5 ms·

Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes. The worst it got for them during the crisis was the accusation that it misled investors and profited from

Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes. The worst it got for them during the crisis was the accusation that it misled investors and profited from the crash in the mortgage market. But that's (a) not the same thing as paying bribes and (b) not a well defined accusation to begin with (Goldman claimed its customers were aware of its bets against the mortgage market but its customers still get to pick what they invest in).

wallace_f 9y ago
>Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes In fact, they have(0). But winners getting away with it happens all the time. Winners sometimes win on merit, sometimes by rule, and sometimes simply because they don't get caught. I would argue Wall St is mostly the last two. During WWII Curtis LeMay was distraught with his position as leader of the firebombings of innocents in Tokyo. He said "if we lose the war, I will be tried and executed as a war criminal." It's the same thing here. No one has been indicted for in the financial crisis. No one for Iraq WMD lies, either. The ruling class go to great lengths to not let thenselves be tried as criminals. It doesn't mean they're not owning you. Case in point: Reasonable people have put the cost of the financial crisis at 6-30 trillion, or more (6 being the lower bound of the Fed's very own estimate). The higher figure is $93,000/per citizen, and it very will could be more than that.(1) After this, any sane person would have overhauled Wall St, but no one did. We will see big shake ups in Airbus, but not Wall St. So the corruption in Wall St is either legal, or people don't have enough power to indict them. 0 - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sachs-hired-prostitutes-to-win-libyan-business-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sac... 1 - https://www.cnbc.com/id/101022718 https://www.cnbc.com/id/101022718
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific as to what you're accusing them of, and how that fits into a theory of corruption. Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing. In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?" Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit. I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt. From your original post: The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head. We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality. These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically. If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint? How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?
- bonzini 9y ago
  The story of Goldman Sachs's Libya salesman is more about stupidity than it is about bribery (if it is at all about bribery). Here is Matt Levine's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-29/goldman-s-libya-salesman-was-a-little-too-good https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-29/goldman-s... It makes very good points about bank-customer relationships in general, too. Discussion on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12610352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12610352.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Goldman won the LIA case. The judge dismissed it. So you're technically right: they were accused of paying bribes, but found not guilty. I think that still answers your question: https://www.ft.com/content/13eabaac-d72d-3e6d-8338-6df9b932ebc2 https://www.ft.com/content/13eabaac-d72d-3e6d-8338-6df9b932e...

wallace_f 9y ago

>Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes In fact, they have(0). But winners getting away with it happens all the time. Winners sometimes win on merit, sometimes by rule, and sometimes simply because they don't get caught. I would argue Wall St is mostly the last two. During WWII Curtis LeMay was distraught with his position as leader of the firebombings of innocents in Tokyo. He said "if we lose the war, I will be tried and executed as a war criminal." It's the same thing here. No one has been indicted for in the financial crisis. No one for Iraq WMD lies, either. The ruling class go to great lengths to not let thenselves be tried as criminals. It doesn't mean they're not owning you. Case in point: Reasonable people have put the cost of the financial crisis at 6-30 trillion, or more (6 being the lower bound of the Fed's very own estimate). The higher figure is $93,000/per citizen, and it very will could be more than that.(1) After this, any sane person would have overhauled Wall St, but no one did. We will see big shake ups in Airbus, but not Wall St. So the corruption in Wall St is either legal, or people don't have enough power to indict them. 0 - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sachs-hired-prostitutes-to-win-libyan-business-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sac... 1 - https://www.cnbc.com/id/101022718 https://www.cnbc.com/id/101022718

marcoperaza 9y ago
This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific as to what you're accusing them of, and how that fits into a theory of corruption. Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing. In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?" Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit. I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt. From your original post: The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head. We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality. These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically. If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint? How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?
bonzini 9y ago
The story of Goldman Sachs's Libya salesman is more about stupidity than it is about bribery (if it is at all about bribery). Here is Matt Levine's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-29/goldman-s-libya-salesman-was-a-little-too-good https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-29/goldman-s... It makes very good points about bank-customer relationships in general, too. Discussion on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12610352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12610352.
peoplewindow 9y ago
Goldman won the LIA case. The judge dismissed it. So you're technically right: they were accused of paying bribes, but found not guilty. I think that still answers your question: https://www.ft.com/content/13eabaac-d72d-3e6d-8338-6df9b932ebc2 https://www.ft.com/content/13eabaac-d72d-3e6d-8338-6df9b932e...