5 ms·
There have been a whole run of nytimes stories that have the same second half of the text about "the obama administration" and goldman sachs getting access to c
by iuytgyuikoiuy 16y ago
There have been a whole run of nytimes stories that have the same second half of the text about "the obama administration" and goldman sachs getting access to cheap government money.
With a different - what they have done this time - first paragraph. It seems like somebody at the NYT doesn't like either GS or the Obama adminsitration.
In this case GS are doing something naughty - but they aren't borrowing government money to do it, and since they aren't even investing their own money it's hard to see why they would need to
- lenley 16y agoI don't think it is a matter of Obama, Paulson had a huge moral hazard during TARP as an ex-GS leader. I think there's a general anti-GS sentiment from the Paulson induced 100% bailout of AIG counter-parties.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- thrill 16y agoGS (and other favored companies) doesn't need to actually borrow - they gain advantage by having access as needed to 'government money', better defined as coercively (you know - prison if you don't give it) acquired taxpayer money. Merely having that access is the advantage - they can take greater risks - and reap greater rewards - than others because of it.
- grav1tas 16y agoLaissez-faire capitalism at work! No really, can somebody explain why institutions like this are allowed to have such advantages over their competition? This seems like it would be an easy political target FROM ALL SIDES of the aisle. "Big government" messes with the "free market" and the "rich get richer". ::EDIT:: Since I can't respond to my sub comments at this point, the first sentence, is, in fact, sarcasm.
- jackfoxy 16y agoThis is not laissez-faire capitalism. This is state/private sector cronyism capitalism.
- grav1tas 16y agoYes, that was my point and I wasn't being serious with the first sentence. Sorry if my sarcasm was too straight-faced.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoLaissez-faire capitalism at work! No. Please use wikipedia to look up unfamiliar terms before using them in a sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire [edit: my apologies. Didn't detect the sarcasm.]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- grav1tas 16y agoMy first sentence was sarcasm. I indeed did look it up to verify its meaning and to determine that it was what I wanted to say, even though the term was not unfamiliar to me.
- gruseom 16y agoNo really, can somebody explain why institutions like this are allowed to have such advantages over their competition? That's easy: capturing of the political process by large entrenched players.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]