Monday, November 2, 2009

Ford is viable, Goldman Sachs is not!



Ford is "viable." So was GM and Chrysler, if profits are the gauge, yet the Obama Administration forced the latter two into bankruptcy and would have done the same to Ford had Ford opted for more gov't assistance.

On the other hand, companies like Goldman Sachs and many other non-bank intermediaries, received billions in gov't aid via Tarp and other programs, basically without question.

Ford is a company that produces some of the vital real assets that people need in a modern economy: vehicles. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, is nothing more than a giant hedge fund engaged in speculative activity that contributes very little real value to the economy.

Ford creates while Goldman merely distributes.

Yet despite this vital process of creation, which defines the very wealth of a nation, Ford's market capitalization is roughly one-fourth that of Goldman Sachs and similar comparisons can be made between Ford (and I am guessing, GM and Chrysler) and other financial intermediaries, which are nothing more than speculative entities.

While Ford and GM and Chrysler are involved in the creation of goods and services that form part of the stock of the assets and capital of our nation, the Goldman Sachs' of the world merely shift money around, for huge personal gain, without adding to the benefit of all. I ask you, is there "work" so essential?

Vehicles and other machinery ARE essential if one desires to have a modern economy.

But is the business of the finance capitalists really necessary to the point that they have been sustained with hundreds of billions of dollars...money that could have gone to companies engaged in creative and productive investment and innovation?

The answer is, "No!"

But that's exactly what our leaders did.

Go figure.


5 comments:

Mike Sandifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sandifer said...

Mike, Goldman was selling short the very mortgage-backed securities they were selling! How is this legal? I guess it's because they own the largest share of the government among companies.

They're crooks.

Mike Norman said...

Yes! We don't need them!!

Pentagron said...

Greg Gordon of the McClatchy newspapers Washington Bureau is the first reporter willing to take on Goldman Sachs. He is a hero. It is an abomination that our government has turned largely to Goldman alumni and sympathizers as advisors -- we have truly become "Government Sach." Why has the Obama administration not recruited people like Paul Krugman, George Akerlof or Joe Stiglitz, all Nobel laureates?

Mike Norman said...

Or Jamie Galbraith, another good name. Or Warren Mosler. Or me!!

Yes, it is incomprehensible that Obama is doing this. He is supposed to be, "Mr. Change."

Goldman would have failed along with the rest of the Wall Street investment banks had the government not given them a lifeline. And the initial fallout could have been minimized if the Fed understood its role and provided uncollateralized loans in any quantity to commercial banks, as it is supposed to do and as it got around to doing after about 5 months of dithering.

The financial sector would have shrunk down, with a far smaller universe of these speculative intermediaries and that would have been a much better thing. Now they are bigger and more powerful than ever!