a problem to these large corporations who have the money to lobby. Peace also happens to be a bit of a downer for the politicians who give out the contracts during war because during times of peace there are much fewer contracts to be given out and thus the companies that lobby do not spend as much because there are no rewards to reap from their lobbying *at times of peace*. (This is not to say that they do not lobby politicians at all during times of peace as they all know that *eventually* peace will turn to war and they want to be remembered by the politicians as the ones who were "loyal" to the politicians even during times of peace while the other companies did not).

      So when these politicians can make much more money during times of war than during times of peace it is obvious that this creates a financial (or whatever kinds of things they get from lobbying) incentive to vote pro-war. Since this money is no good if their families, towns, and own health are in danger, this means that they will strongly favor war against *smaller and weaker* countries with *fewer allies*, as well as large budgets for the wars and long durations (eg occupation and reconstruction to add to the usually brief invasions). So they have incentive for safer wars that cost a lot of money and you need not be a political science major to realize that this creates a HUGE moral dillemna that unfortunately and evidently has ended up with our American politicians often choosing the opposite side of morality.

      This is why our government is so pro-war and itching to find someone (preferably economically and militarily weak and non-threatening) to hype up and go to war with. Senators, since they have more power compared to Representatives, tend to be more inclined to take money and switch their votes to pro-war since (because they have more power as an individual) they tend to get lobbied more and make more money from the lobbying (the exception of course being leaders and members of Foreign Affairs Committee(s) or related groups/committees).

      $100 per load of laundry is a figure that should cause your ears to perk up and allegedly it is a true figure for how much Haliburton (I believe if was them at least, may have been a different but equally corrupt company) was making once they got the contract to wash the clothes of soldiers deployed to Iraq... just to give you an idea of how overpaying and loose with the taxpayers' money, and lucrative these contracts truly are. There are plenty more examples just one Google search away if you want to see more (remember there are even more than that which might be difficult to find because legislation documents are cumbersome and politicians are sneaky).

      I should also add a few more important points:
      a.) Back to "Iraq for Sale", the producers/creators of the movie told Congress they were willing to give them a free screening and Congress declined... that should raise another red flag. Don't get me wrong I don't think it's a perfect movie by any stretch but watching it should, at the very least, raise an eyebrow to anyone not completely familiar to lobbying and its role in our foreign policy.
      b.) The government has very tight control over the media, and both entities use lobbying and corporatism to completely help each other out. This is why although you'll see partisan views from the media you will never see anti-governmental or anyone advocating decreasing the size and power of the government. The media actually benefits from a large government whom the major industry-leaders can lobby.
      c.) Do not forget where all of this funding comes from... you and me. If you don't believe that this is happening just take a look at Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Representative from my district who went to prison for getting caught being too sloppy and breaking the rules (more like formalities in this dirty business). The government does crack down on its own every so often (meaning probably less than 1% of the time seriously) for two main reasons: i.) to make the American citizens and taxpayers think that they really are cracking down on bribery and not completely corrupt, and ii.) for partisan reasons (such as trying to weaken the integrity and security of a certain seat in the House or Senate or to portray the opposite party as untrustworthy.

      **The governmental system is set up to favor pro-war votes and stirring up pro-war sentiment. This is why there were no WMDs nor anthrax "chemical weapon mobiles" or anything else of the sort. This is why this information and motivation for going to war was based upon primarily ONE informant (nicknamed "Curveball") and not much else.**

      Ladies and gentleman, if you do not believe what I say here then I openly invite you to argue any point I have made and to do some research yourself. Once you are convinced I would greatly appreciate it if you would spread the word because this fascist and bloodthirsty system can not and should not be supported by honest, humane, and hard-working Americans like you and I. From what I've put together it seems like the only possible solution is less power to the government. The Supreme Courts and whatnot have argued successfully that lobbying is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and asking the government to crack down on the lobbying system is like asking a man to chop off his own hand... it's just not going to happen. If there were men in Congress, as well as the rest of the government, who had integrity then this would not be a problem but hey that could only happen in a dream world.

