Taibbi’s critics make the same argument that Wall Street
makes—that investors/borrowers/insurance policyholders etc. are
responsible for what they buy. True, but is that really the end
of the argument? If we were talking about cars or heart stents,
would we say the same thing? If the argument is that pension
funds and other CDO buyers are sophisticated players, that is
true, but again, is that the end of the argument? What about the
consequences for the rest of us?  And is it out-of-bounds to
point out, as Taibbi does, that Goldman was selling securities
that would explode at the same time it was betting against them?
Many in the business press think so. I don’t.  That all said,
“Bubble Machine” poses all sorts of problems from a journalism
standpoint, and they aren’t small. Here’s how I see them:  One,
the piece pushes language past the breaking point, as, for
example, in the subhed:  From tech stocks to high gas prices,
Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation
since the Great Depression