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.
Wall Street firms are actors in a capitalist economy. They are reviled for that reason now, since they symbolize that economy. Most of accusations are moreover false, mere repetitions of the NYTimes garbage.
"The point of all this is that, even though I find Taibbi sleazy sometimes, I also find some of his enemies equally sleazy."
There are plenty of sleazy capitalists. I personally despise those Wall Streeters that, while using and profiting from capitalism, send donations to fascists like Obama. And not only Wall Streeters, of course: Warren Bufffet and Bill Gates are the same (even worse: they are not even patriotic, spending most if not all of their charity abroad --- as if some Americans did not need help). The same is true about Hollywood: all those "start" marking $30M in six weeks support every Leftist cause under the sun. There is plenty of sleeze everywhere.
The point, however, is not to look at people but at what they do and say. I agree or disagree not with people (takign sides) but with SPECIFIC things they say or do. I have not a shred of respect for Taibbi, but if he said something correctly --- even on accident --- I would acknowledge that. 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.
"If he were a pure marxist, why would he attack Crap and Trade so passionately?"
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.
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. My impression is that he'll writever seems provocative --- just to get attention and feel important.
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.