      *Spread the word*
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3"The companies just lobby Senators and Representatives, as well as any other electable politicians, who pass legislation like this *in favor of the corporations that lobby them* in return for the campaign contributions to their re-election campaigns (as well as any other legal form of bribery possible)."

      Or you could make the people in the regulatory agencies non-political appointees, and make the enforcement of said agencies not subject to the pressures of those in power.

      And you really didn't offer any kind of solution. I presume you favor less regulation, which would mean that, say, banks/investment companies could still lie about their accounts (which helped land us in this current mess), companies could buy off politicians outright without the need for lobbying and not keep records of same, and large companies could crush competition via collusion and monopolistic practices? If not, what do you see as the ideal setup?

      By the way, if you say "the invisible hand," you didn't actually read the above paragraph.
      • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Yes you could make them non-political appointees but unless there's something to truly keep them from being "bought" or bribed then we'd just run into the same problem(s).

        I personally am in favor of deregulation (as I'm sure you are aware) but even if you wanted to keep the legal regulations then I'd be interested in seeing multiple private organizations (possibly even companies although funding then would become an issue, so I'd favor non-profit organizations either volunteer or charity/donation-based) who would be used as legal watchdogs (and perhaps also watchdogs for anything else that happens to be legal but still unethical). If any of them were to be bought off it would undoubtedly be leaked and consumer/member faith in the organization would collapse and thus funding or whatever kind of support they receive would fall greatly. In fact their integrity could be compromised in other ways than corruption too. For instance if they just keep making horrible recommendations, missing important illegal/unethical actions by the companies, etc (the list of things that could cause people to lose faith in a private organization is endless).

        I'm afraid, however, that as long as you have any sort of government regulatory board that people will most likely trust these regulators because the government is good at not publicizing its screw-ups and people would not feel it necessary to provide extra funding for a private watchdog organization. This might not be entirely true though and I'd love to see a private organization be a watchdog-type organization without government help and in spite of a government organization that does the same thing. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there are already ones out there to be honest.

        I know you're thinking that trusting companies or private organizations is not the answer and with the distrust toward companies these days (which I personally think is somewhat misplaced, a company will always do what it takes to make money and it's up to us to create a system whereby consumers are willing to switch to a competing brand if one brand turns out to be dishonest, unsafe, and/or unethical, thus giving the financial incentive for companies to behave properly. As long as we have government regulation boards (which I've been arguing do not work due to lobbying) whom the general public assumes is doing its job (regardless of whether or not they are) then we will continue to have the problems that I believe we are having now.

        At this point let me just state that I am just coming up with ideas and there are plenty of smart people who would have better answers as to *how* a more private-related (meaning non-governmental/public here) system would work. One of the good things people can usually agree upon when it comes to free-markets and private organizations is that they are usually infinitely times better than the government at coming up with ingenious ways to solve previously unsolvable problems.

        The reason I actually advocate these sorts of non-governmental things have less to do with whether or not they might work "better" as according to other people's ideas of what "better" might be. That would be more or less a utilitarian ways of looking at things but instead of that I like to advocate voluntary agreements because they lack the threat of physical aggression (of which only the government is legitimately allowed to use). I'd rather have a system that worked on **voluntary** contracts, agreements, and transactions that characterize all things non-public/governmental. The one thing IMHO that separates public/governmental entities and transactions from private/voluntary is that the former uses the initiation of force and aggression to get the job done. Morally I find that such things as forcing rules upon people (such as taxes, imprisonment, seizure of property, etc) to be morally reprehensible when compared to all things voluntary.

        I hope that makes sense. After all how on Earth can we all talk about what we and our government "should do" or what is "good/better" for our country, selves, and human race in general IF we do not first have a basic foundation of moral assertions by which we can define the terms "better/good" and talk about what is the "right" thing to do or what we "should" do? This is the biggest problem that I see with our government today (and most governments in general): they no longer know which basic core principles their actions and legislation should be based upon. Could anyone who can see straight find a political party whose actions don't often logically contradict themselves? I think not.

        I personally, as have many voluntarists, come to the conclusion that the one major evil in the world is simply the initiation of force or aggression against an individual's property. This is why murderers are evil, why rapists are evil, why thieves are evil, etc. So based on that belief I've just simply (okay it actually isn't simple at all but still quite possible) deduced *logically* what my stances are on moral issues. And as a result this is why you see me here arguing against any government that uses force and threats to fund itself... a government whose sole characterizing trait is that it can and will use the initiation of force to get things done. If I am a moral man then I am obligated to oppose these sorts of actions and that is primarily why you see me here arguing against the initiation of force (here meaning laws to be obeyed with threat of punishment if they are not followed).

        To follow ones own idea that what is right and wrong is to have integrity, that is all I'm trying to do. There are secondary reasons that I oppose government regulation of industries and the economy that those are what I laid out in my earlier posts.

        I know this stuff might sound crazy like I'm calling on chaos or something like that but quite the contrary. I feel that a government giving people a false sense of security, a government willingly undermining the well-being of its citizens, and that doesn't follow its own laws seems like chaos to me. I am asking for order, just voluntary order, by which a peaceful (mostly meaning "voluntary" here, I know you're getting sick of that word) system that uses the laws of nature (especially the selfishness of human individuals) in its own favor. **What you have to understand is that in my moral view of the world even if a non-voluntary government is providing some sort of "security" (if you could call having money seize away annually, constantly being threatened with imprisonment if rules are broken to be "security") it is still based upon the initiation of force and aggression and thus morally reprehensible to me... meaning I can not really support it.

        There are almost an infinite number of resources on the internet from people like myself who can better answer your questions of how certain industries or entities might work. Many of these people are more inventive than myself but I highly recommend that everyone here try developing a non-contradicting moral platform for themselves by which they could live with integrity. The non-contradiction part is by far the hardest but that's why this world runs on logic and we as humans have the ability to understand it and use it to our advantage.

        I know I've either got you interested or completely lost you by now LOL. Well let me just add that if the large majority of people out there *do* care about ethics and that companies are not doing anything that you or I might not like then that proves that even in the absence of a government (that initiates force and aggression) that there would be a large demand for a way to make sure that the companies you do business with are acting ethically. Although not everyone in the world agrees upon what is "right" and "wrong", I do believe that the large majority of people agree upon the large majority of their morals (I believe ethics/morals are built into us as well as the ability to logic and thus deduce our stance on issues that might not genetically/instinctually be programmed into our brains) **and where there is a large demand for something there will be large incentives for private organizations or companies to fill the void and compete**. If the large majority of people right now are willing to support regulatory boards with money forced away from them then will be willing to voluntarily fund one in the absence of a forceful government. Leave it up to the companies to deal with free-riders (or have it be a non-profit organization that doesn't care much about free-riders).

        I know this stuff might be pretty confusing but in the end logic dictates that someone like I can not support freedom (ie non-aggression principle that I stated earlier: opposition to the initiation of force and aggression) while at the same time support such anti-freedom actions as taxes, imprisonment, pre-emptive war, etc. To support any of this is to be logically contradictory and thus be *WRONG*. Because if your outlook tells you 2+2=3 then it's obvious something must change... logical non-contradiction is the main criteria because we live in a world that does not logically discriminate from person to person (ie it is one of the major things we all have in common, that is universal).

        I'm not a religious man but I believe it is up to every human being to decide upon what what they believe to truly be right and moral in this world. From these core beliefs they must logically make decisions about what they should and shouldn't do during their lifetime, and to act upon these deductions.

