Slashdot Mirror


The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes

An anonymous reader writes: The radio program "This American Life" has published an extraordinary investigative report on how the U.S. government regulators in charge of keeping an eye on the banks actually interact with powerful financial institutions (podcast here). Financial journalist Michael Lewis describes the report thus: "The Fed failed to regulate the banks because it did not encourage its employees to ask questions, to speak their minds or to point out problems. Just the opposite: The Fed encourages its employees to keep their heads down, to obey their managers and to appease the banks. That is, bank regulators failed to do their jobs properly not because they lacked the tools but because they were discouraged from using them. The report quotes Fed employees saying things like, 'until I know what my boss thinks I don't want to tell you,' and 'no one feels individually accountable for financial crisis mistakes because management is through consensus.'"

55 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. is anyone really surprised here by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    most people here anyone have known for a long time that the banks and government have a symbiotic relationship. I guess its nice to see some proof for once. I cant say I am shocked in the least however.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:is anyone really surprised here by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, just like with the BLM/MMS it's a case of regulatory capture. In fact in the financial sector it was even worse as the banks were basically allowed to make minor changes to their operating and reporting structure to choose which regulatory agency(ies) they reported to so if one agency started to get too strict they'd just make changes and get a new regulator, and once enough banks switched there would be downsizing at the effected regulator so there were strong incentives not to go strong on enforcement.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      most people here anyone have known for a long time that the banks and government have a symbiotic relationship. I guess its nice to see some proof for once. I cant say I am shocked in the least however.

      So why is it, that when presented with evidence of some horrible thing, people tend to use it as a tool to act arrogant? "I always knew that was going on. You're a fool if you didn't."

      You didn't know, you suspected. We all did. This is evidence. Get mad. Apathy is your enemy.

    3. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We are still waiting for management consensus to trickle down to us so we know what to think.

    4. Re:is anyone really surprised here by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      oh I am pissed charlie. While america was burning, the suits in washington thought it made more sense to give money to the banks, without thinking about the people.

      the banks got the money to cover the bad loans (that the government mandated be made) without even thinking once you know, how about we give it to the people to pay the back bills, the banks get their money AND the people can keep their homes. but of course not. it didnt work out that way. america is in a worse spot than it was prior to the housing and financial collapse (unless you are a banker or politician)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:is anyone really surprised here by tqk · · Score: 2

      Liberals will be furious at your claim...

      Would you please just piss off? Haven't you yet noticed that both "Liberal" nanny-staters AND "Conservative" Don't Tread On Me! types BOTH have their hands in the cookie jar (your wallet), and have done so for a *long time*?

      How you idiots can *still* be banging that librul vs. conservative drum after all we've seen for the last two centuries just amazes me.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "the banks got the money to cover the bad loans (that the government mandated be made)"

      The bad loans were not enough to cause the financial crisis. Total mortgage debt was something like $13 trillion, maybe half those were at risk of default. The banks (themselves, not because the government held a gun to their heads) inflated the mortgage debt by a factor of six, into something around $62 trillion. The instruments used to create some $40 trillion were RMBS and their deriviatives such as CDS. When a few defaults happened, as was expected in the high-risk, low tranche RMBSes, market groupthink and emotional overreaction occurred, and even mortgages which had been bundled into high tranche instruments, which hadn't defaulted and were not likely to default, lost value. Banks could no longer use hi tranche RMBS which had not experienced any defaults as collateral to roll over their funding. That's what CDS hedges were for, of course. But the CDS market was brand new and immature. So either banks didn't hedge enough, or the insurers (because they rightly thought there was no risk of default) didn't have enough to pay the insurance.

      In conclusion, the "bad loans" were a very small part of the market and could have been absorbed. The banks who made the bad loans had the houses as collateral, right? The bad loans alone did not cause the crash. It was the market mechanisms that inflated house loans into many times their real value through the use of financial insturments, and then market groupthink which saw a few defaults and panicked wildly, spreading the asset price drop to assets that really were still good loans, and then the inabilityt of insurers such as AIG and Bear Stearns to pay on the insurance claims when the RMBSes dropped, that caused the crash.

      The Fed should have bailed out individual homeowners instead of the banks.

      One of the reasons cited in the SIGTARP Maiden Lane report ("Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties") for intervening in the financial system was: "FRBNY was concerned about the effects of bankruptcy on key sectors of the market, such as retirement accounts and the credit markets." Why doesn't the Fed bail out Detroit then, since retirement accounts are affected there, too?

