And where did you get that they are my heroes? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't take sides but try to stand on position of principle.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Some of the things you write sound a little short of being objective, but I don't know, you might be using hyperbole for effect, e. g. "It’s nice to see the unity of the leftist scum and the supposedly conservative forum..." I admit I need to step back and look at myself too.
Likewise, when the Wall Street honchos fall before Obama and send money to Dems, I view them as immoral scum. But when the same people are falsely attacked for what they do as managers of their respective firms, I point out that that is wrong.
A very good approach.
You touch here on something deep: what you say is true and not only about Taibbi. There are very few pure Marxists today. You can't sell yourself well as a Marxist after the fall of the Soviet Union and millions killed by the communists. So they call themselves by other names: "progressives," liberals, etc. In addition, it's been 150 years since Marx, and the circumstances changed. So they too adjust to these changing circumstances. Finally, not all people are consistent: the conservative president Nixon instituted fixed prices --- control of the economy advocated and practiced by socialists and fascists. Likewise, the generally leftist Taibbi may be against Cap-and-trade. People are not always consistent.
Exactly. I think Taibbi has a following here because he attacks some who have a role in the capitalist system but may be doing harm to capitalism and all this nation is supposed to stand for.
But in case of Taibbi, I believe it to be simpler: he is a charlatan that spends little time reflecting on things and getting to the heart of matters.
I would not go that far, but the linked article seems weak in some parts. He says
"As such, Prime Brokers have tended to be lax about making sure that their customers actually possess, or can even realistically find, the stock they've sold. That point is made abundantly clear by tapes obtained by Rolling Stone of recent meetings held by the compliance officers for big Prime Brokers like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank."
What tapes? Where is the link or reference? I did a web search for such tapes on Rolling Stone but was not successful. He may be right, but this is hardly a good way to convince. The lack of proof here may a tease for his next article.
Under vast majority of circumstances, such words are highly inappropriate. My emotions --- and I apologize for expressing them so strongly -- stem from the constant battles on this forum --- against the defamation of innocent people and blind repetition of leftist propaganda on this forum. Just enter --- on any thread --- the words "CEO" or "Goldman Sachs" or "bonuses" and watch the NYTImes repeated here verbatim, with much gusto and hatred. When I point out that most of such vitriol is unsubstantiated, I am outed as a bond trader for Cantor Fitzgerald (I am not kidding), a director at Goldman Sachs, one of those "fat cats" who does not care about "regular people."
FOr months now I have been patiently showing that the substance of most such posts is lacking. My patience apparently has grown thin, which showed in the sentence you quote. I am sorry for that.
TQ: "But in case of Taibbi, I believe it to be simpler: he is a charlatan that spends little time reflecting on things and getting to the heart of matters."
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas: "I would not go that far"
My opinion was based on more than one article. His previous one, on the same topic (evil Wall Street) was referenced on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2301629/posts?page=49#49
My analysis of it may be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2301629/replies?c=49
I simply have no time to provide a detailed debunking of what he says in the latest article.
The nontracibility of his sources -- tapes in this case, as you have pointed out -- is not uncommon in his writing.
""As such, Prime Brokers have tended to be lax about making sure that their customers actually possess, or can even realistically find, the stock they've sold."
Firstly, he portrays Prime Brokers as existing to accommodate short-sellers. They make most of the money providing a myriad of other services.
Brokers should've indeed been more diligent. But many, many companies delegate entering information nowadays. If you are distributor of a manufacturer, you often can enter information on that manufacturer's site. That is what short-sellers borrowing a stock do (previously you'd call the Broker, who would then enter the same request manually, which wasted precious seconds).
I was and am still unhappy with the state of affairs in this area; "naked" short-selling bothers me a great deal. But Taibi made a conspiracy out of this. Without it, there would be no article at all.
He misunderstands and misuses some even basic terminology of finance (there is only so much one can learn from a disgruntled trader during lunch; you'd mostly learn swearing, and Taibi thinks he looks like a part of the inner circles by dropping the word "sh--loads" here and there; to me, he looks like a fool). I know, these last words are unsubstantiated, but I simply lack time to go through the article as I did last time.
Thank you too for your detailed and patient reply.