Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:08 AM
Thu Dec 3
50 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/31/09
WeepyVP Joe10/30/09
WeepyVP Joe10/30/09
WeepyVP JoeAnd he doesn't drink. I don't trust people who don't drink, unless they've already been alcoholics. #joebiden
10/30/09
WeepyVP JoeEither this new crop of staff writers is utterly fucked, or the editorial direction has taken a nosedive, or both.
Is there some negative correlation between the quality of stories and the quality of AJAX/CSS? #joebiden
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
WeepyVP Joe10/30/09
WeepyVP Joe10/31/09
10/30/09
WeepyVP JoeThat being said, why are we posting crap from Fox News anyway - I thought we weren't supposed to take this stuff seriously?
#joebiden
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
COLLARS POP, PANTIES DROP. AIIIIIIGHT!
06/22/09
06/22/09
GS is paying back the money (our money) with interest specifically so that they can return to the policies that made them the juggernaut in the financial industry that they are.
Goldman has a history of paying its employees the largest and most obscene bonuses of any of the investment banking firms. If that was a bad business practice for them, then that was - and now that they are repaying their debt is - solely the business of the shareholders.
Thanks for treating our money like a loan, GS and not a hand out. FWIW, I'm not outraged.
06/22/09
06/22/09
[www.reuters.com]
@ae38: You may be right. My info was definitely from pre-financial meltdown times (2005-2006). At that time GS paid out more $ in bonuses than any other firm. However, those bonuses could have been lower on a percentage basis. I may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I couldn't find an exact source on this, but this article kind of points to what I was referring:
[www.nytimes.com]
06/22/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
You sort of have to substantiate WHY you think secrecy is a bad thing, because the position of the banks and the government thus far has been that the money goes farther from a confidence and intrabank lending perspective if we keep quiet about where it is and what it's doing. The banks also have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients, who stand to be damaged both reputation-wise and relationship-wise if borrowing activities are made public by virtue of the funding source. You're going to have custies saying "don't lend us TARP money, we don't want to be in the news" and creating this flow to the stronger banks, exacerbating the capital issues at the weaker ones.
04/29/09
The banks and govt officials [ex-bankers] can just say that secrecy is good for the banks and the economy but you want Pareene to substantiate why he thinks secrecy is bad? Give me an Fing break.
This is the same argument you used to validate private planes and ridiculously expensive offices, wardrobes, dinners, etc: Bankers know better and should be able to do whatever they want. Secrecy allows them to make pretend things are better when they really aren't and the people lending the money to them don't need to know where it goes because that might make them less confident in the system.
RIDICULOUS. People SHOULD be less confident in the system, it is flawed. Banks should NOT be representing that they are fine when they aren't... that is part of what got us into this mess.
I know you're biased because you work in the industry but give me a break... banks have new clients and it is the US taxpayers. limiting secrecy comes with the territory. you lose that right when you need a bailout.
If the banks refuse money from TARP because they are afraid of info going public then they CLEARLY have something to hide... and we shouldn't lend them money in the first place.
04/29/09
Yeah I mean you not commenting is probably a pretty good idea.
Like, look, let me say it again: banks have customers. If banks say "this money went to X!" they're creating newspaper targets out of every single entity that borrows money from them. If banks have to disclose everybody they lend to, it makes it functionally impossible for them to operate while still holding government money on the balance sheet.
The risk is that then you have a customer flight to borrow from what are perceived to be "quality" banks who will immediate pay off the TARP money. That bilks the taxpayers out of everything they gave to what are perceived to be "bad" banks. The whole point or TARP is to prevent systemic pressure from fear-driven bank defaults! To accomplish the goals of the bailout, secrecy is a requirement.
I mean, fuck, this is an old debate even. Look at Obama's administration and the way they handled it. Don't take it from me, take it from hopey and the gang if you need to.
04/29/09