Goldman Sachs report 'blowout profits'

[Happy Face 29]

I think a few articles recently have played the "they're just going back to what they did previously" outrage card which may not be true. The bank I work for has opted for a 6bn Euro recapitilisation package from its shareholders but EU approval for that has meant a restructuring plan which redefines a focus on customers more and a more cautious approach to risk in general (as well as 25% staff cuts over 4 years).

 

Maybe big players like GS have just continued as if nothing has happened but I don't think thats universal.

 

So the one solid definable goal in that is to cut staff by 25%.

 

Another round of job-cuts to whack up the stock price, indicate the market has recovered and grow the wealth of the top 1%....while 25% of people who can't afford it are out of work.

 

 

I'm not sure why that should lessen the outrage.

[NJS 4006]

It won't affect the London branch that much (not saying that makes it alright) and its likely it will all be natural wastage as Germans don't like enforced job cuts but I do get your point - I made the point at the announcement meeting that capitalist always see job cuts as "good" cost cutting.

 

If (and I know you could be naive and recognise the size of the word) the restructuring is stuck to, it certainly does on paper suggest less risk (withdrawing from dodgy product sectors etc).

[Park Life 71]

Why don't Govt print there own money and offer it at affordable rates in an ethical manner?

[Guest alex]

There is a whole load of bollox surrounding these issues. The credit crunch was not caused by British mortgagees not being able to afford their payments.

Who is saying it was like?

[NJS 4006]

There is a whole load of bollox surrounding these issues. The credit crunch was not caused by British mortgagees not being able to afford their payments.

Who is saying it was like?

 

Northern Rock did get into bother in a similar way to theYank Mortgage banks to be fair.

[Guest alex]

There is a whole load of bollox surrounding these issues. The credit crunch was not caused by British mortgagees not being able to afford their payments.

Who is saying it was like?

 

 

Listen to any of the news bulletins today and the whole unspoken tone is that this was all caused by banks lending badly and people biting off more than they could chew and now the GSA and government has stepped in to save us from each other.

That doesn't even make sense. I'm aware it was the US housing market that was the catalyst btw.

[Guest alex]

There is a whole load of bollox surrounding these issues. The credit crunch was not caused by British mortgagees not being able to afford their payments.

Who is saying it was like?

 

Northern Rock did get into bother in a similar way to theYank Mortgage banks to be fair.

Which is why I wondered who was making out it was all caused by British ones.

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood you there. Either way, that's one bank and (I thought at least), they were stung by the US market more than the British one in any case.

Edited October 19, 2009 by alex

[Meenzer 14136]

Even now 18 months or so down the road streets are not full of repossesed properties for sale.

Interest rates have to go up eventually mind.

[NJS 4006]

Edit: Sorry, misunderstood you there. Either way, that's one bank and (I thought at least), they were stung by the US market more than the British one in any case.

 

I'm not sure of the breakdown percentage wise but NR did get criticised for having a lot of >100% mortgages in the UK.

 

The rest of the UK banking sector was fucked by the securities based on the US bad mortgages rather than mortgages they granted themselves.

[Matt 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...11-bankers.html

 

Rather than work there for a living, I'm going to hang around in the lifts and collect any twenties that fall out of their pockets.

 

This Polverino feller was hired on £7m a year. Seven fucking million. It's a bit weird to think that a guy working downstairs from our lot is earning more than a Premiership footballer.

[Happy Face 29]

The Banks Are Not Alright

Paul Krugman

Published: October 18, 2009

 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. O.K., maybe not literally the worst, but definitely bad. And the contrast between the immense good fortune of a few and the continuing suffering of all too many boded ill for the future.

 

The lucky few garnered most of the headlines, as many reacted with fury to the spectacle of Goldman Sachs making record profits and paying huge bonuses even as the rest of America, the victim of a slump made on Wall Street, continues to bleed jobs.

 

But it’s not a simple case of flourishing banks versus ailing workers: banks that are actually in the business of lending, as opposed to trading, are still in trouble. Most notably, Citigroup and Bank of America, which silenced talk of nationalization earlier this year by claiming that they had returned to profitability, are now — you guessed it — back to reporting losses.

 

Ask the people at Goldman, and they’ll tell you that it’s nobody’s business but their own how much they earn. But as one critic recently put it: “There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system.” Indeed: Goldman has made a lot of money in its trading operations, but it was only able to stay in that game thanks to policies that put vast amounts of public money at risk, from the bailout of A.I.G. to the guarantees extended to many of Goldman’s bonds.

 

So who was this thundering bank critic? None other than Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s chief economist — and one of the architects of the administration’s bank policy, which up until now has been to go easy on financial institutions and hope that they mend themselves.

 

Why the change in tone? Administration officials are furious at the way the financial industry, just months after receiving a gigantic taxpayer bailout, is lobbying fiercely against serious reform. But you have to wonder what they expected to happen. They followed a softly, softly policy, providing aid with few strings, back when all of Wall Street was on the ropes; this left them with very little leverage over firms like Goldman that are now, once again, making a lot of money.

 

But there’s an even bigger problem: while the wheeler-dealer side of the financial industry, a k a trading operations, is highly profitable again, the part of banking that really matters — lending, which fuels investment and job creation — is not. Key banks remain financially weak, and their weakness is hurting the economy as a whole.

 

You may recall that earlier this year there was a big debate about how to get the banks lending again. Some analysts, myself included, argued that at least some major banks needed a large injection of capital from taxpayers, and that the only way to do this was to temporarily nationalize the most troubled banks. The debate faded out, however, after Citigroup and Bank of America, the banking system’s weakest links, announced surprise profits. All was well, we were told, now that the banks were profitable again.

 

But a funny thing happened on the way back to a sound banking system: last week both Citi and BofA announced losses in the third quarter. What happened?

 

Part of the answer is that those earlier profits were in part a figment of the accountants’ imaginations. More broadly, however, we’re looking at payback from the real economy. In the first phase of the crisis, Main Street was punished for Wall Street’s misdeeds; now broad economic distress, especially persistent high unemployment, is leading to big losses on mortgage loans and credit cards.

 

And here’s the thing: The continuing weakness of many banks is helping to perpetuate that economic distress. Banks remain reluctant to lend, and tight credit, especially for small businesses, stands in the way of the strong recovery we need.

 

So now what? Mr. Summers still insists that the administration did the right thing: more government provision of capital, he says, would not “have been an availing strategy for solving problems.” Whatever. In any case, as a political matter the moment for radical action on banks has clearly passed.

 

The main thing for the time being is probably to do as much as possible to support job growth. With luck, this will produce a virtuous circle in which an improving economy strengthens the banks, which then become more willing to lend.

 

Beyond that, we desperately need to pass effective financial reform. For if we don’t, bankers will soon be taking even bigger risks than they did in the run-up to this crisis. After all, the lesson from the last few months has been very clear: When bankers gamble with other people’s money, it’s heads they win, tails the rest of us lose.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/...tml?_r=2&em

[Park Life 71]

The second hit will come early 2010. This time let one or two more go down. Support lending banks and let the investment banks fight for themselves.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Park Life

[Kitman 2188]

The second hit will come early 2010. This time let one or two more go down. Support lending banks and let the investment banks fight for themselves.

 

Based on what? I'm a bit dubious about your predictions, Oh Mystic Smeg, after the Benny Benitez thread on N-O

[Meenzer 14136]

Lots of analysts have said for a long time that this could well be a w recession rather than a v recession.

Lots of laymen have too. As I've always said, the only plus to the Tories getting in is that the shit is really going to hit the fan under their watch. You just worry about what they'll do to resolve it.

[Park Life 71]

The second hit will come early 2010. This time let one or two more go down. Support lending banks and let the investment banks fight for themselves.

 

Based on what? I'm a bit dubious about your predictions, Oh Mystic Smeg, after the Benny Benitez thread on N-O

 

Buy monkey nuts, sell gold.

[Happy Face 29]

Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book is out today, and breaks some pretty stunning news, dating from the end of June, 2008. At this point, we’re still months away from the now-famous but then-secret waiver, issued in mid-September, which allowed Hank Paulson to talk to Goldman Sachs; he’d promised not to do that when he moved from Goldman to Treasury.

 

But it turns out that Paulson just happened to be in Moscow at the same time that Goldman’s board of directors was having dinner there with Mikhail Gorbachev. (You know, as one does.) Take it away, Andrew:

 

When Paulson learned that Goldman’s board would be in Moscow at the same time as him, he had [Treasury chief of staff] Jim Wilkinson organize a meeting with them. Nothing formal, purely social — for old times’ sake.

 

For fuck’s sake! Wilkinson thought. He and Treasury had had enough trouble trying to fend off all the Goldman Sachs conspiracy theories constantly being bandied about in Washington and on Wall Street. A private meeting with its board? In Moscow?

 

For the nearly two years that Paulson had been Treasury secretary he had not met privately with the board of any company, except for briefly dropping by a cocktail party that Larry Fink’s BlackRock was holding for its directors at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi in June.

 

Anxious about the prospect of such a meeting, Wilkinson called to get approval from Treasury’s general counsel. Bob Hoyt, who wasn’t enamored of the “optics” of such a meeting, said that as long as it remained a “social event,” it wouldn’t run afoul of the ethics guidelines.

 

Still, Wilkinson had told [Goldman chief of staff John] Rogers, “Let’s keep this quiet,” as the two coordinated the details. They agreed that Goldman’s directors would join him in his hotel suite following their dinner with Gorbachev. Paulson would not record the “social event” on his official calendar…

 

“Come on in,” a buoyant Paulson said as he greeted everyone, shaking hands and giving bear hugs to some.

 

For the next hour, Paulson regaled his old friends with stories about his time in Treasury and his prognostications about the economy. They questioned him about the possibility of another bank blowing up, like Lehman, and he talked about the need for the government to have the power to wind down troubled firms, offering a preview of his upcoming speech.

 

How on earth did Paulson think this was OK? Goldman Sachs was a hugely powerful for-profit investment bank, and there he is, giving private chapter and verse on his opinions about the US and global economy, talking about internal Treasury matters, and previewing an upcoming (and surely market-moving) speech. All in secret, at a “social event” which somehow got kept off his official calendar. Oh, yes, and one other thing — the whole shebang took place in the Moscow Marriott Grand Hotel, in the context of Goldman directors joking about how all the Moscow hotels were surely bugged.

 

This is sleazy in the extreme, and will only serve to heighten suspicions that Paulson’s Treasury was rigging the game in favor of Goldman all along. (It’s also a bit peculiar, to say the least, that the only two times Paulson met with private-sector boards he was out of the country, and arguably outside US jurisdiction.)

 

Paulson didn’t have this meeting out of fear or necessity: in fact, he told the directors that although there might be tough times ahead, “I think we may come out of this by year’s end.” (Blankfein was skeptical.) There was nothing in the way of extenuating circumstances which could possibly justify the secret rendezvous. This is definitely a situation where Wilkinson should have pushed back and said no way — but it’s hard to say no to Hank Paulson. Whose reputation has now taken yet another serious lurch downwards.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009...oldman-meeting/

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

[Happy Face 29]

A Goldman Sachs lobbying document has just come right out and said it....

 

Liquidity should be a key goal of regulation, and transparency should be seen as

a tool to create liquidity, not a goal in itself

 

Market makers that see large volumes are best positioned to match differing size transactions. In traditional exchange trading, bids and offers are public, and this transparency helps buyers and sellers to achieve the best price.

 

For some market participants, however, the openness and transparency of the equity

market actually mean they are unlikely to achieve the best price. The risk, particularly for

large transactions such as those undertaken by pension funds or large mutual funds

(where most small investors have most of their equity exposure), is that other market

participants will use this transparency to undercut the intended transactions.

 

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/public-...-reg-part-4.pdf

 

In other words, we can't have transparency in the market, if we did, we wouldn't be to fuck the little guy up his arse!

Edited October 27, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

A Goldman Sachs lobbying document has just come right out and said it....

 

Liquidity should be a key goal of regulation, and transparency should be seen as

a tool to create liquidity, not a goal in itself

 

Market makers that see large volumes are best positioned to match differing size transactions. In traditional exchange trading, bids and offers are public, and this transparency helps buyers and sellers to achieve the best price.

 

For some market participants, however, the openness and transparency of the equity

market actually mean they are unlikely to achieve the best price. The risk, particularly for

large transactions such as those undertaken by pension funds or large mutual funds

(where most small investors have most of their equity exposure), is that other market

participants will use this transparency to undercut the intended transactions.

 

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/public-...-reg-part-4.pdf

 

In other words, we can't have transparency in the market, if we did, we wouldn't be to fuck the little guy up his arse!

 

Basically.

[Happy Face 29]

With all the uproar over the Galleon business, nobody is making much hay over the recent revelations about the AIG bailouts, which make former Goldman chief and former New York Fed chairman Stephen Friedman look every bit as guilty of insider machinations as Raj Rajaratnam of the Galleon fund.

 

It’s impossible to grasp the totality of Friedman/Goldman’s grossness with regard to the AIG story without a little context. Remember the basic timeline. In the middle of the mortgage bubble, Goldman Sachs found a patsy-buffoon named Joe Cassano at a little corner of AIG called AIG Financial Products, or AIGFP. Cassano was recklessly writing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps for banks like Goldman and Deutsche, essentially insuring certain investments for these banks, including extremely risky mortgage-backed deals.

 

Goldman took out billions of these CDS positions with Cassano, who had written upwards of $440 billion of these CDS without having even a fraction of the money he would have needed to cover that bet in the event of a disaster of the type that actually ended up taking place, specifically a downgrade of AIG’s credit rating that forced Cassano to pony up wads of cash to cover those positions.

 

The important thing to remember about all of this is that just because Goldman was buying “insurance” from Cassano, that doesn’t mean they were being responsible. On the contrary: Goldman was creating well over ten billion dollars worth of exposure to a guy that they must have known was an absolute idiot. Now, in a world where actual capitalism existed, Goldman should then have been highly invested in making sure that AIG did not go under. A dead and bankrupt AIG should not have been good news to a company like Goldman Sachs, which had billions of dollars riding on AIG’s financial health.

 

But if anything Goldman behaved throughout the runup to AIG’s collapse like it couldn’t care less if the company died. In fact Goldman accelerated AIG’s demise by making margin calls against AIG, for both the CDS deals and for deals it had done with Win Neuger, who was running AIG’s securities lending business. What really sank AIG was the fact that the downgrade of its credit rating permitted companies like Goldman to demand large sums of money from AIG in the form of these margin calls, and AIG could not get its hands on enough cash to meet its demands, resulting in the death spiral situation we all witnessed last September. Of all the firms making such demands against AIG, Goldman was the most aggressive (I have more on this coming out in a forthcoming book) and my sources who were involved in the AIG bailout bunker scene of a year ago almost to a man report that Goldman and its chief Lloyd Blankfein took an extremely hard line with AIG.

 

Why would it act like that? Well, in a normal capitalistic situation, it wouldn’t. But Goldman, it turned out, had an ace in the hole. It seems that when the state stepped in and decided to bail AIG out, its former director, Stephen Friedman, was among those making the decision that AIG’s counterparties should be paid 100 cents on the dollar for its CDS debts. It never made sense that AIG/AIGFP would decide on its own to pay its creditors 100 cents on the dollar for its debts, but now we know, thanks to reporting from Bloomberg, that it wasn’t AIGFP and its CFO Elias Habayeb who was making that decision.

 

It was, instead, a group of people from the New York Fed who gave that order a group that included Tim Geithner and Friedman. Goldman ended up getting almost $14 billion from AIG after the bailout. And Friedman, we later found out, bought 50,000 shares of Goldman stock after this deal was struck. He resigned in May from the Fed, a few days after the Wall Street Journal broke the story about Friedman’s stock purchases.

 

Friedman surely had information about key moves involving the bank — like Goldman getting paid off at par in the AIG bailout, or Goldman getting a federal bank charter overnight so that a mountain of cheap Fed money could save it from bankruptcy — before the market got it. That he bought 50,000 shares in Goldman after the AIG bailout and is not in jail right now is sort of amazing, until you consider that it will be a cold day in hell before a former head of Goldman Sachs is arrested for insider trading, even when he gets caught doing it red-handed.