        I highly recommend anyone reading this to look up (Wiki or whatever) **"non aggression principle"**. It's pretty interesting. I could also throw up a nice podcast URL here that talks about these issues and is great in that it pretty much has an oath for the community there to uphold the truth and use logic to make judgments.

        I'll have it in my user profile for those interested. I promise it's not *my* podcast although I am a member of the forum there and actively participate in the discussions. Thanks you to anyone who has made it thus far =P

  • craftyguy, on 10/03/2008, -2/+6True we've had a Republican president the past 8 years, but the Democrats aren't without blame..
    Clinton allowed certain institutions to act without regulation.

    Democrats = Republicans = Gangsters
    • Mujokan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4My blame list:

      (1) The banks
      (2) The ratings agencies
      (3) The Fed
      (4) The government over the last 10-15 years or so
      (5) House flippers and get-rich-quick artists

      The reason I limit the government blame to recent years is because deregulation was understandable after post-WWII prosperity; but new regulations were needed to deal with new financial instruments, new complexity, and new understanding of the dynamics of bubbles and crashes.

      It was unfortunate that this happened on the watch of a radically pro-big-corporation White House who wouldn't listen to mainstream economists and guys like Buffett and Soros. People have been watching this approaching since at least 2003, when Buffett called derivatives weapons of financial mass destruction.
      • regeya, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3"It was unfortunate that this happened on the watch of a radically pro-big-corporation White House who wouldn't listen to mainstream economists and guys like Buffett and Soros. People have been watching this approaching since at least 2003, when Buffett called derivatives weapons of financial mass destruction."

        And the kicker is that this has set people off screaming for LESS regulation. What the hell?
  • chadpyle, on 10/03/2008, -0/+9This is an excerpt from someone who did a hell of a lot more research than I. The full text can be found here: http://www.apfn.org/APFN/fed_reserve.htm
    ---

    How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (Reference 17, P. 31).

    Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12, P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T club -out Thursday...-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).

    Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.

    If you think these politicians have your interests at heart, you are bat-***** crazy. We should be demanding the abolition of the Federal Reserve. These mega-corporations have been bleeding us dry since the early 1900s.
    • regeya, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2"These mega-corporations have been bleeding us dry since the early 1900s."

      Look further back in history. I won't argue that the Fed is a fantastic idea, or that our monetary system is anything but dumb, but ye flipping Gods, look at pre-Fed America. Don't just look at what the Libertarian idols tell you; they leave out some very inconvenient truths when discussing every bit of American history before the Fed.

      Yeah, it's a *****, but a gentler ***** than the pre-Fed *****.

      Also, on a barely-related note, look at American history, and look at the timeline of business regulation and jobs leaving the country. And look at how employees were treated before those regulations. I don't know about you, but I don't want these assholes to self-regulate, because they've proven themselves incapable.

      I honestly don't know what the answer is, but the answer is not to attempt to turn the clock back. It won't work.
  • algaeturd, on 10/03/2008, -0/+6People were asking Buffett what to do, meanwhile he was cleaning up. Seems like greed occurs at every single level with the filthy rich. He'll profit off of the taxpayer bailout harder than anyone at this point.
    • aperfectnumber6, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I hate the fact that Warren Buffett knows how to make a smart investment, too.
    • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2@ AlgaeTurd: Nice to see someone who can see through the *****. The so called "economists" that the media keeps having on to talk about the economy pretty much all are the types of guys that caused this problem in the first place and also the exact ones who would have a conflict of interest and thus shouldn't hvave their opinion polled by the media.

      I sometimes wonder if Warren Buffett purposely says and does useless stuff because he enjoys the attention. Who knows though, just because someone is rich doesn't mean they're always right...
  • dommickey, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1 Henry Paulson - President Bush we have good news!
    Bush - Yes?
    Henry Paulson - We have found the funding for your Operation Bush's Awesome Moonbase of America
    Bush - Alright!, time to get me some space hookers.
  • zTredecim, on 10/03/2008, -4/+3Ok, Ive been watching all the free market people push their ***** up on digg. But Ive had enough.

    First off I'm Canadian and not an economist. That said, Everything posted here by you ***** morons calling for the free market sort its own ***** out is not only naive but completely against what you want.

    Let me explain first of all that your inflexibility to adapt to a new economic situation is what I would compare to extremism, Ill call you free market extremists. People that hold so true to a doctrine with such passion that your unable to see the forest for the trees. You believe that if the house of cards collapses it will make fertile new grounds for a new beginning. Not so asshats the house of cards will not collapse it will consolidate. If this bill doesn't pass There will a consolidation of the top banks that NEED to be saved hand picked by your GOV. The exact thing that you want to defeat, end, will be more consolidated and become a monolith.

    Also wallmart will become one of the most stable jobs in America, all those mom and pop shops that are struggling to compete will be whipped out, possibly never to return. Why you ask and how? Because despite what you may think, the hardest hit by a nonbailout will be the middle class. How you ask, because the many of your local shops will be forced out of business because they cannot compete with the imports and conglomerative purchasing power of the top few. This means that many of those employed by local business will lose their jobs, causing a greater cascading effect of unemployment and mortgage failure. Now this may be what many of you bastards see as the holly grail. Well guess what prophets o *****! Its not, hell home depot might even open banks in this climate...they made all the money. And those ***** faces that sold off the initial mortgages.

    So whats my point well heres what comes next, those bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the vibrancy of the old economy. That serge after the dot com bust was purely based on the the housing markets and the ideological idea of getting every American into a home. Those tax cuts just gave away money that would have helped to close the gap on Bushes spending....Hows that for a kick in the sack. They did nothing to stimulate the economy, they just made rich people richer.

    ***** illusions.

    Well how do I end this, Ill do it in 3 points.

    1. I seen someone post here that there is 900ish billion dollars in circulation in the us and that if they add 700 billion to that its like 45% inflation. Well thats not true the US is 9.4ish trillion in dept (3 trillion is Bush) and stacking 700 billion on that is actually around 6%ish inflation.
    SO WHEN THIS BILL PASES, and you better hope it does your dollar will be worth 6%ish less.

    2. Bush ***** himself by lying to the American people about the war in Iraq and terrorism. He destroyed all credibility he had in trying to rush through a bill based on fear.
    I had to step back and think...wait a minute. HaHa you tried this before, but this is different that man doesn't want to be completely responsible for the worst economic collapse in US history since the depression, and the worst military ***** up since Vietnam.

    3. 25% of American homeowners fall into the less than $21k per year slot, this area would be decimated if the bill doesn't pass. Causing a cascading collapse of foreclosures. Those politicians that are voting against this either don't get it, think its fear tactics or don't believe its possible. If it works Americans will never know how bad it could/would have been. If it doesn't you all just might.

    For ***** sakes save yourselves and your neighbors, And to all you ***** ***** freemarket extremists. This is not the answer to you prayers this would end up being your nightmare.

    Ill post this in every freemarket rant I see posted here, copy it and post it aswell.
    This is free to distribute.
    • Draxius, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I am not sure why anyone would want to copy and paste it beside their name.

      You should have quit when you admitted you are not an economist. But alas you went on to prove it for many, many lines.

      That being said, don't hate on free markets just because there are idiots out there spouting the term without having a clue what they are talking about.





    • Tediel, on 10/03/2008, -0/+01- I'm not an economist either, but what I object to is the pork additions.
      2-The Federal Reserve is not part of the US government, it is a top bank
      3-Walmart is the most stable employment and most the mom and pop stores are already gone
      4-The middle class are the tax payers that will be footing the bill
      5-There are no jobs because of outsourcing, employment of illegal aliens
      6-We dont have the luxury of a Federal health care system and issurance is expensive as are doctors and meds
      7-The "trickle down" theory doesnt work, it has been in affect for at least the last 40 years,
      8-The problem is greed, greed from politicians, greed from big corporations, and the brainwashing of the American people that more stuff is better, even if we have to go into debt for it
  • danconia, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Now we all know why finance companies are such good/tight buddies with politicians. If you or I fail with our businesses they will not come in to bail us out, will they? To add insult to injury the money that will be used to bail out Mr. Wall Street will have come from your pocketbook which just may have been the amount you needed to keep from going out of business.

    Also now that the big corporations (regardless of industry now, car manufacturing corporations are having issues as well currently) know that they can apply for a free bailout if they are big enough they have less incentive to fail. I'm not saying that they'll all openly want to just fail for no reason, just that it is dangerous in general to try to take away the negative consequences of making bad decisions... you have to remind people that it is naturally supposed to hurt when you make a poor decision. Heck maybe it'd help if they just let one fairly large one fail to remind these big suckers of who's boss. On the other hand though such an action would scare the ***** out of people invested in the stock market and, well, you know the rest...

    Hate to say it but Ron Paul was right and I really don't see any of this working out in the end. This idea that you can defy the laws of nature and make an economy immune to any sort of recession is ludicrous and unfortunately something that I believe we will pay for heavily It is like trying to cure the symptoms of a spreading disease without actually curing it. The longer you push it off the harder it will hit you when it eventually comes around.

    Scary times. But what happens when a.) you have hardly any politicians in Congress who understand economics and b.) the economic "experts" you have just advocate plans that, while they benefit themselves, their companies, and their friends/acquaintances, unfortunately do not benefit the very large majority of people. Most economic analysts you see on TV advocating plans know that they will be safe regardless of what happens. Politicians with the hundreds of thousands they make off of lobbying money + their salaries will all most likely be safe and secure of what happens and thus don't have any major vested interest in doing what's right for the American taxpayers whose jobs rely upon the economy (compared to politicians whose jobs do not, and retired CEOs and economic analysts who don't have to worry about unemployment).

    I've been appalled at how much disinformation has been going on within the confines of my TV screen. Business as usual for the media, politicians, and all those who make money off of the corporatist political system though...
  • Ebacherville, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3here is some real information C-span footage.. there jamming this down the throats of Americans and threatening representatives:
    http://digg.com/politics/Brad_Sherman_MARTIAL_LAW_ ...
    • FrankHope, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Congress has been threatened with MARTIAL LAW if bailout bill is not passed. This is from Representative Brad Sherman speaking on the House floor. This is not some "conspiracy theory". Who are these people threatening Congress with Martial Law behind closed doors?

      Another version of this same video that has 76 diggs already. PLEASE DIGG.
      http://digg.com/business_finance/Rep_Brad_Sherman_ ...
  • cle2105, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3I'm sure glad I bought some Goldman stock on the latest dip, suckers.
  • yourpalOZ, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1OF COURSE , GOLDMAN FOLKS AUTHORED THE BAILOUT PLAN $$$$$
    The US Govt could have bought the actual falting homes for about $150 billion, instead they chose to buy the paper at full term value for $850 billion. The US taxpayer just got a royal fleecing and don't even know how bad they got screwed. The Wall street …
  • pogwercs, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1Well it's no accident that Bears Stern, Lehman Brothers and Merill Lynch all went down the drain while G.S is still buying others. Thanks to their hommie who's in charge of our pockets.
  • sndream, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1Boy, Bush spent a trillion $ on war, all level of government is loading debt like crazy, American think house price will never fall and probably have more ninja homeowner the rest of the world combined. Somehow, ppl still think all this economic mess is caused just by the greed of wall street.

    Oh, by the way Schwarzenegger are now screaming for bailout after he ran down his state.
  • Malakai0, on 10/04/2008, -0/+1I agree there is a good argument for Paulson and Co being guilty of treason.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.