banking

It's official: Goldman Sachs wasn't just seaking profit as any good shareholder-concerned, capitalist, market driven company should do, they were manipulating their clients and direclty making money off of their losses:

I thought the bail-outs were necessary, but I didn't like them and don't want them to happen again.  I think the only way to really make sure a bank isn't too big to fail is to set a limit of too big to exist, but failing that, at least set a limit on how much risk and leverage a company can have...  Why are Republicans always on the wrong side of every issue?

I wish the dems would've learned their lesson about "bipartisanship" - it's useless to water-down your proposals because the GOP won't vote for them no matter how weak you make things or how much you give in, so just go full-strength.

"In June, President Barack Obama released a proposal calling for the creation of an agency that would be "independent," with "broad authority" and the power to "combat the worst abuses in mortgage markets." The agency, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, would "have an independent seat at the table in our financial regulatory system."

I think some people respond to this as too much government regulation, and that it shows a lack of trust in the wonderful powers of the free market.  I see these kinds of measures (as well as antitrust) as vital to keeping our markets free and healthy.  I do think that some of the financial institutions needed to be bailed out, and the goverment needed to do it, as not doing it would take down a larger share of the economy.  I don't like to see the government making these kinds of bailouts and rewarding failure, though, but I think the only answer is to reduce the possible risk to the econo