By John Tamny of RealClearMarkets
In a piece written to shed light on the allegedly evil doings of Goldman Sachs, Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi unwittingly let readers in on why the majority of his strident protests against Wall Street’s most prominent bank were near meaningless. For those who caught on, they likely quit reading halfway through. Sadly for this somewhat masochistic writer, pure curiosity took him to the bitter end.
But for those not privy to the article in question, about credit-default swaps Taibbi observed that they “were essentially a racetrack bet between AIG and Goldman: Goldman is betting the ex-cons will default, AIG is betting they won’t.” For a piece which included no less than 29 mentions of the word “bubble”, and almost as many variations of the word “speculation”, could Taibbi have really been so dim as to acknowledge that “speculation” is always and everywhere a two-way street?
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks