This article has been submitted probably a dozen times, each time failing to spark a discussion. I assume in the context of what's going on with the SEC, it's m

This article has been submitted probably a dozen times, each time failing to spark a discussion. I assume in the context of what's going on with the SEC, it's more appealing now. That being said, this article -- like most of Taibbi's -- is a well-written, entertaining narrative that sews together selective elements to construct something plausible. Go one step further by looking at the environments of each "bubble" to get a less filtered context -- what other companies were doing, what economic forecasters were saying, etc -- and it falls apart quickly. Goldman Sachs is a company comprised of smart people. Sometimes elements of the company get involved in shaddy things. That happens everywhere -- finance, government, gumball manufacturers. Interestingly, John Galbraith's chronicle of the crash of '29, did detail perhaps the most egregious of the young company's offenses. He also said: Our political tradition sets great store by the generalized symbol of evil. This is the wrongdoer whose wrongdoing will be taken by the public to be the secret propensity of a whole community or class. We search avidly for such people, not so much because we wish to see them exposed and punished as individuals, but because we cherish the resulting political discomfort of their friends. To uncover an evil man among the friends of one's foes had long been a recognized method of advancing one's political fortunes. However, in recent times the technique has been greatly improved and refined by the added firmness with which the evil of the evildoer is now attributed to friends, acquaintances, and all who share his way of life.