Gasparino vs Taibbi
How often do you read two utterly opposing viewpoints — and find yourself agreeing with both of them?
I had that very same “Hmmmm moment” when reading both Matt Taibbi’s Inside The Great American Bubble Machine and Charlie Gasparino’s Stop Blaming Goldman Sachs. They couldn’t be more polar opposites, and yet each is — more or less — correct.
A brief explanation is in order:
Back in June of this year, Rolling Stone published Taibbi’s article on Goldman Sachs. It was a epic take-down, full of righteous anger and blustery fury over Goldman’s role in, well pretty much every major bubble over the past century. The hyperbole-laden piece, its indignant tone, and the frustrated fury felt by Taibbi captured the zeitgeist of the moment perfectly. It crystallized a growing discontent over the outsized influence of Goldman Sachs — in government, on Wall Street, and especially, regarding the bailouts.
Gasparino –whom I have on occasion clashed with (see below) — correctly points out several things at his Daily Beast column: He assumes Matt Taibbi is a nice guy (I can tell you he is) points out he is “a good writer, a really good reporter, and a provocative storyteller.” Check, check and check.
Where Charlie takes issue with the RS piece is Matt’s statement that Goldman either “single-handedly or with very little help, was responsible for the financial crisis.” And I have to agree with Charlie on that point — as I have pointed out in painful detail, there is lots and lots of blame to go around. Goldman was but one party to the debacle.
How to reconcile the two articles?
I suspect Gasparino is reading Taibbi’s piece literally — perhaps too literally. The best way to enjoy it is to think of it as the culmination of frustration by the public, with the struggling masses infuriated at Goldman’s role in this crisis — their CEO requesting a special exemption for more leverage from the SEC (and getting it for themselves and 4 other firms), that same CEO becoming Treasury Secretary, and then doling out trillions of dollars to inept and insolvent financial companies, and finally, Goldman Sachs hoovering up billions. We know they sucked out $12.9 billion dollars via from AIG direct pass thru of bailout monies — must be nice to get 100 cents on the dollar! Most people are probbly unaware that Goldman also grabbed $5.9 billion dollars just before AIG collapsed — a treansfer that if AIG went thru the bankruptcy processs, most likely would not have been permitted to stand.
Add in Goldman’s record profits, its enormous bonus pool, and you have an ideal recipe for a massive GS backlash.
Did they cause the crash themselves? Certainly not, but their role in it, and their uncanny ability to profit/squeeze/steal billions in unsavory and perhaps borderline legal ways — while everyone else is suffering — is why Taibbi’s piece still has resonance months later . . .
>
UPDATE: August 5, 2009, 10:57am
Charlie Gasparino adds:
“You make at least one bizarre point: You say I take what Taibbi says too literally. Oh really? Can you imagine if CNBC or any major media used that excuse when we get criticized? Maybe you have two standards; CNBC and everyone else . . .
When I say Charlie is responding literally — I meant rationally on a causation basis. The reason why Taibbi seems to be dominating the Goldman meme is he resonates on an emotional level; Perhaps that is why I gave his hyperbole the literary benefit of the doubt . . .
>
Previously:
DealBreaker, Charlie Gasparino & Me (June 9th, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/dealbreaker-charlie-gasparino-me/
Gasparino vs Einhorn, Kohn & Ritholtz (June 5th, 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/06/gasparino-vs-einhorn-kohn-ritholtz/
Financial Sector: Beware LEH, CIT (June 2008)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/06/financial-sector-beware-leh-cit/
Sources:
Inside The Great American Bubble Machine
Matt Taibbi
How Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
Rolling Stone, Jul 02
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Stop Blaming Goldman Sachs
Charlie Gasparino
Daily Beast, August 2, 2009
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-02/stop-blaming-goldman-sachs/
See Also:
Matt Taibbi: Goldman Would Have Gone Bust But For TARP (July 31st, 2009)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/07/matt-taibbi-goldman-would-have-gone-bust-but-for-tarp/
Tenacious G
Joe Hagan
New York, 8/3/09
http://nymag.com/news/business/58094/
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
August 5th, 2009 at 7:52 am
All those secretive Sunday night deals done by Paulson that benefitted GS enormously Paulson and BB fought so hard to keep secret. If the local town DPW operated like that the county DA would be bringing chages against them!
