Heidi N. Moore has written another article pointing out some of the flaws in the Taibbi rant that I think is worth reading.
She could have added that if, as Goldman Sachs has stated, they were hedged on their AIG exposure, then it was the counterparties insuring Goldman that were saved by the Government - not Goldman (although that probably had systemic implications).
While we don't know Goldman's oil book, the CFTC study reportedly found that speculators were net short. If Goldman was short, it would be directly contrary to Taibbi's argument (he asssumed their positions in his story).
Taibbi's piece was so chock full of errors that it would take a writer almost 12 pages to document all of them. Ms. Moore's piece does a good job of summarizing the worst of Taibbi's errors in her article - in significantly less space.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
New Article Worth Reading
Bookmark this on Delicious
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Taibbi is a good writer ( of fiction ) --but he rarely uses facts to support his arguments , usually deferring to inuendo and screaming louder than anybody else ..
He is irresponsible , and an unworthy journalist
Post a Comment