"It's over - we're officially, royally fucked." MUST READ on the economic crisis: it's a REVOLUTION

[chimpymustgo]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the ...

The Big Takeover

The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution (added bold)

MATT TAIBBIPosted Mar 19, 2009 12:49 PM

It's over — we're officially, royally fucked. no empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far. It happened when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was forced to admit that he was once again going to have to stuff billions of taxpayer dollars into a dying insurance giant called AIG, itself a profound symbol of our national decline — a corporation that got rich insuring the concrete and steel of American industry in the country's heyday, only to destroy itself chasing phantom fortunes at the Wall Street card tables, like a dissolute nobleman gambling away the family estate in the waning days of the British Empire.

The latest bailout came as AIG admitted to having just posted the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history — some $61.7 billion. In the final three months of last year, the company lost more than $27 million every hour. That's $465,000 a minute, a yearly income for a median American household every six seconds, roughly $7,750 a second. And all this happened at the end of eight straight years that America devoted to frantically chasing the shadow of a terrorist threat to no avail, eight years spent stopping every citizen at every airport to search every purse, bag, crotch and briefcase for juice boxes and explosive tubes of toothpaste. Yet in the end, our government had no mechanism for searching the balance sheets of companies that held life-or-death power over our society and was unable to spot holes in the national economy the size of Libya (whose entire GDP last year was smaller than AIG's 2008 losses).

So it's time to admit it: We're fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we're still in denial — we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream. When Geithner announced the new $30 billion bailout, the party line was that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of shitty luck — bad year for business, you know, what with the financial crisis and all. Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: "The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now," he said. "When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too." In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being "consumed by the same issues that are driving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet's investment portfolio down."

-snip-

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — "our partners in the government," as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

-snip-

[beachmom]

1. I wouldn't take that reporter very seriously. nt

[M155Y_A1CH]

3. Why do you say that? nt

[chimpymustgo]

5. Matt Taibbi is one of the best political reporters in the country. READ and get informed.

Really, it's worth it.

[Teaser]

24. Taibbi is a gonzo journalist

He will exagerrate, if necessary, to make his point. It's his style.

Not good, or bad, just the kind of writing he does.

[acmavm]

43. Please, what are your credentials? Who do you write for?

This guys articles were pimped like a 2,000 dollar an hour hooker when he was bashing the bush** admin.

He's saying something mean about this one and now he's a hack.

[Teaser]

60. Science, Nature, Physics Today, and some others.

.

[acmavm]

61. Right.

Run along now. I'm sure you have a deadline.

[Teaser]

71. Nah, I'm good. Only deadline I have is an NIH grant in June.

So I'm pretty much free to chat with you.

But can you tell me what you'd like to chat about? Einstein-Bose condensation or Ising models in biological networks?

e to the i pi, BITCHES!

[Phx_Dem]

27. Matt is a great WRITER, not a reporter.

He usually write political stories with great wit and snark, but he doesn't really "report" on anything. He doesn't investigate.

[Dr.Phool]

56. Uh, yes he is. He does investigative journalism also.

His better stuff usually appears in The Nation.

[Uzybone]

37. Its a great piece, but Taibbi is not a reporter

he writes for shock value, truth and accuracy are low on his priority scale. In this case he is right.

[chimpymustgo]

48. JEEZUS Christ! Is it too much to read the article and comment on it? Eight pages of researching

reporting? What is going on around here?

[Uzybone]

50. I've read the piece, but there is no new news there

the basically strings together the timeline of what others have reported on. I guess its news to you since you think Taibbi is a reporter.

Again its a great piece, I'm not sure why you are so offended that people are saying Taibbi is not a reporter.

[beachmom]

58. I don't like him. He loves sniveling cynicism. I don't.

I mean, I'll sit there and laugh at what he says on Bill Maher, but I just don't take him seriously. It's the usual shtick: he is SO cool and oh so superior, and everyone else is an idiot.

[Javaman]

66. so it's his attitude that clouds your judgment on his writing/reporting.

okay, then...

:eyes:

[specimenfred1984]

69. Ad hom attack of the author and not mentioning 1 single point of the article...

shows your inability to think. The author perfectly describes the events leading up to the AIG bailouts and the gov't corruption involved.

[beachmom]

70. Excuse me for not worshipping a Darling of the Left.

It is BECAUSE I think that I reject his style of journalism. I like writing that makes me think, perhaps questioning my long held beliefs. All Matt does is make lefties feel smug.

He's not my cup of tea. So sue me.

And it is not an ad hominem attack. Sheesh.

[genna]

79. Lefties? Darling of the Left

Who do you like to read Righties? the Darling of the Right?


I guess I don't understand. Most journalists I've read are SMUG and CONDESCENDING and holier-than-the-person-they-are-criticizing. When the subject of their criticism calls the journalist out on their hauntiness (think worst case scenario Cheney asking the reporter...so what if people don't approve of the way we've handled Iraq?...and the reporter is sitting there clamoring for their next question because they built their entire interview around ONE gotcha moment), the reporter usually is irritated because someone dared to walk outside of what the reporter delineated as the grounds for the interview.

I've gotten sick and tired in the media because they act like we can't tell they've made so many concessions before the interview, the subject matter, or even the context under which they examine the interviewee takes place.

TAIBBI cuts through the contrivance or the journalistic fiction. I would not read much if attitude was my only or most important criteria.

