This isn't true. Taibbi's article justified every claim that was made. I read it twice because it felt more like entertainment journalism than fact the first time through. But that is just his style. He is very personal in his approach. I spent the entire night looking into his claims and allegations because the article was very unexpected - I haven't heard of Goldman conspiracies before. His claims all check out. His conclusions are just that - his - and you are to make your own as a reader.

It's a shame he didn't reference everything in his article. But nothing was more than a few Google searches away to verify.

So again, yes Goldman did many illegal things in it's past and it got punished for it every time by the government. Taibbi argued that the punishment did not dissuade the firm from further illegal activity. This is true as well. The penalties were all mere fractions of windfall made from the crimes - for the specific instances mentioned by Taibbi. I personally see the Government organizations at fault there - Taibbi says they are stacked with Goldman alumni so you be the judge of who to blame.

Megan McArdle says the same thing as you just did - in many more words.

"It's not that everything he says is wrong, but the bits that are true aren't interesting, and the bits that are interesting aren't true."

She spent the article attacking Taibbi instead of CLEARLY pointing out which "interesting bits aren't true." Even in the comments, she is more concerned with attacking Taibbi.

Example:

"I don't disagree that the banks need to be taken down about eighteen pegs. But I don't think that Taibbi's the man to do it."

I wish she would tell me why she is right instead of insisting that Taibbi is wrong. In fact I would settle for WHY she thinks Taibbi is wrong. But we get zilch for details.

In her words "I don't think that the message excuses incoherence on the details."

In John Travolta's words, "Look who's talking.."