Danny Schechter - ColdType

198
current big finance) vs. centrist technocrats (suspicious of
big finance; economists, lawyers, non-financial business,
and – most interestingly – current/former finance, other than
the biggest of the big, particularly people with experience in
emerging markets.)
When you read the comments on Johnson’s own blog, you
find anger steaming up from insiders, even if, like the writer of
this comment, they still hide behind anonymity:
… until people start getting locked up for this fraud it will
never change. And because I highly doubt that will ever happen
the US equity markets will continue to fall apart until the
last bag holder, uhh I mean, shareholder says “F-this” and
starts putting money in his mattress. The level of corruption
is past that of a third world dictatorship.
At the same time, a handful of banks including Chase, Citi,
Bank of America, and, of course, Goldman Sachs, reported
record profits and another round of lucrative bonus payouts.
Goldman was widely criticized because it received billions
in bailout funds, which the bank insisted it pay back. But there
was more to it, as Diane Francis, a Canadian newspaper columnist,
explained in the National Post, an idea that merits
repeating as I have already referenced it:
Goldman received an estimated three times more, or US $30
billion, in an indirect bailout, which was funneled through
bankrupt insurer AIG.
Washington bailed out AIG’s counterparties, to whom it
owed hundreds of billions; because AIG had sold to them
unbacked credit default swaps (a form of insurance on bond
values). Goldman was not only ahead of the queue in collecting
its IOU, but is reported to have gotten 100 cents on the
dollar to boot.
Goldman was made whole even though it is arguable that it
was imprudent to buy these swaps which were not actuarially
approved and had no capital behind them as insurance