[bitterohiogunclinger]

“If the writer is such an idiot, then a short post showing a few of the deficiencies in the article will no doubt be sufficient to expose him.”

I agree. The writer, while having leftist tendencies of style, did an excellent job of reporting what happened. As others have pointed out, no one seems to be willing to expose the “who”, and the reason is right in front for all to see.

Follow the money. Who benefited financially and who benefited politically?

[Wolfie]

I'd say this about sums it up:

At their most basic level, innovations like the ones that triggered the global collapse — credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations — were employed for the primary purpose of synthesizing out of thin air those revenue flows that our dying industrial economy was no longer pumping into the financial bloodstream.

[SAJ]

This 'article' conflates a large, suspicious-looking put purchase with the odious practice of naked short selling, virtually as if the author believes (can't say 'thinks', because he clearly doesn't) the two actions are part of the same coin. Worse, that's just one of the flaws in the 'article'.

The number of factual errors contained in this 'article' is laughably high. The point the author attempts to make, which is certainly valid, is obscured beyond recognition by his shoddy research and ad hominem arguments.