GS is not being questioned for being fabulously profitable, but rather for the way they make their profits. (for eg. selling debt-instruments to clients and the

GS is not being questioned for being fabulously profitable, but rather for the way they make their profits. (for eg. selling debt-instruments to clients and then turning back and shorting those same instruments) "It further puzzles me that it has become trendy to attack the financial market's most successful and profitable large institution. This proto-Marxist sentiment has no place in a free society." This is not a proto-marxist trend. The people are not questioning the profits of HP, Caterpillar, Exxon, IBM, etc. They are questioning institutions that placed stupid (and arguably fraudulent) bets, got the govt. to bail them out, and then went on to make even more money doing more shady deals (trading in life insurance, etc). These same banks are now resisting regulatory and reform efforts. "The only people forced to trade with Goldman were taxpayers financing the bailouts" Hank Paulson, the immediate-past CEO of GS, was the one who "forced" GS and other banks to take the money. Incidentally, he also allowed Lehman (a GS rival) to fail. All these actions might have been coincidental and without alterior motives. But you cannot blame a journalist from taking a deeper look, cos it sure does smell fishy.