[olegramps]

104. It seems to me that it is you that exudes an aura of superiority.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable listening to the outrageous distortion of reality offered by the likes of Hannity, et al. What is it about his piece that you disagree with? I would enjoy your astute discernment.

[genna]

78. I've only read the first 20 paragraphs.

I'd say he has colored between the lines. I knew Wall Street played us by topping off Bush's administrations money grab from Iraq to this last Paulson deal being a deficit which could sink us for an age.


I don't expect perfect journalistic skills in today's media. I like TAIBBI because he says what he thinks in the clearest conversational English I've read to date.

[Overseas]

127. Excellent article by a great reporter, I agree !

Matt Taibbi does a great job in the article explaining the history of the financial wheeling & dealing that led us into this mess. I really appreciate his style. He packs some outrage in there but still conveys the facts. I am glad he doesn't try to adopt the more bland tone of many financial reporters.

Seems like a lot of the critics in these threads prefer the Bill Kristol style of journalism-- truth be damned, as long as you keep a calm tone of voice and a cute condescending smile on, you're a "real" journalist. Any emotion in your reporting, even when covering outrageous thievery, diminishes your status in their eyes. Let those critics go eat CNBC fluff. Let them go ahead and hang out with those "serious journalists" cheerleading for Wall Street. Give me my Matt Taibi.

But to be fair, we have lots of other sources for dry financial reporting that don't tell lies like the cheerleading pro-deregulation echo-media. And those financial reporters hold back on the emotional impact of the momentous crimes they are covering. They certainly have their place. I don't trash them whenever I see their articles. I read some of them.

So I don't see why so many of their readers need to jump on Matt Taibbi when he injects some emotion into his reporting. There is room for both. Give me my Matt Taibbi. Even if I don't agree with all of his points, I like to read his take on things. I hear a ton of cheerleading for corporate America every day, so it is a pleasure to read some impassioned critiques.

I really appreciated his articles mocking Tom Friedman too. I have long disliked that man, while others talked glowingly of his cockamamie theories. It was very satisfying to me to read Matt tearing into his ideas. Matt spoke for me when he wrote those stories. Matt expressed the frustration I had pent up when hearing so many others sing Tom's praises.

[City Lights]

16. Why?

He did an outstanding job of exposing Bush's lies and corruption.

Why shouldn't he be taken seriously now?

[Phx_Dem]

29. He wrote about Bush's lies and corruption, I dont' recall him

"exposing" anything that we didn't previously know.

[slay]

19. Um.. reasons?

How can you post something like that and not say why?

[specimenfred1984]

65. Go stroll around with your metal detector and leave the real thinking to us

"Us" being people who can actually use their minds.

[beachmom]

77. Oh, I see -- so people who don't agree with you are stupid.

Nice.

[rhett o rick]

85. I want a drink of what your drinking. nm

[Deja Q]

86. Rolling Stone magazine? The one that usually discusses music bands and Britney?

[chimpymustgo]

101. Some posters are exposing some SERIOUS IGNORANCE on this thread. n/t

[ananda]

2. Agree.

The insane self-interested greedmongers
are running the asylum.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Overly Sensationalized to sell Copy

[chrisa]

124. Completely agree. nt

[WeDidIt]

6. Hypoerbolic rhetoric

There's a lot of that going around these days.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Did you READ the article. It's 8 pages long and explains how this all unfolded -

going back to the late 90's. It is exhaustively researched and well reported. How about reading it before knocking it?

[WeDidIt]

8. "It's over — we're officially, royally fucked."

I didn't need to read anything past the hyperbolic rhetoric in the opening.

Fuck any article that starts out that way. It's not worth my time.

Had the author been rational, I would have read it, but he lost me with his hyperbolic rhetoric.

[QC]

14. Quite right, my good man. Such plebeian antics as these are hardly fit for a gentleman.

[slay]

20. What me have to not judge book by cover AND actually read article?

Noooooooooooooo! sigh...

[WeDidIt]

21. If I can't get through the first paragraph without rolling my eyes at the outright lies

I throw the book into the dustbin.

The cover has nothing to do with it.

[slay]

22. I refuse to discuss this with you since you openly admit you have not read the article

Konversation terminated!

[WeDidIt]

38. Fine

It's a piece of shit article because it goes over the top right from the beginning. Nothing the authro says after that shit can be taken seriously

[high density]

52. Well, when the "cover" is essentially an image of a dog turd...

Yes, I will judge this "book" by its "cover."

[slay]

62. Your open-mindedness is astounding!

:sarcasm:

[DevonRex]

54. His first line pretty much tells any reader that there's no point in reading further.

He must have missed that day of school, way back in English Comp 101. And I guess he missed that day in Journalism 101, too.

He is hoping that the use of the word "fuck" will make the younger readers of Rolling Stone want to read it. The trouble is, the twenty-somethings are no longer drawn in by it. It's the 15-year-old kids who think it's cool. And they could care less about the economy, politics and the power struggle that ALWAYS exists among the filthy rich, corrupt corporations and the government.

[WeDidIt]

55. Bingo

The asshole drove me away with his first sentence.

[Javaman]

68. So he lost you at Hello.

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

125. No

he lost me with an opening paragraph so =over the top I thought it weas a fucking Freeper thread.

