Goldman Sachs ready to spend its Bailout.....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
A

AgentDrazenPetrovic

Anyone But the Lakers
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
7,779
Likes
34
Points
48
on salaries and bonus' next year. Each partner will average about a $5 million dollar Christmas bonus! One of my buddies works at GS, I wonder how much that fucker will get? Dude better buy me a round or something.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...LLION-salary-bonus-package--6bn-bail-out.html

Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

The size of the pay pool comfortably dwarfs the £6.1billion lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its £430billion bail-out.

As Washington pours money into the bank, the cash will immediately be channelled to Goldman's already well-heeled employees.

News of the firm's largesse will revive the anger over the 'rewards for failure' culture endemic in the world of high finance.
Click to expand...
 
This is precisely why trickle-down economics doesn't work. Once you give companies more money, there is no incentive for them to use it to hire more workers. They will just pocket it.
 
trickle down economics? this was a bailout to "keep the entire machine from collapsing". let it collapse.
 
Xericx said:
trickle down economics? this was a bailout to "keep the entire machine from collapsing". let it collapse.
Click to expand...

I'm just drawing an analogy. If you give these companies more capital through lowering the upper tax brackets, they will do exactly what they are doing here: Paying more money to their partners. They won't hire more workers or "drive the economy."

In other news, today President Bush announced that the United States has a responsibility to help "those less fortunate around the world." President Bush said Tuesday that aid programs must get results, not just make Americans feel good. "We believe the power to save lives comes with the obligation to use it," he said at the White House Summit on International Development. "And I believe our nation is better when we help people fight hunger and disease and illiteracy."

I applaud President Bush for this. However, how can the US government justify helping nations around the world "fight hunger and disease and illiteracy" when it refuses to do the same in the US itself? How is Obama's message "socialism" when the Republicans have demonstrated the same concern world-wide--just not at home? I don't get it.
 
Dumpy said:
I applaud President Bush for this. However, how can the US government justify helping nations around the world "fight hunger and disease and illiteracy" when it refuses to do the same in the US itself? How is Obama's message "socialism" when the Republicans have demonstrated the same concern world-wide--just not at home? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
it refuses to do the same in the US?
 
Exactly, there is no way trickle down economics is going to work. Why are the majority of these top ceo's and business owners rich? Because they wanted to get rich, and as rich as possible. All you do with giving money to these guys hoping for trickle down economics to kick in is making these guys at the top richer, and then minimal creation of jobs.
 
MARIS61 said:
Yes. For the last 8 years.

Where the hell have you been?
Click to expand...
in the US. do we have an aids epidemic here? i mean yeah, things aren't perfect here but the people bush is talking about helping are generally much worse off.
 
Someone needs to let me know how these investment bankers didn't earn their bonus--which represents 90% of their salary. You may not like the idea of people making real money, but as a former GS employee, I can tell you these folks earned it.

And GS never was in the kind of trouble that Lehman, Merill or Bear were in--they never had the MBS exposure, therefore had more profits to distribute.
 
maxiep said:
Someone needs to let me know how these investment bankers didn't earn their bonus--which represents 90% of their salary. You may not like the idea of people making real money, but as a former GS employee, I can tell you these folks earned it.

And GS never was in the kind of trouble that Lehman, Merill or Bear were in--they never had the MBS exposure, therefore had more profits to distribute.
Click to expand...

Like I said, there should not have been a fucking bailout. These fuckers salary needs to be ZERO. No bailouts for them. If it was just bonus off profit then fine, pay them whatever, I generally don't care. But when the government is bailing you out and you get a phat bonus, fuck that.
 
Xericx said:
Like I said, there should not have been a fucking bailout. These fuckers salary needs to be ZERO. No bailouts for them. If it was just bonus off profit then fine, pay them whatever, I generally don't care. But when the government is bailing you out and you get a phat bonus, fuck that.
Click to expand...

When I read about the specifics of the bailout, I wasn't a fan of it either. I prefered the loan option. That being said, the crumbling of the market had to do with one narrow product that had a cascading effect. If I were working in M&A in the Energy group and had a monster year, you bet your ass I'd be expecting a huge bonus. That's the way the deal works--you trade your life for a huge paycheck.

