"Goldman Sachs rule the World"

Interesting snippet from BBC World News…

To quote this trader guy “I dream of a recession every night”

“The Governments dont rule the world, Goldman Sachs rule the world”…

discussed here

Worth keeping a separate thread just for pot-shots.

If Goldman Sachs ruled the world, would every day be the first day of winter?

It might explain the summer we’ve just had…

for the laugh)
if you google ’ Goldman Sachs rule the world’
google.co.uk/search?gcx=w&so … 41&bih=468

there’s a Google Ads which takes you to a lovely puff piece website with smiling old ethnic ladies - they’re know people are on to them :slight_smile:

Can’t get away from this video at the moment. Everyone from Declan Ganley on Twitter to a friend in the US and another in Romania is posting this clip.

Now FT Alphaville has got on board, albeit with a suitably sceptical note at the end.

I just can’t believe this guy is being feted as some kind of honest broker (pardon the pun) who has finally been allowed to speak the ‘truth’. His truth is no better than the status-quo-loving shills who usually populate the commentariat. He has an agenda too; something to sell (like seminars and probably too many 30-year T-bills)

I haven’t watched it, but as more comes out about his independent trading, Rodney springs to mind…


He may or may not be a ’ trader ’ but what is so upsetting for people ? Are traders supposed to be nice ? Reminds me of this .

I know somebody who works for a investment bank . After the shit had hit the fan about how they had made vast profits from the GFC and when their bonus was in doubt because this investment bank is a 'certain type of company ’ and the paying of bonuses would 'not look good ’ said in a very rare show of emotion and anger ( I have known this person over 30 years ) " Should we not have profited from the crisis . Should we be demonised just because we seen the crisis coming and set about making money from it ? "

There then followed a very long rant about the loss of the bonus , the media , the public , the perception of investment banks and the entire human race .

That was 2 years ago and considering how long I know this person I am still stunned by their naked greed and disregard for peoples suffering .

at a basic level UK tax law very much favours incorporation for independent traders - as long as you earn over a certain [fairly modest] amount…

Spread betting is tax free as long as it’s not your main source of income :angry:

Are there any similarities between this guys “dreams of recession”, and the money to be made by him as a result, and what would appear to be the average Pinster’s dreams of the four bed in SCD?

so when he says savings will be wiped out, what exactly is he talking about. I work with a lot of pensioners who would be destitute if their savings were wiped out?

When someone talks about savings being wiped out, remember there will be people around to get rich and exploit the mess. In effect, the people who get rich on people losing their savings.

Ask yourself whether these are the people whose opinion we should be valuing or whether their industry, perhaps, merits some serious regulation.

PtG - I personally never wanted people to make serious losses on their houses in SCD so that I could exploit their misfortune. I wanted to pay a fair price for my shelter. The people who wanted to get wealthy on their “investments” wanted to exploit me. I’d have been happier if the bubble never happened so that the crash couldn’t.

I think he is talking about a bigger picture. You’ll still have your 100(somethings) in the bank but they wont be worth as much.

And a situation evolved whereby it was easier to acquire a second or third home rather than a first home.

I dont doubt any of that.

Having said that, your motivations are of little relevance to those whose homes are repossessed and subsequently sold for cents in the Euro (Im thinking in terms of the Allsop auction for example).

Furthermore, neither am I stating that there is anything necessarily “wrong” with any of that. Im merely posing the question as to whether the actions of a guy whose own actions see him benefit from the misfortune of others is comparable with the actions of those who will benefit from lower house prices vis a vis those who will lose out as a result of same?

Its a philosophical rather than a moral or ethical argument.

Well, if you want to get into philosophical arguments, utility is a good place to start. The anecdotal evidence we have is that the repossessed houses/apartments were bought as BTLs or became BTLs. Is there more utility in repossessing those, some of them empty, some of them not, and selling them on to someone or leaving them in the hands of a bankrupt owner who needs to be subsidised?

Which is more utile - taking a full and final loss or on ongoing one? And for whom? Clearly for the original borrower, it is more useful if somebody else continues to fund him.

Then there is the utility of cheap housing…

At a philosophical level, the motivation still matters and provides for differentiation. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, today, instead of filling up with the clip in question, my twitter feed is filling up with speculation that it’s a hoax.

Fair points. In the case of BTLs I think there is a strong argument in favour of the utility being greater for all concerned by the properties being repossessed and returned to the market - especially if the former owner is then in a position to move on and begin to contribute to the economy once again in a debt free capacity.

What about the family home? Are we talking about people who simply happened to be born at a certain point in the cycle, reached nesting point at an inopportune moment and, minus the financial nous of the average Pinster, entered a bubblicious market with the intention of assuming a family home? Are the actions of the Pinster who subsequently profits from such a person’s straightened circumstances equivalent to those of our friend the trader who sets out intentionally to profit from the misery of others (regardless of the (Pinster’s) motivations involved)?

Why doesnt he just advise people to buy Goldman Sachs stock if they are a one way bet??