Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« Liz Warren And The Twin Towers Of Wall Street Mythology | Main | Poet Maya Angelou Explains Why She Likes Guns »

Bill Cohan: Goldman Sachs Will Never Be Allowed To Fail


'They're not going to let Goldman go down the tubes.'

Lloyd Blankfein talks about deflation and too big to fail banks (Washington, May 3).


Notable Points

  • Discussion of Goldman's 1994 bankruptcy scare at 1:30.
  • Blankfein on too big to fail at 3:10.
  • His answer is basically incomprehensible.
  • Watch it a few times for laughs.
  • Listen to Cohan's response on too big to fail beginning at 3:45.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (13)

Lloyd Blankfein Took Home $425 Million In Goldman Stock & Cash Bonuses Over The Last 10 Years, While Shareholders Made Less Than 3% Per Year

May 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
$410 million for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein over 3 years
$195 million in that timespan for JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon
$132 million for just two years work at Morgan Stanley for John Mack

Brian Moynihan has just stepped into his role as CEO of bank of America. But he stands to do just fine... His predecessor Ken Lewis made 150 million for 5 years before stepping down.

May 7, 2013 at 3:18 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
May 7, 2013 at 3:25 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Nice discussion. Refreshing to hear someone on the boob toob (Cohan) who actually knows what he's talking about. I don't know if it was clear from the clip, but Cohan was balking at the very idea of "Too Big To Fail." I.e., they CAN fail -- without destroying the rest of the economy. Really good discussion.
May 7, 2013 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Of course Goldman CAN fail. Hell, all they do is gamble, a totally gratuitous function that does nothing but suck cash out of the system and into delusional compensation packages of bankers. Not one actual person has a checking account with Goldman. They don't make consumer of small business loans. If money were energy, Goldman would be the biggest sink in the universe.

But Goldman is more than some ordinary parasite. The real problem is that Goldman runs the Financial Stability Board since it's inception in 2009. Back then it was headed by Mario Draghi, now it's Mark Carney.

The FSB is in control of financial legislation throughout the G20 (and then some), which is where the bail-ins (as opposed to the bailouts) are coming from. And in the U.S., the FSB would very much appear to be in control of the entire Justice Department (i.e., the executive branch).

With the FSB controlling 2/3 branches of the federal gov't, there isn't a chance in hell that Goldman will be allowed to fail. Entire cabinets will be impeached before that happens.
May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM | Registered CommenterCheyenne
The fsb is what de carbonnel talks about isn't it?
May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterSKINFLINT
I'm sorry, when does the revolution begin?
May 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Pitchfork

Good memory, but no. deCarbonnel was all over the Exchange Stabilization Fund within the Treasury (but housed in the NY Fed).

For what is perhaps the densest (information per second) video presentation ever recorded, see deCarbonnel's 5-part juggernaut: "What I have been afraid to blog about: The ESF..."


Back to Cohan: It is odd that he wrote an 800-page book about Goldman Sachs (Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World (2011)) without mentioning the FSB, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, or the Financial Stability Forum (predecessor of the FSB). And no, he doesn't talk about the ESF either.
May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM | Registered CommenterCheyenne
"I'm sorry, when does the revolution begin?"

That's a question I've been thinking about a lot lately. I've noticed that Obama has extended Bush's attack on the constitution to include the Declaration of Independence.

It was the Declaration that (1) established U.S. sovereignty and (2) recognized the inherent right of people to get rid of a government that oppresses its people. Under Obama, both principles are under siege right out in the open.
May 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM | Registered CommenterCheyenne
Oh, and then there is this little nugget that I stumbled upon, Dr. Pitchfork, concerning your question...

May 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Registered CommenterCheyenne
Holy shit, Batman! Those are amazing poll results. 35% of the public is open to the idea of armed rebellion? As someone whose people have been in this country since before King George was even born, I think armed rebellion should ALWAYS be on the table. But that's just me. That 30-35% of Americans, including 18% of registered Democrats, have similar views is just amazing.
May 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
"It was the Declaration that (1) established U.S. sovereignty and (2) recognized the inherent right of people to get rid of a government that oppresses its people. Under Obama, both principles are under siege right out in the open. "

Cheyenne, what did you mean by this? Not arguing, of course, just curious what you were referencing.
May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Until the Declaration was inked, America was a collection of colonies under British rule that lacked sovereignty. Without sovereignty, America could not, as a legal matter, enter into treaties with nations (e.g., France and Spain) that could help us in the War for Independence (which started in 1775). When the Declaration was signed, America gained sovereignty that enabled such treaties.

See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 316 (1936)(colonies were independent prior to Declaration of Independence, which passed sovereignty from the Crown to the colonies as a whole, legally severing U.S. from Great Britain).

That's why Great Britain saw the Declaration as an act of treason. See Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 14 (1945)(all signers of Declaration of Independence could have been hanged for treason).

Just as sovereignty was needed for the U.S. to break free of Great Britain (we didn't win the War of Independence until 1783), so too is the destruction of sovereignty required for the global banks to subject the American people to their rule. That war is being fought now, and we are losing--badly.

The Declaration was premised on the notion that people have the born right to jettison a government that's become too oppressive. Its first sentence reads: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Today, people who question and criticize the government are under attack. Obama himself recently warned graduates of Ohio State not to listen to voices warning against government:


This meme is growing among the elite. Watch for it.
May 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.