Happy New year for Goldman fat cats!

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: douglas5 The Goldman Sachs pay and bonuses, which are for 2013, were handed out just in time to beat a cap introduced by the European Union

these loathsome creatures. how much is enough? how many cars? how many houses? how many millions?

this while billions are starving and/or freezing to death, or dying of eminently curable diseases, in abject poverty. people to whom the 'breadline' is a far-off, rose-tinted dream. people with nothing. and those with less.

i despair of the gap between the 'have - nothings' and the 'want everythings'. what a world.

In 2012, Goldman gave $241.3 million to charity, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, making it the fourth-largest corporate giver in America.

How much did you give? How many people did you help?

www.goldmansachs.com...

a reply to: Jamie1

a meaningless and cheap comparison. how much of their bonuses did each exec give to charity? as a percentage of their total financial assets, any charitable donations GS make are nothing more than cheap PR. but i guess you don't see it that way?

originally posted by: Jamie1

hahaha you think taking criminals off the streets lessens freedom? Well yeah, the dumbasses who commit crimes lose their freedom. That's a good thing.

But why is the US Prison rate so high if its so free?

Surely If say the USA was more free than New Zealand then it would have a lower prison pop?

More people in prison in the USA indicates more laws to break and far harsher sentencing.....the opposite of freedom

originally posted by: Jamie1
And land mass doesn't explain why 30 million more immigrants have landed in the U.S.

Sorry but you need to take basic Geography 101 and learn push/pull factors.

There are MANY factors that effect immigration.

1) Geographic position
US borders a 3rd world country
UK does not
New Zealand does not.

2) Ease of entry Legally
USA hand out far more Work Visa's and Green cards plus has many university's so more places to have student visa slots.

UK being smaller hands out less Visa (Plus our system is a bit more complex

New Zealand well getting a Visa is like gold legal immigration is much much harder than both above

3) Ease of entry illegally
USA shares a large porous land border with a 3rd world country, has many ports off access.

UK has fewer ports of access, is surounded via sea with no land border, thousands of miles from 3rd world,, A dozen developed 1st country stand between it and nearest 3rd world country there more immigrants will be absorbed into them.

New Zealand see the UK for similar issues.

4) Freedom. Yes the USA is still in the top 10 if not number one, so will create a pull factor, so are UK and New Zealand being number one will have a heavy pull factor in fact New Zealand is tempting me right now.

5) Border control.

USA has pretty lax border patrol. Once you get in illegals normally stay unless they break the law.

UK due to smaller border has more strict border control, Illegals get sent home more easily, illegals also have to pass through many other countrys with even stricter border control before they get to the UK border.

New Zealand is pretty tough on illegal immigration like its sister Australia.

6) Propaganda and dominate culture.
USA is still number military and culture wise so it creates a pull as people sitting in the 3rd world will believe the hype.

Many many many factors.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Russia and China have much larger land masses.

They are also oppressive # holes.

USA ma not be number 1 but its still better than most other country's.

Remember MULTIPLE FACTORS

originally posted by: Jamie1
Maybe.... and I admit this is just conjecture,

yes it is as you have no grasp on migration push/pull factors.

]

In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

We should not have charity in the first place. There is plenty for all on this planet. Also, it often is with profit in mind that corporations give to charity: to influence legislators and other opinion makers, get the proper POTUS in the saddle, fool the public into thinking they are doing business to support society - there are exceptions, but most are there to make profit for shareholders, read: earn money to pay thieves. Or simply because they would not be able to get sufficient staff to work for them if they did not do the least possible to improve the quality of life in the geographic locales in which they operate. In some cases giving to charity offers just enough reduction in taxation that they fall into another class of taxation - in effect it makes them money.

Please note that I'm fully aware that there are many, many people that really think they're doing good by giving to charity. I don't doubt their intentions, but they are really fooling themselves. If the caused they give to are good, we should all support them by allowing the Government to tax us and give that money to the "charity".

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Jamie1

hahaha you think taking criminals off the streets lessens freedom? Well yeah, the dumbasses who commit crimes lose their freedom. That's a good thing.

But why is the US Prison rate so high if its so free?