August 5th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I’ve been reading a lot on neurology and free will. When you look at it from the perspective that we are all actors with more or less pre-determined roles, the whole thing takes on a mix of comedy and tragedy.
Blaming GS is like blaming the fox for eating your chickens. You can get angry at it and do whatever your want to kill it but in the final analysis, it fits in the circle of life. If you do get rid of it, another will replace it and if you get rid of them all, you’ll create a void in nature and nature hates a void.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Taibbi getting ready for a hatchet job on CNBC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbi-slams-cnbc-2009-8
It may be of some interest to the regulars.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am
The trick is to recognize it is a fox, because in the meantime it’s trying to tell you it is the farmer that owns the henhouse…
August 5th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Goldman is never going to say: “That’s it, we’ve made enough money now so let’s hang up our skates.” or “Let’s keep our ROE under 4% so we can stay under the radar”.
They are stuck in a system that requires perpetual growth and it is up to the people to stop them.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:36 am
if you get rid of the fox in a henhouse it is ok…if in nature not ok. the fox do not belong in the henhouse
August 5th, 2009 at 8:40 am
They are stuck in a system that requires perpetual growth and it is up to the people to stop them.
————-
But do the people have what it takes to stop them and bring back some semblance of democracy or will this just all lead to even more concentration of wealth?
I guess only time will tell.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:44 am
@danm:
Indeed. The comfort memes that run in our heads insulate us from views of life that we’re not equipped to handle. I often feel that it isn’t always talent as much as a mind capable of channeling a “command and control” agenda that leads to advancement. Like Gore Vidal famously said, it isn’t that there’s a conspiracy of powerful people; it’s just that they all think alike.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Gasparino ends with…
“A bigger issue lost in all the back-and-forth about the firm’s connections, trading habits, and where Lloyd Blankfein was the night of September 15, 2008 when Lehman went bust, is that the American taxpayer is right this very moment subsidizing Goldman’s risk taking. That’s a scandal no one seems to want to talk about.”
that is what we are talking about, no?
He is a shill for the street and is promoting his forthcoming book.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I often feel that it isn’t always talent as much as a mind capable of channeling a “command and control” agenda that leads to advancement
———–
I would argue that it is a talent as it is a special natural ability or aptitude. The issue I would see is whether this person is applying free will or just following a normal path destined to happen thanks to his/her genetics and/or the current social conjuncture.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
So instead of admiring his/her ability to make the winning choices you would admire his/her luck for having gotten the right genes and being at the right place at the right time because the circumstances just naturally led him/her to those choices.
Huge difference.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Every trend has trend setters, even among the graduates of the Ivy League a lot of people look at what other people are doing and follow them along. So when you say “It’s not JUST Goldman’s fault” it does not follow that it is NOBODY’s fault, or that they cannot be identified or curbed. “Bailout Nation” works toward that end, does it not?
The economy of the world is a human creation. I do not accept the idea that it _naturally_ follows ( @damn ) that therefore a relative handful of individuals in the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate industries must amass 100+ times the wealth of any other industry and dispense it sloppily amongst themselves. Just as humans are building better microchips, someone can figure out a better economic order.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I guess you could still admire the ability. But you would be admiring for different reasons: wonders of nature and not free will.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:23 am
danm Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 8:20 am
… Blaming GS is like blaming the fox for eating your chickens. You can get angry at it and do whatever your want to kill it but in the final analysis, it fits in the circle of life…”
Ah acceptance. Lets not act in arguer like Mr. Obama has said. Then why go after ENRON? Or Madoff? Lets all break the law and get away with it because afterall if not some one else will break it too. How about terrorist? lets look the other way after all if we go after them some other terrorist will replace them.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I do not accept the idea that it _naturally_ follows ( @damn ) that therefore a relative handful of individuals in the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate industries must amass 100+ times the wealth of any other industry and dispense it sloppily amongst themselves.
