Goldman Sachs, Politics, Mortgages
The news about Goldman Sachs involvement in the financial meltdown is not "news". There are a variety of threads to follow here, but the most obvious is the fact of a hedge fund manager, Paulson, wishing to have a vehicle to sell short, approaching Goldman to put together a security instrument based on his recommendations for securities to be included, and then paying them 15 million dollars to do so and then sell it to investors expecting to profit from their investment, boggles the mind. A legitimate company would have thrown Paulson out the window for the suggestion. Goldman didn't and instead participated in a scheme to defraud the investors. They made an initial 15 million, Paulson made over a BILLION from the positions he took, and many investors lost hundreds of millions from the scheme. The talking heads in many cases have taken the position that the investors are sophisticated and should have exercised "due diligence". Goldman is even on record as saying that the investors "should have known that someone was on the other side of their transaction". Of course they should. They should also have been informed that the party on the other side had specifically contrived the debt instrument to fail. Does anyone in their right mind believe that equipped with this knowledge they would have been buyers?
At the moment the White House is pushing hard for a financial reform bill, one supposed to contain provisions that will eliminate this kind of problem, and some of the other difficulties leading to the financial melt-down. People who have had an opportunity to study the bill insist that it does nothing of the sort but instead confers an increasing amount of authority to the executive, diminishes congressional oversight, and no way guards against the "too big to fail" mentality of the past. This is becoming a familiar pattern with this administration, grabbing power not delegated to it by the constitution, note autos, finance, insurance, health care, etc.
A lot of noise is being generated about the ties of the financial markets, and others, to Washington, through very generous campaign donations. Democrats are the largest beneficiaries, but Republicans are far from having clean hands. A very large question that I have not seen addressed is why there is ANY legitimate reason for a business of any type to contribute money to any politician. It follows as night the day that a quid pro quo is the only rational reason for giving away stockholder or investor money to a politician, and it should be outlawed. Not restricted to amount. Outlawed.
Politicians have a single interest in running for office; to be re-elected once they've won. Let them pay for their election themselves and restrict the amount that can be spent to a level that will insure that any citizen can participate and win on his/her merits. Then term limits. Politics was once a calling, not a career choice, and we need to return to that concept. Very ordinary men can rise to very wise decisions if they are not burdened with self-interest during the deliberative process. Self interest is a normal human trait and can not be eliminated by edict, but the fruits of pursuing that interest can be denied by edict, and should be.
Distrust of government is over 70% and growing. That simply must be changed.
As usual.
Thanks for visiting.
At the moment the White House is pushing hard for a financial reform bill, one supposed to contain provisions that will eliminate this kind of problem, and some of the other difficulties leading to the financial melt-down. People who have had an opportunity to study the bill insist that it does nothing of the sort but instead confers an increasing amount of authority to the executive, diminishes congressional oversight, and no way guards against the "too big to fail" mentality of the past. This is becoming a familiar pattern with this administration, grabbing power not delegated to it by the constitution, note autos, finance, insurance, health care, etc.
A lot of noise is being generated about the ties of the financial markets, and others, to Washington, through very generous campaign donations. Democrats are the largest beneficiaries, but Republicans are far from having clean hands. A very large question that I have not seen addressed is why there is ANY legitimate reason for a business of any type to contribute money to any politician. It follows as night the day that a quid pro quo is the only rational reason for giving away stockholder or investor money to a politician, and it should be outlawed. Not restricted to amount. Outlawed.
Politicians have a single interest in running for office; to be re-elected once they've won. Let them pay for their election themselves and restrict the amount that can be spent to a level that will insure that any citizen can participate and win on his/her merits. Then term limits. Politics was once a calling, not a career choice, and we need to return to that concept. Very ordinary men can rise to very wise decisions if they are not burdened with self-interest during the deliberative process. Self interest is a normal human trait and can not be eliminated by edict, but the fruits of pursuing that interest can be denied by edict, and should be.
Distrust of government is over 70% and growing. That simply must be changed.
As usual.
Thanks for visiting.
posted by Douglas Doss | 3:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home