Surely If say the USA was more free than New Zealand then it would have a lower prison pop?

More people in prison in the USA indicates more laws to break and far harsher sentencing.....the opposite of freedom

originally posted by: Jamie1
And land mass doesn't explain why 30 million more immigrants have landed in the U.S.

Sorry but you need to take basic Geography 101 and learn push/pull factors.

There are MANY factors that effect immigration.

1) Geographic position
US borders a 3rd world country
UK does not
New Zealand does not.

2) Ease of entry Legally
USA hand out far more Work Visa's and Green cards plus has many university's so more places to have student visa slots.

UK being smaller hands out less Visa (Plus our system is a bit more complex

New Zealand well getting a Visa is like gold legal immigration is much much harder than both above

3) Ease of entry illegally
USA shares a large porous land border with a 3rd world country, has many ports off access.

UK has fewer ports of access, is surounded via sea with no land border, thousands of miles from 3rd world,, A dozen developed 1st country stand between it and nearest 3rd world country there more immigrants will be absorbed into them.

New Zealand see the UK for similar issues.

4) Freedom. Yes the USA is still in the top 10 if not number one, so will create a pull factor, so are UK and New Zealand being number one will have a heavy pull factor in fact New Zealand is tempting me right now.

5) Border control.

USA has pretty lax border patrol. Once you get in illegals normally stay unless they break the law.

UK due to smaller border has more strict border control, Illegals get sent home more easily, illegals also have to pass through many other countrys with even stricter border control before they get to the UK border.

New Zealand is pretty tough on illegal immigration like its sister Australia.

6) Propaganda and dominate culture.
USA is still number military and culture wise so it creates a pull as people sitting in the 3rd world will believe the hype.

Many many many factors.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Russia and China have much larger land masses.

They are also oppressive # holes.

USA ma not be number 1 but its still better than most other country's.

Remember MULTIPLE FACTORS

originally posted by: Jamie1
Maybe.... and I admit this is just conjecture,

yes it is as you have no grasp on migration push/pull factors.

]

Mexico is still third world?

Canada certainly is not third world and yet those same immigrants are now finding their way into Canada. Which, Canada by the way, is still a Commonwealth like New Zealand. And as I recall, New Zealand is pretty close to Malaysia and Indonesia.

But since you reference geography, remind us again, what is the population of New Zealand compared to the United States? Oh yes, that little country is as big as what state?

280,000,000 documented people in the US with several million more undocumented. Those undocumented are finding their way to Canada and then to the rest of the world via the commonwealths.

Yes, we have a high prison population, however the conditions are better than in a lot of other countries, we have people here trying to get into prison just to get their three hots and a cot, with free medical care and college classes.

New Zealand might be tough on immigration, but it isn't big enough to have the luxury of not being tough.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
a reply to: Jamie1

a meaningless and cheap comparison. how much of their bonuses did each exec give to charity? as a percentage of their total financial assets, any charitable donations GS make are nothing more than cheap PR. but i guess you don't see it that way?

It's a very meaningful comparison.

You KNOW what you gave to other people to help them. How much was it? What percentage?

You had no idea that the Goldman Sachs corporation gives over $200 million annually to charity, and yet you ridicule them. You have no idea what percent of their income goes to charity, and yet you ridicule them.

Is it more than yours? Less than what you give?

Goldman Sachs gave more to charity than all but 3 corporations in America, and you ridicule them. Feels good though, right? Much easier to feel good by ridiculing somebody else than to actually DO what you judge others for not doing.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think you missed the entire point and comprehension of my post................................

I was refuting that Immigration can be used a sole measure of freedom when dozens of different factors are a issue.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

Yes, but what's the alternative?

The QE is keeping interest rates artificially low to stimulate the economy and stock prices. If the QE stops, interest rates shoot straight up. The bond market collapses along with the stock market. Commercial and retail loans grind to a halt. Nobody buys new houses or cars, and people start getting laid off.

None of this is caused by the banks. They're needed participants for the entire economic system to function.

a reply to: Jamie1

Sorry I don't debate with sock puppets. You were rumbled in your last thread

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

None of this is caused by the banks. They're needed participants for the entire economic system to function.

