It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can someone educate me on Goldman Sachs?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Soo.. I see this name everywhere but all I know is that it's an investment banking company... A quick Google search will show its one of the most hated companies in America, and you can pretty much add any political candidates name and connections will be found..


What is going on? Why is every single candidate in allegiance to this company in one way or another? Even the new gop Mormon Cia guy is/was an employee of this corporation. Trump has picked out a prestigious position for someone from this Corp, Ted Cruz was funded by them, right? Hillary and her very very sketchy speeches apparently worth more than gold.

What am I missing? This company isn't talked about as much on ats as many other topics but it seems if anyone is running the show, or closer to the elite power structure we imagine.. It's them.

But, I want to know what others think since my point of view is fairly new and not very fleshed out, not something I have had a chance to study a ton..


It's a criminal enterprise that manipulates a casino under the colour of law, to the benefit of their friends and themselves. Their friend base however is shrinking rapidly

Cheers - Dave




posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

" Can someone educate me on Goldman Sachs? "


Yes , they are the Spawn of the Devil , Nuff Said .



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Vector99


But you go ahead and heed his financial advice.


Just tells what really happens in layman terms so the average simpleton can understand.

His antics are on par with Alex Jones though. I've already said he is well informed on global financial issues, he's just not very knowledgeable on them.

I've literally made up and played a drinking game based on his show Keiser report in the past when he was overly obsessed with bitcoin. Drink every time he says bitcoin in the show. We never finished an episode sober, all the while my drinking buddies were looking at me like who the F is this Max Keiser guy?!?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Goldman Sachs always comes out ahead.

Just watch.

No one can deny that.
edit on 12-8-2016 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Since I am a legally retarded person in math, I have always wondered if the money HAD been delivered to the masses instead of banks, what would have happened?



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

Since I am a legally retarded person in math, I have always wondered if the money HAD been delivered to the masses instead of banks, what would have happened?

It would have devalued the trust factor in paper money.

Sorry for not expanding further, was tabbing through things. Basically the housing/banking bailout would have given every single person in the USA, children included, $100k cash each.
edit on 12-8-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Trust?
How so?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

If you give every man woman and child enough money to buy basically whatever they want, how valuable is that money?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Won't their spending have a beneficial effect?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well yes and no. Giving the money to each and every person like I said would have given every single American $100,000. It also would have made major industries temporarily collapse. Industries that basically control the modern world via necessity. Without a doubt these industries would have eventually rebounded, but the initial "shock and awe" of the possibility of millions of people suddenly becoming jobless with absolutely no where to turn for employment is what deemed these companies "too big to fail".

The industry and job collapse part would come from these companies having no money to pay people. No one is going to go to work for no paycheck, and the companies involved employed literally millions of people. Millions of people stop going to work and infrastructure suddenly starts failing, and quite rapidly. So yes, these corporations did infact hold the US hostage for bailouts.

What's the scary part is nothing has been done since then to resolve the problem at hand. It just received a bandaid. Sooner or later bandaids stop working.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Naw man, it already happened when Paul Volcker insisted that the interest rates go up to almost 20%! The world moved on. The bailouts are what allows things like Libya, and Syria and Yemen (oh my) to continue unabated. Sachs, IMF, HSBC, "other" central banks as well are acquiring all of these public assets in these ruined states. The institutions will stand for centuries to see the ROI on their investments in the acquisitions of these lands and its resources, so they care not about the turmoil it will cause.

If we actually want to stop sending our Armed forces and Intelligence assets into the world to plunder and destabilize millions, we have to allow, possibly even legislate, the collapse of these institutions. The mere threat of it causes them to adjust policy decisions through their servant in our government.

Raise the rates, arrest board members, allow the system to repair itself. The brain cannot tell the body to heal if it is unaware of the illness.

Any large institution that needs bailing out is the illness. The healing process is to watch it implode and arrest the Board members/CEO/Chair on board . Make em all stew in isolation in a super max.
edit on 8/13/2016 by AmericanRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

It's not as simple as it was is the 70's and 80's. A TRUE collapse that you speak of would not only end the federal reserve (definitely a good thing) but would disrupt global markets for years to come. Of course they would all return eventually, but the initial shock of a true global crash is really a scary thought. People are too invested in the idea of "money".

The sick bastards these corporations are have ensured that them folding will without a doubt cause turmoil and chaos. It really is something that makes me sick to my stomach to be honest. There is absolutely no reason or rhyme why anyone and/or entity should possess so much power.

