That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.

I didn't think anyone was allowed to say that out loud. Shorting mortgaged back securities for your own account while selling the same securities to your own clients knowing they are steaming piles of oozing maggot ridden canine feces? Why, how could anyone criticize the ethics of a business adviser for such a minor transgression?

Same guys are setting up to make billions on trading related to the cap-n-trade garbage...

The actual article forgot to mention how Sacha Baron Cohen is also a Goldman alum.

When you think about it, it's really quite shocking that any banks/investment bankers lost any money during the real estate/economy plunge at all. They make the rules, then they further bend/break those rules in the interest of their own gain.

deebee230: The actual article forgot to mention how Sacha Baron Cohen is also a Goldman alum.

Thanks for linking to the article instead of the NY Times coverage of the ensuing slap fight

jayhawk88: When you think about it, it's really quite shocking that any banks/investment bankers lost any money during the real estate/economy plunge at all. They make the rules, then they further bend/break those rules in the interest of their own gain.

Not really. If you look at how insanely risky some of the bets they made were, you'd see why they lost money. They thought they'd have time to change the rules when it went south, or at least bail out of the positions. There's a longstanding tradition of there always being a sucker to buy when you try to cut your losses. But it happened too fast, and when they went to all their buddies (documented well in the media) to get their wink-wink-nudge-nudge help, their buddies were in the same situation. You can't cut your losses when there are no longer any potential buyers.

When you make bets that have the potential to exceed the GDP of most industrialized nations combined, there's little you're going to do when it blows up in your face. When the monoline re-insurances began to fail, it was over.

Just read the article and it really is a piece of crap.

Was Goldman the only one who sold CDOs and bought CDS' to hedge risk - no. Did they engage in shady investment banking practices - yes, just like nearly every other firm in the WORLD. Are they stock and commodity scalpers - yes. Should they be allowed to hedge against commodity risk - yes. Were other firms buying spot oil and selling futures contracts - yes.

Too few facts. This thing reads like it was main sources were wikipedia.

A Goldman spokesman, Lucas Van Praag, told The Post in an e-mail message: "[Taibbi's] story is an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories. Notable ones missing are Goldman Sachs as the third shooter [in John F. Kennedy's assassination] and faking the first lunar landing."

So, Goldman Sachs's spokesman is acknowledging that there was a SECOND SHOOTER?

Well that was an uplifting read (the actual Rolling Stone article linked in the thread.) Time to go buy guns, gold, a bunker and canned food, that is, unless Goldman Sachs has their dirty fingers in that business too.

If the pinned it on Goldman alone I am nto impressed.


xtragrind: Same guys are setting up to make billions on trading related to the cap-n-trade garbage...

THIS.

deebee230: Did they engage in shady investment banking practices - yes, just like nearly every other firm in the WORLD.

See, I think the whole point of this is to point out that everyone in positions of power are still acting like these firms have no culpability in the financial collapse. AND Goldman Sachs has the balls to manipulate the system to make their internal bets win/win scenarios while offering lose/lose bets to their customers. Ordinary people and everyone else are losing their collective shirts as a result while Goldman has the hubris to call those willing to investigate their ethics lapses "stupid"...

No one, and I mean NO ONE has yet to suggest any kind of appreciable punitive action against any of these firms because, "Well, everyone was doing it." If there is one thing I am definitely not liking about the Obama era is that everyone is shrugging their shoulders about these ethics violations when we should be handing these people's heads to the justice department on a platter.

Or at least setting up laws so we can do so in the future.

/And that goes for other officials in positions of responsibility as well.

Wow, the only question I have after reading that guy's blog is whether he is as much of a moronic tool as he seems, or he is just pretending to be such so that other moronic tools buy his magazine, read his blog, or idiotically post his articles to Fark with the "Hero" tag.

Just a clue to the financially unaware: accepting the opinion of Matt Taibbi on anything in the financial markets is similar to accepting the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on health care, Bill O'Reilly on journalistic integrity, or Sarah Palin on anything. They don't know shiat about any of those topics but get to voice their misguided opinions because there are similarly obtuse people out there ready to lap it up.

Debeo Summa Credo: Wow, the only question I have after reading that guy's blog is whether he is as much of a moronic tool as he seems, or he is just pretending to be such so that other moronic tools buy his magazine, read his blog, or idiotically post his articles to Fark with the "Hero" tag.

Just a clue to the financially unaware: accepting the opinion of Matt Taibbi on anything in the financial markets is similar to accepting the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on health care, Bill O'Reilly on journalistic integrity, or Sarah Palin on anything. They don't know shiat about any of those topics but get to voice their misguided opinions because there are similarly obtuse people out there ready to lap it up.

If you've ever seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi comes across as a smug prick (even if you agree with his viewpoints).

Debeo Summa Credo: Just a clue to the financially unaware: accepting the opinion of Matt Taibbi on anything in the financial markets is similar to accepting the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on health care, Bill O'Reilly on journalistic integrity, or Sarah Palin on anything. They don't know shiat about any of those topics but get to voice their misguided opinions because there are similarly obtuse people out there ready to lap it up.

I've always found Taibbi's writing to be very forced-sounding with plenty of needless profanity and editorializing to spice up his work. Why should a professional writer need to drop f-bombs in every piece, given the plethora of other words usable to describe an emotional reaction? Laziness and a desperate desire to seem hip.

I will now RTFA and see if the prophesy holds in this case.

CarnySaur: If you've ever seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi comes across as a smug prick (even if you agree with his viewpoints).

Um, that's the case with 90% of the people on Bill Maher's show.

/Still mostly agree with him. Sometimes.

JK_Huysmans: CarnySaur: If you've ever seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi comes across as a smug prick (even if you agree with his viewpoints).

Um, that's the case with 90% of the people on Bill Maher's show.

/Still mostly agree with him. Sometimes.

He's not as funny, though.

sirrerun: A Goldman spokesman, Lucas Van Praag, told The Post in an e-mail message: "[Taibbi's] story is an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories. Notable ones missing are Goldman Sachs as the third shooter [in John F. Kennedy's assassination] and faking the first lunar landing."

So, Goldman Sachs's spokesman is acknowledging that there was a SECOND SHOOTER?

In other news, Mr. Van Praag was shot in the back several times before falling down an elevator shaft. The death has been ruled a suicide by authorities.

Debeo Summa Credo: Wow, the only question I have after reading that guy's blog is whether he is as much of a moronic tool as he seems, or he is just pretending to be such so that other moronic tools buy his magazine, read his blog, or idiotically post his articles to Fark with the "Hero" tag.

Just a clue to the financially unaware: accepting the opinion of Matt Taibbi on anything in the financial markets is similar to accepting the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on health care, Bill O'Reilly on journalistic integrity, or Sarah Palin on anything. They don't know shiat about any of those topics but get to voice their misguided opinions because there are similarly obtuse people out there ready to lap it up.

So what would be your counter-arguments to the points he brings up? You know, for the 'financially unaware'? As well, there are plenty of completely financially aware people who have been bringing up some rather shady practices at Goldman Sachs. It is rather unfair though - PIMCO, JPM and Morgan Stanley should also probably receive more scrutiny than they have been.

As for the other comment about 'hedging commodity risk' - generally a strategy for producers of the stuff - these types of shenanigans are pushing that concept just a little, no? It's not really hedging either if you're selling stuff and at the same time shorting it - it gets a little closer to 'pump and dump'.

He's an annoying writer, and blaming the Tech Bubble on Goldman is quite the stretch (worse were all the idiot 'journalists' out there chiming it's all a new business model!) however, everyone should be VERY alarmed about the degree of 'regulatory capture' by former Goldman Sachs employees. Particularly in regards to the latest fraud - good old cap and trade.

'The revolving door' between companies and the authorities charged with regulating them is a serious problem and Goldman is one of the worst. One of the most glaring examples of where this was a problem was in Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary. And what's the work history of the new CFTC Chairman? Yep, 18 years at Goldman Sachs.

kittylittle: It's not really hedging either if you're selling stuff and at the same time shorting it - it gets a little closer to 'pump and dump'.

It's trading, and its what investment banks, broker-dealers, and hedge funds do. Goldman just does it better.

They bought mortgages, significantly increasing their exposure, but purchased protection from another party. There's no 'pump and dump' going on. If you can buy $100m in mortgages, then hedge that risk with financial counterparties for less than you paid for the mortgages, you have negotiated yourself an arbitrage profit. And there's nothing wrong with that.

kittylittle: 'The revolving door' between companies and the authorities charged with regulating them is a serious problem and Goldman is one of the worst. One of the most glaring examples of where this was a problem was in Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary. And what's the work history of the new CFTC Chairman? Yep, 18 years at Goldman Sachs.

