Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (496021)	7/17/2009 2:50:39 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578131

I was thinking this morning... what if Goldman engineered the banking crisis. Berneke, believe he is a former Goldman employee, let their former main competitor Lehman go and thus paved their way. Above, unless my memory serves me wrong, too lazy to check around - and Wiki. Taro

To: Road Walker who wrote (496021)	7/17/2009 2:55:54 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578131

I just read "House of Cards", which was about the collapse of Bear Stearns. It certainly seems that GS manipulated things in such a way to insure that Bear would collapse and it would profit from the carnage. Bear was looking for a saviour to buy them, and GS did a fine little fan-dance until it was too late for Bear.

To: Road Walker who wrote (496021)	7/17/2009 11:20:11 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578131

"*Minor wacko theory - they were just manipulating the market, which wouldn't be surprising, and things got out of hand..." I don't think this is wacky. After all, they all do this to some extent. As to the other, it would depend on what you mean. Did they engineer it from the get-go? Doubt it. Too complex and dependent on a lot of factors even they couldn't know. Did they take advantage of certain, umm, opportunities to give a well placed shove? Given the mindset in that market, there is only one answer to that... The heart of the problem, which is far from being addressed, is that the financial markets have become overtly high stakes gambling. They get to be essentially the house and they also get to place the bets. It isn't their money, they just get a percentage. If they lose big, all that happens is they get fired and quickly snapped up by another gambling house. There are few incentives to playing prudently because there isn't much of a downside. There are incentives to taking huge risks, the bigger the better.