[winyanstaz]

87. hyperbolic rhetoric isn't hyperbolic when it is the truth....

and if you think this was all one big happy accident and that this whole melt-down wasn't planned in order to push the world into the New World Order, you are doing the same thing that got us into this mess.
You are ignoring the facts just to spew your own hyperbolic rhetoric so you can feel superior in some sick way....Just wait a few months, the credit card melt-down is next.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

103. I have something for you...

[olegramps]

105. Hyperbolic rhetoric?

This is your justification for discounting the value of the article. God only knows what you reaction would have been to such bombastic bastards such as Copernicus and Galileo's hyperbolic suggesting that earth is not the center of the universe or perhaps the blowhard Einstein that offered his ridiculous concept of Relativity?

[Two Americas]

122. well that is honest

I suspected from people's comments here that they didn't actually read the article, but merely the first paragraph.

At least you are honest.

[M155Y_A1CH]

9. Knee-jerk reactions?

I don't think they read it at all.
I'm not sure why a couple of folks are trying to discredit your post?
I thought the article was very informative and has a great desciption of CDOs.

[chimpymustgo]

10. It's a GREAT read, and explains it ALL. I'm baffled by the head-in-the sand acts. Denial won't make

this fiasco go away. Wow.

[WeDidIt]

11. There's no denial. The author started out with hyperbole

there was no need to go any further.

Id the author wanted to be taken seriously, he should have presented it seriously.

[Armstead]

12. Oh please.....Why not call a spade a spade?

We ARE fucked.

If it requires hyperbolie to adequately describe that, so be it.

[WeDidIt]

13. Nope, the hyperbolic rhetoric demonstrates quite adequately

we are NOT "fucked".

[jbnow]

15. The f word is scary. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

108. Your point is invalid.

Your knee-jerk reaction deprives you of insights.

[Dr.Phool]

57. You're dealing with Obamaphiles.

They're nearly as blind as Bushbots.

Can't confuse either of them with facts.

[cui bono]

84. True dat.

Geez. I'm glad I don't have time to come around here much anymore.

Last time I posted almost no one had anything negative to say when Obama's lawyers basically said that the president decides and the courts can't tell him what to do. Sheesh. Sounded just like BushCo and nary a peep about it.

Scary.

[HamdenRice]

17. Taibbi sometimes does good reporting, but he's slightly crazy and doesn't know economics

Taibbi is kind of frustrating because although he's sometimes done decent reporting, his stock in trade is basically overheated invective. Often once you strip away the colorful insults, there's not much left.

He's also kind of crazy and has himself written about his drug fueled obsession and stalking of Thomas Friedman. Friedman deserves criticism, obviously, but Taibi's own stuff about his "relationship" with Friedman is simply crazy.

That's why I take anything he writes with a grain of salt.

http://www.nypress.com/article-7545-thomas-friedman-as-metaphor.html

Thomas Friedman as metaphor.

I have been trying to avoid writing about Thomas Friedman. Two years ago, when I had a serious drug problem, one of the worst symptoms was a monomaniacal obsession with Friedman. I called his office regularly from overseas, sent him rambling two-page letters, harassed him in 100 different ways. Once, I even called the office of Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and, pretending to be Friedman himself, screamed at Sulzberger’s secretary. I told her that I was pissed, that "Arthur better get his car out of my fucking parking space" and that "golf this weekend out of the fucking question."

[chimpymustgo]

32. I completely agree with Taibbi about that lying, war-mongering corporatist Tom Friedman.

Funny, the part of the article you chose to highlight (I know you didn't expect anyone to actually click on a link and READ). But this is his well supported point about Friedman and his "idiocy" about the Iraq War:

-snip-
The mustachioed New York Times columnist’s May 7 piece, "Needed: Iraqi Software," was the culmination of an incredible two-month stretch of steadily worsening derangement and incoherence. Friedman’s columns during this period contain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, some of the very worst and most confused metaphorical/rhetorical constructions in the history of our language. That’s in addition to being decisively wrong in all of his opinions. It is a veritable mountain range of idiocy.
-snip-

May I ask, did you actually READ the article about the economic crisis?

[HamdenRice]

36. Thanks for the mind reading!

"(I know you didn't expect anyone to actually click on a link and READ"

Of course not, that's why I put the link in. :silly: :crazy: :silly:

I hate Friedman as much as Taibbi does, but I wouldn't harass him while on a drug binge as Taibbi says he did.

The RS article has some new interesting information -- mainly the quote from an anonymous regulator that the investment banks that issued cds hedged their positions (something I've written about a lot here) and that AIG didn't (which I was not sure about). That's important.

But Taibbi didn't quite understand CDOs and why they are especially bad and how they differ from regular mortgage backed securities. I'm also a bit puzzled that he thinks the OTS should have been the main regulator of AIG. Maybe so, but it seems strange.

Toward the end, I think he completely veered off course. I don't think that what the Fed is doing is "Paulsonism". The Fed is basically using trillions of dollars in loans to keep the commercial paper market and money market account sector going, which is critical. On the other hand, I think he's exactly right that the federal government runs the risk of being turned into a giant hedge fund of some sort, but he's wrong when he says there are no tools for auditing it.

A lot of what Taibbi says about the bailout not being transparent is him saying in a not so thinly disguised, "I don't understand it." Just because he doesn't understand it doesn't mean that there is a secret conspiracy to steal the money.

And the ending seems wrong. As a number of people in this thread and in other threads over the months have noted, Wall Street is dead, and it's never coming back. That's hardly the intended outcome of any plot by Wall Street. It looks like nationalization to me, and once the crisis is over it's pretty obvious that the financial system is indeed going to be rebuilt by the Obama administration in a highly regulated way geared toward actually financing production rather than what's been going on.