    7. Re:is anyone really surprised here by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's also the problem that CDS's are insurance, but because of deliberate technicalities are not regulated as such. The laws and regulations that have been introduced since the 17th century, which keep insurance from being a complete scam or gamble, didn't apply. You could get a CDS on something you didn't even own; you could even get CDS's for several times the value. That's like letting me take out a $1M insurance policy on your $300k home, and then looking the other way when I go to your place and play with matches. It's a setup that's pretty much guaranteed to explode at some time - it doesn't take much to set it off.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    8. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      (that the government mandated be made)

      This is a persistent myth. The total value of the loans that are proscribed to demonstrate a bank is not involved in red-lining was very small, a small fraction of the total loan market pre-crash. They were a disproportionately small slice of the total defaults.

    9. Re:is anyone really surprised here by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The financial collapse was a result of mistakes, not crimes.

      They may not have been crimes, but do not try and say the financial collapse was a result of "mistakes".

    10. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.

      This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence). Obfuscation has been the shield behind which Wall Street hid for many years during the 2000s. There are plenty of sharp people who can work as regulators. It is a different mindset from the money-at-any-cost Wall Street executive and they don't understand it. But it's there.

      End the revolving door. With it, regulation becomes ineffectual. A farce.

      Additionally, regulators need to be firewalled against politicians' retribution. The big donors give big money to politicians. They don't complain to the regulator, they complain to the politicians who defund and reassign departments pursuing the donor.

    11. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.

      This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence).

      Another case in point: Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, and former Treasury Secretary who crafted the bailouts. His undergraduate major? English.

      End the revolving door. And firewall regulators from politicians.

    12. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      those people expect to continue in their profession.

      You know what I was told, when my job ended and I said the same?

      "Too bad. Not my problem."

      Why does that apply to me, one of 30 people able to do my job, but not to somebody wealthy?

    13. Re:is anyone really surprised here by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't arrest people for making bad investments.

      What the Fed does is bail them out, instead. Now that, I would argue, is what was criminal in this case, because it transferred liabilities from the investors to the taxpayers...

  2. The Banks Own the Government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our government clearly lacks the balls to regulate the banks and provide leadership. This is just sad.

    1. Re:The Banks Own the Government. by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      Our government clearly lacks the balls to regulate the banks and provide leadership. This is just sad.

      I disagree. It's not lack of balls, but a combination of regulatory capture and (generally legal) bribery.

  3. Too big by jhol13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it nice ... if you destroy one persons life, you get penalty big enougf to ruin your life - if you ruin 100'000 you get a "golden parachute".
    Number of prosecuted persons (from last bank breakdown - and one before that - and next) is just appalling.

    1. Re:Too big by PseudoCoder · · Score: 2

      Yeah. At least in the case of ENRON people went to jail (Andy Fastow, Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay) and at least one committed suicide before going to jail. Once you totally remove the line between corporations and government, there's no accountability whatsoever. There was still a line in the ENRON case. Not so much anymore, with all the bailouts.

      --
      "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    2. Re:Too big by jhol13 · · Score: 2

      Are you insinuating that in Enron only three to five were doing illegal stuff? No way!
      Sorry, I think Enron (and others) got us into this "not responsible".

  4. Contact your senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Carmen Segarra was hired to to clean up the poor oversight of the banks. Instead, she was fired for doing her job. Read the prepublica articles. It's a shame. Contact your senator and tell them to launch an investigation into the retaliation against Carmen!

  5. New Pledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I pledge allegiance to my share
    of the United Stockholders of America
    and to the profit for which it stands
    one stock, Class-B non-voting, with a golden parachute for our CEO
    Amen.

  6. Top-down management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > The report quotes Fed employees saying things like, 'until I know what my boss thinks I don't want to tell you,'

    No shit, its called top-down management. The minions don't do, say or think anything until instructed by their boss (or their boss's boss, or their boss's boss's boss)

    Did anyone seriously expect anything else out of a system which STILL (probably will NEVER) hasn't nailed anyone to the wall for the financial crash?

  7. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by raurau · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obama or Biden a former GS executive ? I'd like to meet your crack dealer.

  8. Re: Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Ate you going to update Wikipedia with your bogus facts? The bailouts happened on Bush's term. Democrat or republican makes no difference. Both parties practice the same revolving door policies.

  9. oh, that's easy! by silfen · · Score: 2

    If we just get those evil (insert other party) out of office and then pass better laws, finally, regulations will work and achieve the desired outcome! Life will be swell!

  10. Working On My Pandering Campaign Platform by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm going over the headlines today working on my pandering campaign platform. So far as president I promise to fire the entire forest service, prosecute the phoebus cartel to the fullest extent of the law and demand that my banking regulators not only do their jobs properly but to antagonize the bankers as much as possible (Up to and including stabbing them in the face if they feel it's required.) I predict this will be fairly popular on the internet but end up receiving no campaign contributions. How's that working so far?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Working On My Pandering Campaign Platform by jd.schmidt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But watch which of these "problems" get fixed. On the photo issue I assure you the elected officials will be "outraged" at the "overreach" of "imperious" public officials. But on the bank issue, it will be "very complicated" and need "more study".

    2. Re:Working On My Pandering Campaign Platform by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      prosecute the phoebus cartel to the fullest extent of the law

      According to T (other) FA, that ended in 1939. It was mentioned for historical reference.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Warren Buffet, a government employee and/or consultant? Please

    Warren Buffet has probably one of the few people who has always gotten the best of Goldman Sach's because whenever they really fuck things over, he squeezed them for top of the line deals. Pretty much what Goldman Sach's did to anyone else given half the chance.

  12. summary by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I happened across this before it got on here and listened to the entire thing. Here's a brief summary:

    1. This American Life is a great show. My favorite, you should listen to it often.
    2. Managers at the fed seem to be terrified of the banks
    3. The lady doing the recordings is aggressive and speaks her mind.
    4. There are many "Old Guard" people at the fed that have a cozy, friendly relationship with the banks they work with.
    5. The banks actively cultivate this relationship because they realize friendly regulators are less likely to press issues.
    6. She uncovered the fact that GS had no formal definition for "Conflict of interest" which is a violation of Fed rules.
    7. The fed worked for months gathering evidence and there was consensus that they needed to force GS into creating a policy
    8. Suddenly one day her management agreed GS did have a policy just not a good one.
    9. She was called in and her boss tried to bully her into changing her report to say they did have a policy.
    10. Not too long after she was fired.
    11. I believe the suggestion is that GS has control over management and who gets hired/fired at the fed.

    1. Re:summary by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      This American Life is as factual as Top Gear, i.e. they are entertainment....

      You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a show of taped interviews with people. You can't get any more factual than that.

    2. Re:summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life

      In January 2012, "This American Life" presented excerpts from a one-man theatre show by Mike Daisey as an exposé of conditions at a Foxconn factory in China.[14] The episode was entitled "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory" and became one of the show's most popular episodes, with 888,000 downloads and 206,000 streams. WBEZ planned to host a live showing and a Q+A of "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs" in Chicago on April 7, 2012.[15]

      On March 16, 2012, "This American Life" officially retracted the episode after learning that several events recounted both in the radio story and the monologue were fabrications. Daisey apologized for presenting his work as journalism, saying it is actually theatre, but refused to acknowledge that he had lied—even in the face of obvious discrepancies. WBEZ canceled the planned live performance and refunded all ticket purchases.[15] The same day, This American Life devoted their weekly show (titled "Retraction") to detailing the inconsistencies in "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."[16] The show includes interviews between Rob Schmitz, the reporter who discovered the discrepancies and Daisey's translator in China, Cathy Lee, as well as an interview between host Glass and Daisey. The podcast of this episode became the most downloaded in the show's history.[17] However, the Harper High School series broadcast in February 2013 surpassed it in number of downloads.[citation needed].

      The show also removed three stories by Stephen Glass (no relation to Ira Glass) in the week following the retraction of the Daisey episode due to less-than-truthful content. These were noted to have been previously removed, but had resurfaced in episode streams due to a website redesign. Though the segments are cut from the streams of the episodes, the transcript of the contents were kept accessible on the This American Life website. These were from the episodes "57: Delivery," "79: Stuck in the wrong decade," and "86: How to take money from strangers."[18]

    3. Re:summary by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      So are you citing this as evidence that the show is generally factual, and that in the one case they got it wrong they apologized? Or are you citing it as proof that they are liars, and only admit it when they are caught?

    4. Re:summary by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't get any more factual than that.

      And the best entertainment writers can't come up with material half as funny and/or tragic.

