I am not super impressed with Matt Taibbi

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am not super impressed with Matt Taibbi. That has little bearing on his arguments... some are solid, some are hyperbole, but either way he's not someone I look to with great trust. He sometimes has a conspiratorial edge that undercuts the perceived credibility of his arguments.

I'd put him on the Seymour Hersh level. I like Hersh. I read him with interest and sometimes he's way out ahead of the pack. But sometimes his idiosyncratic sources lead him down blind alleys. (Like that stinger missile that downed PanAm-whatever off New York during the Clinton years.)

Investigative journalists in general have a tendency to want to wrap things up in too neat a package. The story becomes a thesis in the author's mind are arguments are assembled in a mode to much like advocacy.

The history of the financial crisis will provide a generation's worth of fodder for conspiracists but the reality is darker and more depressing... all this stuff happened because it was necessary.

The scandal is not what was done, by why it had to be done. Unless Obama had surrounded himself with an economic team of actual communists it probably would have worked out about the same.

Too big to fail is real. The big financial institutions (and their investors) really were in a position to bring down the whole edifice out of uncooperative spite and their price was their price was their price.

The corporation-coddling really doesn't bother me so much in and of itself. It is the lack of equivalent human-being coddling that grinds me.

[grantcart]

1. agreed

[depakid]

2. +1

Taibbi can be glib, visceral and sloppy- I take him with a big grain of salt. Interesting reading- but food for thought and follow up, not a primary source to rely on or cite.

[watercolors]

3. Just another MSM HACK!

lOOKING FOR REGOGNITION, AND TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH.