Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a rumor that concerns the very top executives. I acutally have a good friend who works at GS who says they think this report is funny. As he says, and he's not even an executive, why would he buy a gun when for a lousy 100K/yr he could hire a bodyguard?
But nonetheless it's idiotic to think any company would tell their employess (as was posted here) to buy a gun. It's equally as idiotic to think that executives at major companies don't have security.
You mean an investment bank made money by doing stock offerings? No way!
What is your problem with people making money? Someone has to under write deals and there are very few big enough to do some of these. And considering the amount of money they've raised to float these issue's I'd say they've earned every cent. I don't expect you to agree, but I also know you don't have a clue what is invovled in making a secondary go off smoothly. So say what you will but GS is the undisputed king of investment banking and as such they will reap huge rewards for their efforts.
I've no problem with them making money, what I have trouble with is the fact that they were bailed out and continue to gamble with the implicit guarantee from the taxpayer. This privilege should be available to everyone or no one.
there is a difference between making money and stealing money. if you got a bailout, you stole money and everybody knows it.
by the way, i do think it is irresponsible for the president to try to "demand" lending, since lending to people who were not qualified (and the subsequent gambling involved on that lending) got this entire mess started in the first place. taxpayers don't want to get sucked into another round of that, and the government seems incapable of NOT bailing out the big players. from now on, we need to let the bad decision makers fail, as they should.
Last edited by floridasandy; 12-29-2009 at 06:02 AM..
I don't know about the fair and square part, but as to paid off, bought off is more appropriate.
Too big to fail is a fundamental flaw in our economic construct, and it highlights the realities of capital resource monopoly systems, such as ours. Those who cheer them on are either part of the plantation head or uncle toms too optimism-biased to realize not everybody [i.e. you] can live in the penthouse, and cheering for your favorite NFL team will not make you nor get you paid like part of the team.
Too big to fail? Too big to exist.
It is imperative to clarify that 'Too Big To Fail' is a creature of government and not a natural occurance in the 'Free Market'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
