Friedman: Give Immoral Profit To Soup Kitchen
Even George Washington, our first president, was replaced at a time of crisis. So who was more important and irreplaceable to the development of the United States? NY Fed's Stephen Friedman or George Washington?
[Policing Wall Street]
It must be that I have an extremely high stupidity quotient.
You know what that is- the opposite of an extremely high intelligence quotient. But since when has anyone expected a senior manager, even a retired senior manager, of Goldman Sachs to look out for the benefit of anyone, except that of himself and Goldman Sachs.
Thus the saga of Stephen Friedman, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs, is normal Wall Street practice.
Briefly recounted Friedman served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York while serving as a director and shareholder of Goldman Sachs. Friedman was granted a waiver to remain as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank while serving as a director of Goldman Sachs.
Nothing unusual- except that Goldman Sachs had applied for status as a bank holding company. And the New York Federal Reserve Bank has oversight of the billions of dollars that the federal government gave to Goldman as part of its bank bailout.
Still nothing unusual. Exemptions are always given for superficial reasons. Why, you do not believe that no one in New York City could replace Friedman either as a director of Goldman Sachs or as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
Even George Washington, our first president, was replaced at a time of crisis. So who was more important and irreplaceable to the development of the United States? Stephen Friedman or George Washington? Let us leave out Mayor Mike Bloomberg for the moment.
But the arrogance of Friedman reigned supreme. In January and February 2009 Freidman purchased 37,300 shares of stock in Goldman Sachs, and netted a profit of $1.7 million. The New York Fed saw no conflict of interest in Friedman earning $1.7 million in a purchase of the stock of Goldman Sachs- a bank, which he was charged with regulating.
Even more incomprehensible to a low IQ individual such as myself is that Friedman served as a “Class C” or public director of the New York Fed. He came from Goldman. Served Goldman. Owned Goldman. Yet, represented the public.
I cannot understand that. But then again I have a high stupidity quotient.
The Masters of Wall Street make me yearn for the good old days of Meyer Lansky, who was definitely more honest.
Oh yes. And Friedman why do you not give the money to a soup kitchen for the homeless--many of whom are there because of the rapacious behavior of Goldman Sachs?
I forgot. Goldman is above the law and its directors are irreproachable.