News & Analysis
Goldman Takes Over the World?
Goldman Sachs' Global Coup D'etat ... When the people of Greece saw their democratically elected Prime Minister George Papandreou forced out of office in November of 2011 and replaced by an unelected Conservative technocrat, Lucas Papademos, most were unaware of the bigger picture of what was happening all around them. Similarly, most of us in the United States were equally as ignorant when, in 2008, despite the switchboards at the US Capitol collapsing under the volume of phone calls from constituents urging a "no" vote, our elected representatives voted "yes" at the behest of Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen and jammed through the biggest bailout of Wall Street in our nation's history. But now, as the Bank of England, a key player in the ongoing Eurozone crisis, announces that former investment banker Mark Carney will be its new chief, we can't afford to ignore what's happening around the world. Steadily – and stealthily – Goldman Sachs is carrying out a global coup d'etat. – Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, Truthout.org
Dominant Social Theme: Watch out for this most powerful of all firms. It is the octopus of Wall Street.
Free-Market Analysis: Here's another meme, in our view. It's one we've fought against for a long time. It is the idea that Wall Street and private enterprise generally are malicious and ought to be confronted by government and heroic politicians.
That's the dominant social theme. The subdominant social theme would be more along the lines of Goldman's influence is spreading around the world. No firm is more evil, according to some, than Goldman.
From our point of view, this is not quite true. As we try to mention regularly, the power in finance lies with central banks. The securities industry and commercial banks are mere appendages of Money Power that resides in its fullness within the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, etc.
There are over 150 central banks in the world, most supervised in one way or another by the Bank for International Settlements. Someone put this gigantic financial entity in place. Someone supervises it.
And it wasn't Goldman. No, there's a power elite, in our view, that controls central banking and uses its impossible wealth to promote global governance.
Seen within this context, Goldman Sachs is merely one more tool in a global kit bag. Its operatives are merely more highly paid mercenaries. Not everyone agrees with this perspective, of course. Here's more from the article:
There's one tie that binds Lucas Papademos in Greece, Henry Paulsen in the United States, and Mark Carney in the U.K., and that's Goldman Sachs. All were former bankers and executives at the Wall Street giant, all assumed prominent positions of power, and all played a hand after the global financial meltdown of 2007-08, thus making sure Goldman Sachs weathered the storm and made significant profits in the process ...
As Europe descends into an austerity-induced economic crisis, Goldman Sachs's people are managing the demise of the continent. As the British newspaper The Independent reported earlier this year, the Conservative technocrats currently steering or who have steered post-crash fiscal policy in Greece, Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, and now the UK, all hail from Goldman Sachs. In fact, the head of the European Central Bank itself, Mario Draghi, was the former managing director of Goldman Sachs International.
And here in the United States, after Treasury Secretary and former Goldman CEO Henry Paulsen did his job in 2008 securing Goldman's multi-billion dollar bailout, he was replaced in the new Obama administration with Tim Geithner who worked very closely with Goldman Sachs as head of the New York Fed and made sure Goldman received more than $14 billion from the bailout of failed insurance giant AIG.
What's happening here goes back more than a decade.
In 2001, Goldman Sachs secretly helped Greece hide billions of dollars through the use of complex financial instruments like credit default swaps. This allowed Greece to meet the baseline requirements to enter the Eurozone in the first place. But it also created a debt bubble that would later explode and bring about the current economic crisis that's drowning the entire continent. But, always looking ahead, Goldman protected itself from this debt bubble by betting against Greek bonds, expecting that they would eventually fail.
Ironically, the man who headed up the Central Bank of Greece while this deal was being arranged with Goldman was – drumroll please – Lucas Papademos.
This is very interesting! We've been writing for about a year that these loans were thinly disguised bribes. We pointed out that bankers were not THAT stupid, and they surely must have known what they were doing. They provided these loans, easily pilfered, to European elites who then made sure to deliver their countrymen to the European Union.
But to believe that Goldman itself orchestrated such a plan is fairly ludicrous, in our view. Goldman was just one more cog in a wheel, albeit a big one.
The article quotes the lefist DailyKos as follows: "The normal scenario usually involves helping a nation hide a problem and sell its debt until the problem blows up into a bubble that bursts in a spectacular way...Goldman Sachs then puts their 'man' into a position of power to direct the bailouts so that Goldman gets all its money back and more, while the nation's economy gets gutted."
The article then asks, "Why, despite mountains of evidence, have banksters at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions not been thrown in jail for defrauding customers, manipulating LIBOR interest rates, and throwing thousands of Americans out of their homes illegally in a massive robo-signing scandal?"
You see where this is going, dear reader? We've predicted it already. This language is symptomatic of the George Soros-controlled Occupy Wall Street movement. The idea is to whip up resentment between the wealthy and everyone else. And then to put some people in jail. It will hardly matter who. The idea is to create a bloodlust and then slake it. The REAL criminals are to be left untouched.
Here is how it may work ... Once people have been whipped to a fever pitch, US President Barack Obama will suggest a neo-Pecora hearing. The last such hearing, in the 1930s, resulted in the evisceration of Wall Street's capital-raising mechanism. This time, Wall Street and the banks will be entirely ruined. There will be nothing left of the market. Nothing left of the ability to raise money ... except by the most powerful of elites.
This is where these people are headed. The rhetoric is intentional. Instead of blaming the power elite, the idea is to blame Wall Street. This allows the top elites to pass MORE regulation, effectively choking off the ability of ANYONE to create significant capital without elite approval.
We're not endorsing Goldman or modern Wall Street, by the way. The modern banking system is a despicable agent operating at the behest of the powers-that-be. But Wall Street – and Goldman – are not where the power resides. It evidently and obviously goes much higher than that.
Conclusion: Get rid of Goldman and nothing will change. Get rid of modern, monopoly central banking and everything will.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Summer on 12/10/12 09:59 AM
DB, please stick to the point, don't obfuscate.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Obfuscate!
|
Posted by Summer on 12/09/12 09:54 PM
taxesbyanyothername
"That leaves us with the finances to work on. Other changes to legislation may be necessary but eliminating the central banks paves the way for all of them."
Well, to get rid of central banks is not to get rid of over 95% of all 'money' creation by private banks... only getting rid of a major propelling factor for manipulating the quantity of the money supply by lenders will adequately do this, namely - interest.
"Immorality and the "unjust" financial system mutually reinforce each other."
Precisely.
"Morality has never been successfully legislated by nations"
Correct.
"... nor successfully decreed by religion."
While formal religion does become corrupted by political motives, the teachings of The Holy Prophet of Islam, Abraham, Confucius, Moses and Jesus were all certainly most valuable and successful moral codes. They transformed the lowest of the low into the most principled, honourable and dignified people.
It is when men of power seek to corrupt and manipulate these teachings that the religions move away from their profound origins. However, the principles those founders laid are solid moral rules that informed history and law being revolutionary in character...
Click to view link
Click to view link
Thank you, for patiently hearing my views and thanks for expressing yours.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Well, to get rid of central banks is not to get rid of over 95% of all 'money' creation by private banks... only getting rid of a major propelling factor for manipulating the quantity of the money supply by lenders will adequately do this, namely - interest.
This is gobblydook. "Money" - even currency - can exist without a single bank.Banks, even private banks, are not necessary to the creation or conveyance of "money" ... which has been many things at many times.
 |
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/09/12 09:41 AM
Summer
Have not given up, just have a different way of fighting back. Otherwise I would not even read here, let alone post. It has been thought provoking and very enjoyable posting back and forth with you.
Immorality and the "unjust" financial system mutually reinforce each other. Morality has never been successfully legislated by nations nor successfully decreed by religion. That leaves us with the finances to work on. Other changes to legislation may be necessary but eliminating the central banks paves the way for all of them.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/08/12 08:16 PM
taxesbyanyothername,
I do understand and empathize with your view which is quite logical...
However, I'd rather die trying to change things for the better than to give in to defeat!
The way I see it there are two huge problems, 1. immorality, and 2. an unjust financial system based on interest that reinforces and rewards speculation and corruption.
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/08/12 02:38 AM
There is merit in your argument that interest is bad. I still prefer freedom. Our discussion is academic anyway. We are not free to chose our system of government, or money, or anything else. None of these local initiatives will be allowed to grow as long as the big money people are in charge. If you just look at how easily they sluffed off Ron Paul's candidacy when so many were excited about it, that gives a very good indication of how easily they will stop anything else they do not want.
The combination of immoral activities by government, and my refusal to pay for them, leaves me with the choice of making no money at all, or prison for tax evasion. What I owe shouldn't take too many years to exceede the amount of money that I have made in my entire life. So, I think I have more reason to dislike interest than you do. Nevertheless, I hate the entire system rather than the interest.
I have been bartering extensively but it is quite difficult to get what you want and it is rarely in a timely and efficient manner. A different currency and different laws concerning banking might help, but it is not enough.
The regional currency ideas are interesting, and would be very helpful if inflation really gets out of control, which of course it almost certainly will. Unfortunately, that is when those sorts of things will probably be outlawed or shut down in some other way by the PTB.
I think a better solution is to leave The West. I already would have if not for my elderly mother who refuses to leave. If I were married or especially if I had children there is no way that I would still be in the U. S. Though, all of the places that I would choose to go to, do allow interest. I am fifty and have only borrowed from financial institutions twice, so it has never been a major concern of mine. Though I suppose you could call it one now. It would be nice to talk the IRS out of charging me interest, especially since the principle only exists for them, and I will never pay it.
That situation is not much different than the one we are all in. Government has given us all a debt that can not ever be repaid, and they don't even want to slow down making it larger. They certainly will not outlaw interest as long as they need to keep borrowing, and that will be as long as they exist.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/07/12 09:48 PM
"Living in a society that forbids interest without that stricture being enforced by government does not interest me because I do not want to be ruled by religion any more than I want to be ruled by a nation state. "
Religion, philosophy, as well as secular thought give useful insights. In fact, I like plural legal systems as they offer a more bespoke approach to law. The regional currency movement in Germany should interest you (in the US there is BerkShares currency),as well as JAK bank as these are local interest-free initiatives...
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/07/12 12:06 AM
Summer
Saving is certainly not advisable with our current system. Just as borrowing is. Just as they explained in your link, a system based on debt is as system based on inflation. The added price to goods produced by businesses operating on borrowed money does not exist without inflation, because it cannot, because businesses cannot borrow operating expenses, because they cannot afford to. Banks, of whatever form, cannot loan money that no one wants to borrow.
A "bank" owned by its depositors in the U. S. is called a credit union. Normally all deposits pay interest but it is very low. Loans are only made to members, that is to depositors, and interest lower than can normally be had from a bank is charged. Mostly only simple interest is charged by credit unions.
I had an account at a credit union until it was bought by B. of A. How that is legal or possible I don't know but I do know that it made me very angry at the time.
My savings account at B. of A. has a minimal amount in it, just enough to keep it open. They have not paid me any interest, not even a penny, in nearly three years.
Living in a society that forbids interest without that stricture being enforced by government does not interest me because I do not want to be ruled by religion any more than I want to be ruled by a nation state.
The only money that I "legally" owe is to the I. R. S. They are charging me an enoumous amout of interest that is regularly compounded. However, I did not borrow that money. I never had that money. It is even more fictitious than the cyber-dollars created by banks.
For many reasons I consider it immoral to give money to the U. S. government. I have not paid any income taxes in more than two years and I will never pay them anything ever again. So, I am living as close to interest free, as I am ever likely to get.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/06/12 06:19 PM
Dave jr: "Summer, I am at least grateful we have an agreement that there are certain elites purposely fomenting hardship. I do respect your posts."
Thanks. Ditto.
I agree with the first half of your post. I must differ with you on the time preference theory. Any theory is just that. If it can be negated or proved to be incorrect. If it is destructive or does more harm than good it is logical to reject it. I reject the theory on this premise. I will not repeat the points on the destructive nature of interest - it is proven and provable, it's far beyond a theory. The destructive nefarious device that it is far far outweighs the rationale for the time preference theory. IMHO.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/06/12 06:09 PM
taxesbyanyothername,
Thanks. I totally agree with your first paragraph, quite right.
taxesbyanyothername: "Without a massive welfare state people will understand that they have to provide for their old age, and thus they will save. Without central banking, and a growing population, no welfare state is possible."
I agree that over dependency on 'handouts' is an unhealthy practice. However, I couldn't watch people starve without shelter. Therefore, whatever 'authority' people choose I think it is decent and right to ensure that situation is avoided.
I actual fact, there would be no need for a massive welfare state if general prosperity and wealth disparity were addressed. Ending interest would go a long way in achieving this.
Click to view link
Margrit Kennedy has demonstrated that 80% the wealth flows to 10% of the population via interest and of those 1% is enriched the most:
Click to view link
Furthermore, you mentioned saving... in the current system it is doubtful whether it's advisable:
'The inter-bank interest rate is only paid on wholesale deposits and not on savings account to the average depositor. Despite the compounding effect of interest, the return obtained on a small deposit is far below the true purchasing power of money. Although short-term rates fluctuate, in the long run, interest earned on deposits is below the inflation rate. On the other hand, a similar principal sum invested in some business venture has potential for growth in real terms.' (See page 182.)
Click to view link
taxesbyanyothername: "To further limit interest, fractional reserve banking could be outlawed ... "
If there were no interest (on loans or money creation) that's the best solution and this was in force for centuries in 'non-governmental' societies...
 |
Posted by dave jr on 12/05/12 08:04 PM
Summer,
Excuse me for butting in, you didn't address me but this is important. I don't think I am wasting my time because I don't yet believe you have an ulterior motive.
First, compounding or exponential interest is not the norm. Compounded interest is a form of default, where even more borrowing is used to pay interest that is/was due. Just because government habitually does this doesn't make it the norm. It is an act of irresponsibility and certainly is evil when done in other peoples name for the purpose of gaining power/influence while financially destroying others. Yes I believe that and I don't want to give more power to those who are destroying our economy. We agree money power must be scrutinized. Government is not innocent, is all I'm saying up to this point.
Second, money is not wealth but a means to convey wealth. If you were all alone on this earth, what would several tons of gold do for you? Once one understands that wealth flows from the productive effort of others, one can begin to understand what money is. The amount of wealth in this world is not fixed, it is not a pie, it is not gold, and it is not currency. There is a dynamic creation and consumption of value going on everyday, everywhere. Leftover value or overproduction with value is wealth. And if you want advantage coming from the efforts of others today, but don't want to, or can't repay with your own efforts till later or incrementally, there is nothing wrong in negotiating a surcharge for the producers wait. After all, we don't live forever and our time waiting for a reciprocating effort is worth something. If you don't believe time, life, time of life is worth anything, then you might also believe slavery is OK. Interest is not the root of evil is what I'll add up to this point.
So what are the evils? IMHO.
1.Fiat. To decree value. To be forced by threat of prosecution under law to accept paper for labor, wealth producing capability and goods.
Click to view linkactional Reserve. To artificially expand currency, to mislead markets on the health, real wealth, in an economy.
Click to view linkficit spending. Government gone wild with an open tab. As the real economy is smothered, government tries to imitate it to no avail. More power to regulate, more opportunity for corruption and waste, more dependence on elite institutions, more surveillance to police the remnant of producers who can still compete with the crony multinationals and to harm the remnant further with still more regulation.
4.Much more to go into here.
Summer, I am at least grateful we have an agreement that there are certain elites purposely fomenting hardship. I do respect your posts.
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/05/12 07:57 PM
Summer
I absolutely share your abhorence of the growth of finance, or, more accurately, its result, the diminishing returnes for actual production. You are also right about the production of monetary metals not growing exponentially. In fact, without major finds which are not likely to happen, their production will not even keep up with current population growth. In other words as the population grows proportionatally faster than the amount of monetary metals possesed by humanity the amount of gold etc. per person diminishes. This increases the value of gold relative to consumables and other useful goods. Another way of saying this is fairly constant DEFLATION. Deflation puts the cost of borrowing at the interest rate plus the deflation rate. With constant inflation, which is the only situation that will ever exist under central banks, the cost of borrowing is the interest rate minus the inflation rate, making borrowing much more attractive.
Without a massive welfare state people will understand that they have to provide for their old age, and thus they will save. Without central banking, and a growing population, no welfare state is possible.
To further limit interest, fractional reserve banking could be outlawed but it could not be strictly enforced without a police state. I don't think even you want to go that far to do away with interest.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/05/12 01:03 PM
taxesbyanyothername: All of this concern about interest misses the point of this site. Without fiat currency inflation basically dies. So does big government. Without those, far fewer will be willing to pay interest, and those that do will not be able or willing to pay very much.
Whether a fiat currency or a 'backed' currency they cannot sustain the exponential growth of interest.
For example, if a currency is backed by gold or silver, the production or mining of them cannot be exponential in nature, certainly not in the long-term. This means that when interest is charged on loans whose interest grows exponentially (through compound interest which is the norm) there will not be sufficient amounts of 'money' to pay for the principal plus interest.
Thus the majority of money will be diverted to the payment of exponentially growing interest payments. Money lenders will inherit the majority of the wealth in this system too. While people labour away, working ever more hours to service interest.
The result will be a constriction of the money supply without a chance of inflating it to keep up with the interest growth. It will end in deflation which is devastating for the economy.
Now coming back to our current system, it is futile to speak about central banking as a major issue in comparison to bank created credit which constitutes over 95% of 'money' all with interest attached.
In my humble opinion, once people understand these points, it is moral and intellectual negligence not to push for change.
Click to view link
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/04/12 04:42 PM
All of this concern about interest misses the point of this site. Without fiat currency inflation basically dies. So does big government. Without those, far fewer will be willing to pay interest, and those that do will not be able or willing to pay very much.
|
Posted by dave jr on 12/04/12 04:41 PM
"What are you prepared to do about interest? Do you really want to justify funding elites for the sake of some insignificant philosophical construct that causes the whole society to suffer; designed by elites themselves to protect their weapon?"
Nope. But you seem to. You just want different elites, and the worst kind.
Currency is a market function and naturally belongs there, like it used to be. The arguement over interest is probably moot anyway. Anything that can be rented for nothing is going to be inherently worthless at best and more than likely something to avoid because of attached obligations.
I do not believe interest free money can exist in a free market. And a free market is the basis of freedom generally. Freedom is what I am prepared to protect, if I can ever gain it. Your position won't allow that, hence my opposition.
|
Posted by Summer on 12/04/12 01:54 PM
Dave jr,
Your fresh question has already been answered in my last feedback.
I'll put it another way. Ron Paul proposed using the current governmental structure for positive change, did he not? It is futile to criticize the current system without trying to awaken people and engage with it to some degree. It is for people to chose what style of rule and laws they want and whatever it may be interest will always play a destructive role.
Dave: "Don't borrow, no interest. It is just as simple for you as it is for a Nation. Don't live beyond your means."
Firstly, and quite obviously people will require loans for industry and all manner of things.
Secondly, even those who do not take loans and live within their means will have the mother of all taxes forced upon them, by stealth - interest - it transfers 80% of the wealth to 10% of the population. A far bigger issue than tax. Even tax is used to service mountains of perpetual interest-debt. You want to defend it?
Dave:"Meanwhile, I may want to pay some interest. What are you prepared to do about it?"
What am I going to do about it?
Well, first I will tell any genuine seeker after truth the facts about interest. Any honest person will see it for what it is and shun it. Then I will encourage people to establish interest free banks and interest free currencies with some form of Zakat/demurrage to aid the circulation of wealth.
What are you prepared to do about interest? Do you really want to justify funding elites for the sake of some insignificant philosophical construct that causes the whole society to suffer; designed by elites themselves to protect their weapon?
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 12/04/12 08:27 AM
dave jr: "So a better question might be, why do you put trust in a government which is the biggest abuser of interest, the thing you hate, to ruination, to be the next monetary manager?"
-----------------
A good question, dave. Another one might be why many of the modern proponents of "interest-free" money seem to have UN and other globalist affiliations - like Margrit Kennedy and her husband, who's assertion that "80% of wealth is transferred to 10% of the population through interest" is in in wide use but without any evidence to support the claims.
@ Summer:
The notion that a psychopathic power elite, apparently bent on worldwide absolutist control, and comprised of merely a few hundred individuals and some thousand enablers - the functional elite, that is - will implement a scheme that "10% of the population" would actually benefit from, is ridiculous - at best.
700 hundred million beneficiaries? Surely you jest, Summer ...
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 12/03/12 10:58 PM
DB
I have to agree with Hugo about your poll. Occasionally I agree wholeheartedly with one of the poll answers you provide. More often my position is similar to one, or more. For this poll about vaccines, my best answer is, all of the above.
|
Posted by dave jr on 12/03/12 10:47 PM
Summer,
I was getting ready to retire for the evening and something was bothering me. I said, "It is just as simple for you as it is for a Nation", I meant for a Government. The disticntion is a Nation is a voluntary collective. The US Government has become filled with people who act above the collective.
Government can learn to live within its means like all the rest of us, or it can go down in flames like any other irresponsible party. There is no other choice. Time is a function of perception.
So a better question might be, why do you put trust in a government which is the biggest abuser of interest, the thing you hate, to ruination, to be the next monetary manager?
|
Posted by dave jr on 12/03/12 08:03 PM
Summer,
Don't borrow, no interest. It is just as simple for you as it is for a Nation. Don't live beyond your means.
Meanwhile, I may want to pay some interest. What are you prepared to do about it?
|
Posted by dave jr on 12/03/12 07:52 PM
C'mon DB, Goldman is way above Wall Street. They are the pinnacle of cronyism. The revolving door is a blur. I'll be nice and say you are getting soft.
|
|
