Robespierre

Fannie Mae Plus Goldman Plus Tax Credits Plus U.S. Treasury Add Up to Big Mess

"The US Treasury does not want to look like it is favoring Goldman by approving the deal,"

LOL since when does the Treasury care about what it looks like? If this saves GS tax money it will get done. They didn't spend all that lobbying money for nothing.

A Sit Down with Treasury Officials (Part I)

I understand, though not first hand, that some times the "families" would invite their enemies to different social gatherings in very nice venues. Regardless of how nicely they behaved lets not forget what kind of "business" these people were involved in and to who do they were accountable. If they want to restore confidence then perhaps they should try to disclose the backs and forth that wen on between them and executives of GS when the decision to pay dollar for dollar took place. Until then, I for one will not believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

Commodities: How to Trade Like Goldman Sachs

You can never trade like GS unless you are able to rigged the markets or the regulators. GS just had 1 losing day last Q. Do you actually think that they are that good? They beginning to look more and more like Madoff to me and just like in the Madoff case the SEC will not investigate this outlier "performance". JMHO

FOMC Statement: English Translation

"Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Charles L. Evans; Donald L. Kohn; Jeffrey M. Lacker; Dennis P. Lockhart; Daniel K. Tarullo; Kevin M. Warsh; and Janet L. Yellen."

Better know as Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves or the inverse of Robin Hood and friends

Why Apple Is Worth $80

I don't know about this guy analysis but having being in high tech all my life I find it very difficult to see apple to trade at $300 (not devalued $300 that is) in a year or 2. I could happen but the public is very finicky about fashion-high tech and who knows they may become the anti-apple tomorrow and break the company.

Can Apple Be a $300 Stock?

Well then look at this from Jan 2009:

When asked about Palm (PALM) specifically, Cook said:

"I don't want to talk about any specific company. I'm just making a general statement that we think competition is good. It makes us all better. And we are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off. And we will use whatever weapons that we have at our disposal. I don't know that I can be any more clear than that."

Fighting over IP is a very common occurrence in the high tech industry that normally gets solved by cross-licensing

On Oct 23 12:40 AM rich168 wrote:

> NOK sues AAPL for patent infringement
>
> if you can't innovate(seekingalpha.com/symbo...) next best
> option is to SUE....
> NOK's R&D is really going down hill...

Hands Off Goldman Bonuses

BTW I would not be surprise if Treasury/Fed gave billions of dollars to these firms for them to drive the stock market so people (main street) would feel better about their finances and would go on a buying spree to lift the economy. The pay out for the firms would be of course to keep any of the profits made in the process unhindered by regulators or pay czars. Too far fetched?

How Paulson Gave Goldman the Lehman Heads-Up

GS, JPM and others are not being investigated by the federal government because the federal government does not feel like investigate it them. This and the previous administration have and had the tools to do it, if not with the SEC (useless) then with the homeland security agency. Isn't what these people allegedly did closer to financial terrorism than anything else? Didn't they bring the nation close to collapse? They call themselves CEOs of the financial industry. They look more like capos of organize crime families to me dividing up the country to make it easy for them to loot. The irony is that they are financing the looting with tax payers money - Change you can believe in -

Hands Off Goldman Bonuses

"The question again is: what should we do about it? The position that government can just arbitrarily reach into some private enterprise’s internal affairs and make individual decisions on its behalf is indefensible. That is not how capitalism should work and I am not buying into that argument."

The way I see it if it is OK for government to arbitrarily reach into some private enterprise’s internal affairs and give them BILLIONS of taxpayers dollars then it is OK for government to arbitrarily reach into some private enterprise’s internal affairs and take BILLIONS on set aside bonuses. Nobody put a gun on their heads to be bailed out, If they didn't want government reaching into their affairs then they shoulf file for BK when their were in need of money.

How Regulated Does Wall Street Need to Be?

None of what you mention will come to pass. There will be no regulation of any of these banks. What you fail to see is that this money is not just for the bankers themselves. Some of this money will end up in the pockets of "our" elected officials in many different ways from campaign contributions to speakers fees (once they leave office) to very lucrative "consulting" jobs to jobs to family members etc. So all these talk about regulation is just absurd and completely detached from the facts on the ground. These people are for all practical purpose untouchable.

Bernie 'The Bruiser' Madoff gets into a prison-yard tussle with a fellow inmate over - of all things - the stock market, and comes out the winner.

Well I'm not surprise he won the fight. He is just a thug with expensive suites.

Elizabeth Warren Highlights Washington's Losing Housing Battle

To say that this was done as a way for main street to afford a house is ignorance to the max. Look at who was pushing for de-regulation and you will see why all these "affordable housing" programs were created for. Also, look at who benefits the most by all these remedial "save the home" programs. Also, look at who is having "record earnings" to see who is benefiting the most of. Also, look at who bought the most congressmen in the financial committees. The answer to all of those questions is: The to big to fail CEOs.


On Oct 11 08:45 AM Tack wrote:

> Davidbdc:
>
> You're right on the money.
>
> Washington liberals encouraged, legislated and provided the means
> for vast lending to unqualified buyers, all in its usual vote-getting
> shenanigans. Now, that it's become clear that they inadvertently
> screwed those very same voters by inducing them to buy homes they
> had no genuine ability to afford, the politicians have to cobble
> together a huge giveaway program (funded by the prudent, of course)
> to try to save the very same voting block they duped the first time
> around.

Jamie Dimon: The Man Who Could Save Wall Street

The only "diligence" and "smarts" that all these CEOs have demonstrated is clearly shown on their acquisition binge:
Aquire congress
Aquire presidents
Undermine regulation

And after all is done start re-writing history so the people you just robbed (tax payers) are fooled into believing that you just saved the country.

Have anyone noticed the recent PR attack by all these CEOs?

Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level in 37 Weeks

Perry Perry:
"It's also interesting that in the WSJ article above, the Chase economists didn't mention the two most recent recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001. During those two recessions, jobless claims fell by a comparable amount, by -15% from the March 1991 peak and by -19% from the October 2001 peak"

Funny it also does not mention that the current level is HIGHER than the peak of those two recessions. So please do tell how is this such market rally earthshaking great news?

We're in a Pattern of Increasingly Longer Employment Recoveries

Do you actually think that if there were no unemployment benefits all will be magically employed? Don't you think that perhaps there is no demand ($12B drop in credit) and therefore companies have NO incentive to increase production for products no one will buy?. BTW unemployment benefits are there to protect the politicians or do you think that a %10 unemployed and with no savings will not create the biggest social unrest this country has ever seen?


On Oct 08 01:24 PM Tack wrote:

> The simple explanation for the longer recovery cycles is the constant
> extension of unemployment benefits. Altruistic as these may be,
> they still follow the immutable laws of economics.
>
> As a dissenting senator from an agricultural state once said on the
> senate floor, many years ago, "where I come from, if you subsidize
> something, you get more of it." And, so it is with unemployment,
> too.