Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: We have NO regulation at all? Please. That remark is completely and obviously false.
[/quote]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
We do NOT need incremental change: We need sweeping and comprehensive change.
[/quote]

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.

[Coronita]

[quote=Arraya]

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.[/quote]

The joke was, SEC get’s all the i-banking rejects who couldn’t cut it.

[Coronita]

[quote=Arraya]

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.[/quote]

The joke was, SEC get’s all the i-banking rejects who couldn’t cut it.

[Coronita]

[quote=Arraya]

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.[/quote]

The joke was, SEC get’s all the i-banking rejects who couldn’t cut it.

[Coronita]

[quote=Arraya]

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.[/quote]

The joke was, SEC get’s all the i-banking rejects who couldn’t cut it.

[Coronita]

[quote=Arraya]

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.[/quote]

The joke was, SEC get’s all the i-banking rejects who couldn’t cut it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]

Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.

As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.

Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.

Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]

Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.

As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.

Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.

Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]

Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.

As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.

Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.

Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]

Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.

As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.

Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.

Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?

I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.

Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]

Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.

As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.

Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.

Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.

[Aecetia]

Finally something Brian and I agree on: I would rather be rich than poor, too. Not Gates rich with security guards, comfortable rich, so I can pay vet bills, etc. If we need anything it is government health care for pets.

[Aecetia]

Finally something Brian and I agree on: I would rather be rich than poor, too. Not Gates rich with security guards, comfortable rich, so I can pay vet bills, etc. If we need anything it is government health care for pets.

[Aecetia]

Finally something Brian and I agree on: I would rather be rich than poor, too. Not Gates rich with security guards, comfortable rich, so I can pay vet bills, etc. If we need anything it is government health care for pets.

[Aecetia]

Finally something Brian and I agree on: I would rather be rich than poor, too. Not Gates rich with security guards, comfortable rich, so I can pay vet bills, etc. If we need anything it is government health care for pets.

[Author]

Posts