Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
onlyme2

The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes

Recommended Posts

An employee of the FED charged with overseeing GS gets so utterly fed up with being told to lie and hide the reality of the banking system and its internal conflicts of interst and the FED's explicit support of those activities decides to tape her oversight activities. The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-26/the-secret-goldman-sachs-tapes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bankers dont lie.

they are the paragons of sobriety and the best of the best suits.

They never mis-sold anything in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that I have said before that the right thing usually happens in the long run even though it doesn't seem that way in the shorter run.

Revelations like this will continue to leak out over time.

I have always held the view that regulators and legislators share part of the blame even though it wasn't that obvious to many. I know that some bankers and shadow-bankers share a big part of the blame which has been obvious since the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She interviewed for Goldman's in 2007, 2008 and 2009!

I am keen to hear what was in those tapes. The programme is being broadcast today, so perhaps it will be up tomorrow.

But not having a conflicts of interest policy on file is hardly the same thing as LIBOR rigging and you will not get fired for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She interviewed for Goldman's in 2007, 2008 and 2009!

I am keen to hear what was in those tapes. The programme is being broadcast today, so perhaps it will be up tomorrow.

But not having a conflicts of interest policy on file is hardly the same thing as LIBOR rigging and you will not get fired for it.

The programme is on the first link, a few minutes in. Just starting to listen now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She interviewed for Goldman's in 2007, 2008 and 2009!

....

People wrote to Jimmy Savile in the hope that he would fix it for them, and Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Lion walked the Yellow Brick Road in the hope that the Wizard of Oz could help them get what they wanted.

What is your point? That she can't be taken as a credible critic of GS because she wanted in and they weren't buying? But maybe it's not like that. Maybe she was just another lawyer working compliance and looking for the main chance, but it was apparent to the sharks on the interview panel that she lacked the moral flexibility that GS are looking for in their Compliance Department, so her applications come to nothing.

Then she gets hired by the Fed to supervise GS and she meets the monster and is prepared to recognise it for the thing that it is.

First, she gets rejected by GS because she doesn't look likely to become an effective crook. Next, she can't fit in with the Fed supervision culture that says it's OK to let the crooks be crooks because most Fed employees hope that one day GS might smile on them and let them through the revolving door so that they can get rich being a crook...

Hence the laudable reason why she gets rejected by GS (she doesn't look like a good prospect for a trainee crook) gets re-imagined as evidence that she's just a hysterical loser with an axe to grind.

What is the appropriate mythos? Red Riding Hood will past muster; you think it is your Grandma, but it ain't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People wrote to Jimmy Savile in the hope that he would fix it for them, and Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Lion walked the Yellow Brick Road in the hope that the Wizard of Oz could help them get what they wanted.

What is your point? That she can't be taken as a credible critic of GS because she wanted in and they weren't buying? But maybe it's not like that. Maybe she was just another lawyer working compliance and looking for the main chance, but it was apparent to the sharks on the interview panel that she lacked the moral flexibility that GS are looking for in their Compliance Department, so her applications come to nothing.

Then she gets hired by the Fed to supervise GS and she meets the monster and is prepared to recognise it for the thing that it is.

First, she gets rejected by GS because she doesn't look likely to become an effective crook. Next, she can't fit in with the Fed supervision culture that says it's OK to let the crooks be crooks because most Fed employees hope that one day GS might smile on them and let them through the revolving door so that they can get rich being a crook...

Hence the laudable reason why she gets rejected by GS (she doesn't look like a good prospect for a trainee crook) gets re-imagined as evidence that she's just a hysterical loser with an axe to grind.

What is the appropriate mythos? Red Riding Hood will past muster; you think it is your Grandma, but it ain't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since some office junior worked out madoffs fraud in his lunch hour, handed his report to the SEC, and they ignored it the next few years, id be shocked if it were any way else.

Im pretty sure I saw some TV news report years back saying it was the same here. The FSA would deliberately recruit morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulators controlled by the banks, you couldn't make it up. :ph34r:

Why is that surprising given that the Fed is a private institution owned by the usual group of 'too big to fail' banks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a quick listen to the podcast. The thing is, booms and busts will happen no matter what you do. I recommend watching MArgin Call, and look at the scene at the end with Jeremy Irons.The FED was created as a backstop so it could lend the economy money so the great depression could be avoided again - it appears that vision 100 years ago, has been right so far....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5gZrgGXOco

Edited by 200p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.