This might have something to do with Goldman doing things better. They attract and/or train the most talented, and the most talented are more likely to get appointed to governmental positions. Would you rather the Treasury only hire those who were rejected from Goldman?

kittylittle: As for the other comment about 'hedging commodity risk' - generally a strategy for producers of the stuff - these types of shenanigans are pushing that concept just a little, no? It's not really hedging either if you're selling stuff and at the same time shorting it - it gets a little closer to 'pump and dump'.

If you are commodities dealer, holding an inventory of crude oil contracts, why should you not have the ability to hedge that risk? It is true that futures contracts were initially created for the producers of goods but who do those producers go to in order to make that swap? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, FC Stone, Man, Lazard, etc.

Great work Matt. The creeps like the Goldman crew and many others who made billions by helping build up and then causing the crash of the subprime/CDO's (and subsequently taking down the economies of the entire planet this time) justify it in their minds because they think they provide all the information in writing, in black and white, and if people do not READ all the fine print, it is their own fault. Risk is risk.

The game they play is just a money game and the bigger the stakes the better. They have so incredibly much money that they have no clue the serious harm they cause other human beings in their games. I do not mean to defend them, but most of this stuff is too hard for people to grasp so they go on like sheep doing what the media tells them to do. They invest when they are told to invest. They panic and put their money in their mattress when they are told.

People/politicians can be bought off by these billionaires so the game goes on. Looks who is running our country now? A group of ex-Goldman folks. We are screwed.

kobrakai: That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.

That's where I look for real journalism, in a magazine that reviews Jonas Brothers albums. I'm still waiting for Maxim's hard-hitting report on credit default swaps.

kittylittle: Debeo Summa Credo: Wow, the only question I have after reading that guy's blog is whether he is as much of a moronic tool as he seems, or he is just pretending to be such so that other moronic tools buy his magazine, read his blog, or idiotically post his articles to Fark with the "Hero" tag.

Just a clue to the financially unaware: accepting the opinion of Matt Taibbi on anything in the financial markets is similar to accepting the opinion of Rush Limbaugh on health care, Bill O'Reilly on journalistic integrity, or Sarah Palin on anything. They don't know shiat about any of those topics but get to voice their misguided opinions because there are similarly obtuse people out there ready to lap it up.

So what would be your counter-arguments to the points he brings up? You know, for the 'financially unaware'? As well, there are plenty of completely financially aware people who have been bringing up some rather shady practices at Goldman Sachs. It is rather unfair though - PIMCO, JPM and Morgan Stanley should also probably receive more scrutiny than they have been.

As for the other comment about 'hedging commodity risk' - generally a strategy for producers of the stuff - these types of shenanigans are pushing that concept just a little, no? It's not really hedging either if you're selling stuff and at the same time shorting it - it gets a little closer to 'pump and dump'.

He's an annoying writer, and blaming the Tech Bubble on Goldman is quite the stretch (worse were all the idiot 'journalists' out there chiming it's all a new business model!) however, everyone should be VERY alarmed about the degree of 'regulatory capture' by former Goldman Sachs employees. Particularly in regards to the latest fraud - good old cap and trade.

'The revolving door' between companies and the authorities charged with regulating them is a serious problem and Goldman is one of the worst. One of the most glaring examples of where this was a problem was in Hank Paulson as Treasury Secretary. And what's the work history of the new CFTC Chairman? Yep, 18 years at Goldman Sachs.

If you have a problem with the price of oil being manipulated, you might want to take a look at OPEC before you start complaining about derivatives that you don't understand. Also, in the future when you are complaining about short sales, try not to start with the practice most commonly accepted to be legitimate. Take a shot at naked shorts or something like that. People will take you more seriously in the future. I promise.

kobrakai: That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.

jhva3: That's where I look for real journalism, in a magazine that reviews Jonas Brothers albums. I'm still waiting for Maxim's hard-hitting report on credit default swaps.

If you think that Rolling Stone doesn't contain "real" journalism because it's primarily a music magazine, you're either either grossly uninformed, or a child.

Barricaded Gunman: kobrakai: That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.

jhva3: That's where I look for real journalism, in a magazine that reviews Jonas Brothers albums. I'm still waiting for Maxim's hard-hitting report on credit default swaps.

If you think that Rolling Stone doesn't contain "real" journalism because it's primarily a music magazine, you're either either grossly uninformed, or a child.

That's exactly what I said, thanks for summing up my viewpoint so succinctly. Why is it real journalism? Because you say it is? My point is that I do not look for real journalism in a magazine that reviews music from the Disney Channel as though it is art. Do you understand? The magazine is written for people who want to know how the new Jonas Brothers album is. And you are calling me a child?

The hard-hitting real journalism you are referring to was featured in an issue with the stars of Gossip Girl on the cover. So I am a child for not reading a magazine that is targeting at teenage girls. I wouldn't be caught dead reading that shiat.

I know you think you're a heavyweight intellectual for reading the brilliant journalism in Rolling Stone, but you need to get over yourself. It is a shiatty magazine for young ladies. Maybe they stumble on something that isn't a steaming pile of shiat every now and again. I don't care.

Oh yeah, and their opinion on music hasn't been relevant in decades.

This article is a steaming load of crap.

He blames Goldman for selling stock of companies like Webvan to suckers. If you pay 1000 times revenue for a stock, you deserve to lose your ass.

jhva3: Barricaded Gunman: kobrakai: That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.

jhva3: That's where I look for real journalism, in a magazine that reviews Jonas Brothers albums. I'm still waiting for Maxim's hard-hitting report on credit default swaps.

If you think that Rolling Stone doesn't contain "real" journalism because it's primarily a music magazine, you're either either grossly uninformed, or a child.

That's exactly what I said, thanks for summing up my viewpoint so succinctly. Why is it real journalism? Because you say it is? My point is that I do not look for real journalism in a magazine that reviews music from the Disney Channel as though it is art. Do you understand? The magazine is written for people who want to know how the new Jonas Brothers album is. And you are calling me a child?

The hard-hitting real journalism you are referring to was featured in an issue with the stars of Gossip Girl on the cover. So I am a child for not reading a magazine that is targeting at teenage girls. I wouldn't be caught dead reading that shiat.

I know you think you're a heavyweight intellectual for reading the brilliant journalism in Rolling Stone, but you need to get over yourself. It is a shiatty magazine for young ladies. Maybe they stumble on something that isn't a steaming pile of shiat every now and again. I don't care.

Oh yeah, and their opinion on music hasn't been relevant in decades.

Incidentally, Rolling Stone gave the last Jonas Brothers album four stars. (new window)

kobrakai: That's because Rolling Stone employs real journalists.



Hunter S. Thompson and P.J. O'Rourke would like a word with you.
Matt Tiabbi, not so much. To me, he writes like Fred Durst sings, he's irrelevant like Rolling Stone.

jhva3: That's exactly what I said, thanks for summing up my viewpoint so succinctly. Why is it real journalism? Because you say it is? My point is that I do not look for real journalism in a magazine that reviews music from the Disney Channel as though it is art. Do you understand? The magazine is written for people who want to know how the new Jonas Brothers album is. And you are calling me a child?

If you determine real journalism by cover of the magazine rather than the content, sourcing, and research of the article, then you have no business commenting on the accuracy of an article.

Yea, you're a child.

You seem neither capable nor equipped to address the actual journalism within an article on a point by point basis. I think your sole criticism came from referencing the existence of other articles by other journalists who share pages on the magazine. Is that your version of critical thinking?

Are you the kind of moron who refers to the 'lifestyle' section of a paper in order to evaluate the journalistic integrity of the author of a business column piece? Real brilliant.

that_other_internet: jhva3: That's exactly what I said, thanks for summing up my viewpoint so succinctly. Why is it real journalism? Because you say it is? My point is that I do not look for real journalism in a magazine that reviews music from the Disney Channel as though it is art. Do you understand? The magazine is written for people who want to know how the new Jonas Brothers album is. And you are calling me a child?

If you determine real journalism by cover of the magazine rather than the content, sourcing, and research of the article, then you have no business commenting on the accuracy of an article.

Yea, you're a child.

You seem neither capable nor equipped to address the actual journalism within an article on a point by point basis. I think your sole criticism came from referencing the existence of other articles by other journalists who share pages on the magazine. Is that your version of critical thinking?

Are you the kind of moron who refers to the 'lifestyle' section of a paper in order to evaluate the journalistic integrity of the author of a business column piece? Real brilliant.

Listen lady, I didn't mean to piss you off by insulting this magazine that you think is full of brilliant journalism. I'm just saying that generally magazines are written for an audience. Rolling Stone is written for teenage girls. It has Jonas Brothers reviews, and stars of The Hills and Gossip Girl on it. When your magazine is targeted at children, you have to burden of proving that there is valid journalism on the inside, because as an adult, I would be embarrassed to buy it at a newsstand.

So I read this genius article that all you ladies are so keen to defend. Wow, he is blaming the internet bubble on Goldman. He is also blaming the housing crisis on Goldman. He is also blaming the inflated oil price on Goldman. He doesn't have anything to back it up. Just a bunch of conspiracy theories and things everyone who pays attention to this stuff already knew strung together with colorful prose. See I like to get my news about finance from publications without reviews of the Jonas brothers albums in them. Sorry for my lack of critical thinking.

So now the ball is in your court Ms. Lady. Explain to me how this brilliant article revealed anything that was not public knowledge.

jhva3: So I read this genius article that all you ladies are so keen to defend. Wow, he is blaming the internet bubble on Goldman. He is also blaming the housing crisis on Goldman. He is also blaming the inflated oil price on Goldman. He doesn't have anything to back it up.

For someone who has such a distaste for "teen" magazines, you haven't done much to prove you have reading skills beyond a teen magazine level, much less the discipline required to critique any article whatsoever.

Here's a hint: Present specific points, show specific weaknesses, and use that to present a critique of the article's points.

No matter who the article is published by or for whatever intended market, you have to judge the specific journalist's work based on its own merits. Otherwise, the tendency for retards is to form their opinions first and then accept or dismiss an article based on whether or not it agrees with their opinion.

The revolving door policy (see here for a map), holding short positions while selling down the market, the steady procession of Goldman Sachs alumni into positions where they can dictate and oversee fiscal policy and market oversight (Paulson), Goldman competitors being allowed to fail (Lehman), Goldman debtors being rescued by TARP (AIG), former Goldman bankers requesting the TARP (Paulson), former Goldman bankers overseeing the distribution of TARP funds (Neel Kashkari), former Goldman bankers supervising Goldman Sachs via the NY Fed Chair position (Stephen Friedman), etc, etc. All this is simply a series of coincidences for your miraculous brain. What a miracle your brain must be for this extremely well documented gigantic conflict of interest to be the mythological suggestion of a conspiracy theory.

Anyhow, get started on your analysis of the Goldman oil manipulation claim. I really don't think you know which article you're talking about here.

I'll help you. It's this one. Page 60 of the magazine, under the paragraph heading "Bubble #4". Seems extremely well researched to me, but maybe you can do better.

that_other_internet: jhva3: So I read this genius article that all you ladies are so keen to defend. Wow, he is blaming the internet bubble on Goldman. He is also blaming the housing crisis on Goldman. He is also blaming the inflated oil price on Goldman. He doesn't have anything to back it up.

For someone who has such a distaste for "teen" magazines, you haven't done much to prove you have reading skills beyond a teen magazine level, much less the discipline required to critique any article whatsoever.

Here's a hint: Present specific points, show specific weaknesses, and use that to present a critique of the article's points.

No matter who the article is published by or for whatever intended market, you have to judge the specific journalist's work based on its own merits. Otherwise, the tendency for retards is to form their opinions first and then accept or dismiss an article based on whether or not it agrees with their opinion.

The revolving door policy (see here for a map), holding short positions while selling down the market, the steady procession of Goldman Sachs alumni into positions where they can dictate and oversee fiscal policy and market oversight (Paulson), Goldman competitors being allowed to fail (Lehman), Goldman debtors being rescued by TARP (AIG), former Goldman bankers requesting the TARP (Paulson), former Goldman bankers overseeing the distribution of TARP funds (Neel Kashkari), former Goldman bankers supervising Goldman Sachs via the NY Fed Chair position (Stephen Friedman), etc, etc. All this is simply a series of coincidences for your miraculous brain. What a miracle your brain must be for this extremely well documented gigantic conflict of interest to be the mythological suggestion of a conspiracy theory.

Anyhow, get started on your analysis of the Goldman oil manipulation claim. I really don't think you know which article you're talking about here.

I'll help you. It's this one. Page 60 of the magazine, under the paragraph heading "Bubble #4". Seems extremely well researched to me, but maybe you can do better.

The only reason it seems well-researched, cutting-edge, new information is that you get your financial news from Rolling Stone.

Goldman Sachs alumni-Paulson's credentials aren't exactly a secret. If being involved in investment banking makes you hopelessly conflicted, how do you suggest we get competent people in these positions?

Lehman allowed to fail-old news, ignores every other reason they were allowed to fail and that many of goldman's competitors were saved. This guy says that Lehman was Goldman's only real competitor. That just isn't true. I know that you don't know this and just believe what he says, but it isn't. Even if they were saved they would not have been able to compete because they were so insolvent.

AIG being rescued by TARP-Goldman wasn't the only debtor, would have destabilized the whole banking system, are you arguing that AIG should be allowed to fail?-again, old news.

Neel Kashkari-again, everyone knows his credentials, Goldman got their tarp money and then they gave it back. What did he do wrong?

Stephen Friedman stepped down because of his conflict, didn't he?

Oil Manipulation-The article shows a misunderstanding with just about every aspect of the market, while also being heavily biased against Goldman. Everyone has been trading oil options for decades, not just Goldman. This is well known.

It is Goldman's fault that too many people bet long? Sorry, but Goldman isn't the only bank in the market, and should not be held responsible for everyone betting for the market to go up. Tons of people short oil. It is what people do when they think the price is going to go down. People didn't think that. In hindsight they were wrong. It is easy to criticize people in hindsight.

Supply and demand does not effect the price of oil? That just isn't true and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the market.
What are those crazy fellas at Opec doing controlling the supply of oil? Why does the price change when they pump less oil? I'm still supposed to take this article seriously? This is well-researched because one stupid congressman from Detroit is saying that supply and demand don't effect the oil price? Give me a break.

Goldman is benefited by the bailout? Wow. When you bail out the banking system, isn't it supposed to help banks. This stupid article is a bunch of old news and conspiracy theories strung together to blame every crisis since the dawn of time on Goldman.

Alright ladybird here it comes see if you can handle it.

Tech Bubble-Every investment bank did the same thing. There was a global settlement. Not new information. Not newsworthy. Would not be included in an article for people who knew about this stuff, as opposed to a magazine written for teenage girls. Hatchet job.

Housing bubble-Again everyone was doing this, not just Goldman. Ignores the fact that there was fraud going on at the origination level. Is that Goldman's fault too? Hatchet job.

Oil-Article asserts that supply and demand do not effect the price of commodities because when demand went down slightly, prices went up. Fails to understand that expected demand is factored in to the equation. Again, tons of firms have been speculating on oil for decades. To blame this all on Goldman because their subsidiary got the first exemption is ridiculous.

As I said before, Rolling Stone is a shiatty magazine. I am sorry to generalize, but the way magazines work is that they have an audience, and they try to write for that audience. Rolling Stone's audience is interested in how the new Jonas Brothers album is. That is why the articles on finance are nothing more than old news strung together with conspiracy theories and erroneous conclusions. That way when you go to high school you can talk with your girlfriends about the new Jonas Brothers album, the pretty pictures of the Gossip Girls and how Goldman Sachs caused every problem known to man.

So there is my quick, point for point rebuttal to this brilliant article you love so much. It was one of the dumbest things I have ever read, but if doing so can make one young lady a little more well-informed, I consider it time well spent. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask.

You clearly don't understand any of this stuff and took the article at face value. That is what happens when the only exposure you have to these issues is from a music magazine for young ladies. Some of the problems would be more fairly characterized as more "wall street problems" than Goldman problems. I am not denying that Goldman is very influential, but all of these problems have been addressed in a far more balanced manner by reputable professionals who understand the financial markets.

jhva3: Oil-Article asserts that supply and demand do not effect the price of commodities because when demand went down slightly, prices went up.

Wrong, the article did not assert that supply and demand did not affect commodity prices. This is why you have to quote the author, otherwise you end up making shiat up.

Fails to understand that expected demand is factored in to the equation.

Again, there was no such statement. He simply mentioned that non-existent paper-oil drove the price of oil greater than the actual demand. When oil dropped from 150 dollars to 33 dollars it wasn't because demand had changed that dramatically.