  13. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by mjm1231 · · Score: 2

    It is a well known fact that Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulsen, who railroaded the wall street bailout through congress, was a former Goldman Sachs CEO. It is unfortunate that very little changed under Obama, but the article is primarily discussing conditions prior to and during the 2008 financial collapse, before Obama was even elected.

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  14. The Fed is corrupt through and through by Squidlips · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A friend of mine worked on Wall Street and said that her firm had a guy at the fed whom they slipped bribes to in exchange for information about the interest rates. Apparently this is widespread.

    1. Re:The Fed is corrupt through and through by johnjaydk · · Score: 2

      I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here!

      Gotta watch Casablanca again on of these days.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    2. Re:The Fed is corrupt through and through by codeAlDente · · Score: 2

      Many moons ago Bernanke admitted that the fed has abetted LIBOR manipulation. It is therefore not news that the fed permits large-scale theft by banks. The news is that Goldman makes the underlying decisions, which is not really news, but signifies a shift in popular culture from conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  15. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Timothy Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs and off the top of my head I can also see Warren Buffet never worked for Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration, Robert Rubin never worked for Obama, Rogert Altman has neither worked at Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration.

    Might want to check that list again to see what other missteps are there.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  16. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by ahodgson · · Score: 2

    Of course, Obama then gave a cabinet post to Geitner, who was in charge of the NY Fed before and during the collapse. ie. the guy who was supposed to be regulating wall street.

  17. Re:GS did not require bailout... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    Compared to all the other banks that took stupid risks GS was one of the firm that actaully did not require the bailout money due to their better risk management..

    They got TARP money, a few billion form the AIG bailout, etc. They also got to declare themselves a "bank" (as in a depository bank, not an investment bank, which is what they are). That gave them access to billions in effectively interest free loans from the Fed. If you don't think that's a bailout, try getting a 0.1% loan from the Fed. I'd love to get that deal for my mortgage.

  18. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    He did this in 2008, http://online.wsj.com/articles..., an easy $500 million that no one else would be able to get.

  19. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps you didn't notice those names were in ALL CAPS, which makes his allegations very, very serious.

  20. Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Federal Reserve doesn't regulate Wall St. The only thing they regulate are boring transactional stuff like funds transfers (e.g. ACH), and even then often only if the banks voluntarily use the Federal Reserve's electronic services (an opt-in regulatory burden). Their policy making authority is extremely limited. You can thank President Andrew Jackson for that.

    Most of the power the reserve banks have is soft power--the bank presidents are at the center of a complex network of relationships between private and public stake holders.

    Geitner got promoted because he went out of his way to ensure the financial system didn't collapse. He strong-armed banks like Bank of America to take on huge amounts of debt; not because he had the legal authority to do so (if anything, his threats bordered on blackmail), but through shady, lightning-quick horse trading. He stepped up when many people in his position would have floundered.

    His opinions on sub-prime mortgage securitization, or any of that other stuff, are irrelevant. Obviously he's largely an apologist for the status quo. But judged solely by his tenure at the Fed, and in particular the few weeks at the height of the meltdown, the man is in many respects a hero. He displayed bold leadership, which is what you look for when filling top cabinet posts.

  21. I went through the process to become an examiner by LearningHard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The biggest selling point they gave me was that if I played nice after 10 years I could leave the Comptroller's office and get a huge paycheck from one of the major banks.

  22. The Fed is the national bank by pupsocket · · Score: 5, Informative

    Goldman Sachs has captured something much much bigger than a regulatory agency. The Federal Reserve is a massive financial operation with a charter from the people of United States to maintain the monetary conditions for a stable and robust market economy.

    Goldman got the General Counsel of the New York Fed to force the dismissal of an investigator who was brought in specifically to stop the kowtowing. She was fired for asking follow-up questions and telling her superiors to change her reports themselves if they wanted them changed.

    In the background of this scandal, Goldman Sachs was engaged in a transaction with the sole purpose of allowing a European bank to pretend that it was not overextended and so avoid recapitalizing to meet European-Union capital requirements. In other words, a European bank was risking an economic catastrophe that would have forced the EU to conduct a too-big-to-fail rescue, and Goldman Sachs enabled that bank to circumvent European banking authorities.

    Every investment in securities involves risk, and risk reduces the price at which paper trades. The Fed is now a guarantor of financial investments, making them more valuable than they might be if true risks were incorporated into the pricing. And the Fed is just one of the sovereign assets controlled by Goldman's posse of financial institutions.

