If he presented his articles in a strictly factual way, it would be much more convincing to me. But he interjects his own personal opinions in almost every paragraph that he writes which makes his points useless in my book. It is more like reading an editorial than a journalistic article.
That's a bullshit argument its not the banks fault that the borrowers didn't read the small print. Sure they got fucked but its because of their lack of due diligence. If it bankrupted some millionaires you'd all approve because the only way you become rich is exploiting low or middle class. If it is low class peopke affected then its a moral crime. Just because your low income doesn't give you an excuse to not do your due diligence
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25mortgage.html...http://foreclosurefraudnews.com/wachovia-settles-pick-a-payment-mortgage-loan-class-action/
Do you want to see the thousands of articles of people buying McMansions that they knowingly never could pay back? The banks gave out loans to people that never should have had them in the first place. Do you think these people will admit to it? Or will they blame it on the person who gave them the money? I didn't buy a McMansion even though I could have. I'm not in trouble. What makes me so special? Financial Responsibility? Now people blame the banks for not giving the deadbeats loans again. They're saying the banks won't loan money. Of course they will. Their standards went up because they got burned HARD. They just won't give it to the deadbeats again. What ever happened to saving 20% on a house before getting a mortgage? People blame the banks for giving out too much money. People blame the banks for not giving out enough money. Can't have it both ways. Become a decent financial risk for a bank, and yes, you can get a loan. Be a deadbeat, and YES, you should NOT get a loan. Quit your whining.
This topic has been debated endlessly for the past 3 years. I've always held the belief that both sides are equally culpable in this trainwreck. Ultimately though, I put all of the blame at the steps of the Federal Reserve and their endless asset reflation schemes in addition to their complete and total lack of oversight during the entire credit bubble. They are expected to act as adults, yet they acted as children during the entire episode. As much as we may hate regulations, it's twice as bad when some are enforced with others are ignored. That's the situation we have in this country, in particular when it concerns total malfeasance.
I'm not trying to discredit anyone - just stating a fact: Matt Taibbi said he was smoking pot while he wrote his GS article in rolling stone. Only a fool doesn't consider the source when analyzing data. His article is full of supposition and assumption: the whole thing is a giant "well............if they were doing............if this was the case.......maybe............probably............etc..." Instead of understanding the way finance and macro economics works Taibbi created a strawman of how he believes the system should work, and based all of his conclusions off his assumptions. At the very least it got people talking, and I'm all for that, but people shouldn't quote it as fact: it's an op-ed that contains fiction, parts of the article's basis are flat-out made up.
Taibbi got a lot of press during his last wall street bashing tirade. no surprise he went back to the well again. people will get bored of him on this topic as well soon.