Sunday, July 19, 2009

More Financial Horror

I'm on the fence about Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi. His stories are eminently readable, and always hot-button, but his style can be irksome, as if he's constantly shouting at you from the page.

That being said, his latest piece on the Goldman Sachs takeover of Wall Street, and by extension, the United States, is possibly the clearest explication of the whole sordid affair you'll ever come across.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Goldman Sachs and Their "Blowout Profits"

It can be hard work trying to make sense of financial goings-on. For instance, can anyone tell me the difference between an investment bank and a bank holding company?

That's why it helps to have people like Glen Greenwald around.

This article neatly summarizes what happened over the last nine months that allowed Goldman Sachs to go from supposed devastation to record profits.

Short version: all the architects of Washington policy are former Goldman employees.

Oh, and the main difference between an investment bank and a bank holding company is that when you're the latter you can borrow trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and nobody has to know about it.

A Quick Word on Sarah Palin

This is some next-level shit. This woman is some new (de)volutionary example of the mediagenic meta-politician.

Don't get me wrong - I think she's a flash in the pan. I'd put money on it. But her journey, if you can call it that, is quickly becoming an archetype.

See, the battle over Palin was never about her qualifications for higher office. It was pretty much an open admission, on both left and right, that she didn't have any. Rather, the debate over Palin centered around vague notions about the "fair" and "proper" way to treat a media personality, even one who chose to be in the limelight.

Her supporters think she got a bad rap. Their impression of her is based solely on how they think she handled the (perceived) assault of the media. The "full-court press," as Palin herself put it.

It isn't hard to imagine this becoming the principle standard by which future candidates will be judged. The public wants to see how a candidate handles the image of being a candidate, they don't have time to compare relative merits based on record.

This is a double-edged sword, and Obama shares responsibility for it too. His campaign also effectively skirted issues of qualifications with impressive deployment of presidential imagery.

Of course, modern politics has always been image-based. But I think this is a new variable in the equation, and it's rather a worrying one.

A Quick Word on Michael Jackson

Against my better impulses, I watched a small snippet of the Michael Jackson memorial. It reminded me of the Ronald Reagan memorial, but, like, a drag queen version.

Now I hear Latoya Jackson is insisting MJ was murdered.

Personally, I feel entirely divorced, both intellectually and viscerally, from the whole affair. Growing up when I did, sure Michael Jackson was big, but he had already been big for a long time. As I was coming into cultural awareness of the world around me, MJ was just an established fact of life, like the weather. Soon, he began his decline into absurdity. Then, he died.

That's pretty much the arc of any life lived in the spotlight, so it's hard to get too worked up about it. The endless news media/blogosphere commentary - both about his death and also the incessant coverage of his death, on and meta- on ... - is also entirely predictable. YAWN.

That's the modern age for ya.