——————
I think you are mixing up fairness and results.
The system has naturally led us to 100+ times wealth. It is not fair and most do not like it but obviously the system has led us to this situation because we are living it.
The question now is not whether we should be there or not, it’s how everyone is playing their cards right now. Will the game lead us to a break down of the system or will the concentration of wealth keep on increasing.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ah acceptance. Lets not act in arguer like Mr. Obama has said. Then why go after ENRON? Or Madoff?
———
It’s not acceptance AT ALL!
You can understand why a criminal is a criminal and believe everything naturally led him to a life of crime but it does not change the fact that he’s dangerous and if you want peace and order you still have to lock him up.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I would argue that it is a talent as it is a special natural ability or aptitude.
Is an iPod talented?
August 5th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Barry, I think it’s also incredibly important to add a critical piece of context to Taibbi’s Goldman article: his previous article, The Big Takeover, is a laundry list of the culprits (Greenspan, Weill, Phil Gramm, Joe Cassano, Robert Rubin, Jimmy Cayne, Chris Cox, Angelo Mozilo, John Thain, Paulson, Fuld, Lewis, etc.) who caused the financial crisis. It’s no Bailout Nation, but it is much more expansive than The Great American Bubble Machine. As I wrote Monday, I think this is the mistake Gasparino (and many others) are making when they accuse Taibbi of doing nothing more than pinning all the blame in the known universe on GS.
Here is The Big Takeover:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
And, as someone who interviewed Taibbi (which Barry was kind enough to link to at the time), I can also attest that he is an incredibly nice guy and his intentions are to rake for the truth: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/?p=807
~~~~
BR: Excellent point!
August 5th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The point is the GS epitomizes, in stark terms, the influence peddling, hubris, greed and total disdain for fair play, which is no emblematic of the financial fraternity.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Thanks, Mr. Hoffman. Good interview.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
would argue that it is a talent as it is a special natural ability or aptitude.
Is an iPod talented?
————
Are you trying to get me into a semantics or a philosophical debate?
August 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Some people, by their behavior, make polite discussion or argumentation an impossibility. Charlie Gasparino is one of these people. I’ll refrain from making any arm-chair diagnoses of Mr. Gasparino’s mental condition, but suffice it to say that it is hard to imagine that the late Don King, loquacious boxing promoter, could get a word in edgewise over Mr. Gasparino.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Reggie Jackson is famously reported to have said, during his stint with the Yankees, “I’m the straw that stirs the drink.” No one realistically thinks that “Mr. October” won the ’77 and ’78 World Series by himself, but he was the MVP in 1977.
Goldman Sachs is the straw that stirs the Wall Street cocktail. Taibbi was correct to focus his attention on them, though we know others on Wall Street are working hard to screw us, too. Just ask the denizens of Jefferson County, Alabama about JPM.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:15 am
danm,
When foxes mess with my chickens, I get out the shotgun. It’s a natural response. Tough titty if you’re a fox, but the fox’s nature is irrelevant. (Dead foxes don’t eat chickens.)
August 5th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m sure the banksters will pull out all the stops to try to discredit Taibbi and any others who dare try to pull the curtain back.
Dylan Ratigan too. Already they’re sneering at him and treating him like a zealous nut over there at MSNBC.
See the clip:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#32267543
It’s enraging to see how Joe Scarborough laughs at him and teases him. What a condescending jackass. I’m sure Dylan wanted to take him out back after that bit.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
It’s a natural response. Tough titty if you’re a fox, but the fox’s nature is irrelevant. (Dead foxes don’t eat chickens.)
———-
I’d do the same!
But for some reason(s) the people have let GS get away with eating their chickens. I guess they still have too many chickens to even notice.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:31 am
By the way, is it just me or do MSNBC’s video links suck worse than others? Terrible streaming.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
GS is one shark in a pool full of sharks. Into that pool Alan Greenspan threw first a dozen screaming 10 year olds and then the bucket o’ blood. Market mechanism ensued
If you ever went to public school, I liken Taibbi to this. He is the perpetual b- student that sits in about the middle of the class that keeps turning around and explaining to the pothead, heavy metal, head bangers in the back of the room why the smartest guys in the room are getting speycial perks from the teacher. Market mechanism is almost ensuing in this case
August 5th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@ clawback
Welcome back. I thought you might have gone all Tyler Durden on us, gone underground and started some type of Project Mayhem at 85 Broad.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Fascinating MSNBC clip. Dylan does come across as the zealot/Jerry Maguire. He does use the word “scum,” no doubt sincerely felt. Moral outrage always looks quixotic juxtaposed with narcissistic cynicism. Maybe Dylan is outgrowing this stupid format.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Now that is a smoking Barry Ritholtz article! Nicely done
August 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Good piece on St. Warren being at the trough with the rest of the pigs:
http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/08/04/buffetts-betrayal/
Nice chart showing how he has profited from the bailouts.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am
The defense of Goldman comes across as what’s the point of being a virgin in a land of whores? Our current brand of capitalism equates to exploitation under the current constructs however one can to maximize profit and appease shareholders where moral or ethical character is not part of the discussion. If we dont’ do it someone else will. While we no longer hire 8 year old’s to work in dangerous conditions the same underlying philosophy of maximizing shareholder value and lining one’s pockets to whatever extent is legally allowable hasn’t changed.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@ Rikky 11:42
WRT “….philosophy of maximizing shareholder value….”
Not taking exception with anything you wrote, I just think that corporate management screws shareholders almost as much as customers. Managements are out of control and in bed with the Board of Directors. And Kudlow has the audacity to call this an “Ownership Society.”
August 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The only people I can think of with an excuse for taking the Taibbi article literally are Cthulhu mythos religious fundamentalists.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I don’t recall Taibbi placing the sole blame for anything on Goldman. As I read his piece, he pointed them out as a contributor, though a big one.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Cursive Says:
@ clawback
Welcome back. I thought you might have gone all Tyler Durden on us, gone underground and started some type of Project Mayhem at 85 Broad.
—-
Nah, like franklin411, I’m working on a dissertation in the humanities. Otherwise, I’m doing my best to rouse the rabble and pass along stories to Steve at The Daily Bail (that’s where I first saw the Dylan Ratigan clip).
BTW, I always thought Dylan was smart and good on the economic stuff, but I absolutely love the new show. He can be a little bit stiff and awkward at times, but man oh man is he good when it comes to the bailouts. I freakin’ love this guy for what he’s doing. I’ve been seething about the bailouts for months and we’re finally starting to get some traction with people like Dylan Ratigan. And BR — of course — has been a stalwart from the beginning.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
You have to admire a guy who calls Goldman Sachs “a giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.
Most setences are unremarkable and easily forgotten. Who is going to forget that sentence anytime soon?
He’s an extremely talented writer who put in a ton of research to pen that article. I repect him alot.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
[...] For those of you tracking the Gasparino-Taibbi debate. (Big Picture) [...]
August 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@BR
“Where Charlie takes issue with the RS piece is Matt’s statement that Goldman either “single-handedly or with very little help, was responsible for the financial crisis.” ”
Where in his article, The Great American Bubble Machine, did MATT TAIBBI state that …… Goldman either “single-handedly or with very little help, was responsible for the financial crisis.” ???
I can’t find that statement in his article.
This is Charlie Gasparino’s interpretation, not Matt Taibbi’s statement.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-02/stop-blaming-goldman-sachs/
Be very careful when you reference people, even though this is a blog, let’s stay with facts.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“When foxes mess with my chickens, I get out the shotgun. It’s a natural response. Tough titty if you’re a fox, but the fox’s nature is irrelevant. (Dead foxes don’t eat chickens.)”
Where is Theodore Roosevelt now that we need him? Break ‘em up. Break up Goldman and the others into tiny less powerful pieces.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I never took any of Taibbi’s article to be literal. Mostly because I understood the context.
Were I to take a literal interpretation, I would need to see CNBC and Charlie Gasparino’s name also listed as complicit in Taibbi’s article.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Goldman Sachs $100 Million Trading Days Reach Record
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. made more than $100 million in trading revenue on a record 46 separate days during the second quarter, or 71 percent of the time, breaking the previous high of 34 days in the prior three months.
Trading losses occurred on two days during April, May and June, down from eight in the first quarter, the New York-based bank said today in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company made at least $50 million on 58 of the 65 trading days in the period, or 89 percent of the time.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
[...] Barry Ritholtz weighs in on the debate over Goldman Sachs between Matt Taibbi and Charlie Gasparino. His verdict? [...]
August 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Rolling Stone’s target audience isn’t exactly of the most deep digging kind. It’s predominantly young, and either in, or straight out of, institutions where blaming “those guys who make money” for being greedy, evil blah blah, is considered reasoned argument. And, as RS readers, are almost by definition more concerned with “fitting in” with whatever fashion is currently en vogue in those institutions, than in digging for some slightly more universally applicable explanations for what keeps the world spinning around.
Few have even the slightest background from which to form a reasoned argument either for or against the actions Goldman Sachs may or may not have taken. And, worse yet, it is an audience whose search for underlying reasons, unfortunately seems to come to an abrupt halt as soon as they feel they have identified a bogeyman deserving of the title; according to their rarely, if ever, questioned ideology.
For Goldman to be responsible for this crisis, preventing financial crises must somehow be a paramount duty of Goldman, and enshrining them with the power to choose to either do so or not, must somehow be considered a good idea. Now, why is that? It’s hardly a law of nature. Or even of economic nature. Even the most starry eyed Keynesian is unlikely to be that confused.
So, somebody out there must have thought it was a good idea to place Goldman in a position to create or prevent financial crisis. And then, to force everyone else to pay for keeping them around in that position, even when they chose to make the supposedly wrong choice; deciding to let a crisis happen after all. Evil bastards.
Now, why aren’t the guys designing, championing and, by bailouts and interest meddling, perpetuating a system like that, at least as much to blame as a gaggle of stock brokers and bond traders at Goldman Sachs? Except, of course, that those guys profess to be “public servants”, altruistic “students of the depression” etc., etc., and according to Rolling Stone’s core audience’s rather rigid scheme of moral-professional classification, aren’t the greedy self serving bastards Goldman is. By virtue of job title alone, it would seem.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Where is Theodore Roosevelt now that we need him? Break ‘em up. Break up Goldman and the others into tiny less powerful pieces.”
HEAR, HEAR!
As Dylan Ratigan is saying, we need to put an end to Too Big To Fail. It is one of the main factors at the root of all this and serves to siphon great amounts of wealth from our society into few hands.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
@stuki:
Taibbi’s peace is “accessible,” which is intellectual code for a dumbed-down Reader’s Digest melodrama version of the crisis. But it was very well written and his vampire squid image has taken the popular imagination by storm.
And just think: Taibbi’s readers vote. I suspect that scares you. Welcome to democracy.
And do you really mean to suggest that CEOs aren’t very concerned with fitting in with whatever fashions are currently in vogue?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
While I agree with Gaspirino that GS is not the only one playing the game that brought down the financial house of cards, the Taibbi article convincingly documents how much better and more successful they were at all aspects of the game than anyone else. Getting mad at the players won’t fix anything; the rules of the game need to change. Since GS and its alumni are now making the rules, I fear that won’t happen.
I predict our politicians will cave into to the lobbyists and hurriedly enact another bill like SOX and call it reform. SOX addressed a number of the symptoms of the disease Enron was the first to catch (e.g. 401(k) trading freezes), but did nothing to address the disease itself – over-leverage, counterparty risk, derivative enhanced trading strategies, use of political influence to repeal arcane but useful regulatory limits, etc., etc. The kinds of things that brought down Lehman.