    Meanwhile, we have neither a stable nor a robust economy. We just have incredible liquidity for investors in securities.

  23. The wrong people are scared by Morpeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Listened to segment on NPR this morning, what I got out of it was the Fed is afraid of the big investment banks, when it should be the other way around. I was honestly a bit shocked by how timid and afraid the Fed people were, it was embarrassing.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  24. Re:GS did not require bailout... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... GS was one of the firm that actaully did not require the bailout money ...

    Let's not the forget the stupid risks those other institutions took included insuring overvalued GS securities that GS knew would make a loss. Who insured most of the GS securities? AIG. What happened to GS for conducting large-scale insurance fraud? Their debts were covered by the US government, nothing more.

    ... better risk management ...

    Summary of the GFC: An influx of customers allowed banks to create a massive tranche of debt securities, causing profits to rise. Many institutions wanted to re-invest their profits in AAA-rated securities, increasing demand. To satisfy this demand banks created more debt securities using NINJA borrowers and pretended they were AAA-rated. Financial institutions created other unsound investments to increase their profits during this glut of money. When the fake securities didn't pay-out, the unsound investments also didn't pay-out, magnifying the losses.

    We saw it at Arthur-Anderson, Enron & WorldCom, and GS: When the profits are above average, the rule-book is thrown away. Corporations silence conflict of interest, risk management, even legal constraints, when the money says "you can't lose". And if they didn't break a lot of laws, corporate welfare can be bought cheap.

  25. Re: Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin by mjm1231 · · Score: 2

    The Fed guy at Goldman was right. Reality doesn't matter. In spite of the numerous replies pointing to the large number of inaccuracies, the post is still modded +5 Informative. In a world where the majority of people find false information "informative", what good is a moderation system?

    --
    Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. This by koan · · Score: 2

    This is how you know it was all planned, from Clinton signing off on the final; removal of Glass Steagall to Fab stating "I don't even know what I'm selling".
    The same group of people have been at these financial constructions designed to rob people, the FED is a part of it, you need only look at who runs the financial institutions, who is tops at the fed, who has the presidents ear and finally who really drives the wars in the Middle East.
    All the same group of people, it's amazing people aren't pointing it out...
    Except there is.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
    http://www.ifamericansknew.org...

    Another Clinton in the White House will seal the deal and screw the rest of us, Hillary is beholden to foreign powers.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  28. Correction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you wrote: "...the banks and government have a symbiotic relationship... you seem to have missed the fact that neither side in this story was "the government"

    The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT a part of the Federal Government; it is a bank that is run by the banks. This highly market-manipulating entity which would otherwise run contary to all the antitrust laws that Teddy Roosevelt gave us only LOOKS to the public to be part of the government because of [1] its name, [2] the bank allows the US President to nominate its chairperson, and [3] the Federal government allows its "notes" (those dollars in your wallet) to be used as the currency of the land. (THESE entanglements DO involve government, but that's not what is in the article). The artical involves a bank (Goldman Sachs) getting easy treatment by the (non-government) "Fed" (the privately-owned and hyper-secretive economy-manipulating Federal Reserve Bank, which is owned by the banks)

    1. Re:Correction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Fed is "independent within government". It is explicitly chartered to work in the public interest, as no private corporation is. It is not-for-profit, returning all interest profit to the Treasury each year.

  29. Paulson at Goldman-Sachs then Sec Treasury by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Informative
    Paulson, appointed to the Secretary of the Treasury by Bush in 2006, spent over 35 years at Goldman-Sachs starting in 1974 and ending up as chairman.

    Can your say conflict of interest? I knew you could.

    It has been pointed out that Paulson's plan could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that might benefit largely from the plan. Economic columnists called for more scrutiny of his actions. Questions remain about Paulson's interest, despite having no direct financial interest in Goldman, since he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law. The Goldman Sachs benefit from the AIG bailout was recently estimated as US$12.9 billion and GS was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. Creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach's business during Paulson's tenure as CEO. Opponents argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries. If passed into law as originally written, the proposed bill would have given the United States Treasury Secretary unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S. Section 8 of Paulson’s original plan stated: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Some time after the passage of a rewritten bill, the press reported that the Treasury was now proposing to use these funds ($700 billion) in ways other than what was originally intended in the bill.

    Although TIME Magazine had him as runner up for the Person of the Year in 2008 they also listed him as one of the "25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis"

    --
    Why is Snark Required?