 

All of this matters for two reasons. One, it’s yet another example of how Goldman’s success isn’t attributable to how “smart” the bank and its employees are.

 

Instead of working something out with a company it had stupidly become overexposed to, Goldman instead hastened AIG’s demise because it was, perhaps, the one way it could cash in fully on its reckless deals — by forcing it into the arms of the government and getting the taxpayer to pony up for Cassano’s dumb calls.

 

Had AIG proceeded to an ordinary bankruptcy, had the company’s downfall happened via normal market procedures, Goldman might have gotten 40, 50, maybe 60 cents on the dollar. If that! Instead it got completely paid off, among other things because its connections to the government actually incentivized it to cripple a company to which it was exposed to the tune of billions.

 

Second, the non-punishment of Friedman just stands out like a hairy, golf-ball-sized mole on the face of the American capital markets. No question about it, it’s interesting that Galleon and Raj Rajaratnam are getting perp-walked by the FBI (note that it’s the FBI, and not the castrated and seemingly completely captive SEC, that’s going to be pushing these enforcement actions). Galleon isn’t small potatoes and from what I understand there are other hedge funds with even higher profiles that may fall later on. These are surprising and meaningful moves and and it suggests that the enforcement community is not yet completely corrupted.

 

But Goldman’s continued impunity leaves a mighty stink-cloud over American business, no matter how many Raj Rajaratnams get dragged off to jail.

 

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

[Happy Face 29]

And again, Goldman earn more than predicted....

 

US bank Goldman Sachs has said its net profits rose sharply in the fourth quarter, beating expectations.

 

The company made $4.95bn (£3.06bn) between September and December, compared with a loss of $2.12bn in the same period in 2008.

 

Goldman said it will pay $16.19bn in compensation and benefits for the whole year, up 48% from 2008.

 

But its compensation as a percentage of net revenues was 35.8%, the lowest since it went public in 1999.

 

For the whole of 2009, the bank had net profits of $13.39bn, up from $2.32bn in the previous year.

 

Shares in Goldman initially rose when trading began in New York but then fell back, and were down 0.4% to $167.10.

 

US President Barack Obama is due to outline new measures to clamp down on financial risk in a speech later on Thursday.

 

Compensation increases

 

"Despite significant economic headwinds, we are seeing signs of growth and remain focused on supporting that growth," said Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said.

 

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said that the compensation came to about $500,000 per head at the bank.

 

The bank said its annual net revenues - $45.17bn, up from $22.2bn in 2008 - was down 2% from its record year in 2007 but it said its total compensation had fallen at a much faster rate.

 

It is paying staff 20%, or $4bn, less than it paid that year.

 

The issue of banker compensation has become a source of public anger on both sides of the Atlantic, with bankers awarding themselves large pay-outs after accepting large government bail-outs.

 

Most US banks have paid back their government loans now, and have raised their compensation levels.

 

Goldman's bonus is in line with large pay packets awarded to bankers at its US rivals.

 

Rival banks

 

In the past week, JPMorgan Chase said it would award $27bn in compensation for the last year, up 18% from 2008.

In the autumn of 2008, all big banks were just hours from meltdown; and here is Goldman, a year later, generating a fraction less than its all-time record 2007 revenues. It's a funny old world

Robert Peston, BBC business editor

 

Morgan Stanley's compensation will rise 31% to $14.4bn.

 

Citigroup - which reported a loss in 2009 and a significant minority of its shares held by the US taxpayer - plans to pay its bankers $25bn, down 20% from the previous year.

 

Bank of America - which also made a 2009 loss - did not give a compensation figure, but it is included in its non-interest expenses.

 

That figure almost doubled to $11.7bn in the past year.

 

Goldman said in December that its 30 top executives would not receive any cash bonuses in 2009.

 

Their bonuses will be in the form of restricted shares, which cannot be sold for five years. This is aimed at discouraging excessive risk-taking in the wake of the global financial crisis.

 

Goldman has borne the brunt of criticism over banker pay, raising its bonus pool while accepting a $10bn US government bail-out.

 

It has since repaid the government loan.

 

Mr Obama has vowed to "recover every single dime" from banks.

