Matt Taibbi

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/06/15/how-new-york-will-improve-its-on-street-parking/

p decent summary of asshole Dimon's testimony, if you'd like to get away from Taibbi's ancient peccadilloes:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/senators-grovel-embarrass-themselves-at-dimon-hearing-20120615

from the comments, a nice response to the salmon piece: http://quantiger.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/is-11-billion-a-fair-price-for-new-york-citys-parking-meters/

hmm maybe rando blogger shoulda done basic research on the subject, where they'd quickly learn that the only thing being privitized is operations

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markbergen/2012/06/14/what-matt-taibbi-misses-on-the-nyc-parking-meter-deal/

“The basic structure is totally different—Chicago sold the system for a one-time cash infusion,” a Bloomberg spokeswoman told Dana Rubinstein. “We are looking for a private operator but we would still own the meters.” The city’s request, dug up by Rubinstein, is more subtle, but no less cutting. “In contrast to certain precedent U.S. parking transactions, the City’s objective is not to structure an upfront payment,” (emphasis theirs). If this commitment falters, then Taibbi should scream “grifter.”

"his acidic tongue"

really not keen on another argument here. i'll just note that being on forbes doesn't make one less of a rando blogger, nor do promises from the bloomberg administration give one cause for hope, and finally that the "operations" bit doesn't mean the revenue stream isn't going to go to the private operator and furthermore the details on the administration retaining certain elements of control were in the salmon piece already that the blogger was responding to, and aren't at all relevant to the y'know, math, that the blog post actually contained.

+ the plan also means cutting city jobs with decent pay and benefits, regardless.

if bloomberg were throwing away easy money, this would be a huge issue for transit activist groups. it's not really an issue at all, and it's only 'a scandal' for people who haven't been paying attention and don't care to read the details. the revenue stream is not going to go to the private operator. prices will eventually go up, the money will go to the city. there is no reason to believe that nyc public sector would be better at doing the high-tech renovations involved. and 'decent pay and benefits' don't come out of thin air - there's no end to the waste you could justify as 'decent pay and benefits' - you could theoretically hire a million people to do this.

fwiw salmon also seemed to be unaware of some of this, but I still linked it cause he called taibbi a parasitical suburbanite

haha

and hey read pg 10

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96706824/Request-for-Qualifications-NYC-Parking-System

http://dealbreaker.com/images/thumbs/matttaibbi.gifhttp://dealbreaker.com/images/thumbs/matttaibbi.gifhttp://dealbreaker.com/images/thumbs/matttaibbi.gif

ok everyone is writing as though the bulk of the revenue stream will go to the operator, so i don't know where you're getting this from. plus i read page 10 and it said nothing. plus on top of that i skimmed taibbi's article and he actually accurately reported the claim that NY would retain full control of rates and violations enforcement. So maybe you want to cut bloomberg more slack than taibbi in terms of future projections, but taibbi's working with the same facts everyone else is and, as usual, you're living in made up citing poorly-skimmed pdf-land.

it was my impression the the worst of exile's excesses (in terms of journalism but also private affairs) belonged to ames, not taibbi, but i could be corrected.

ok everyone is writing as though the bulk of the revenue stream will go to the operator, so i don't know where you're getting this from

"In contrast to certain precedent U.S. parking transactions, the City's objective is not to structure an upfront payment. Rather, the City views the possible PMA as an asset management partnership through which a Private Manager would earn compensation for driving up long-term value and service to the public and creating Parking Service upside for the city."

page 10 says:

"The city has an authorized headcount of 466 employees in FY13 to operate, maintain and provide other key functions to support the operations of the Parking System. Employees are represented by various unions and are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Respondents will be asked to provide with their explaination of plans concerning the utilization of these City employees."

the city is, straight up, *not selling the parking meters* and it's not even losing a single union member. this is why it's not big news unless your only source of information is a Taibbi article. I don't care how 'everyone is writing'. for a guy who's usually pretty thorough I'm amazing you reposted someone who started his math assuming every single meter in the city gets used for 12h and that rates don't already vary by area (and 'the real price' varies exponentially by area) instead of just...looking it up. it's on the same pdf above, and it's not 360 million dollars, after-cost revenue was 93m last year.

despite that, his math is mostly stupid because he underestimates - it could be way more than 360 million dollars if the city actually had leeway in pricing - which is one of the the points of this program. there is no reason to believe that the nyc public sector would be better at designing and implementing this technology just as there is no reason to believe that local public servants should be building subway cars.

think bout it: if bloomberg were giving away a trillion dollars *maybe the only people who would notice wouldn't be taibbi and rando blogger doing sloppy math*.

are we done?

'I'm amazing you resposted" = 'I'm amazed you resposted"

you are an amazing reposter. i admit to enjoying the whole righteous indig thing taibbi does. its a cheap thrill.

but i'm kind of a simpleton and i still listen to my old punk rock records for insight.

are we done?

yeah, we've been done.

i admit to enjoying the whole righteous indig thing taibbi does.

when it becomes a schtick, it loses some of its ooomph. plain facts, clearly presented, should always do the heavy lifting for righteous indignation.

schtick: inversely proportional to ooomph.

yeah i think taibbi's doing god's work but i wish he didn't think he has to come up with a new three-word name to call lloyd blankfein every time he writes a blog post. i mean i like thompson on nixon as much as the next guy but senator, i knew hst, i read hst, etc.

that yeltsin obit tho i love.

he doesnt know what hes talking abt!

― lag∞n, Thursday, 7 June 2012 10:35 (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

eh what is there to know really, they make up all that finance stuff up anyways it's all crap

^exactly, this saves me a lotta difficult reading

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?print=true

Good stuff.

It's passages like this one that ultimately give me a bit of a problem with Taibbi:

Who ultimately loses in these deals? Well, to take just one example, the New Jersey Health Care Facilities Finance Authority, the agency that issues bonds for the state's hospitals, had their interest rates rigged by the Carollo defendants on $17 million in bonds. Since then, more than a dozen New Jersey hospitals have closed, mostly in poor neighborhoods.

Up until that point, the piece, albeit heavy on schtick, basically made a reasonable and accurate summary of the scam. But the connection he draws here is just absurd. Based on Taibbi's own facts, we're talking about, what, 10 basis points lost? 20? 50? Even if it's 50 basis points, the lost interest on $17m would amount to $85,000/year -- real money, but hardly enough to make or break a hospital closing.

On the other hand, he doesn't say that the interest rate issues caused the hospital closings. You can just read it as saying "clearly these hospitals were hurting for cash, and some of the cash they needed was instead taken by unscrupulous parties."

He's not inaccurate, and you can read him perfectly reasonably, but you could also jump to some bad inferences without too much sloppy reading/thinking.

I was more put off by his claims that terms like "nickel" and "dime" were "code" rather than just common slang/argot.

Oh come on. "Since then" implies a causal relationship.

I guess that's the kind of writing that works for Rolling Stone, but I find his constant resorting to hyperbole a little tiresome. "It's as though the mafia and the zetas made an bet to see who could steal the most candy from dying babies" etc.

Like, this was a skimming/bid-rigging scheme. If, e.g., major grocery chains conspired to fix, say, milk prices, you would probably say "that's really fucked up, and they're screwing over ordinary working people." And that would be bad enough. You wouldn't have to embellish it by insinuating that they were causing children to starve to death.

hes sloppy because hes convinced of his moral rightness, which make him less morally right

lag∞n who is your go-to pundit for suitable rage/accuracy

(don't say morbs)

but i want to say morbs

i guess i just dont like rage that much in my reporting, which is not to say that it not justified, mabye i just prefer to get the facts then manufacture my own rage, to come totally clean w/this thread i dont like hunter s thompson either and i read all the wonderkin technocrat bloggers even tho i dont think theyre cool people

not just saying this because i know him personally but ghost rider strikes a p good balance between having some emotional energy and knowing what hes talking abt

plus he's a motorcycle hero

and an admirable young man, who suspects that his invitations to discuss matters publicly are dwindling thanks to his comprehensively otm hack list

here is matt taibbi talkin abt fear and loathing on the campaign trail http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/books/2012/06/hunter_s_thompson_fear_and_loathing_on_the_campaign_trail_72_review_by_matt_taibbi_.html

It’s been read and reread by practically every living reporter in this country, and just as you’re likely to find a dog-eared paperback copy of Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop somewhere in every foreign correspondent’s backpack, you can still spot the familiar red (it was red back then) cover of Fear and Loathing ’72 poking out of the duffel bags of the reporters sent to follow the likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Barack Obama on the journalistic Siberia known as the Campaign Trail.

*puke*

I'm starting to think you don't like this guy!

you can still spot the familiar red (it was red back then) cover of Fear and Loathing ’72 poking out of the duffel bags of the reporters... on the journalistic Siberia known as the Campaign Trail.

unconsciously making villainous Nixons, or Quislingian Muskies, or Christlike McGoverns out of each new quadrennial batch of presidential pretenders.

gah why whyy

each new quadrennial batch of presidential pretenders (it was red back then) on the journalistic Siberia known as the Campaign Trail.

nooooooooo

"Quislingian"!

Good stuff:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

Although I think he misses the other obvious point, which is that none of the serious Republican contenders want to run against Obama, who is ridiculously good at winning elections.

All the more reason it shouldn't have been this close, no?

eh, I question whether "shouldn't have been this close" is meaningful in presidential elections, as though it were equivalent to the Miami Heat only beating the Washington Wizards by a point or something.

Taibbi proves his worth when he writes lines like this imo:

Unless someone snags an iPhone video of Obama taking a leak on Ohio State mascot Brutus Buckeye, or stealing pain meds from a Tampa retiree and sharing them with a bunch of Japanese carmakers, the game looks pretty much up

taibbi confusing the american public w/ 300 million matt taibbis

god he is so bad at this stuff