Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Economic Situation Explained—back in the '90s

Posted by on Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:46 AM

Yesterday's NYT had a couple of great pieces buried deep in the business section. First, it turns out that the current economic meltdown was actually explained in advance by an academic paper with the perfect title: Looting. And then there's the profile of Bernie Madoff's lawyer, Ira Sorkin, who was told by one of Madoff's victims

“As one Jew to another, I deeply regret that the Sorkin family did not perish in the Nazi death camps.”

Both well worth reading.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
The "Looting" link has extra shit in the address that disables the link.
Posted by Judah on March 12, 2009 at 8:28 AM
2
Heh, I pointed that out, too, but in the post below this one by mistake. No coffee yet.

It's a good article. Depressing. Also, wasn't the Silverado bank one of those that messed everything up back then? Owned by a Bush brother?
Posted by Patti on March 12, 2009 at 8:32 AM
3
People who despise defense lawyers aren't seeing the big picture.

Sorkin explains why he defends these people perfectly in the final paragraph of the Madoff article (and in the paragraph in the middle that begins with "That's a great question...")
Posted by Urgutha Forka on March 12, 2009 at 8:36 AM
4
So the wonders of a Free Market don't work if the losses are socialized, removing the need for prudent risk management from the act of lending because the lenders know that their losses will be covered? Leading them to make loans to people with no money, or companies with no assets, or to people who give their return address as the Cayman islands or "a park bench down by the ferry terminal" on the loan application, and then sell off those loans as bundled derivatives to mutual funds that your grandma invests all her retirement money in?

Makes sense.
Posted by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand on March 12, 2009 at 8:49 AM
5
Link fixed. Sorry.
Posted by Chicago Fan on March 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM
6
I always suspected the invisible hand was going to bitch slap me.
Posted by Karla on March 12, 2009 at 8:56 AM
7
Burn!
Posted by elswinger on March 12, 2009 at 9:05 AM
8
Urgutha Forka, of course defense lawyers have their place, everyone has a right to council, HOWEVER this slimy prick's family benefited from Madoff's scheme. His son's received nearly a million dollars from Madoff's firm. Of course he's going to bat for him, it seems that he made a considerable down payment on his legal fees.

Mr. Sorkin works for a firm called Dickstein Shapiro. How fitting.
Posted by Goethe's Girl on March 12, 2009 at 9:08 AM
9
Is there ever going to be a post explaining why the discussion of the criminal records of stranger staff is a forbidden topic, but the use of such records to write stories for the stranger about other people in Seattle is encouraged?
Posted by What are you afraid of? on March 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM
10
The whole premise is exploiting people's greed. While I admit there are charities that wanted to maximise their investments for good causes, they too expected more than was wise or prudent. The rest of us "trusted" the system to police itself, which in hindsight also seems irresponsible. Lesson learned? Too much of this is human fraility and likely will repeat itself again in the future.
Posted by Vince on March 12, 2009 at 9:18 AM
11
Sure, @9:

When you can prove members of The Stranger looted several tens of millions (we'll keep the bar low, just for you) from unsuspecting investors, or from the government, or whomever, THEN we'll start taking your "accusations" seriously.

If, in the meantime, the best you can come up with is a handful of non-moving traffic violations, my advice would be to STFUA.
Posted by The Skelleton That Lives In YOUR Closet on March 12, 2009 at 9:20 AM
12
I love ECB, but she should really post something addressing her recent shoplifting charge. The trolls will just get worse if she doesn't. She seems bubble-brained sometimes so I would believe it was an accident. Forgetting to pay for a bottle of wine isn't any more unbelievable than leaving your bike on the bus multiple times or accidently taking a bus to West Seattle. (I'm not being insulting - I can be bubble-brained too.)
Posted by ECB Fan on March 12, 2009 at 9:33 AM
13
@8,
As long as it's directed at Sorkin personally, and not defense lawyers in general, then I've got no problem with that!
Posted by Urgutha Forka on March 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM
14
@12, since when does feeding the trolls ever result in them going away?

Unless we are somehow impacted (and we are not), this is none of our business.
Posted by lily on March 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM
15
@14,

How am I impacted by Madoff? How am I impacted by a fraternity brawl? The story here isn't what she did, its that The Stranger doesn't want transparency, but demand it from other people, or frame things in such a way that the lack of transparency or comment is somehow an admission of guilt or wrong doing.
Posted by What are you afraid of? on March 12, 2009 at 9:53 AM
16
I think the larger ECB point is: if the person presenting "facts" to you is a demonstrated liar & thief, then you have the right to not believe the "facts" they present.

Does anyone believe a word Bush/Rove/Cheney/DeLay/Abramoff/Libby/Madoff/Stamford (et al) say? No, and with good reason.

Maybe ECB is following the Jean Enerson path to media stardom!
Posted by Sir Vic on March 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
17
Somebody is grumpy today. What's the matter, Erica never responded to your love letters?
Posted by Greg on March 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM
18
@15 - how are you impacted? read this month's upcoming issue of Vanity Fair. The unregulated hedge funds, added to Icelandic banks, basically overspeculated the market.

oh, and @6 for the win.
Posted by Will in Seattle on March 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
19
Can we bring back public whippings? I'd like to see bankers get one line of the lash for each thousand dollars their company lost. Hell, we can be charitable and give 'em just one hit for each million dollars that went poof. It'd probably still be enough to kill them, and I'm not too fussed about that.
Posted by Greg on March 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM
20
The Invisible Hand had a bad day in the Invisible Machine Shop, and it might not ever play the Invisible Banjo again.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on March 12, 2009 at 12:29 PM
21
seems as if the feds should be able to recover the fees that the bankers siphoned off - if they had the will.
Posted by Jesus Fucking Christ on March 12, 2009 at 12:43 PM
22
Yes Erica please explain the stealing of a cheap ass bottle of wine to us. You feel free to defame people without even an ounce of concern about wether or not you have reported the truth. Worse yet the Stranger doesn't require the truth. Rot.
Posted by tellthetruth on March 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy