Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Goldman Sachs bankers stockpiling weapons in case people revolt

Image representing Goldman Sachs as depicted i...Image via CrunchBase

Alice Schroeder
Bloomberg
“I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names.

While we wait, Goldman has wrapped itself in the flag of Warren Buffett, with whom it will jointly donate $500 million, part of an effort to burnish its image -- and gain new Goldman clients. Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also reversed himself after having previously called Goldman’s greed “God’s work” and apologized earlier this month for having participated in things that were “clearly wrong.”

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Pistol Ready

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night. By the time you pull the pistol out of your wife’s jewelry safe, find the ammunition, and load your weapon, Fifi the Pomeranian has already been taken hostage and the gun won’t do you any good. As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level early in the financial crisis. He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

To the Barricades

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention as the financial crisis unfolded in 2007, a move that was foiled by the New York Post. Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed.

This is the kind of foresight that Goldman Sachs is justly famous for. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury secretary during the bailout and a former Goldman Sachs CEO, let it slip during testimony to Congress last summer when he explained why it was so critical to bail out Goldman Sachs, and -- oh yes -- the other banks. People “were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system.”

Torn Curtain

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses.

This slip-up let the other bailed-out banks happily hand off public blame to Goldman, which is unpopular among its peers because it always seems to win at everyone’s expense.

Plenty of Wall Streeters worry about the big discrepancies in wealth, and think the rise of a financial industry-led plutocracy is unjust. That doesn’t mean any of them plan to move into a double-wide mobile home as a show of solidarity with the little people, though.

Cool Hand Lloyd

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

And if the proles really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms. If nothing else, that pistol permit might go part way toward explaining why they won’t be standing outside with the rest of the crowd, broke and humiliated, saying, “Damn, I was on the wrong side of a trade with Goldman again.”

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Rupert Murdoch Declares War on Free Internet

Image representing Rupert Murdoch as depicted ...Image via CrunchBase

Michael Wolff
It hasn’t been a good year for Murdoch—the largest publisher of newspapers in the worst year in newspaper history. His purchase of The Wall Street Journal is widely seen as one of the worst moves of his career—News Corp. has already taken a $3 billion write-down on the purchase. His beloved New York Post, always a money loser for him, is now suffering such great losses that Murdoch is considering a partnership with or even sale to the Daily News, the Post’s arch-enemy. His once highly profitable newspaper groups in the U.K. and Australia are faltering. News Corp.’s share price has been among the hardest hit of any major media company.

And yet, Murdoch, at 78, would double-down in a heartbeat: he strategizes constantly about how he might buy The New York Times. But first he might have to save the newspaper business itself. As it happens, he, unlike almost everyone else in the business, believes newspapers are suffering not at the hands of technological forces beyond their control but at the hands of proprietors who are weaker than he is.

After fulminating for a year about how people on the Internet should pay for news, he made it official. Announcing in August the biggest losses his company has ever sustained, he added that he’d had enough and if people wanted to read his newspapers they could bloody well pay for them.

I should say I am not a neutral party here. Two years ago, I helped found Newser, a news aggregator that summarizes the stories of other news providers, which, along with the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, and Google News, has become a focus of the print world’s antipathy. (When I tried to explain Newser to Murdoch, he said, “So you steal from me.”)
Read More...

Monday, October 5, 2009

Obscene Homeless dolls sell for $95 each - hairstyling extra

The literal spoils of a growing class war. It doesn't get much more Freudian than this. The children of those who "have" play with hundred dollar homeless dolls representing those who have nothing. How much more alienated can you get to the plight of the homeless?

Andrea Peyser with the NYPost reports:

Meet Gwen Thompson, the newest addition to the American Girl canon of dolls -- the wildly successful, extremely expensive brand of faux children that are sold out of a four-story town house in the heart of Fifth Avenue.

Little children as young as 4 are addicted to these pricey little monsters. It's like middle-American crack. You have an African-American doll, an American Indian doll. A Jewish one. A doll who "lived" during the Great Depression, and one from the Roaring '20s. And while you were snoozing, the creators of American Girl, which is sold by Mattel, got bold. They engaged in all-out political indoctrination.

Snuck into the collection is a doll that comes with a biography that is weird and potentially offensive enough to keep Mom running to the Maalox. Gwen, you see, is harboring a terrible secret.

She is homeless. A homeless doll.

In the history books that come with every American Girl doll -- bringing to life these little monsters until impressionable little ones believe they are actual people -- you learn that Gwen's father walked out on the family. Her mother lost her job. As the little kiddies learn to read about this doll as if she's a human being, one learns that, as fall turned into winter, Gwen's mom lost her grip.

Mother and daughter started bedding down in a car. For $95 -- more than your average homeless person would dream of spending on a rather mediocre baby substitute -- Gwen Thompson can be yours. A mixed message if ever there was one....you can have your doll's hair done for $20!

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Obama's $13K/Night Hotels, $24K Dinners, $328K Photo-ops

I think it's time Obama brushed up on a few history lessons. He can start with Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution. When Obama's not funneling billions to his banker buddies on Wall Street, or forcing barley employed and unemployed taxpayers to pick up the tab for his weekly billion dollar programs, he's enjoying $24,000 dinners, staying in luxury $13,000/night suites, or sending out over-paid gofers to take $328,000 photo-ops of his new house.

On Obama's upcoming meeting in Russia July 6-8, Obama is expected to stay at the Ritz-Carlton in the presidential suite at 430,000 rubles a night ($13,870). The cheapest suite at the hotel costs 35,000 rubles a night ($1,129). According to Pravda, the Ritz-Carlton has closed bookings for July 5-8. The presidential suite is a five-room Kremlin view luxury suite with huge panoramic windows. The bathroom in the suit is tiled with marble, an employee of the hotel said. There is a special room in the bathroom, where Obama will be able to enjoy a tropic shower.

Back in March officials shut down half of New York City so Obama and his wife could sip martinis, dine in a swank restaurant, and see a Broadway show. According to the New York Post, Obama and the First Lady took two helicopters and a small Air Force jet to get to Manhattan where they dined at Blue Hill in Greenwich Village. Transportation for The First Couple’s night out totaled at least $24,000 writes the Post, for the three aircraft used to ferry the Obamas, aides and reporters to New York and back. That's $24,000 funded by the taxpayer. Then there's the private White House parties where Obama and friends are entertained by the likes of Stevie Wonder and Sweet Honey in the Rock. Oh, and let's not forget that Team Obama is making 15% more than what George W. Bush’s crew made in 2008.

While Obama and his crew live it up at the White House, the rest of us are living in a full-blown depression. The real unemployment rate is over 20 percent, and at least one in ten Americans are on food stamps nationwide -- in some states two in ten Americans are on food stamps. Then there's congessional livestyles with all the Dodd type perks and favors you can dream of.