4 ms·

I think most people except those who are compromised by Wall St. influence consider Megan McArdle more of an apologist for Wall St. and laissez faire in general

by madair 16y ago

I think most people except those who are compromised by Wall St. influence consider Megan McArdle more of an apologist for Wall St. and laissez faire in general than as someone who did any sort of "takedown". Read closely, it's a pretty weak article, it's whole premise rests on criticisms of the delivery and attempts to bring reasonable doubt to a debate that has very little reasonable doubt about systemic abuse of public good faith by the big financial players.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm a liberal regs-enthusiast cap-D Democrat who's been reading McArdle since she landed at the Atlantic (so: awhile) and I just don't agree with your assessment of her. She's going to sound like an apologist because she's a UofC-trained conservative-leaning libertarian. That doesn't make her an actual apologist. In fact, when you read the article, you probably saw that she concluded it by saying that GS deserves the populist outrage (she hasn't been talking down the recent SEC suit, either). I think it's hard to argue that she's criticizing Taibbi because of ideology. No, her problem with Taibbi is that he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. These aren't critiques on "delivery". Taibbi's article is premised on the idea that GS orchestrates calamities to profit from them. He appears to have drawn that conclusion from the fact that GS has survived many calamities. But McArdle appears to be correct: GS survives calamities because they don't go all-in the way firms like Lehman, Bear, and (it's alleged) Merrill did. If GS is no worse than Lehman, Merrill, Morgan, or Citi, Taibbi's argument is damaged. If GS comes out ahead of them because it acted more carefully and less irresponsibly than those banks, Taibbi's argument is more or less destroyed. The fact that Taibbi doesn't seem to know the difference between a CDO and an IRS is amusing but besides the point.

by madair 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

I'm a liberal regs-enthusiast cap-D Democrat who's been reading McArdle since she landed at the Atlantic (so: awhile) and I just don't agree with your assessment of her. She's going to sound like an apologist because she's a UofC-trained conservative-leaning libertarian. That doesn't make her an actual apologist. In fact, when you read the article, you probably saw that she concluded it by saying that GS deserves the populist outrage (she hasn't been talking down the recent SEC suit, either). I think it's hard to argue that she's criticizing Taibbi because of ideology. No, her problem with Taibbi is that he doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. These aren't critiques on "delivery". Taibbi's article is premised on the idea that GS orchestrates calamities to profit from them. He appears to have drawn that conclusion from the fact that GS has survived many calamities. But McArdle appears to be correct: GS survives calamities because they don't go all-in the way firms like Lehman, Bear, and (it's alleged) Merrill did. If GS is no worse than Lehman, Merrill, Morgan, or Citi, Taibbi's argument is damaged. If GS comes out ahead of them because it acted more carefully and less irresponsibly than those banks, Taibbi's argument is more or less destroyed. The fact that Taibbi doesn't seem to know the difference between a CDO and an IRS is amusing but besides the point.