Share

"Government Sachs" Strikes Gold ... Again

by: Robert Scheer  |  Truthdig

photo
Former Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. (Photo: Reuters)

    Connect the dots: Goldman Sachs made $3.44 billion in profit this past quarter, while the U.S deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history and appeared to be headed toward doubling that figure before the budget year is out. Since most of the increase in the federal deficit is due to bailing out the banks and salvaging the greater economy they helped destroy, why is the top investment bank doing so well?

    Well, because that was the plan, as devised by Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Remember that Lehman Brothers, Goldman's competitor, was allowed to go bankrupt. The Paulson crowd wouldn't let Lehman change its status to that of a bank holding company and thus qualify for federal funds; soon afterward, Goldman was granted just such a deal, worth a quick $10 billion. Much is now made of Goldman paying back part of its bailout money, but forgotten is the $12.9 billion that Goldman got as its cut of the $180 billion AIG payoff. That is money that will not be paid back.

    Goldman is considered a very smart bank because it was early in reducing its exposure to the mortgage derivatives that in large part caused the meltdown. However, it had done much to expand the market and continued to sell suspect derivatives to unwary buyers as sound investments, even as Goldman divested. The firm still holds $1.85 billion in real estate and lost $499 million in the previous quarter on bad loans, but made up for it by playing the vulture role and issuing high-interest debt to governments and companies made desperate by the recession that the financial gimmicks of the banks brought on in the first place.

    And Goldman was not just another bank. Before Paulson ran the Treasury Department, another former Goldman head, Robert Rubin, pushed through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall controls on banking activity. While some now play down the significance of this radical deregulation, not so Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein-at least not back in June 2007, when the markets were still doing well. "If you take an historical perspective," Blankfein told The New York Times by way of explaining his company's spectacular success at the time, "we've come full circle, because that is exactly what the Rothschilds or J.P. Morgan the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was the Glass-Steagall Act."

    That 1933 act was repealed in a law signed by President Bill Clinton at Rubin's urging, and in the following eight years Goldman Sachs recorded a 265 percent growth in its balance sheet. "Back then," The Wall Street Journal reports, "Goldman was churning out profits by trading credit derivatives, speculating on currencies and oil and placing big bets [on] the roaring stock market."

    Big bets made in a casino designed by Goldman, which now makes money off loans to the victims. High on the list of victims are state governments that have to turn to Goldman for money because the federal government that saved the banks won't do the same for the states, which have watched their tax bases shrink because of the banking meltdown. As the WSJ noted, "issuing debt to ailing governments" is now a growth industry for Goldman.

    Why didn't the federal government just lend the money to the states? Why was all the money thrown at Wall Street instead of needy homeowners or struggling school systems? Because the federal government works for Goldman and not for us. Indeed, when it comes to the banking bailout, Goldman Sachs is the government.

    So much so that last fall The New York Times ran a story, headlined "The Guys From `Government Sachs,'" that stated: "Goldman's presence in the [Treasury] department and around the federal response to the financial bailout is so ubiquitous that other bankers and competitors have given the star-studded firm a new nickname: Government Sachs."

    One of those stars was Stephen Friedman, another former head of Goldman. Friedman was both a director of the company and chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank when he helped work out the details of the Wall Street bailout. The president of the N.Y. Fed at the time, Timothy Geithner, now secretary of the treasury, requested a conflict-of-interest waiver that allowed Friedman to buy more Goldman Sachs stock, and Friedman ended up with 98,600 shares. At market close on Tuesday that was worth $14,756,476. That's nothing - three years ago, the 50 top Goldman execs made $20 million each, and this year could be better.

    They're not hurting.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Two other interesting

Two other interesting headlines of note: "JPMorgan 2Q profit jumps 36 pct, topping forecasts" (AP), "Foreclosures at Record High in First Half 2009" (Reuters) - COULD IT BE WE BAILED OUT THE WRONG PEOPLE? Naw! At least we helped out the people who truly needed it.

Government of the people,

Government of the people, for the people, by the people? Nope, industry controls the USG, and that will never change.

Please don't say that

Please don't say that INDUSTRY controls the government, we are controlled by NY bankers. They own Congress. Remember that the hated Bush sent his stimulus money to the taxpayers, and O'Bama sent his to the Bankers, where it must be borrowed to be used. Only five banks caused the crisis, all big time gamblers, who have publicly announced that they have no intention of changing their ways; and why shou,d they; they own the lawmakers. CIT is the largest lender to small businesses who actually create jobs and the O'Bama crowd is letting them go bankrupt.

The big banks, the oil and

The big banks, the oil and energy companies are all flush with money while the recession pummels small businesses, the middle class and the poor. And still the money flows to the top. Americans have hurt themselves with the notion of pull up your bootstraps capitalism while allowing egregious giveaways to the fattest cats in the world. We gave and are giving trillions to them, but the right wing says spending 1 trillion on health care over ten years is irresponsible. Where's the logic?

"I care not whom makes the

"I care not whom makes the laws, as long as I control the supply of the money system", or something to that effect. Guess who! Your right, a Rothschild. Does anyone here now get it? But guess what, IT IS TOO LATE. Has been for decades. Wonder how many are clearing the sand from their heads? Hiding in plain sight is what has happened. Denial and "that is conspiracy talk" is the reason most brain dead are in the shape they are in. Our education system does suck. Their education sytem has done them well.

Ah, radline9, "our" gov't

Ah, radline9, "our" gov't doesn't care about us. They haven't for a long time. But most people were too busy with TV and trying to make ends meet. Many now don't realize the crime that has happened to them. Unless we ALL stop this money nonsense, nothing will change. After all, money is a man-made concept to control his fellow man.

If I were in charge, I would

If I were in charge, I would say the taxpayers get a bonus before the CEOs do, or at least along with them. And I mean the taxpayers—NOT the treasury. As these companies profit from the bailout, the bonuses should be split, evenly among the taxpayers and then the company top brass. If it weren't for the bailout (taxpayers), the top brass wouldn't be getting any bonus.

Dear "Midwest Tom" - How did

Dear "Midwest Tom" - How did President Obama bail out the banks while bush was in office? Why is it that, in order to even things out, the President must share equal blame for the past 8 years that created this problem? I know, I know. It's really President Clinton's fault isn't it? Afterall, he signed the deregulation bill that was written by phil graham (R) and crammed down his throat back when the conservative media had everyone convinced government regulation was the problem. This is why I grow tired of Democrats who are willing to sell out their constituents to appear bipartisan, for fear of angering the right. This is the reward for their behavior: taking FULL blame for republican ideas that they were too timid or intimidated to defend the American people against. Also, I'd GLADLY give back the money bush jr. gave me if he would not have spent untold TRILLIONS of American tax dollars to establish a PERMANENT, PRIVATELY-PROFITABLE OIL COLONY in the Middle-East. I'd gladly give back the few hundred he gave my family to have the 12 trillion he gave to his buddies in the banks returned with interest. I AGREE that President Obama has been an incredibly weak and spineless leader who has refused to stand up to the trough of republican corporate interest. However, he does not deserve blame for creating the problems that happened between Jan. 2001 and Jan. 2009, any more than the Democratically led Congress deserves full blame for conservative misdeads committed between Jan. 1994 and Jan. 2006. It's time The President did his job, and undid some of that damage, but stop trying to pin him with the blame for crimes he didn't commit. Nobody's buying it.