This has to be the delusional statement of the year, although I get the feeling delusion is not at its root.

"The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause: the
banking system... a system which if it could do good in any form is yet
so certain of leading to abuse as to be utterly incompatible with the
public safety and prosperity."
- Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is
very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the
top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate.” Meaning the IMF/ FED did us in this time.
- James Garfield, 20th President Of U.S. Assassinated 1881

a reply to: Jamie1

You get the benefit of using it by BUYING it. You pay for it. I have never worked a job where I failed to do my job right and got a large bonus for it. My bonus was based on my job performance. Goldman Sachs apparently has a bunch of losers on it that are milking the investors.

Yeah Jacobe001, What a Travesty that would be, prices deflating (things costing less). You're Right, that's all the system they have set up is about (The Skim) Usury backed up by Force. Once you understand that everything else makes sense. Peace Arjunanda a reply to: jacobe001

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Jamie1

Sorry I don't debate with sock puppets. You were rumbled in your last thread

WTF is a sock puppet? Somebody smarter than you who doesn't share your views?

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

Yes, but what's the alternative?

The QE is keeping interest rates artificially low to stimulate the economy and stock prices. If the QE stops, interest rates shoot straight up. The bond market collapses along with the stock market. Commercial and retail loans grind to a halt. Nobody buys new houses or cars, and people start getting laid off.

None of this is caused by the banks. They're needed participants for the entire economic system to function.

QE is welfare for the banks/wealthy, nothing more. Why not give the QE money to the poor and let them spend it, save it, invest it?

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

None of this is caused by the banks. They're needed participants for the entire economic system to function.

This has to be the delusional statement of the year, although I get the feeling delusion is not at its root.

"The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause: the
banking system... a system which if it could do good in any form is yet
so certain of leading to abuse as to be utterly incompatible with the
public safety and prosperity."
- Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is
very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the
top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and
depression originate.” Meaning the IMF/ FED did us in this time.
- James Garfield, 20th President Of U.S. Assassinated 1881

The banking SYSTEM is what the individual banks are part of. For the system to function, yes, banks are needed.

Do you have a suggestion for a better system than what's evolved? If all the banks were taken over or eliminated, then what? Should we go back to tribal villages with bartering and use smoke signals instead of iPhones and the internet?

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Jamie1

You get the benefit of using it by BUYING it. You pay for it. I have never worked a job where I failed to do my job right and got a large bonus for it. My bonus was based on my job performance. Goldman Sachs apparently has a bunch of losers on it that are milking the investors.

Warren Buffet is one of Goldman Sachs largest investors. He's a smart guy. The stock price has doubled in three years. The stock price has gone up about 25% in the last year.

I'm sure the investors are happy with a 100% return in three years and probably don't need you looking out for them, or protecting them from the "losers" who you think are milking them.

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Jamie1

Or maybe a charity foundation in their name for some positive PR but that will never happen

How about athletes, celebrities etc? These people might be the rock stars of the banking world. They would not get bonuses without profits. Hell LeBron still gets paid 200k per game whether he scores 30 or 2 or even just sits the game out. A Movie actor still makes their money even if the move flops, in this case, these people actually need to perform.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the UK alone, the government is pumping billions of pounds into the economy in the form of quantitive Easing or QE, most of which is going to banks. One of the biggest transfers of wealth in human history. It is leaving the British tax payer with a bill of £24,000 per family. Sounds like the tax payers are the philanthropists not the banks, but some are easily blinded by a ruling class that not only owns the banks, but the media too. Some people can't help lapping it up though. Saps

Yes, but what's the alternative?

The QE is keeping interest rates artificially low to stimulate the economy and stock prices. If the QE stops, interest rates shoot straight up. The bond market collapses along with the stock market. Commercial and retail loans grind to a halt. Nobody buys new houses or cars, and people start getting laid off.

None of this is caused by the banks. They're needed participants for the entire economic system to function.

QE is welfare for the banks/wealthy, nothing more. Why not give the QE money to the poor and let them spend it, save it, invest it?

That's exactly where the money goes. The 18 primary broker/dealers put the QE money to use into the real world where people use it, invest it, and spend it.

Watch this video.



This diagram will help.