 

He has outlined a new levy aiming to recover $117bn from financial institutions, and criticised banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8472315.stm

 

Looking forward to seeing what Obama says/does about this. Has he learned his lesson?

Edited January 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

And again, Goldman earn more than predicted....

 

US bank Goldman Sachs has said its net profits rose sharply in the fourth quarter, beating expectations.

 

The company made $4.95bn (£3.06bn) between September and December, compared with a loss of $2.12bn in the same period in 2008.

 

Goldman said it will pay $16.19bn in compensation and benefits for the whole year, up 48% from 2008.

 

But its compensation as a percentage of net revenues was 35.8%, the lowest since it went public in 1999.

 

For the whole of 2009, the bank had net profits of $13.39bn, up from $2.32bn in the previous year.

 

Shares in Goldman initially rose when trading began in New York but then fell back, and were down 0.4% to $167.10.

 

US President Barack Obama is due to outline new measures to clamp down on financial risk in a speech later on Thursday.

 

Compensation increases

 

"Despite significant economic headwinds, we are seeing signs of growth and remain focused on supporting that growth," said Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said.

 

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said that the compensation came to about $500,000 per head at the bank.

 

The bank said its annual net revenues - $45.17bn, up from $22.2bn in 2008 - was down 2% from its record year in 2007 but it said its total compensation had fallen at a much faster rate.

 

It is paying staff 20%, or $4bn, less than it paid that year.

 

The issue of banker compensation has become a source of public anger on both sides of the Atlantic, with bankers awarding themselves large pay-outs after accepting large government bail-outs.

 

Most US banks have paid back their government loans now, and have raised their compensation levels.

 

Goldman's bonus is in line with large pay packets awarded to bankers at its US rivals.

 

Rival banks

 

In the past week, JPMorgan Chase said it would award $27bn in compensation for the last year, up 18% from 2008.

In the autumn of 2008, all big banks were just hours from meltdown; and here is Goldman, a year later, generating a fraction less than its all-time record 2007 revenues. It's a funny old world

Robert Peston, BBC business editor

 

Morgan Stanley's compensation will rise 31% to $14.4bn.

 

Citigroup - which reported a loss in 2009 and a significant minority of its shares held by the US taxpayer - plans to pay its bankers $25bn, down 20% from the previous year.

 

Bank of America - which also made a 2009 loss - did not give a compensation figure, but it is included in its non-interest expenses.

 

That figure almost doubled to $11.7bn in the past year.

 

Goldman said in December that its 30 top executives would not receive any cash bonuses in 2009.

 

Their bonuses will be in the form of restricted shares, which cannot be sold for five years. This is aimed at discouraging excessive risk-taking in the wake of the global financial crisis.

 

Goldman has borne the brunt of criticism over banker pay, raising its bonus pool while accepting a $10bn US government bail-out.

 

It has since repaid the government loan.

 

Mr Obama has vowed to "recover every single dime" from banks.

 

He has outlined a new levy aiming to recover $117bn from financial institutions, and criticised banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8472315.stm

 

Looking forward to seeing what Obama says/does about this. Has he learned his lesson?

He has outlined a new levy aiming to recover $117bn from financial institutions, and criticised banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Happy, I want a list of the blogs and news sites you read. You always post the most interesting stuff. For reals, BTW- no sarcasm intended.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy, I want a list of the blogs and news sites you read. You always post the most interesting stuff. For reals, BTW- no sarcasm intended.

 

 

That's just the BBC

 

I'm not at work where I have other bookmarks, but here at home I've got....

 

http://www.nation.com.pk/

http://rebelreports.com/

http://www.juancole.com/

http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

http://www.democracynow.org/

 

I'm a lefty liberal

[Park Life 71]

Happy, I want a list of the blogs and news sites you read. You always post the most interesting stuff. For reals, BTW- no sarcasm intended.

 

 

That's just the BBC

 

I'm not at work where I have other bookmarks, but here at home I've got....

 

http://www.nation.com.pk/

http://rebelreports.com/

http://www.juancole.com/

http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/john_pilger

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

http://www.democracynow.org/

 

I'm a lefty liberal

 

Useful links bro.