Attitudes that Many on Wall Street would call Acceptable

[classicman]

[tw]

Meanwhile, next time you have my back, could you do it with a knife that was not so rusty?

[classicman]

Sure, but that wasn't rust.

Thats the kind of post worth reading. Succinct and to the point.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sure, but that wasn't rust.

You pervert!

[tw]

From MarketWatch.com entitled Volcker blames Goldman trading for culture change:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker on Wednesday said a sharply critical resignation letter by a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive is a reflection of a changing market mentality over the past fifteen years about investment banks. Volcker said that Goldman Sachs' transformation into a publicly traded firm that acquired a large trading operation drove it away from its former strategy of focusing on customer needs. "That changed the mentality and I'm afraid it's a business that leads to a lot of conflicts of interest," Volcker said at a conference hosted by The Atlantic magazine. Volcker referred to a resignation editorial written by Greg Smith, the leaving Goldman Sachs executive, who said in the New York Times on Wednesday that the culture at the firm is "as toxic and destructive as I have ever known it."

Volcker was the Federal Reserve chief who finally solved a previous major recession in late 1970 by doing what others (ie President Ford) was unwilling to do. He raised interest rates so that commercial rates were about 20%.

[tw]

From the Washington Post entitled Goldman Sachs fights back against claims of toxic environment

Blankfein disputed his former employee’s description of the firm's culture.

In a letter to his staff, the chief executive wrote, "We were disappointed to read the assertions made by this individual that do not reflect our values, our culture and how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think about the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients."

Before the recession, Goldman enjoyed a near-pristine image, and its top executives such as Henry M. Paulson, Robert Rubin and Jon S. Corzine moved easily into prominent government posts after leaving the firm. But the financial crisis blemished that reputation, and this episode marks another challenge to restoring it.

The dust-up comes as federal regulators gear up to forge the final terms of the so-called Volcker Rule, a policy that could ultimately cost Goldman Sachs and other investment banks billions of dollars.

The criticism could also raise questions about what kind of leader Blankfein has been since taking the helm of the Wall Street firm in 2006. ...

Goldman Sachs is not the only Wall Street institution that has been the target of vitriol in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

"This issue has been kind of swirling around the news and it's an issue that has been facing the financial industry for years," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago. "This is a conflict of short-term profits against longer-term goals."

In recent years, Goldman Sachs has had to gird itself against other harsh accusations of corporate greed. In a 2010 Rolling Stone article, journalist Matt Taibbi famously described the investment bank as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) described Goldman Sachs as a "financial snake pit" last year after he led a panel that examined the origins of the 2008 crisis.

Chief executive Lloyd Blankfein drew criticism in November 2009 after he told the British newspaper the Times that he was "doing God's work" at Goldman.

The Volcker Rule was originally proposed to restrict United States banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Widely acknowledged is that speculative activity help create the recession we have today by enriching financial institutions at the expense of the economy. In essence, the rule is a ban on proprietary trading by commercial banks, where deposits are used to trade on the bank's personal accounts.

This problem was why Glass Stegall was created after 1929 banks did this same sort of fiscal shenanigans to create the same fiscal disaster. Glass Stegall was virtually eliminated in the early 2000s when financial institutions claimed regulations were harmful to the economy.

Guess who got it completely wrong. Financial institutions can never be over-regulated. Greg Smith’s Op-Ed in the NY Times only confirms what is obvious.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Financial institutions can never be over-regulated.

Which brings us back around to the fact that Goldman Sachs provides the regulators as well. It is very cozy and very anti-taxpayer/citizen.

[classicman]

Well said Griff. This goes to the thought that the Gov't cannot do this.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Which brings us back around to the fact that Goldman Sachs provides the regulators as well.

The difference that Greg Smith noted. Fifteen plus years ago was Paulsen who later properly addressed the near meltdown of the American economy. Latest Goldman Sachs presidents included Corzine whose company apparently raided customer accounts to cover up derivative losses in Europe. Last I heard, they are still looking for much of that money.

The attitude of Goldman Sachs employees sounded so much like the Enron traders who gleefully created the California Energy crisis to enrich themselves knowing full well that they were even harming granny. They did not care. They were the bean counters whose only purpose in life is to enrich themselves at the expense of all others. Also the definition of a criminal.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

Well said Griff. This goes to the thought that the Gov't cannot do this.

Ummm....
Is that what you meant to say... that gov't can not regulate?
But business can/should regulate itself ?

I read Griff's post as the G-S providing people to be regulators was more or less a conflict.... i.e., too cosy a situation.

[classicman]

Yes that is what I said, for the reason Griff stated.
The Gov't would probably be better appointing people who know nothing of the industry in question and letting them do it "from a book.

Take the banking industry. How many appointees and whatnot of this, and the former, administration are from Goldman Sachs, for example?

[Griff]

I think he meant the government shouldn't be hiring wolves to guard the flock especially if they're going back to the pack after retirement. I think...

[Griff]

oops, guess you just said that

[classicman]

thanks.
There are DOZENS of them - in addition to those who donated and still are donating to him.
Obama’s 2008 campaign received $42 million from Wall Street bankers and insiders.
That was more than any other candidate in history! Shortly thereafter, the appointments started... Coincidence? I think not.

[Lamplighter]

Hey, unanimity among Dwellars... never before has such a thing happened !