Again, that's hardly the outcome that he attributes to "Paulsonism." His hyperbole makes me suspicious of even some of his mundane observations, which is exactly what many in this thread are complaining about.

[smokey nj]

41. Taibbi doesn't think OTS should be the main regulator of CDS.

From the section of the article that deals with the regulators:

"In the biggest joke of all, Cassano's wheeling and dealing was regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency that would prove to be defiantly uninterested in keeping watch over his operations. How a behemoth like AIG came to be regulated by the little-known and relatively small OTS is yet another triumph of the deregulatory instinct. Under another law passed in 1999, certain kinds of holding companies could choose the OTS as their regulator, provided they owned one or more thrifts (better known as savings-and-loans). Because the OTS was viewed as more compliant than the Fed or the Securities and Exchange Commission, companies rushed to reclassify themselves as thrifts. In 1999, AIG purchased a thrift in Delaware and managed to get approval for OTS regulation of its entire operation."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/4

[HamdenRice]

42. Thanks, I must have glazed over or misunderstood that passage

That's bizarre, because OTS is literally there to regulate mom and pop "thrift" institutions -- George Baily's savings and loan, not Mr. Potter's.

How AIG could choose to have it's entire operation be regulated by OTS is stupefying.

The problem is that I don't think Taibbi can have gotten this entirely right. Just because your holding company is regulated by OTS cannot mean that if you issue shares or bonds, you are not ALSO regulated by the SEC. I know for a fact that even a thrift that issues stocks and bonds is regulated by the SEC -- at least in terms of disclosure to the public.

So again, the hyperbole makes me wonder whether some of his observations are entirely correct.

[northernlights]

96. while it's hard to read through his style,

which seems geared toward high-schoolers, it does fill in some blanks for non-economic/finance people, like me. I've been reading that the real bailout had been trillions. This is the 1st time I got an understanding of where that piece of the puzzle came from. And some other missing pieces are explained as well.

As far as nationalization goes, I think the point is that the wall street people don't care at this point if wall street fails.

Their biggest gamble, ongoing right now, is to take over the government. They invested hundreds of billions in deregulation, won, and were emboldened to attempt a complete takeover. It doesn't matter if we nationalize the banks...if they own the government, they own everything and all of us, lock, stock and barrel. Even those of us who prudently saved, paid off our mortgages and lived frugally are fucked. They will literally starve us out through unemployment if they can.

That is why it is *so* important to watch what Obama does. I think initially he needed Summers and Geithner. They installed the trap doors. They know where they are, how they work...and what their weaknesses are.

The question this leaves me with is will Obama get that info from them and then dump them and use it to sabotage wall street's attempt to take complete control of the government?

That's where I think we need to watch closely.

[BumRushDaShow]

116. "...will Obama get that info from them and then dump them..."

I agree with your posts in this thread (I am thinking the same), and I think (or at least expect) that Obama may not personally have to do anything to sabotage... In the Jiujitsu and rope-a-dope styles that he often uses, he can merely step aside and direct the momentum (outrage) that propels the people (hoards, masses) to slam right into the culprits.

Knowing that the media loves and embraces the "If it bleeds, it leads." credos, then they (like what is happening now) will continue to be whipped into a frenzy that in turn whips "the people" into a frenzy, the outrage resulting in a halt or slowdown of further transgressions. I even envision a point where that whole corporate crowd eventually disappears - lock, stock, and barrel (out of fear and an attempt to regroup and replot), and they will choose to lay low until the time is ripe for them to try again.

[genna]

80. I missed the threads on commercial paper being the means to save us

Where amongst all the meltdown coverage (DU threads) are the primers for commercial paper and on money market sectors being the best forward moving sector?

Can you post a link for those discussions or those writers who are highlighting the path out for us all?

[genna]

76. Crazy? No question.

When he decided to become a part of a fundamentalist (not in that sarcastic 'fundy' sense that I sometimes read here) Evangelical Texas church and go on retreat with them, I questioned his sanity then.

Not because of religion. I am a Christian.

Not because of perspective. His whole disgust in lay leaders asking believers to throw up in a bag was strange and disconcerting.

Because he decided Americans need to understand Christians better. Bill Maher and other people who want to truly unmask religion for everyone to see miss the point. Most believers are not what they think. Fundamental Christians are not most believers. When Bill Maher finds Christians who have no idea what the Bible says, I'd say that is closer to most believers. When Tyler Perry drops more Madea as a metaphor for most Christians, I have to say he has a more accurate view of how some Christians behave and believe.


I think Matt TAIBBI is buck wild because he goes into these well tread 'everyone knows' places and pulls out some of the strangest practices which exist in those places. He paints them in different colors and asks people to examine the spectacle.

It is usually ugly.

It is usually harsh.

It is normally a place that people rather not know too much about.

I like him because of it. I think he is crazy to continue to explore these rabbit HOLES when most people don't want look at the specific horrific thing. It is much easier to walk pass it and say 'those' people are crazy.

[StrongBad]

18. Boom and bust. It happens. It's happened many times in history.

Our goal is to minimize the decline (which seems to be working) and then avoid stagnation (this remains to be seen).

But as of right now, no, the economic sky is not falling.

[Zenlitened]

23. K&R. Don't let the Hyperbole Police, Apologists other Useful Idiots fool you...

This is a terrific read. It pulls together all the plot- and sub-plot threads of this hideous story into a very straightforward explanation of the problem. Definitely worth bookmarking, so you can read the whole thing over the weekend.

A few more snippet, from pages 6 and 7:

There are plenty of people who have noticed, in recent years, that when they lost their homes to foreclosure or were forced into bankruptcy because of crippling credit-card debt, no one in the government was there to rescue them. But when Goldman Sachs — a company whose average employee still made more than $350,000 last year, even in the midst of a depression — was suddenly faced with the possibility of losing money on the unregulated insurance deals it bought {from AIG} for its insane housing bets, the government was there in an instant to patch the hole. That's the essence of the bailout: rich bankers bailing out rich bankers, using the taxpayers' credit card.

The people who have spent their lives cloistered in this Wall Street community aren't much for sharing information with the great unwashed. Because all of this shit is complicated, because most of us mortals don't know what the hell LIBOR is or how a REIT works or how to use the word "zero coupon bond" in a sentence without sounding stupid — well, then, the people who do speak this idiotic language cannot under any circumstances be bothered to explain it to us and instead spend a lot of time rolling their eyes and asking us to trust them.

That roll of the eyes is a key part of the psychology of Paulsonism. The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize "toxic" risks but keep both the profits and the management of the bailed-out firms in private hands.

(snip)

When one considers the comparatively extensive system of congressional checks and balances that goes into the spending of every dollar in the budget via the normal appropriations process, what's happening in the Fed amounts to something truly revolutionary — a kind of shadow government with a budget many times the size of the normal federal outlay, administered dictatorially by one man, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. "We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion," says Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It is beyond comprehension."

[chimpymustgo]

49. Good add. Maybe if more people would read this, and other articles, we wouldn't let them get away

with these scams.

[Raksha]

90. I agree - the Taibbi article is best overview of the meltdown I've seen yet.

Re Don't let the Hyperbole Police, Apologists other Useful Idiots fool you...This is a terrific read. It pulls together all the plot- and sub-plot threads of this hideous story into a very straightforward explanation of the problem. Definitely worth bookmarking, so you can read the whole thing over the weekend.

I read it a couple of days ago in the print edition of Rolling Stone, and thought it was more comprehensible than anything I've read yet. That's saying a lot too, because when I read it I had just read and posted several excellent articles about the financial mess on another forum. I wanted to link to the Taibbi article too, but it hadn't been posted on Rolling Stone's website yet.

So tonight when I signed on to DU I was very happy to see someone had started a thread on the Taibbi article. That meant I could now link to it, and hopefully there was a good discussion about it too. It looked pretty hopeful because the recommends put it on the front page. So I open the thread and what do I find? At least TWO-THIRDS of it is nothing but static--sniping between the hyperbole police and their opponents as to whether or not Matt Taibbi is "really" an investigative reporter.

I consider that not only a complete waste of time but an insult to my intelligence. I subscribe to Rolling Stone mostly for Taibbi's political articles, and this one more than lived up to what I've come to expect from him. I have already made up my mind about his credibility and don't need any of these phonies telling me what to think about his skills as a journalist--especially when it seems they haven't even READ the damn article!

[DemReadingDU]

95. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also writes for Rolling Stone

After the 2004 Bush 'win', RFK, Jr. did quite an extensive investigative analysis of the election. It was a real eye opener.

And that's why writers such as RFK, Jr. and Taibbi write for Rolling Stone - to reach an audience that could gain some information about election fraud and corruption in Wall Street.

[Life Long Dem]

25. The sky has fallen so many times.

:boring:

[Two Americas]

121. yep

Everything is fine.

[Phx_Dem]

26. I love Tiabbi's wit, but I think he's full of shit on ths one.

Sure, CEOS destroyed their companies on purpose so they could suck up all the tax payer money and control the government. Of course, now they have the government breathing down their back and imposing regulations into their once private business, including capping these big CEO's salaries. They can't even have a business meeting in Las Vegas with the government and tax payers wetting their pants and whipping up an angry mob.

Love ya, Matt, but this is fucking laughable and stupid.

[HamdenRice]

33. Good way of putting it

There's some good new information in the story, but the overall argument toward the end -- that this is somehow good for the mega banks -- is idiotic.

They are a hair's breadth from nationalization, many execs have been wiped out financially, and they can't have any more of their luxuries without it being splashed on the front page of the Times.

What's happening is in now way what Taibbi thinks it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. I'd love to see a list of these wiped out

executives. Many of them? Well, how many is many, where did they work, how much did they lose, and if they have been, as you say by choice 'wiped out', tell us how they are living today. Please, follow up on your declarations with the facts.
Wiped out folks do not live in Manhattan. Wiped out people can not pay for food. Are you really sure that "many execs have been wiped out financially"? Odd to say that they've been wiped out, yet they could have luxuries if the Times did not report it. Wiped out, yet being kept from luxery by press coverage? How would wiped out execs be paying for those luxuries?

[olegramps]

110. What the hell is the matter with you?

Many execs have been wiped out financially? Just name one of these creatures of your imagination that has been wiped out. The fact is that they have all the money and now they are sticking us with all the debt to contend with. When asked if he was going to return all the money that he stole, Fuchs said hell no.

[Fire1]

34. There are NO regulations. That has been the problem.

[Phx_Dem]

39. No, that WAS the problem. Lack of regulations created this mess.

There are now regulations in place for companies that receive TARP, including exeuctive compensation cap of $400,000. The stimulus bill may not have included bonus caps, but now they may be taxed 90 percent. That will definitely not please CEOs -- it could take them 5-10 years (or more?) to pay back that money, and during that time they'll be taxed 90 percent on their bonuses (if it passes the courts).

And, as Obama said on Leno last night, he's working with Congress to draft new regulations on financial companies in general, not related to TARP money.

So, if that was their evil plan, they screwed themsleves pretty good. This whole disaster has provided us a great opening to regulate the shit out of them, or put back in place all the regulations that were repealed.

[Fire1]

47. These regulations only target TARP recipients and is why

these banks suddenly 'no longer need TARP funds.' The bonus provision is good but does nothing to stave off future endeavors of 'creative financing.' The Glass-Steagall Act was fine, in this regard, before it was gutted. Just put the 'teeth' back in and close the loop holes. Fire the current OTS team and replace them.

[jeanpalmer]

91. I don't think he said that

The whole scam was run for bonuses. "Get as much money as you can as quick as you can" was the guiding principle. That was one helluva motivator and overrode most other considerations, including the long-term welfare of these corporations. It was greed pure and simple. They probably didn't consider the possibility of future government oversight. They probably did not consider that it would end this way. More likely, they thought they could go on scamming forever. Like Madoff. It was only when the scam ran out of money that they had to face up to the new reality of government oversight, using the word loosely.

[northernlights]

97. I think what he's saying is

they *are* the government now.

They've infiltrated through Summers and Geithner. Look how many aides are former Goldman Sach's people brought in by those two.

The government regulating them is really just them regulating themselves.

[polichick]

28. I don't think that's far from the truth - which is why I never liked the Geithner/Summers choices...

...you can't fix the problem using players steeped in the culture that created it.

Arianna Huffington said today on Morning Joe that "toxic thinking" is more dangerous (or worse than) "toxic assets." She's right.

[earth mom]

30. The bastards responsible were given a blank check from U.S. taxpayers...

Those fuckers are never gonna give up the cash cow now.

It's time for the people to stand up, kick them to the curb, lock em up and throw away the key.

And unless we do, it is over. SO over.

[Fire1]

31. Thanks Chimpmustgo. I bookmarked and will recommend.

Anybody who does not understand the cause and effects of this economic meltdown can read this and get a thorough understanding to conduct an intelligent conversation and evaluation of what has happened without uninformed speculation. I wish this had been written prior to my having to piece this together myself but I guess it was learn as you go. Who knew?
As I've stated on other threads, the teeth of the Glass-Steagall Act needs to replace the watered down version sold to congress by Phil Gramm, the OTS people need to be replaced and sever the financial instrument arms of insurance companies and eliminate these products from all financial institutions across the board.

[rocktivity]

35. The American people know who their real welfare queens are now.

And they don't live in tenements.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Peace Patriot]

40. Well, I've called it the Bushwhacks' "Financial 9/11" since it happened. It was obvious

to me that it was planned. It's true that it has a three-decade history--Reagan thru Bush Jr. (including Clinton, to some extent) of deregulation and welfare for the rich. But the coup de grace was not the September 2008 final looting. The coup de grace was the 'TRADE SECRET' code voting machines fast-tracked all over the country, during the 2002 to 2004 period--'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code owned and controlled by Bushwhack corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--the privatization of our voting system itself. 2004 was the moment that democracy should have kicked in and resulted in a course correction for our sinking ship of state. This was deliberately prevented by a quickly installed non-transparent voting system all over the country--with, I have to add, the collusion of many Democratic leaders. Through Clinton, the economic/political system was still correctable. With the Supreme Court coup d'etat in 2000, followed by the Diebold/ES&S coup d'etat leading up to 2004, we were not permitted to elect a decent, vigilant government--maybe not an ideal government--but one that was Clinton-like, in its better respects, and with a president, John Kerry, with a strong history of investigations into large financial scandals--i.e., a decent, vigilant government that would not have permitted the September 2008 Financial 9/11.

And I think the same is true of the 'Terrorist' 9/11. A Gore government would not have permitted it to happen. (I'm sure about Gore in that respect; but not about Lieberman.) At the least, NORAD would have mounted some defense. The unprecedented disorganization of NORAD/AF on 9/11 was Rumsfeld's doing, in my opinion. Fast-forward to the Financial 9/11, and this, too, was both preventable, and characterized by Bush Junta complicity. Imagine Kerry-Edwards in the White House as of 2004, and you can see that it simply would not have happened. A recession maybe, due to 2000-2004 malfeasance and looting. Not a worldwide meltdown and massive looting of the future unto the 7th generation.

The election system is the key to everything. It is our only real power as a people. Transparent, honest, aboveboard elections are the fundamental condition of democracy. Democracy is the very best system ever devised to insure a change of direction, when a nation is headed for disaster.

[robertpaulsen]

64. Bookmarked and recommended for your post, Peace Patriot.

Great analysis!

:applause:

[DemReadingDU]

98. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also writes for Rolling Stone

You probably remember that after the 2004 Bush 'win', RFK, Jr. did quite an extensive investigative analysis of the election. It was a real eye opener.

And that's why writers such as RFK, Jr. and Taibbi write for Rolling Stone - to reach an audience that could gain some information about election fraud and corruption in Wall Street.

[paulk]

44. maybe a little over the top, but still worth reading

and this is a question worth asking -

"The real question from here is whether the Obama administration is going to move to bring the financial system back to a place where sanity is restored and the general public can have a say in things or whether the new financial bureaucracy will remain obscure, secretive and hopelessly complex. It might not bode well that Geithner, Obama's Treasury secretary, is one of the architects of the Paulson bailouts; as chief of the New York Fed, he helped orchestrate the Goldman-friendly AIG bailout and the secretive Maiden Lane facilities used to funnel funds to the dying company. Neither did it look good when Geithner — himself a protégé of notorious Goldman alum John Thain, the Merrill Lynch chief who paid out billions in bonuses after the state spent billions bailing out his firm — picked a former Goldman lobbyist named Mark Patterson to be his top aide.

In fact, most of Geithner's early moves reek strongly of Paulsonism. He has continually talked about partnering with private investors to create a so-called "bad bank" that would systemically relieve private lenders of bad assets — the kind of massive, opaque, quasi-private bureaucratic nightmare that Paulson specialized in. Geithner even refloated a Paulson proposal to use TALF, one of the Fed's new facilities, to essentially lend cheap money to hedge funds to invest in troubled banks while practically guaranteeing them enormous profits."

[Fire1]

63. 'Over the top,' is an understatement. That's why a few enlightened

souls on this board have been warning of almost sinister corruption BENEATH the diversion of bonuses and bailouts. Few heeded that warning and some are STILL trying to hammer home the bonus bull and are losing site of the bigger picture.

[nichomachus]

45. Wow -- I've got to read the whole thing -- it brought the

apologist whores out early and in full force to attack Taibbi. I wonder if these are the paid ones or the volunteers.

[Two Americas]

123. it is very interesting

Amazing how quickly people posted here, telling people "do not read this article." Dozens of posts about the messenger, about the publication, hardly any posts about the article. It is clear from what people are saying that none of them read the article themselves. What is going on?

[thereismore]

46. This pic says it all

[Baikonour]

51. Taibbi does suck.

All he knows is hyperbole. He's even more annoying in person.

[DevonRex]

53. Matt has lost a lot of credibility in the past year or so. It's his own fault.

He may be trying to regain it, but it'll be a long while before I will read what he says without a healthy dose of skepticism.

[KansasVoter]

83. Explain how

[amborin]

59. his "facts" are WRONG: AIG is not a "dying insurance giant" most of AIG is HEALTHY

[rhett o rick]

113. If they aren't dying why are giving them massive transfusions? Doesn't matter if

part of the company is healthy, matters how the whole company is doing. If the healthy part could take care of the unhealthy part we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Usrename]

130. They will be gone within the year.

They are already trying to re-brand. AIG will be no more.

[wellst0nev0ter]

132. ROFLWTFBBQ!!

If they give out DUzys for most idiodic posts by Obamaniacs, then this one will win without breaking a sweat.

[GeorgeGist]

67. Oh my!

Anti-socialism strikes another blow for it's own destruction.

[KakistocracyHater]

72. Rolling Stone was the only magazine that actually did tell: Bush

during his 8 nightmare years & now, I agree with the writer. This is a pattern that dwarfs America, they are having banks 'lock up' or 'jam up' in Europe too, & have also apparently stolen their tax-payer's money & given them to their Country Club Class. I hope the "minutiae police" don't attack this because this is large & may sound to some like overgeneralizing, like saying the Banksters everywhere but Asia think they don't need a Nation/State anymore & see gov as "taking their money". China differs, obviously, as I said earlier.

[southerncrone]

73. And the moral of the story is:

DO BUSINESS LOCALLY & STOP SUPPORTING MEGA CORPORATIONS.

We must support our local small businesses....what's left of them, and encourage more of them.

Oh yea, & stop using credit cards.

Call me a Ludite, if you will, but the "old ways" worked for centuries.

Don't buy what you can't afford. Act in a reasonable & safe manner. Respect your neighbors.

[BlueJac]

74. I like everyone loving AIG....

shoot the messenger, quick he might get a story out. Facts or no facts it sounds more believable then the rest of the smoke being blown up our asses!! Read the Spitzer article in Slate. He is a bullshitter too.

[windoe]

75. K&R Great read. nt

[santamargarita]

81. If the Republicans had stole another election, the revolution would be...

in full swing! But with President Obama It won't happen. However, the Fascist Republicans never sleep!

[ellie]

82. Kicking

[Two Americas]

88. I heard a rumor

I heard a rumor that people do not like working with this writer.

Everything he writes should be ignored, and we should gossip about him rather than discussing what is in this article.

No need to even read the article, now that I have told you that the writer is not a good person.

From now on, only approved tracts should be read - those that unambiguously laud and praise "our team" and "our leaders." Reading anything else will just discourage us, and get us to start doubting our leaders and that can only help the other team. At this time, we should not doubt our leaders because they need our complete allegiance.

All must believe, and any thoughts or words that might undermine the belief are to be avoided to keep our minds clean. Pure and true loyalty must be maintained at all times to ward off the enemies. Our enemies are any and all people who refuse to get on this program. They are working in the shadows night and day trying to tempt us and lead us away from our true and pure loyalty to "our team" and "our leaders."


...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

102. Sarcasm noted

and well played

[Enrique]

106. I don't dislike Tiabbi because he criticizes Obama

I dislike him because his writing is unreadable to me. His style makes me doubt he knows what he's talking about, makes me think he's just calling attention to himself.

Plus I know he's untrustworthy due to a previous pieces, a totally dishonest hit piece on Wesley Clark in "The Nation" a few years ago.

[Two Americas]

114. his hair

It is his hair I don't like.

[Enrique]

126. i didn't think my criticism was that superficial

are you sure your parodies are fair to your targets?

