Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?
- This topic has 680 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 21, 2010 at 2:23 AM #542341April 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM #541418
scaredyclassic
Participantdude may be gender neutral but i think sometimes it i said slightly more delicately to refer to a female, perhaps a little flatter and broader for a dude? not sure…
April 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM #541529scaredyclassic
Participantdude may be gender neutral but i think sometimes it i said slightly more delicately to refer to a female, perhaps a little flatter and broader for a dude? not sure…
April 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM #541985scaredyclassic
Participantdude may be gender neutral but i think sometimes it i said slightly more delicately to refer to a female, perhaps a little flatter and broader for a dude? not sure…
April 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM #542073scaredyclassic
Participantdude may be gender neutral but i think sometimes it i said slightly more delicately to refer to a female, perhaps a little flatter and broader for a dude? not sure…
April 21, 2010 at 6:11 AM #542346scaredyclassic
Participantdude may be gender neutral but i think sometimes it i said slightly more delicately to refer to a female, perhaps a little flatter and broader for a dude? not sure…
April 21, 2010 at 6:32 AM #541424Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.
[/quote]Wrong! Government Sachs clearly benefited from information from the government which wasn’t available to non-insiders:
April 21, 2010 at 6:32 AM #541538Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.
[/quote]Wrong! Government Sachs clearly benefited from information from the government which wasn’t available to non-insiders:
April 21, 2010 at 6:32 AM #541992Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.
[/quote]Wrong! Government Sachs clearly benefited from information from the government which wasn’t available to non-insiders:
April 21, 2010 at 6:32 AM #542080Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.
[/quote]Wrong! Government Sachs clearly benefited from information from the government which wasn’t available to non-insiders:
April 21, 2010 at 6:32 AM #542352Anonymous
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To argue that they were the recipient of a “bailout” or some back-room largesse on the part of the Fed is simply unsupported by the facts.
[/quote]Wrong! Government Sachs clearly benefited from information from the government which wasn’t available to non-insiders:
April 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM #541429scaredyclassic
Participanti don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.
April 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM #541542scaredyclassic
Participanti don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.
April 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM #541997scaredyclassic
Participanti don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.
April 21, 2010 at 6:46 AM #542085scaredyclassic
Participanti don’t care or understand what we’re talking about. But it seems unlikely any of us really knows really what’s going on big picture.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
