Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Wombat
^ Yup. Have to agree with the rebuttal. This sentence pretty much sums it up:
|
Maybe. The rebuttal does little to clear the air, though. If she is claiming that Goldman did bad things, but other banks are worse, how does that refute the original article?
We are dealing with 2 sets of rules here - ethics and finance. Any bank that insures itself against a known, constructed, failure with my tax dollars pisses me off. That should be considered fraud. It isn't, of course, cuz banks give big bucks to politicians.
Goldman (and other banks) created money with bad loans that WE are now expected to bail out. That makes loads of financial sense, but is ethically black-hearted and ruinous.
The rebuttal author may understand the world of insider finance which is allowed to make profits out of misery, calamity and political strife. That's the Milton Friedman way! In fact, creating calamity is good financial policy.
But demanding and stealing my money to mitigate their risk? Is that supposed to be Capitalism? Wasn't this the big criticism of Communism for so many decades - that it supported corrupt old inefficient industries so the State wouldn't collapse?
This rebuttal stands on the same old economic pedestal. "Don't worry, you couldn't possibly understand it all. We understand it. You don't. Now move along." What's the ivory tower here?
Well, I do understand greed. I do understand making profits off misery. I do understand a Ponzi scheme dressed in fancy finance terms. We all lost, as the lowest level on the pyramid.
Fortunately for them, the banks are operating in the USA which has the collective attention span of a gnat. As long as they have cable at the weekly stay motels, everyone is happy.