[Two Americas]

128. no, you are right

I am being a little silly.




Are you trying to defend his hair? lol

[NashVegas]

109. Yes, Do Read the Article

Take note that there's not a single call to action and tell me again this guy is someone we want on our side.

[Two Americas]

115. yes

There is hardly anyone I want "on our side" and if they are not "on our side" then I pay no attention to them.

Any authors who do not include a single call to action when they write an article, are to be seen as whiners and traitors and not to be taken seriously.

First and foremost, we must always try to determine who is and who is not on our side. Not everyone qualifies. Hardly anyone qualifies.

The stricter we make the criteria for who is on our side, the more pure we will be.


...

[NashVegas]

117. To Expand On That Statement

Is such a doomsayer anyone you want on your side in a gunfight?

[Two Americas]

118. I think it is a phony fight

Some sort of narrative is coming from the MSM about what the battle is about and who is on which side. It is leading people to be hyper-alert to any small differences, and then to see people as enemies on the slimmest pretext. I think this is the way that the MSM, driven by right wing think tanks, maneuvers Democrats into marginalized and powerless positions. Nothing is doing more damage to the potential future success of the new administration.


...

[defendandprotect]

89. Simply criminal capitalism hitting the concrete again and collecting BIG ... !!!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- pity any citizen who doesn't know that!

And people like Spitzer who was trying to stop the foreclosures were . . . eh. . . sidelined!!

Obama has to change his economic advisers!!

[jeanpalmer]

92. Great summary of the facts

and an explanation of what happened. Taibbi brought it all together in a form that makes it easy to understand. He gave great background information that put all his facts in context. I like writers who have that ability. I didn't have a negative reaction to the article when I read it, as some seem to have. I don't see what was objectionable in the message. Apparently, some people don't like the messenger.

[fasttense]

93. Obama is a politician just like FDR and JFK were politicians.

If he hadn't been a very good politician, he would never have won the election. FDR and JFK were politicians too. But they listened to the protests of We the People. They took the protesters' ideals to heart, acted on those ideals and they improved America. (Well, JFK had plans to act on those ideals before organized crime bosses murdered him, and Johnson did follow through on the plans.)

What is different today then in FDR's and JFK's times is that We the People ar NOT out in mass protesting. Neither of those 2 great Presidents would have succeeded if liberal activists had NOT been out in the streets protesting almost every day.

You want the bankers, Goldman Sachs and Wall Street to quit destroying America? Then you have got to ACT. You have to get out in the streets almost every day and show Obama what you want him to do.

Without the protesters, there is no movement to change. Obama can't do it alone. Make him do what you know he wants to do.

[Number_Six]

94. A word of caution, then...

France: late 1700's.

The Aristocracy did pretty much anything they wanted. The king overspent on one idiotic war after another. Meanwhile, the tax burden on the middle class and the poor....escalated...rose...and got worse.

The reformers _begged_ the aristocracy and the churches to start paying in their fair share.

No, was the answer.

It took time, but, eventually, the French citizens came up with their own answer to this problem:

-The Tileworks were stormed by an angry mob.

-The Bastille was seized.

-The king was arrested, attempting to leave. He was then to discover the first meaning of the word "topless". He wouldn't be the last. Dogcatcher to court lackey to courtesan.....wshhh.....CHOP!

Thus began The French Revolution, which melded into The Reign Of Terror. Nasty, bloody, and the guillotine worked some serious overtime. Tribunals sent anyone and everyone to their deaths.

"Oh, that can't happen here!"

Oh, bullshit, it fucking _did_.

The real reason for The Boston Tea Party? Anger over the fact that the crown had given a corporation all the rights to tea importation into the colonies, and at a price only those in power liked.

So, a handful of crazies decided to do something about it, and sent much of the tea into Boston Harbor. Why, do you think to this day, America prefers coffee??

Too, Franklin is oft quoted as mentioning that the crown's monetary policy....a central bank that creates money out of debt...was another factor for revolution.

My point? That so many are angry at these useless "bailouts" is just a symptom that our temperature may well be on the rise: If the banks and other Wall Street goons keep this up......

Yes, all out revolt. And one that will make the last one look like a schoolyard fight.

It _can_ happen.

FDR feared such, it was one of the reasons why he pushed his New Deal so hard: Enough citizen anger, and that's the trigger for a nasty revolt:

-Ask the Bolsheviks...
-Ask the early colonists of this nation...
-Ask the angry French citizens of 1790....

It _can_ happen. But will it? Time will tell....

[hgovernick]

99. Gradual Takeover

They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

And the snowballing has been allowed over the decades by the head-in-the-sand attitude of the average citizen. What have we learned, what action have we taken since President Woodrow Wilson's 1916 lament?:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

[NashVegas]

107. Taibbi's A Sniveling Ass

Anyone else notice how he's screaming about how helpless we are instead of calling for street protests? Not a single call to action in that article other than "put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye."

[olegramps]

111. I can not help from wondering what your reaction would have been if he called for violent revolution

[NashVegas]

112. All Or Nothing, Is That It?

Sorry, not playing.

[Two Americas]

120. just the first paragraph

I don't see what you are talking about other than in the first paragraph.

What would you have had him say?

[cliffordu]

119. Wouldn't a coup be a better word???

[bklyncowgirl]

129. Man, I really hope he's wrong.

Unfortunately I'm afraid he's right.

[whistler162]

131. Again!!!! What is this the 15th or 30th time this was announced!