Remember, these are the partners. Bonuses for Directors, VPs, Associates and Analysts are significantly lower.
 
maxiep said:
When I read about the specifics of the bailout, I wasn't a fan of it either. I prefered the loan option. That being said, the crumbling of the market had to do with one narrow product that had a cascading effect. If I were working in M&A in the Energy group and had a monster year, you bet your ass I'd be expecting a huge bonus. That's the way the deal works--you trade your life for a huge paycheck.

Remember, these are the partners. Bonuses for Directors, VPs, Associates and Analysts are significantly lower.
Click to expand...

IMO, bailout should be paid back before ANY bonuses are given. PERIOD. Zero bonuses for everyone at the firm until the taxpayer is paid back.
 
Xericx said:
IMO, bailout should be paid back before ANY bonuses are given. PERIOD. Zero bonuses for everyone at the firm until the taxpayer is paid back.
Click to expand...

Then everyone would leave those firms and the bailout money would never get paid back. It's simply not a realistic solution. You don't work 80-100 hours a week for a lousy $80-175K
 
maxiep said:
Then everyone would leave those firms and the bailout money would never get paid back. It's simply not a realistic solution. You don't work 80-100 hours a week for a lousy $80-175K
Click to expand...

Maxie is absolutely correct, although I wouldn't have put it quite so bluntly. The problem is with the bailout.
 
maxiep said:
Then everyone would leave those firms and the bailout money would never get paid back. It's simply not a realistic solution. You don't work 80-100 hours a week for a lousy $80-175K
Click to expand...

tough shit, then there shouldn't have been a bailout and those fuckers should be out of work.
 
Xericx said:
tough shit, then there shouldn't have been a bailout and those fuckers should be out of work.
Click to expand...

If investment bankers go out of work, then corporations don't have access to either debt or equity. No capital means no corporations. Good luck with that.

Don't let your anger overwhelm your reason.
 
maxiep said:
If investment bankers go out of work, then corporations don't have access to either debt or equity. No capital means no corporations. Good luck with that.

Don't let your anger overwhelm your reason.
Click to expand...

again, tough shit. let them fail, new companies that run correctly will take their place (in theory). that's the whole basis for the invisible hand. it'd be rough, but fuck it, better than fixing a broken machine with shitty parts. It'll just break again.
 
Xericx said:
again, tough shit. let them fail, new companies that run correctly will take their place (in theory). that's the whole basis for the invisible hand. it'd be rough, but fuck it, better than fixing a broken machine with shitty parts. It'll just break again.
Click to expand...

The parts weren't bad, the vehicles were. As long as those vehicles were perceived to have the full faith and credit of the Federal Government behind them, they were going to be overpriced. Again, Goldman wasn't one of the real culprits; they were actually pretty responsible.

Like I said, be angry with the Government, not the investment banks. The Government repealed Glass-Steagall, the Government enacted the Community Reinvestment Act. The Government allowed FNMA and FHLMC to become a piggybank for house and senate campaigns. There were a lot of investment banks burned by these policies.
 
maxiep said:
The parts weren't bad, the vehicles were. As long as those vehicles were perceived to have the full faith and credit of the Federal Government behind them, they were going to be overpriced. Again, Goldman wasn't one of the real culprits; they were actually pretty responsible.

Like I said, be angry with the Government, not the investment banks. The Government repealed Glass-Steagall, the Government enacted the Community Reinvestment Act. The Government allowed FNMA and FHLMC to become a piggybank for house and senate campaigns. There were a lot of investment banks burned by these policies.
Click to expand...

I am angry with the government. I think that firms should not be able to give bonuses until they have fully repaid their bailout amounts. Freeze on salaries. Where the fuck are the "oversights". yeah, more shit that paulsen is giving to his buddies at GS.
 
Xericx said:
I am angry with the government. I think that firms should not be able to give bonuses until they have fully repaid their bailout amounts. Freeze on salaries. Where the fuck are the "oversights". yeah, more shit that paulsen is giving to his buddies at GS.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a giveaway. Blame the Government. Don't blame the investment banks.
 
I don't blame them. I don't think they should get bonuses while they still owe the taxpayers money.
 
Xericx said:
I don't blame them. I don't think they should get bonuses while they still owe the taxpayers money.
Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree. Of course, you could just make every partner's salary $6MM per year. That would solve the bonus problem.
 
maxiep said:
We'll agree to disagree. Of course, you could just make every partner's salary $6MM per year. That would solve the bonus problem.
Click to expand...

freeze salaries. no bonuses. if they want to quit, then quit. until they pay the money back, freeze all of their assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top