BBC Interview Trader- Governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs Rules The World

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Let's look at another commodity market than oil - food.

Here's a useful article from Foreign Pollicy magazine, "How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis".

A few excerpts - first, the futures index Goldman owns I mentioned above:



Remember I said that futures markets in moderation are a good thing? Here's more:



Remember I said 'but when there's too much money put in them, speculating, it's harmful'?



It's not just Goldman, they just got it started:



And then we get to the story - fortunes made, as food prices globally shot up 80%.

In 2003, the futures in this market totalled $13, the moderate amount that's good. In the first half of 2008, $318 billion were poured in.



Remember I yelled at posters for postinging simplistic 'supply and demand, speculators can't shoot the price up' nonsense? More on the issue:



In the traditional futures market with moderate speculation, speculators ar 20% of the market. Now, they outnumber the actual users of the product four to one.



Remember I said the riches for Wall Street are paid for by consumers? With oil, that affects Americans. With food, it affects the hungry in the world.



These people are murdering sons of bitches, using the wealth they take from people to buy government to keep the rules doing what they want.



Any idea why I'm furious about the issue?

Save234

DJ Commodity index has been published since 1933, not exactly sure how a different composite index is at all relevant when it comes to speculation... or the obsession with GS. Sensationalism sells after all?

Kind of interesting you always strive to fit a narrative with this stuff though (GS = teh eeevil hardon).

Passage of CFMA and rise of the ICE had far more impact on the commodity volatility than all commodity basket indices combined.
 
Last edited:

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Don't you wish Goldman Sachs actually rule the world instead of this incompetent admin obsessed with pleasing its constituent and making decisions based on politics rather than sound financial judgement?

Goldman Sachs made $2.7b last qtr for their investors. Let see, Obama admin lost what, just a few hundred billions?
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Is anyone really surprised?

Hedge funds and alternative investments are nukes in comparison to the bullets every other vechile uses to make some money.

Of course, there are alternative investment duds. But, when they "work" they cause havoc AND generate tons of money.
 

YoungGun21

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2006
2,551
1
81
What is the problem here? Half of the loonies on here spout this shit every post. "The economy will collapse! Buy ammo! Prepare yourself! blah blah blah." Now that somebody goes on TV to say it, NOW everybody is upset?

Also, GS is a business, not a welfare agency. They make money. End of story. Like the guy in the video says, it is entirely possible for anyone to do what they are doing.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
Don't you wish Goldman Sachs actually rule the world instead of this incompetent admin obsessed with pleasing its constituent and making decisions based on politics rather than sound financial judgement?

Goldman Sachs made $2.7b last qtr for their investors. Let see, Obama admin lost what, just a few hundred billions?

The problem with this argument is that you believe that Goldman Sachs would trickle some of their golden goodness upon you. The reality is that they'd keep it for themselves.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Looks like the trader was a prankster. https://twitter.com/#!/nytjim

And he has pulled stunts like this before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI


Checking on the twitter feed again, the guy states he was wrong and that he isn't a prankster. Also amidst all the claims that even if not a prankster he is a sociopath.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilyla...rankster-we-called-alessio-rastani-and-asked/


I offer the following little study. Apparently traders are actually WORSE than psychopaths!

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/new-study-–-traders-are-worse-psychopaths
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Hank Paulson, the Republican Secretary of Finance under President Bush, practically single-handedly saved Goldman Sachs from collapse in 2008. He tried his best to make sure Lehman Brothers, Bears Stearns, Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were also saved. He had the full backing of that entire Republican administration.

Uhh, neither GS nor JPMC needed the bailout money, at all. Paulson stuffed it down their throats so as to create the appearance that all the big banks were in trouble. Otherwise, investors would have gone with the winners, destroyed the losers, profiting both firms even more. Both firms had reversed their field, mercilessly exploited derivatives & naked short selling of their competitors to profit handsomely form the collapse, with GS engaging in the sleaziest tactics of all.

The current crisis in Europe is no different, with GS betting heavily on default by the Greeks & others. Hell, they set the Greeks up to fail, and now push for policies from Germany & the ECB to make it happen.

None of this would be possible w/o synthetic derivatives, which should be outlawed by every country in the world. Financial markets would be a whole lot more stable & more honest w/o them.

