Thursday, April 29, 2010

Goldman hearings as mass distraction

Well, sorry to repeat myself, but this is how I basically put it earlier today on Twitter:

"“To detached observers, it’s obvious Goldman $GS hearings are a public spectacle designed to draw attn to fin reg. + pandering to US voters.”"

Thanks to BMB for quoting me, and more importantly, for adding his own two cents. I really couldn't summarize the game plan any better than he does.

Obviously, I'm not the only one who thinks the timing or circumstances of Goldman Sach's hearing in Congress are a little staged or convenient.

And it's not that the SEC doesn't have a case against Goldman; that's
for the legal system to decide. It's just that we're getting the broad strokes of information on this case in the midst of a circus sideshow, with politicians lashing out at the investment bankers in a blatant effort to appeal to their economically-strained voter base.

I could go on about the timing and merits of the case, and the shameless grandstanding of our elected officials during this latest public spectacle. Instead, we'll post some relevant videos here to lend a bit of added perspective on the Goldman fiasco, and some of the bigger problems our nation currently faces.


Mark Mobius discusses the Goldman hearing (at 8:20) on Bloomberg.




Marc Faber feels the case against Goldman Sachs is "purely for show, to appease the public" (Bloomberg video) and (CNBC video).


Goldman hearings are an argument to short Treasuries, and a distraction from problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, says Charles Ortel.


Peter Schiff talks with Tech Ticker about the "real crisis" the US is facing, how we got into this mess, and why our Senators have "some nerve" slamming Goldman for running with the policies and incentives they helped create (you'll hear Peter's take on the proposed financial industry regulations as well).

We're sure you're already loaded to the gills with media commentary on these hearings and the case against Goldman Sachs, so we'll just offer up these interviews in the interest of highlighting some of the more detached, and contrary, bigger-picture views on this subject. Hope you get something out of them.

4 comments:

Laurence Hunt said...

David, once again you have scooped the story. If my take is different than that of the commentators you cite, it is primarily in that I see the current developments (attacking the winners of the "rigged game") as reflecting totalitarian sentiments, and thus possibly signalling a new attack on individual liberties in a form that perhaps even such as the "Tea Party" movement have not imagined....

David said...

Thanks, Laurence. I think you've described it the way a lot of people now see it: a contrived (or after the fact) attack on winners of a "rigged game".

You may be onto something there in sensing an undercurrent of totalitarian sentiment in all this (and I'm sure we all hope things don't tip over quite that far). I would not be surprised to find some of these sharp observers (Jim Grant, Marc Faber, & Peter Schiff) sensing the same worrisome trends, but holding their tongues (a bit) in public on that for now.

Laurence Hunt said...

Unfortunately, Americans are far too inclined to perceive totalitarianism in everything, so I want to be cautious. I am not of the Tea Party ilk. But to me, attacks on the relatively innocent by the relatively guilty are certainly worrisome!

Anonymous said...

The Greatest Trade Ever: An insider's behind the scene view of how a hedge fund made millions out of the credit collapse."
As I come to the end of Zuckerman's book, one thing that I'm totally struck by are the obstacles that investors like Andrew Lahde, Michael Burry, and John Paulson met in executing their subprime trades and keeping those trades on in the face of financial worries, personal doubts, and total opposition to their ideas from nearly everyone they came in contact with (including their own investors).


Finance Dollar