It took 4 or 5 years after the 1929 crash for congresss to study its causes and enact the 33 Act, Glass-Steagall and so on, which worked pretty well until they were emasculated in a fit of dogmatic deregulatory abstractism. I think that kind studied, effective and long-lasting regulatory solution is beyond the capability of our current elected officials.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The vampire squid metaphor is truly genius! Love it.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
How is pointing out GS’s involvement in any way saying they were solely responsible for the mess?
Yes, we blame ALL the big financial companies, they were all complicit in creating this mess. GS is just the one profiting the most from it, and therefore deserves the grief they are getting. One doesn’t have to believe in conspiracies to be disgusted at those who have profitted at the expense of ALL of us — I do not particularly enjoy being out hundreds of thousands of dollars in my own personal wealth and seeing these assholes taking home millions from my losses and those of the rest of us who were literally raped by this market and their manipulations of it. I want it ended, and I know others do, too. If Charlie can’t understand this and work with us instead of defending these bastards, then he should be off the air. I certainly won’t be watching him.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Transor Z,
Taibbi’s piece is in many ways substantially worse than a dumbed down version, as it focuses its readers’ ire in a completely useless direction. Goldman Sachs’ come and go, and what they do and how they are run, is utterly irrelevant. If Goldman hadn’t bid the most for government, the second highest bidder would have won. With exactly no difference in outcome, except for the name of the institution now being demonized. Government being up for grabs to the highest bidder is the problem. Which, given the inevitable human nature of officials of government, means government being in a position to bestow graces worth bidding for, is the problem underlying that again.
A more proper dumbed down piece would have concluded the US treasury has now been sold, and is simply an institution charged with robbing the populace for the benefit of whatever bankers pay them the highest. Not particularly nuanced, but at least the direction is not off by 180 degrees, and infinitely more likely to point the pitchforks in the right direction.
And I’m sure Taibbi’s readers will vote. For the exact same guys who handed control of trillions of dollars of other people’s past, current and future taxes over to a bunch of bankers in the first place. Just because those guys now manage to stutter some muted criticism at Goldman’s pay policies and “greed”. And that is what scares me.
I’m sure CEO’s are not impervious to fashion influence, either, but in this instance, at least as far as banking CEO’s go, they have nothing to lose if the populace indulges in silly, politically correct ideological fashion parades. They already have the system they like. It’s the rest of us, who are supposed to be footing the bill, that needs to keep our eyes on the ball (not to mention front sights), and not fall back into a content slumber, just because those who took our (and our children’s) money at the bankers’ behest, are trying to deflect blame to a bunch of imminently replaceable bank employees.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Government being up for grabs to the highest bidder is the problem.
You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
It’s the rest of us, who are supposed to be footing the bill, that needs to keep our eyes on the ball (not to mention front sights), and not fall back into a content slumber, just because those who took our (and our children’s) money at the bankers’ behest, are trying to deflect blame to a bunch of imminently replaceable bank employees.
Agreed that scapegoating GS runs the risk of deflecting blame from systemic problems. Nicely put.
I still like Simon Johnson’s piece for trying to keep everyone’s eyes on the ball.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
[...] Bloggers, like journalists have been the ones that are keeping CNBC’s and Goldman’s feet to the fire. It’s called accountability, Charles. I know you’d know nothing about it, but that’s the life of the establishment tool. Call me cynical, but could it be at all possible that part of Chuck’s deflection here reveals the out of touch, look-the-other-way-I-can’t-hear-you-lalala culture that remains at CNBC ? Or is it the victim mentality escaping him in the form of a refusal to accept that he was aware CNBC played a part in allowing the American people to be misled similar to the activities of huge Goldman-like firms? What exactly did Gasparino mean in the recording when he says the Lehman executive will have a credibility problem if the call isn’t returned? What did he already know that the everyday Americans should have? [...]
August 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
[...] in The Great American Bubble Machine, but that should not take away from the bigger picture, as Barry Ritholtz writes: The best way to enjoy it is to think of it as the culmination of frustration by the public, with [...]