He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office under James P. Gorter. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998;[9] eventually succeeding Jon Corzine as chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was $37 million in 2005, and $16.4 million projected for 2006.[10] His net worth has been estimated at over $700 million.[10]

Paulson was nominated on May 30, 2006, by U.S. President George W. Bush to succeed John Snow as the Treasury Secretary.[14] On June 28, 2006, he was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve in the position.[15] Paulson was officially sworn in at a ceremony held at the Treasury Department on the morning of July 10, 2006.

I'm not a big fan of "wall of quotes" so I apologize but my issue with all this is that nobody has been held accountable. How is it possible that a guy who ran GS then gets a government position that allows him to bail out his previous company?

What do you mean above about them not needing the bailout money and that if he would have let the losers die GS would have made money? Would they have done better if he let banks fail?

I don't know anything about GS betting against Europe. Where can I find more info?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/27sorkin.html

AIG ended up posting quite a bit of collateral calls and goldman hedged across the globe against the rest, IIRC, from the senate investigation and/or maiden ln docs, their net was in the neighborhood of 500m

In terms of the guy in O/P, he's got a website that sells "trading alerts"... enough said. If I was selling trading infomercials (read: anything that mentions day-trading), I'd make outrageous statements on TV also. Traders make money, snake oil salesmen sell newsletters.

Yea I figured from the start the guy in the video is pure shit. The point of my post was that guy saying GS had no risk in their position. I was just trying to educate him about counterparty risk. Not that he cared to learn.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
Excellent way to attack symptoms as opposed to the root. The government that structured our entire monetary system has only themselves to blame for the power of Goldman Sachs.

If Goldman takes EU back to the stone age hopefully they come back with a proper monetary system and don't just dive back in to the same bullshit that will get them played again.

Oh I realize fully that Congress is to blame for opening up Pandora's box.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
That's really unfair. Obama and the Dems have made some efforts, but they haven't been willing to resort to the tactics of extortion used by Repubs. Maybe if they threatened to shut down the economy they could have it their way, huh?

And it's not like there's any progressive thinking among Conservatives, anyway, and definitely not among their leadership, all of whom have attempted to advance tax & spending plans that benefit only the wealthy, as if trickledown economics haven't already failed to deliver to the vast majority of Americans.

No it is completely fair because these group labels we keep assigning to people are mostly fucking worthless and are just used by toolish idiots who don't realize how much they're being played.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
The problem with this argument is that you believe that Goldman Sachs would trickle some of their golden goodness upon you. The reality is that they'd keep it for themselves.

who the hell is they? for $100 you can own a share and become "they". Get over this main st. vs wall st. bs already.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
I'm not a big fan of "wall of quotes" so I apologize but my issue with all this is that nobody has been held accountable. How is it possible that a guy who ran GS then gets a government position that allows him to bail out his previous company?

What do you mean above about them not needing the bailout money and that if he would have let the losers die GS would have made money? Would they have done better if he let banks fail?

I don't know anything about GS betting against Europe. Where can I find more info?

Goldman Sachs fills the halls of the Treasury Department. Interesting story from a Bush speechwriter follows.

In particular, a couple of very telling sentences from the story about how the nation managed its worst crach since the Great Depression:

Meanwhile, the White House seemed to have ceded all of its authority on economic matters to the secretive secretary of the treasury. The president was clearly frustrated with this. I was told that at one Oval Office meeting, he got very animated and exclaimed to Paulson, “You’ve got to tell me what you’re doing!” (In the weeks that followed, Paulson changed his spending priorities two or three times. Incredibly, he’d been given the power to do with that money virtually anything he pleased. All thanks to a president who didn’t understand his proposal and a Congress that didn’t stop to think.)


AS A SPEECHWRITER FOR GEORGE W. BUSH DURING THE FINAL YEARS OF HIS PRESIDENCY, I’d seen crises and controversies. But nothing prepared me for the imminent collapse of America’s free-market system.

I was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with another speechwriter, a young man named Jonathan. (His last name was Horn; the president nicknamed him Horny.) We were chatting casually when the president’s favorite speechwriter came in. Chris Michel was in his midtwenties, with sandy blond hair. He was usually chipper, though at the moment his face was so pale he must have been the whitest man in the Bush White House. And that was no small accomplishment. Chris had just come from a secret meeting in the Oval Office, and without so much as a hello he announced: “Well, the economy is about to completely collapse.”

“You mean the stock market?” I asked.

“No, I mean the entire U.S. economy,” he replied. As in, capitalism. As in, hide your money in your mattress.

The secretary of the treasury, Hank Paulson, had sketched out a dire scenario. And Chris said we’d have to write a speech for the president announcing his “bold” plan to deal with the crisis. (The president loved the word bold.)

We had to reassure the American people that everything was going to be okay. As it turned out, Secretary Paulson had a plan that would fix everything: a $700 billion bailout of the financial system. The plan, like the secretary himself (who’d been pretty much a nonperson at the White House), seemed to come out of nowhere, as if it had been hastily scribbled on a sheet of paper in the secretary’s car on his way to work. Basically, it could be summed up as: Give me hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and then trust me to do the right thing.

There was no denying it. This plan was certainly “bold.”

*****

AS A YOUNG POLITICAL GEEK growing up in Flint, Michigan, I’d always dreamed of heading to Washington to work for a conservative president and help usher in another Reagan Revolution. As soon as I was able, and with the support of my baffled liberal parents, I packed up my old maroon Dodge Dynasty and said good-bye to my sleepy hometown.

My youthful exuberance cooled as I moved up the rungs of power. On Capitol Hill, I worked for a congressman who “misremembered” basic facts, such as the “Eisenhower assassination.” I worked for a senator who hid from his own staff. I was assigned to coach Republican senators on how to reach out to the media and entertainment world. (You try explaining The View to a group of 65-year-old white Republican men.) At the Pentagon, as chief speechwriter to Donald Rumsfeld, I battled an entrenched civil-service system and an inept communications team.

In 2007 I finally made it to the Bush White House as a presidential speechwriter. But it was not at all what I envisioned. It was less like Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing and more like The Office. After watching Karl Rove’s bizarre farewell to White House staffers and hearing the president dismiss the conservative movement I believed in (“I know it sounds arrogant to say,” he told me, “but I redefined the Republican Party”), I thought I could muddle through till the end. Washington might not have been the city I had dreamed of, but I figured things couldn’t get much worse.

*****

IS DAY, I DON’T really understand what happened.

In the first months I worked at the White House, I wrote any number of speeches praising America’s economic prosperity. There’d been month after month of uninterrupted job growth, after-tax income was increasing, exports were rising, inflation was down. “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” we’d write. Because that’s what we’d been told. And as far as I could tell, the president was told the same thing by his economic advisers, led by Secretary Paulson. Paulson had been brought into the administration by Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff. They’d both worked at Goldman Sachs. Paulson had been one of the highest-paid CEOs on Wall Street, making at least $30 million a year, and had an MBA from Harvard (like President Bush). Paulson was supposed to be a nonideological, pragmatic, sensible type. He was bald with glasses and had a scratchy voice that sounded like he had a thousand-dollar bill caught in his throat.

Yet there were obvious signs that all was not well. The housing bubble had started to collapse, leading to a sharp increase in home foreclosures. And in January 2008, the president proposed an expensive economic-stimulus package, which he ultimately negotiated with Congress and passed, that would send Americans checks for a few hundred dollars.

To look like we were doing more, we announced various initiatives, such as assembling an alliance to encourage lenders to renegotiate loans. For a while, the communications guys—Ed Gillespie and Kevin Sullivan—wanted the president to give a toll-free number for Americans to call for assistance with their mortgages. I thought that was embarrassing, as if George W. Bush were Jerry Lewis. An additional problem was that the president kept botching the phone number. He thought it was an 800 number, but the number actually had an 888 prefix. So the president ended up telling Americans to call the wrong number. Unfortunately, I can’t say any of the president’s top economic advisers struck me as having a firm handle on the economic mess ahead. The economic team the president put together at first included his friend Al Hubbard. He may have been a competent adviser; I really didn’t know him. The only thing I knew about Al was that he went around putting whoopee cushions on people’s chairs in the West Wing.

Bear Stearns. Lehman Brothers. None of the senior officials at the White House had expected to end the second Bush term this way, with what Warren Buffett called an “economic Pearl Harbor.” In fact, Ed Gillespie was mapping out an ambitious schedule of “legacy speeches” for the fall and winter to trumpet all of the administration’s achievements. We could strike “remarks on the robust economy” off the list. Pundits on TV started asking why the president wasn’t saying more and what he was going to do. The answers were: We had nothing to say and no one had any idea.

*****

AFTER CHRIS, Jonathan Horn, and I learned about the president’s $700-billion-bailout proposal and drafted the remarks announcing it to a stunned nation, Ed said the president wanted to see us in the Oval Office. The president looked relaxed and was sitting behind the Resolute desk. He felt he’d made the major decision that everyone had been asking for. That always seemed to relax him. He liked being decisive. Excuse me, boldly decisive. The president seemed to be thinking of his memoirs. “This might go in as a big decision,” he mused.

“Definitely, Mr. President,” someone else observed. “This is a large decision.”

The president asked his secretary, Karen, to bring him the Rose Garden remarks he’d just delivered that day, September 19, announcing his action plan. He got slightly exasperated when she was delayed in printing them out. When he finally got them, he put his half-glasses on and looked at them. “See, this was fine today,” he said. “But we got to make this understandable for the average cat.” He proposed an outline for another speech that talked about the situation our economy was in, how we’d gotten here, and how the administration’s plan was a solution.

“This is the last bullet we have,” the president said at one point, referring to the bailout. “If this doesn’t work…” He shook his head, and his voice trailed off. That wasn’t good enough for me. If this doesn’t work, then what? We’re done? America is over? I looked around at everyone else. What does that mean?

Ed and the president decided to give a prime-time address to the nation, and Vice President Cheney was sent to the Hill to argue for our bill (a bill he may or may not have believed in) and was apparently hammered by House Republicans. There were reports that only four Republicans out of nearly 200 supported the plan. From what I was starting to glean about the whole scatterbrained operation, four seemed like too many. Hours before the president was to speak to the country, Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign informed Josh Bolten that

McCain was going to phone the president and urge him to call off the address and instead hold an emergency economic summit in Washington. If the president did speak that night, the McCain campaign didn’t want him to outline any specific proposal.

Of course, this threw the proverbial monkey wrench into our plans—and at the eleventh hour. I overheard the president call McCain’s plan “a stunt.” Dana Perino said the negotiations were nearly over, and suddenly he was going to swoop in and muck things up? The president’s political adviser, Barry Jackson, was blunt, calling McCain a “stupid prick.”

We were faced with a dilemma: Should Bush still go out and address the nation, or should he cancel? And if he did go out, what should he say? Ed, typically, told us to write two drafts for the address to the nation—one outlining the proposal as originally announced and another that only discussed the “principles” the legislation needed to incorporate to win the administration’s support. Chris and I looked at each other warily. Two versions of a major prime-time address that may or may not be given hours from now? Sure, no problem. Ultimately, Ed decided to go with the second speech. But he clearly didn’t share his plan with the president. When the president came into the Family Theater to rehearse the speech in front of a teleprompter, he didn’t like the idea of just talking about principles. It sounded like the administration was backing away from its own plan (which it was).

“We can’t even defend our own proposal?” the president asked. “Why did we propose it, then?” This was not bold decision making. There were about a dozen people gathered in the theater to watch him rehearse, and all of us remained silent as the president looked at us for an answer.

The president walked over to sip some water from one of the bottles on the table near his lectern. “This speech is weak,” he said. He looked at me and Chris. “Frankly, I’m surprised, to be honest with you.”

There was more silence.

“Too late to cancel the speech?” the president asked into the air. He was joking…I think. Finally, Ed (who hadn’t exactly rushed to jump into the line of fire) explained that we had to make this change to the address because the proposal the president liked might not end up being the one he had to agree to. “Then why the hell did I support it if I didn’t believe it would pass?” he snapped. There was yet another uncomfortable silence.

Finally, the president directed us to try to put elements of his proposal back into the text. He wanted to explain what he was seeking and to defend it. He especially wanted Americans to know that his plan would likely see a return on the taxpayers’ investment. Under his proposal, he said, the federal government would buy troubled mortgages on the cheap and then resell them at a higher price when the market for them stabilized.

“We’re buying low and selling high,” he kept saying.

The problem was that his proposal didn’t work like that. One of the president’s staff members anxiously pulled a few of us aside. “The president is misunderstanding this proposal,” he warned. “He has the wrong idea in his head.” As it turned out, the plan wasn’t to buy low and sell high. In some cases, in fact, Secretary Paulson wanted to pay more than the securities were likely worth in order to put more money into the markets as soon as possible. This was not how the president’s proposal had been advertised to the public or the Congress. It wasn’t that the president didn’t understand what his administration wanted to do. It was that the treasury secretary didn’t seem to know, changed his mind, had misled the president, or some combination of the three.

As Chris and I were in our office in the EEOB trying to put in the latest of the president’s edits, there was a steady flow of people coming into the room. The economic team came in. Ed Gillespie, the president’s top communications adviser, came in. Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary, was there. At one point there were twelve people crowded around our computer, trying to explain how the proposal worked. The economic advisers were disagreeing with each other.

There was total confusion. It was 5:30 p.m. The speech was in three and a half hours.

After finally getting the speech draft turned around and sent back to the teleprompter technicians, we trudged back to the Family Theater, where the president rehearsed. In the theater, the president was clearly confused about how the government would buy these securities. He repeated his belief that the government was going to “buy low and sell high,” and he still didn’t understand why we hadn’t put that into the speech like he’d asked us to. When it was explained to him that his concept of the bailout proposal wasn’t correct, the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration.

“Why did I sign on to this proposal if I don’t understand what it does?” he asked.

The president was clearly frustrated with what was going on, but there was little he could do at this late hour. He went up to take a nap, saying he was beat. He looked it. I’d never seen him more exhausted. His hair was out of place and shaggy. His face looked drained and pale. Even more distressing, he was wearing Crocs. As I looked at him I thought to myself, how many more crises can one guy take?

As the start of the prime-time speech approached, Chris and I went up to the East Room. The large room had been converted into a studio for the address. There was a big group of technicians present, and wires and equipment were everywhere. The president’s lectern was set up so that we were to his left and out of his line of sight. His audience was a gold curtain next to a large portrait of George Washington. As Chris and I were watching the speech get fed into the teleprompter, Josh Bolten walked over to us. He looked like he’d had a long day, and I felt a tinge of sympathy for him. He told us he’d gotten an earful from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Speaker had yelled at him for fifteen minutes and expressed her view that the president’s speech was a mistake and would screw up their deal. “Talking to them is the hardest part of my job,” he said quietly.

Then, with about thirty minutes until airtime, the president showed up, looking transformed. He was in a deep red tie and dark suit. His hair was neatly combed. His demeanor was completely businesslike. He made a few edits to the text and then read it through, flawlessly, from start to finish. He informed us that he’d called both the presidential candidates, Senators Obama and McCain, and asked them to come to the White House the next day for the summit McCain had wanted. Both candidates had agreed. After the president finished his run-through, about ten of us walked over to him, forming a phalanx around him. We had little to say, of course. The speech was in ten minutes, so there wasn’t time for any serious changes. We just wanted to be around him—it made us feel useful. And a few aides liked to be in the pictures that the White House photographers were taking of the president preparing for another historic speech.

Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, tried to be of use. “Mr. President, you were standing slightly to the left,” he said.

We all looked at him, confused. So did the president. “What?” he asked.

“On the camera,” Sully explained. “You were standing slightly to the left when

you rehearsed.”

The proposal the president announced to the nation that night would be soundly rejected by the House of Representatives. An eventual compromise was reached a week later. And to help get it passed, I had to endure what I considered the biggest indignity of my entire White House tenure: We were now writing remarks for Jimmy Carter, of all people, because we’d been abandoned by nearly everyone else. I’m not sure if Carter ever delivered that statement, but a week later he launched a vicious attack on Bush’s “atrocious” economic policies. It was just one more humiliation. First the administration had had to seek out Carter’s help, and then the White House had been schooled on the economy by the president who’d brought you gas lines, an energy crisis, and high unemployment.

*****

WE WROTE SPEECHES nearly every time the stock market flipped. Meanwhile, the White House seemed to have ceded all of its authority on economic matters to the secretive secretary of the treasury. The president was clearly frustrated with this. I was told that at one Oval Office meeting, he got very animated and exclaimed to Paulson, “You’ve got to tell me what you’re doing!” (In the weeks that followed, Paulson changed his spending priorities two or three times. Incredibly, he’d been given the power to do with that money virtually anything he pleased. All thanks to a president who didn’t understand his proposal and a Congress that didn’t stop to think.)

The president understood the danger of talking constantly about the economy, especially if he had nothing new to say. “It’s hard to keep that kind of pace,” he said, noting that people would start tuning him out. The real problem, which no one at the White House seemed willing to confront, was that the country already had tuned him out. The president didn’t have credibility anymore. At one point, during another of our marathon speechwriting sessions, Steve Hadley and Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, let us know that the president needed an FDR line—like “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” The president had his own suggestion for such a line, however: “Anxiety can feed anxiety.” So we produced a speech with no real information and our FDR knockoff line. Here were some of the kinder reviews: “lackluster”; “there is no news here”; “the president should go away for a while.” The stock market dipped further.

As Treasury started to use the bailout funds to invest directly in financial institutions, Ed wanted to come up with a name for the plan that made it sound better to the public, particularly conservatives who thought this was nothing more than warmed-over socialism. Yes, a catchphrase would solve everything. As we were working on this, Ed called a few of the writers on speakerphone with the idea he’d come up with: the Imperative Investment Intervention. “Oh, that sounds good,” one of us remarked, as the rest of us tried not to laugh. We decided that if a catchphrase must be deployed, surely we could come up with something better than a tongue twister with the acronym III. We started out with dark humor: the “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Capitalism” Plan; the MARX Plan. I suggested that we also apologize to the former Soviet Union and retroactively concede the Cold War. Then one of the writers got serious and came up with the Temporary Emergency Market Protection Program, or TEMP. Not bad as gimmicks go, and Ed liked it. But he decided that instead of dropping it into a speech, we’d leak it to the press that this was the phrase we were using internally. Ed’s logic was that anything Bush said would be ignored, but if the press thought they’d got it from a leak, they’d find it more interesting and newsworthy. TEMP never made it as a catchphrase regardless.

When White House press secretary Dana Perino was told that 77 percent of the country thought we were on the wrong track, she said what I was thinking: “Who on earth is in the other 23 percent?” I knew who they were—the same people supporting the John McCain campaign. Me? I figured there was no way in hell any Republican would vote for that guy. John McCain, the temperamental media darling, had spent most of the past eight years running against the Republican Party and the president—Republicans on Capitol Hill and at the White House hated him. Choosing John McCain as our standard-bearer would be the height of self-delusion. It would be like putting Camilla Parker Bowles in charge of the Princess Diana Foundation.

As it turned out, I was the one who was deluded. The people I worked with in the White House were the most loyal of the Bush loyalists. Dana Perino was so sensitive to criticism of Bush that she once said she couldn’t watch the Democratic convention because it would be “too mean” to the president. Yet I watched them embrace McCain enthusiastically—backing a guy who’d worked so hard to undermine them. It was a cynical bargain.

The president, like me, didn’t seem to be in love with any of the available options. He always believed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. “Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk,” he once said (except he didn’t say “keister”). He didn’t think much of Barack Obama. After one of Obama’s blistering speeches against the administration, the president had a very human reaction: He was ticked off. He came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. “This is a dangerous world,” he said for no apparent reason, “and this cat isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” He wound himself up even more. “You think I wasn’t qualified?” he said to no one in particular. “I was qualified.”

The president didn’t think much of Joe Biden either. “Dana, did you tell them my line?” the president once asked with a smile on his face.

“No, Mr. President,” Dana replied hesitantly. “I didn’t.”

He paused for a minute. I could see him thinking maybe he shouldn’t say it, but he couldn’t resist. “If bullshit was currency,” he said straight-faced, “Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” Everyone in the room burst out laughing.

Bush seemed to feel considerable unease with the choice of McCain as well. I think he liked Romney best. (The rumor was that so did Karl Rove.) My guess was the president hadn’t so easily forgotten the endless slights he’d suffered, but there was little he could do. To him, McCain’s defeat would be a repudiation of the Bush administration, so McCain had to win. The president, who had quite a good political mind, was clearly not impressed with the McCain operation. I was once in the Oval Office when the president was told a campaign event in Phoenix he was to attend with McCain suddenly had to be closed to the press. The president didn’t understand why when the whole purpose of holding the event had been to show Bush and McCain together so the press would stop asking why the two wouldn’t be seen together. If the event was closed to the press, the whole thing didn’t make sense.

“If he doesn’t want me to go, fine,” the president said. “I’ve got better things to do.”

Eventually, someone informed the president that the reason the event was closed was that McCain was having trouble getting a crowd. Bush was incredulous—and to the point. “He can’t get 500 people to show up for an event in his hometown?” he asked. No one said anything, and we went on to another topic. But the president couldn’t let the matter drop. “He couldn’t get 500 people? I could get that many people to turn out in Crawford.” He shook his head. “This is a five-spiral crash, boys.”

We tried to move on to something else. But the president wouldn’t let go. He was stuck on the Phoenix event. At one point, he looked off into space and said to no one in particular, “What is this—a cruel hoax?”

Chris and I were tickled by that comment. For weeks, we would look for ways to use it. “They are out of Diet Pepsis at the mess. What is this, a cruel hoax?” I went to dinner with a friend. “They don’t have cheeseburgers?” I said, looking at the menu. “What is this, a cruel hoax?”

*****

IF MY COLLEAGUES at the White House were even momentarily scared straight about McCain over the convention fracas, the clarity wore off just as quickly as it came when the very conservative governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, was picked as McCain’s running mate. I didn’t have anything against Governor Palin from what I knew about her, which was next to nothing. The instantaneous reaction to Palin at the White House, however, was almost frenzied. I think what was really going on was that everyone secretly hated themselves for supporting McCain, so they latched onto Palin with over-the-top enthusiasm. Even the normally levelheaded Raul Yanes, the president’s staff secretary, was overtaken by Palin mania. He’d been slightly annoyed with me for not jumping on the McCain bandwagon and for saying aloud that I thought McCain would lose. Now, of course, I had to be enthusiastic about the ticket. “You still think we’re going to lose?” he asked me laughingly.

“Yep,” I replied.

Raul looked incredulous. “Well, you obviously don’t believe in facts!”

I was about to be engulfed by a tidal wave of Palin euphoria when someone—someone I didn’t expect—planted my feet back on the ground. After Palin’s selection was announced, the same people who demanded I acknowledge the brilliance of McCain’s choice expected the president to join them in their high-fiving tizzy. It was clear, though, that the president, ever the skilled politician, had concerns about the choice of Palin, which he called “interesting.” That was the equivalent of calling a fireworks display “satisfactory.”

“I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”

Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.” It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

Toward the end of October, I’d started working with Chris on drafts of the president’s speech for the morning after the election. We’d written a version if the victor was Obama and another if the victor was McCain. But I think only the Obama one ever went for vetting.

As events turned more surreal and staff members played the spin game with each other, I asked myself daily, What more can go wrong? The answer, of course, would be practically everything.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Hank Paulson is GS, Ben Bernanke is GS, Timothy Geithner is GS, etc etc etc etc

Goldman Sachs is everywhere in Washington and ofc Wall Street. And Wall Street runs the economy of the United States.

The problem for Wall Street is that they are running out of markets to loot. They sucked the US middle class dry. South America knows their games only too well. Putin put a stop to the looting of Russia. China is closed. Africa is still being looted ofc but that is mostly commodities. Wall Street knows that they can only play the phony computerized trading games for so long because the money they create that way is not real.

JP Morgan runs Iraq's banking sector now, and they had Libya's "rebels" sign off on Libya's billions in exchange for help in overthrowing Gaddafi (deals the "rebels" had no legiticimatys signing ofc). So the ME and northern Africa has potential. But now the real target is Europe and the savings there (read Germany).

America truly are the locust aliens from Independence Day and Will Smith (ironically or not) is the terrorist hero that managed to take the evil empire out.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
1) It's likely he didn't actually mean just GS, he meant GS and all the other private banks that have similarly massive pull.

2) Nothing he said was particularly jaw-dropping, as profiting from a downturn isn't exactly all that uncommon.

3) This is the biggest non-news story on P&N in quite some time and that's saying a lot for a board like this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Hank Paulson is GS, Ben Bernanke is GS, Timothy Geithner is GS, etc etc etc etc

Goldman Sachs is everywhere in Washington and ofc Wall Street. And Wall Street runs the economy of the United States.

The problem for Wall Street is that they are running out of markets to loot. They sucked the US middle class dry. South America knows their games only too well. Putin put a stop to the looting of Russia. China is closed. Africa is still being looted ofc but that is mostly commodities. Wall Street knows that they can only play the phony computerized trading games for so long because the money they create that way is not real.

JP Morgan runs Iraq's banking sector now, and they had Libya's "rebels" sign off on Libya's billions in exchange for help in overthrowing Gaddafi (deals the "rebels" had no legiticimatys signing ofc). So the ME and northern Africa has potential. But now the real target is Europe and the savings there (read Germany).

America truly are the locust aliens from Independence Day and Will Smith (ironically or not) is the terrorist hero that managed to take the evil empire out.

Well said. There's the middle east, but that's long exploited, with the 'House of Saud' corrupt regime in partnership, with policies as described in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" returning billions to American companies. When people get a little informed, it's amazing to see much mmuch the US was arranging for US corporations to go after these nations' money, from South America to Indonesia to the middle east.

Chile's president was overthrown after a coalition of US companies affected by liberal policies selected Pepsi - Nixon's employer between presidential runs - to ask him.

Books like "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam", show an even longer history of the US, and England before it, doing this in the Midde East.

'Lawrence of Arabia' was infuriated at being used to 'divide and conquer', to see the people he led to victory get only borken promises while England seized power for gain.

The overthrow of democracy in Iran was for nothing more than to continue to extract wealth there, when the government ended an unfair oil arrangement with England.

The very term 'gunboat diplomacy' was originated by the US around 1850 when the US sent gunboats into Tokyo Harbor, where Japan had cut off contact with the world, to tell them they would open their country for trade for the US to profit, or they'd be killed to force them to do so.

(Following is a Publisher's Weekly 'starred review' of the Devil's Game book - which shows the development by the west for over a century of 'radical iIslam' to destabilize the governments and countries they wanted to conquer. It'd be a bit like a foreign power conquering the US by funding and supporting the Tea Party type rebellion to become a force powerful enough to bring about civil war, and then going after the weakened nation.):

One of the CIA's first great moments of institutional reflection occurred in 1953, after American covert operatives helped overthrow Iran's left-leaning government and restored the Shah to power. The agency, then only six years old, had funded ayatollahs, mobilized the religious right and engineered a sophisticated propaganda campaign to successfully further its aims, and it wanted to know how it could reapply such tradecraft elsewhere, so it commissioned an internal report. Half a century later, the most prescient line from that report is one of caution, not optimism. "Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers," the document warned. Since this first known use of the term "blowback," countless journalists and scholars have chronicled the greatest blowback of all: how the staggering quantities of aid that America provided to anti-Marxist Islamic extremists during the Cold War inadvertently positioned those very same extremists to become America's next great enemy. (Indeed, Iran's religious leaders were among the first to turn against the United States.) Dreyfuss's volume reaches farther and deeper into the subject than most. He convincingly situates America's attempt to build an Islamic bulwark against Soviet expansion into Britain's history of imperialism in the region. And where other authors restrict their focus to the Afghan mujahideen, Dreyfuss details a history of American support—sometimes conducted with startling blindness, sometimes, tacitly through proxies—for Islamic radicals in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Syria. At times, the assistance occurred openly through the American private sector, as Dreyfuss describes in a fascinating digression on Islamic banking. But ultimately, too few government officials were paying attention to the growth and dangers of political Islam. A CIA officer summarizes Dreyfuss's case when he says, "We saw it all in a short-term perspective"—the long-term consequences are what we're facing now.
 

SammyJr

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2008
1,708
0
0
who the hell is they? for $100 you can own a share and become "they". Get over this main st. vs wall st. bs already.

How much are you making on that $100/share? Is it enough to offset what you pay for commodities and all that so Goldman can make their billions?

Protip: Goldman Sachs does not exist in a vacuum.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |