Of course they’re really not — that, kiddies, is an example of what’s called "argument by analogy". Argument by analogy is a favorite way of bullshitters to try and make it look like they’re "debunking" someone without actually providing the necessary facts in context to do so. Which is, of course, why John Carney uses it to attack Matt Taibbi:
Although Matti Taibbi’s "vampire squid" was intensely memorable, the basic thought behind his famous Rolling Stone column was anticipated by Ben Stein almost two years ago.
- Goldman Sachs is secretly running the world.
- Goldman has been a multi-generational bubble factory.
- Goldman immorally marketed mortgage backed securities while its traders were shorting them.
"The world is far too complex a place to be run by any one group," Stein wrote. "But the closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator."
Wow! Ben Stein and Matt Taibbi almost kinda-sorta have the same opinion of Goldman Sachs! That must mean that Taibbi can be written off or something, right?
Carney spends lots of time beating up Ben Stein — who has now officially fallen from favor since he started shilling for that skanky "free credit report" outfit — but he doesn’t ever truly address Taibbi’s article (which you can read here) to prove his claim that Taibbi and Stein think exactly the same thoughts with regard to Goldman Sachs, much less the claim that Taibbi lifted his opinions of GS directly from Stein with minimal alteration. In fact, the only time he quotes from Taibbi’s piece is right in the very passage I just cited to you. That’s it.
Is Matt Taibbi’s article wrong in its basic assumptions? If all you had to go on was Carney’s critique, you’d never know one way or the other. But you would know that, for whatever reason or none, John Carney really doesn’t like Matt Taibbi.