Again, tons of firms have been speculating on oil for decades. To blame this all on Goldman because their subsidiary got the first exemption is ridiculous.

You seem to be confusing an article on Goldman Sachs with some non-existent premise of Taibbi's that no other large speculators acted as they did. Well, the article is about Goldman Sachs, not "Everyone Else".

The article repeats the premise that Goldman Sachs could not achieve these results alone...I guess you missed that part when you decided you would falsely attribute that point to the author.

So there is my quick, point for point rebuttal to this brilliant article you love so much.

It's not that I love the article, it's that your comments are still so utterly without thought or merit that I can't help but criticize your stupidity.

Try again...this time quote the statement in question if you're going to attempt to attribute positions that the author did not hold. Also, it's useful provide direct quotes in order to prevent any cowardly and disingenuous attempts to strawman. Not that you'd do that, right?

scotchface: This is well-researched because one stupid congressman from Detroit is saying that supply and demand don't effect the oil price? Give me a break.

Yea...I think you need to take a break.

Read the full article from the magazine. Show me how the 3 page section on the oil bubble depended entirely on the words of a congressman from Detroit.

Quote the author directly when you attribute a position to him.

I didn't respond to anything else you said because it was all pretty much written in the same style. No quotes, no go. No point in me defending your strawmen. Same with the other guy.

Regarding your dismissal of the constant and pervasive revolving door policy, I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. You're of the opinion that the revolving door is benign, while I would say that if it does not represent a conflict of interest in and of itself then at the very least it represents a tremendous opportunity for abuse.

that_other_internet: scotchface: This is well-researched because one stupid congressman from Detroit is saying that supply and demand don't effect the oil price? Give me a break.

Yea...I think you need to take a break.

Read the full article from the magazine. Show me how the 3 page section on the oil bubble depended entirely on the words of a congressman from Detroit.

Quote the author directly when you attribute a position to him.

I didn't respond to anything else you said because it was all pretty much written in the same style. No quotes, no go. No point in me defending your strawmen. Same with the other guy.

Regarding your dismissal of the constant and pervasive revolving door policy, I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. You're of the opinion that the revolving door is benign, while I would say that if it does not represent a conflict of interest in and of itself then at the very least it represents a tremendous opportunity for abuse.

I am not saying that the revolving door policy is certainly not a problem, I am saying that it is not news. Everyone knows where these guys are from and everything they do is questioned by the press because of it. A good example would be Stephen Friedman stepping down because of conflicts. This whole article is written as thought the author discovered all this stuff that no one noticed before.

These are not straw men. Taking Goldman to task for things that have been previously reported, that they have been punished for, and that everyone in Wall Street was also doing is ridiculous.

"Paulson let Lehman Brothers, one of Goldman's last real competitors fail"

Goldman has many real competitors and do business with a lot of people. To say that Lehman was one of their last real competitors is ridiculous. They are a big bank. When the government bails out AIG the author says, oh, the Fed is bailing out one of Goldman's debtors, while ignoring that the reason that AIG was bailed out was that they had so many debtors that it would destabilize the entire financial market. Goldman wasn't the only debtor. Then when they fail to bail out Lehman, the author attributes it to the fact that they were Goldman's "last real competitor."

I am paraphrasing because it is a pain in the ass to get direct quotes off that ghetto link to the article. You haven't quoted the stupid article. You just take the whole thing at face value because you don't understand it.

You keep asking for direct quotes from the article without addressing any of the points that I made before. Here they are:

that_other_internet: Wrong, the article did not assert that supply and demand did not affect commodity prices. This is why you have to quote the author, otherwise you end up making shiat up.


Author says:

"Asked why politicians continue to harp on things like drilling and hybrid cars when supply and demand have NOTHING to do with oil prices"

Author thinks that there is something wrong in the universe if the price of oil doesn't directly and immediately follow a change in supply or demand:

"Not only was the short term supply of oil rising, demand was falling which in classical economic terms should have brought the price at the pump down"

Point being, the part that you find so persuasive is written based on the mistaken premise that CURRENT supply and demand are what determine prices of commodities, and that if there isn't an exact correlation that someone must be monkeying with the system. It is just wrong, and reflects an Economics 101 understanding of a complex market.

You don't understand this stuff. You don't respond to any of the points that anyone makes, and you have the gall to call me stupid. Get a life