I really don't have much use for Paulson anymore, but the financial bailout is one of the major reasons why a lot of the economists are talking about economic recovery. It certainly wasn't the President's Day stimulus package.
i haven't read this post b/c i have the poor - but i had to commend Cajun Boy for realizing a dream i once had wherein Anne Hathaway was a mermaid who's only wish was to step out of the water and suckle some bull balls. Appreesh!
@sublicon: AIG bailed them out by actually covering their risk [unlike others], the govt bailed out AIG and we bail out the govt. the money flows directly from one to the next. so you're pretty much 100% wrong but thanks for playing!
@hypocriteoath: But he's RIGHT! It's the finest example of capitalism the world has yet seen. Even in the midst of financial collapse, through a system of dick sucking favour-mongering, cronyism and Government handout, Goldman Sachs has, for whatever reason, gotten their hands on record profits.
All Investment banking firms are not created equal. Goldman Sachs is apparently one of those firms that our Don Corleone government forced to take TARP money so that the other firms wouldn't be embarrassed by their own lack of financial virility.
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.
@ChillbearLatrigue: GS could pay the money back because the rest of the TARP money was funneled through AIG et al, and directly into GS's pockets to make them whole on terrible bets they placed that relied on the solvency of counterparties. Shocking that they are in good shape after taking virtually all of the money that went to AIG. Paulson executed the greatest trainrobbery in human history, although his brazeness can be admired.
@AliHajiSheik: In fairness, had AIG been allowed to fail, other parts of Goldman Sachs' portfolio would have allowed them to re-coop their losses. This is according to GS. Since the government intervened on behalf of AIG, GS was not able to collect on their hedges and AIG was obligated to pay them. My source, since we are getting all sourcy.
@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:
I'm so glad I had the presence of mind to keep my high school yearbook page simple. If I ever decide to apply for a White House fellowship, my yearbook photo won't come back to embarrass me.
08/13/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
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
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
04/10/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09