by Eric Martin
Kevin Drum read Matt Taibbi's recent stemwinder on Goldman Sachs and has some harsh criticism:
I finally got around to reading it the other day, and my verdict is simple: it was terrible. Taibbi wrote a terrific article about AIG a couple of months ago, but the Goldman piece was just phoned in, a long series of blustery assertions with essentially nothing to back up any of them. If he wants to claim that Goldman was the wizard behind the curtain of everything from the dotcom boom to last year's oil spike, he really needs to produce some evidence for it instead of just saying so.
Unfortunately, Kevin doesn't actually discuss which assertions from Taibbi are mere bluster, and which aren't (if Kevin is even allowing that some of Taibbi's piece is an accurate portrayal of events). Nor does Kevin refute the evidence that is presented. So we're left to wonder at the…well, the evidence for his strident assertion.
That's not to say that Taibbi's over-the-top writing style is devoid of bluster, and it is true that Taibbi is laying too much at the feet of Goldman Sachs alone, but in terms of choosing Goldman as a proxy for Wall Street investment banks (and their serial malfeasance), it's as good a choice as any.
Further, in defense of Kevin, Rolling Stone hasn't made the full article available online, and the excerpts they've posted leave out many of the details and in-depth treatment. If Kevin only read the excerpted version, then his criticism would be valid – there isn't enough meat on those bones. Actually, it reads like a disjointed, non-sequitur, meandering piece of little substance (the full version is here).
While I'm not qualified to assess the validity of all of Taibbi's claims, I can say that he got the Tech Stocks section pretty dead-on (and used evidence to back up his key claims). I know because I worked on some of the legal cases that dealt with the various misdeeds of the investment banks during that era (I've written about them before), and in pursuit of that, I spent years poring over documents and other discovery. Actually, my main critique ofTaibbi with respect to this portion of the article is that he left out (or didn't delve deeply into) one of the sordid chapters of that bubble-bust story: the circumvention of the barrier between the research side of the banks, and the underwriting side and the mischief that ensued. More on that below, but first an extended excerpt from Taibbi: