and pitchforks, it gets hard to imagine what would. (Noting, "Goldman alum" appears to have been practically a job-requirement for upper-echelon financial appointments in Obama admin; sorry, but this is NOT lookin' good. Further noting: McClatchy [then Knight-Ridder] stood out as the only news org that showed appropriate, professional journalistic skepticism and sought out sources who actually knew what they were talking about, rather than just typing up Bush admin propaganda like the rest of the "liberal" [HAHAHAHAHAHA!] media, in run-up to Iraq invasion War Crime):

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

Goldman's sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation's premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.

Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.

Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman's failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission should be very interested in any financial company that secretly decides a financial product is a loser and then goes out and actively markets that product or very similar products to unsuspecting customers without disclosing its true opinion," said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor who's proposed a massive overhaul of the nation's banks. "This is fraud and should be prosecuted."

John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor who served on an advisory committee to the New York Stock Exchange, said that investment banks have wide latitude to manage their assets, and so the legality of Goldman's maneuvers depends on what its executives knew at the time.

"It would look much more damaging," Coffee said, "if it appeared that the firm was dumping these investments because it saw them as toxic waste and virtually worthless."

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's chairman and chief executive, declined to be interviewed for this article. . . .

Was Christopher Molisanti involved in this operation? Criminy. It's like Enron playing the carbon offset market.

Thankfully, none of the candidates in Tuesday's elections are Goldman execs. Oh, wait. You're still on the hook for a quarter in that one. I envision a tasty Sam's Choice cola beverage headed my way.

on one or more of your offered bets, of which I was willing to make 4 (on those clarified terms).

Did you not bet on Corzine for the win? Had you down for that.

And yeah, being a softie, I extended Mary Ann's bet until February. But she's a girl.

Somehow, I can't say "New Jersey" without picturing the hilarious SNL depiction of Gov Paterson. I'm possibly the only person with that particular handicap.

acceptance or not of my clarified terms (e.g., Feb.) on the other 3?

Near as I recall, the other three in which you showed interest were:

• Gummint-run plan to be passed this year (trigger doesn't count);
• Any healthcare bill at all to be passed this year (must be combined as a double or nothing deal with the previous bet); and
• Cap'n Trade to be passed before 2010 elections.

Book's still open. We value our customers. I'm willing to take action on NY-23 if you want to venture a quarter on Owen's chances. And the over-under on VA stands at 10 points.

We can certainly agree on this issue..

I'll provide the keroscene..

<link>

or nothing deal with the previous bet)"

I don't recall any such stipulation in the terms originally offered. Can you document there was, or is this just changing the rules in mid-game as the odds shift against you, as it seems?

OK, I'll meet you 4 blocks west of Goldman's front door (so, hopefully, we can gear up before encountering Goldman's rent-a-cops in riot gear . . . say, ever been tased?).

(A Player's Club member) who had already made the previous bet. And you said you'd take the first four, which included that bet.

So everyone who takes the second bet has already taken the first. And I made plain on Thursday that they were a package deal.

I think they're fair terms, and will certainly forward the quarters should you win. Obviously, I like the house's side of the deal, or the bets would not be offered.

I feel like being tazed after reading all those wiki links.We are in a giant mess !!!!

citi failed tonight too..

If you can show that stipulation was part of the original bet with MA (I'm sure it was not specified where I said I'll take the first 4), that's fine, I'll let you off and stop calling you a weasel (about this, anyway).

(Of course the house likes the house's side of the deal if the house is free to change the terms whenever it feels like it! Who wouldn't?)

tonight??? Got link (while I go looking for one)?

<link>

<link>