>>>Same principle as above. GS success is not inversely related to someone else's failure.
>
>But unless money is printed to reward GS, their earnings come from somewhere.

If you wish to know where their earnings come from I suggest their filings as a starting point.
I'll get you started. http://biz.yahoo.com/e/111109/gs10-q.html

>If the money is shaved from transactions between productive entities

If GS is handling a transaction between two entities then they are providing a service. In addition, both "productive entities" have determined that they need or want a middleman for their transaction and have agreed to pay a fee to hire one.

>then GS is shaving profits and in some cases increasing losses for firms that actually make something... in exchange for what?

Profits are what's left over if there's a positive number after expenses are subtracted from revenues. Those firms who use GS are paying for a service. Those payments are expenses (cost of business), they are by definition not profits and thusly cannot be "shaved".

>Profits for GS's own shareholders do not hide the fact that shaving successful productive firms is not a growth strategy for anybody except the person wielding the shears. Oh, I know the argument that GS and its shareholders invest back into the market, but it's a wealth concentration strategy that disadvantages the sorts of entrepreneurs who once made America great.

What do Allscripts, EBay, Marvell, Netzero, Nextel, Orbitz, Organic, Red Hat, Under Armour, Yelp, FTD, Vodaphone, Dreamworks, Solera, Toys R Us, Skype, Tesla, Google and A LOT more entrepreneurial endeavors have in common?

Hint: http://biz.yahoo.com/ipo/undw_g.html