About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 4:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Albert,

If you can, please post a source link for this quote. I'd like to read the paragraph before and after it if possible.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, here is a link.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a2X3hNaWcbeg

By the way, I found the following in the article hard to believe.
at Goldman we always round to the nearest $50 billion, so anything less than $25 billion rounds to zero.
For 2007 Goldman Sachs' revenues were $88 billion and its net income $11.6 billion. I can believe $25 million being pretty insignificant to Goldman Sachs, but not $25 billion.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 11/03, 7:50am)


Post 2

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin you know it was a joke right?

Post 3

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt: Merlin you know it was a joke right?
You might be correct given the author was Michael Lewis, but I didn't get that impression. The statement was given as part of a refutation of rumor no. 2: “When the U.S. government bailed out AIG, and paid off its gambling debts, it saved not AIG but Goldman Sachs.”  Lewis preceded it with "The charge isn’t merely insulting but ignorant." (Goldman Sachs received the $12.9 billion by being a counterparty to AIG on credit default swaps.) Also, at my last job less than $1 million was often considered insignificant.


Post 4

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Merlin.

It's a parody and I still can't tell who he's making fun of:

(1) Goldman Sachs
or
(2) the critics of Goldman Sachs

I think he's making fun of the critics of Goldman Sachs, which makes him seem like a bad person. Ellsworth Toohey would make fun of people who were starting to catch on to the collectivist scams which were violating their rights. It's how he silenced them. This guy might have the same moral character as Toohey.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/03, 3:22pm)


Post 5

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 4:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry for not posting the link, next time will do so.

thanks,

Albert

Post 6

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think he was making fun of GS - I read his book, and he would definitely do that.  That was how I read it.

Post 7

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read only a little of the article before writing post #1 and in retrospect took the remark too seriously.  I did read Liar's Poker many years ago and remember it as quite funny.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.