Reply to: Goldman Sachs pay and bonus pool hits $13bn

[AtW]

Actually, I think you'll find that some of them were.

Nobody forced banks to BUY tulipy derivatives on that property - that's the root of the problem, if this tulip was not packaged as AAA securities and sold left right and center around the world, then there would be no money to lend those people in the first place, that money came not from banks who lend it but from idiots who lend them money buying securitisized tulip.

[AtW]

Goldman Sachs Wins Big In Secret Bailout Via AIG

Enough said.

[GreenLabel]

And banks were not forced to give those tulip loans to people who can't repay...

Actually, I think you'll find that some of them were.

[AtW]

AtW doesn't understand capitalism and the FREE market at all.

How is it free market and capitalism when taxpayer has to bailout bankers and then not being repaid back??!?! It's not capitalism at all.

[sasguru]

As has been pointed out, AIG weren't forced to insure these products. They entered into an agreement hoping to make a profit at a perceived level of risk, which they either hadn't assessed correctly or were prepared to bear.

AtW doesn't understand capitalism and the FREE market at all.
I still remember his classic one when he said he'd ban by law traders from buying Porsches.
He really is a complete moron.

[AtW]

As has been pointed out, AIG weren't forced to insure these products.

And banks were not forced to give those tulip loans to people who can't repay, yet they had to be bailed out in the interest of preventing whole system from collapsing - this includes Golden Sucks who had to change from investment bank to retail in order to qualify for help and took $12 bln, that was direct money they took and they repaid them, however as bailout went AIG had to be bailed out in the interest of banks who would have collapsed totally if that had not been done.

[GreenLabel]

The fact is GS and others insured their tulip with AIG so they thought they were clever as insurance company would bear the loss...

As has been pointed out, AIG weren't forced to insure these products. They entered into an agreement hoping to make a profit at a perceived level of risk, which they either hadn't assessed correctly or were prepared to bear.

[sasguru]

What an idiot.

If YOU don't get it, then it's YOU who is not sharpest tool in the box.

No you're quite correct I don't get your cretinous Soviet thinking.

So 2 companies entered into an agreement that was within the law. It turned out their judgement was wrong.
Blame the regulators and the economic enovironment that was set up or not set up.
The mistake you foolish Soviets made (and your case are still making) is a philosophical one - you believe in the perfectibility of human beings.
Really intelligent people believe otherwise.

HTH, but IKIW.

[AtW]

I'm not sure what your point is.
But then you're not the sharpest tool in the box.

What an idiot.

If YOU don't get it, then it's YOU who is not sharpest tool in the box.

[AtW]

So tell me why they're responsible for AIB's predicament again?

They are responsible as they've insured supposedly high quality products which were tulip, though legally it might be hard to prove, additionally they are responsible as bailout of insurer saved their arses - instead of paying bonuses they should be contributing those $13 bln per year towards AIG taxpayer repayment bill.

Maybe working for modest salary for 5-7 years would actually make bankers appreciate value of money, though I personally doubt it.

[sasguru]

The fact is GS and others insured their tulip with AIG so they thought they were clever as insurance company would bear the loss, problem was that AIG was about to fail and had to be bailed out, it took $90 bln from emergency loan of $120 bln, why? Well, that was to have money to repay failed policies to GS and others! Effectively bailing out insurer automatically bailed out GS and lots of others (including RBS to a degree).

I'm not sure what your point is.
But then you're not the sharpest tool in the box.
So GS insured themselves with AIG.
Good for them, that was the prudent thing to do.
So tell me why they're responsible for AIB's predicament again?
Did they force AIG to insure them, perhaps by holding the CEO at gunpoint?

[AtW]

Well done for not being afraid of the facts

The fact is GS and others insured their tulip with AIG so they thought they were clever as insurance company would bear the loss, problem was that AIG was about to fail and had to be bailed out, it took $90 bln from emergency loan of $120 bln, why? Well, that was to have money to repay failed policies to GS and others! Effectively bailing out insurer automatically bailed out GS and lots of others (including RBS to a degree).

[d000hg]

Idiot - all taxpayers now shareholders by virtue of bailing them out only we got feck all shares but we still pay for failures of the banks that were facilitated by their bonus rules.

Whatever you say, sweetheart. Well done for not being afraid of the facts, they're just used to bully people into believing the truth after all.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AtW again.

Grr.

[AtW]

I guess you're exercised about this because SKA is not proving a success?

On the contrary - I am exercised about it because SKA is success and I'll have to be paying extra taxes to pay for this bank tulip where as said banks keep paying massive bonuses to staff - 100% of that money should go to repayment of debt caused by banks - not just direct bailout, but also bailout of AIG and others support of which enabled people like GS still be at work rather than follow Lehman's route. Or Enrons.

[sasguru]

No, they were not good at it - they had to change bank type to retail in order to qualify for bailout, and ultimately they would have failed had AIG failed - it insured their tulip debts, GS and others got repaid money from AIG that was bailed out - effectively massive cash went to GS and others whilst not looking as bailout, but it sure as hell was and still is massive bail out.

I guess you're exercised about this because SKA is not proving a success?
I can't think of any reason why a budding entrepreneur is spending his time on here moaning about successful companies, unless his own co. is not making money.