Business nowadays has been simplified for the mundane sheep to adapt to nicely and easily. This is by design, get everyone used to something and it becomes the norm. It really NOT the norm, and yea does need to receive a hit from the self-destruct button, but in today's world it's just not feasible without massive backlash.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form supporting the bailouts...but I do get why they happened. The real issue at hand is how to prevent future repeats, and that issue was not solved at all by the bailouts. If anything all it did was create less trust in fiat money. People saw what happened and saw the result, more money was printed and everything continued on. Eventually it's going to hit a really big freaking crash, one in which printing and handouts will not resolve the issue. Right now there is no good outlook on that inevitable future coming to pass, as there is no one in global politics interested in taking it head on. Probably because when they do they suddenly die like Hussein, Ghaddafi, and JFK all did.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: AmericanRealist
Eventually it's going to hit a really big freaking crash,


And thats just it right there, you know. We all know that continuing the same thing is going to lead to exactly that. Even doing the right thing is going to hurt. One hurts harder down the road, and one hurts less on the way. I feel its time to go the Volcker route and raise those rates at the very least.

Then we can allow financial institutes to fail if they screw up again. Is that an if or when??



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


His antics are on par with Alex Jones though. I've already said he is well informed on global financial issues, he's just not very knowledgeable on them.

He was a broker on the NY stock exchange, the pinnacle of financial corruption. He speaks from an experienced insiders perspective.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

Since I am a legally retarded person in math, I have always wondered if the money HAD been delivered to the masses instead of banks, what would have happened?

If they had just let the banks and corporations fail there would have been no need to saddle the american people with the debt of the bailout.

If the banks had turned around and began loaning that bailout money to Americans they would have generated the boost to the economy, making life better for everyone. Instead the banks kept it. Now Americans are saddled with even more debt interest, resulting in higher taxes, deflation, shrinkflation and pay higher prices for goods and services.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well, let's play that thought out...

On paper, the bailout gave 'we the people' ( oka the federal government) an ownership stake in the company, but granting the company exclusive right to buy back the portion of the company from the government when things improved. And, at least in theory, while the government held significant ownership, there was the implied threat that, if things didn't improve, the government could use its ownership stake to force the company to restructure or liquidate which would mean no golden parachute for the guys at the top.

So let's say instead that the bailout actually gave individuals who owed debt to these companies, say, up to $100,000 per person to pay off that much of their debt, but also gave the government an ownership stake in each person's household. Same rules apply... once things improve, the individuals would be expected to repay the government. Or there would be the implied threat that the government could force you to restructure or liquidate. So, lets say 50% of households use that bailout to pay off their mortgage and credit cards held by these big banks, and are able to, over the next 10 years, buy back their asses, um, assets, from the feds. The other 50% also use that bailout to pay off their mortgage and credit cards but, fall on hard times... get sick, lose jobs, etc. Can't buy back their asses, um, assets from the fed.

Imho, option 2 would have been a bigger burden on the taxpayer in the long run, as the chances of getting millions of individuals to buy back their ownership stake in their household would be far, far harder than getting a corporation to do that. So mass bankruptcies in every local community around the country. The fed then owns a piece of all these assets that aren't worth anything because so few people have cash on hand or ability to go into new debt. I don't see that benefitting the taxpayer at all, and I DEFINITELY don't want the feds to have ownership interest in my household.

However... there is, imho, a middle way. Had the government stepped in and said "we'll print money and directly pay off $100,000 per person, no strings attached". The banks mark the debts as 'paid'. That's actually a hit for them, as a note they hold is treated like a promise that they'll get money in future... an asset. They take a large reduction in assets. But, to counterbalance that, households now have clean(er) balance sheets and can, theoretically, go on spending or can save more money for the future.

What are your thoughts on that approach?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt

Irrelevant,my brain struggles with these ideas.
The information helps, but there are too many variables for me to decide, so I asked.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt

Well I can totally agree to this



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CantStandIt




However... there is, imho, a middle way. Had the government stepped in and said "we'll print money and directly pay off $100,000 per person, no strings attached".

It doesn't work that way. Every time the Fed fires up the presses to print away debt, trust in the dollar diminishes.

This is what happens if you go that route



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DAVID64

Okay, geeze. They are appointed to way too many government positions, use their "freedom of speech" to bribe way too many politicians, and just.. Ugh. I've seen Monsanto can be linked in similar ways.. Any other companies I'm missing?


Berkshire Hathaway




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join