Taibbi's article is complete crap. I keep thinking of writing a post to point out all that's wrong with it, but I've decided it's not even worth the effort. It's 98% hyperbole and 2% facts, of which most are just there and don't really prove that Goldman Sachs is a big, evil financial bubble-making machine.
So, Goldman Sachs has survived a number of bubbles over the years. And?? If anything, that doesn't prove it's evil; it proves that it's well-managed. To an extent, I'm sure its size helped it over the years.
Dean Starkman's article isn't much better. He doesn't really ascertain Taibbi's article on its financial or economic merits. And I can only conclude that he doesn't because he doesn't know the subject matter. And my evidence for saying so is this:
Quote:
|
As Taibbi (who needs no help defending himself) pointed out on his own blog, Moore addresses precisely none of the substantive criticisms that have been leveled at the bank, including big ones, like ... (2) selling defective mortgage-backed securities while (3) shorting them at the same time....
|
Um, hello? Anyone heard of financial risk management? This is precisely what you're SUPPOSED to do with risky investments. And if you aren't familiar with financial risk management, just drop the "financial" and you get the idea - you have to prepare for things to go wrong and have contingencies to protect the company (and, hence, your investors), etc. You buy car insurance to cover your ass in case you get in an accident. Financial risk management isn't much difference.