His name is Matt Taibbi and he is a writer in the Rolling Stone magazine. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
thanks for this
Isn’t Rolling Stone for rockstars? Since when they started writing financial article?
Probably around the time Michael Lewis started writing for Vanity Fair.
Excellent article and mostly true. Investment bankers typically aren’t geniuses, just taking advantage of opportunities, good or bad, wherever they can. If that means screwing over everyone else in the economy, that’s alright with them. After all, it’s business, not personal.
Great article. People seem happier being forwarded a rollingstone article on a slow summer afternoon rather than something from bloomberg or FT.
He was on Bill Mahr on HBO on Friday. This is nothing new though, when you start to look at “coincidences” I dont see how anyone could draw any other conclusion. They actually tried to sue this guy http://www.goldmansachs666.com/
^^^From a guy who called everyone who couldnt pay their mortgages “a bunch of losers” literally on national TV and then backed out of an interview with Jon Stewart who went on the beat the p*** out of Cramer who took his place. Sorry, Gasparino has no credibility in my book right now. And everyone on this forum who knows off balance sheet liabilities knows that GS had CDS with AIG along with several other I banks and would have taken huge losses had we not bailed them out.
did you read the article? he’s not disputing that the bailout helped goldman at all. but if you think taibbi’s article is an accurate description of what happened, i’d have to disagree with you. no big deal. btw, i think you’re thinking of rick santelli, not gasparino. i’ll go on record saying i usually hate charlie gasparino’s work too, but i agree with him in this article. that taibbi article was pretty off the mark. again, my opinion.
I agree that I wouldnt agree with everything Taibbi said. I wouldnt take anything written by a magazine writer as tried and true, and definitely check facts. I did read it, but my opinion of CG is such that I already dont agree with his personal philosophy and based on that, I wouldnt take him as a credible source. Some peopple are guided by their emotions and to kick people who are already on the ground shows true colors that I just dont agree with. It was him that yelled this, I havent seen him on CNBC in the morning since, I remember it distinctly because I work in banking and around this time everyone became an Armchair economist and just started regurgutating everything they heard on TV as long as it jived with their personal philosophy. I read Fools Gold and it gives you a whole new perspective on how these banks did business and tried to increase risk and leverage constantly, never being satisfied with making their millions. I think we should have been involved in regulating the shadow banking system long ago, but to let some I banks convert to commercial banks to be “safe” and participate in TARP was a horrible idea in my opinion. You play with fire you get burned.
i’ll agree with you that these investment banks took absurd risks. risks they probably didn’t understand they were taking. but i will disagree with you that the investment banks should not have been allowed to participate in TARP. i think if you let firms like GS and MS go down, we (that’s “we” as in, the general public) would be in lot worse shape than we are in now. (which is saying a lot because we are still in bad shape.) I work at one of these banks, so i guess i can’t say I have no bias. but i digress. my whole point was that i didn’t think that taibbi article was “great”.
I love how we bailed them out, not just with TARP money but by effectively nationailizing their greatest potential liability (AIG) so as to ensure they continue getting paid on their positions. Then they go out and start handing out bonuses like its 1999. Its ok though, I work in Fin Svcs and it will eventually help me command a higher paycheck. Just feel bad for the rest of the people in this country. This moral conscience is why I don’t think I can ever be an iBanker. sigh. I’d be perfect for it otherwise, I even tend to work the hours willingly, just have a hard time with pure redistributive finance; I’m too constructive and keep looking for ways to make the deal sweet on all sides.
CFASF1, you are in SF I am guessing? I am out in the east bay myself. I probably also have a bit of a bias as everyone Ive met from both firms you mentioned had a bit of an attitude about it. Personally, my experiences with coincidences is that if they are an outcome of human interaction, they tend to be less coincidences and more planned action. I have a stong opinion about it so i am going about researching books explaining the underpinnings of the financial crisis and the more i read, the more it looks like it is less of a “perfect storm” and more of an accident waiting to happen. Politically, I believe that a democratic government has to protect its citizens from the interests of the few, and anyone who has follow economic history in this country realizes that those few are becoming more and more concentrated, many times by deceptive means. And that Rolling Stone article made enough of a splash to be on CNBC online today.
Matt Taibbi is essentially the Michael Moore of writing. He’s extremely biased, doing a horrible job of balancing his articles. He goes into situations with a clear agenda and discounts anything that counters his opinion. Like Michael Moore, it’s obvious he loves the sound of his own voice (so to speak), and he just isn’t that good at his craft.
I totally agree. We need more Coulters, Malkins, O Reillys, Hannitys, Becks, Limbaughs, Weiners (fake name Michael Savage) who report on “news” in a Fair and Balanced manner.
Haha, not quite. Like any self-respecting capitalist I’m a Libertarian. Coulter makes me just as sick as Taibbi.
Unfortunately our system has evolved to the 2 party system which I dont agree with either. Im tired of hearing the same old song and enjoy the new blood some of the “fringe” candidates bring to the table.
Taibbi is a known and self-admitted sensationalist. I had a great time reading the article and anyone else who liked it or is the least bit curious about his style, should check out his would-be interview with former President G.W. Bush (also a RS article). That may put things into perspective. Regardless, anyone who’s ever done business w GS knows that no matter what they say, you are not a client of theirs, you are an opportunity to manipulate. This idea that they are client focused is a total crock of sh*t. They treat you like a king until they can manipulate you no more and then they’ll pretend they don’t even know you. Their one priority is to make money. They’ll never move on their bid/offer and never admit when they are wrong. That is what they do. That is what most other IBanks/Financial services firms try to do. Goldman just happens to be best in breed. Taibbi’s article was nothing more than an entertaining way to reiterate one of the oldest cliche’s. That money is the root of all evil. He uses Goldman as his evidence. And not for anything, with out the backdoor bailout, the AIG debacle would have put them OUT OF BUSINESS.