Goldman Sachs and Consumer Protection - No retail? Indymac?

[WhiskeyGirl]

...Here is how the Journal editorial puts it:

        "Testifying recently before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein explained why his firm has nothing at stake here: "Because we are an institutional firm that largely focuses on corporations, governments and large public and private investing organizations, we do not have retail businesses." He added that "we agree that a more specific focus on consumer protection, whether in the context of a new agency or otherwise, is warranted." "

Mr. Blankfein was under oath, and I am not accusing him here of making an intentionally false statement. But how Goldman Sachs and Mr. Blankfein define a "retail business", and how any ordinary American or government official would define it, may not be the same thing.

What about all those Indymac customers?  What are they? 

Doesn't the Goldman interest in OneWest count as retail?  Maybe they are a large cattle farm?  Kobe beef for the White House?

more here - http://seekingalpha.com/article/190791-goldman-sachs-and-consumer-protection

Maybe Goldman doesn't see IndyMac customers and the little people on Main Street as human beings?  Folks who are entitled to respect?  Fair dealing?

[WhiskeyGirl]

So what are the fair criticisms of Goldman Sachs, if any? There's a case to be made that the firm has gotten too close to Communist China. In his 2008 book about Goldman Sachs, "The Partnership," a consultant who has done work for the firm, Charles Ellis, reports that as a Goldman partner, before becoming the firm's CEO, Mr. Paulson coached China's vice premier, Zhu Rhongji, on how to answer questions from a bond rating agency. Paulson's chief operating officer, John Thornton, left Goldman when the Chinese government appointed him to a full professorship at Tsinghua University's business school. The Ellis book reports that when Paulson left Goldman to join the Bush administration, the banker held a "substantial" personal stake in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China; Fortune reported that the Chinese bank's chairman's daughter worked as a summer intern for Goldman in New York.

In 2004, while Mr. Paulson was CEO, Goldman agreed to a $2 million fine by the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges that it had illegally promoted the stocks of four Asian companies, including PetroChina's $2.9 billion initial public offering. The Washington Post reported that among the statements at issue in the SEC case were Goldman's efforts to allay concerns about PetroChina's role in Sudan. Goldman pocketed hefty fees for underwriting the PetroChina IPO in 2000, but in the years that followed, institutional investors such as Harvard, Stanford, and the California state pension system have divested PetroChina stock, citing its role in the genocide in Darfur. A New York Times article focused on what it called "an unusual horse trade" crafted by Mr. Paulson in 2003, in which Goldman made a $67 million "donation" to cover investor losses at a failed Chinese brokerage firm it had nothing to do with. In exchange, the Chinese government let Goldman set up shop in Beijing.

At a time when American jobs are fleeing to China, Obama wants to heap more debt and taxation on the American people. 

Obama wants to burden America with the expense of providing healthcare for the globe.

The Chinese and India do not have national healthcare and the economy is booming.

The firm itself hasn't been hesitant to play hardball with American politicians and taxpayers when it suits its own interests, extracting subsidies estimated at $500 million for a new $2 billion headquarters in Lower Manhattan.

Who paid for those subsidies?  Does there really need to be a subsidy for a headquarters in Lower Manhattan?

Does it really matter?  Who's made profit on the real estate?  Did it create any new jobs?

More reading here - http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/07/goldman-in-context

[WhiskeyGirl]

This isn't the first time I've read that Goldman has no consumer exposure.  Why do we keep giving them money?