Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi Shows No Sympathy for the Devils on Wall Street

No matter what one thinks about the fraud charges brought by the SEC against Goldman Sachs, the Senate hearings held over the past two days or Wall Street in general--and disgust over the tactics and corrupting greed of many of America's leading financial power brokers seems to be one issue on which members of both parties can agree--a heaping helping of praise, and likely even credit for future reforms, is due Rolling Stone National Affairs writer Matt Taibbi.

With painstaking detail and a gift for simplifying the complex complicity of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, Taibbi has written a series of sensational articles in which he takes fat cats to task, not with empty harangues, but with razor-sharp, highly insightful precision.

Back in July 2009, Rolling Stone published Taibbi's article entitled "The Great American Bubble," which presaged the SEC's lawsuit against Goldman Sachs by accusing the firm of betting against its clients at the end of the housing boom. In a remarkably researched expose of nearly 10,000 words, Taibbi detailed how Goldman has engineered every market manipulation since the Great Depression by repeatedly positioning itself in the middle of a speculative bubble and selling investments they know are garbage.

As Taibbi points out in his article  covering the Senate hearings this week--"The Feds vs. Goldman"--after last July's article, the "sneering Wall Street cognoscenti scoffed" at his charges of gross corruption by Goldman Sachs. Although no great glee can be felt due to the havoc wreaked on the world's economy--of which I was a downsizing victim--it's nice to note that Taibbi's insinuations--and his passionate work--have seemingly been validated.

In addition to Matt's ongoing multi-faceted Taibbi Blog, at least two other of his Wall Street-related Rolling Stone articles are well worth your attention, particularly for a great overview of how Goldman Sachs and others have betrayed the American people:

"Wall Street's Bailout Hustle" reveals how Goldman and other big banks pocketed the bailout money and are bringing America to the precipice of yet another crash. Taibbi describes a number of Wall Street con jobs and how instead of investing in small businesses and other avenues to stimulate the economy, the banks just opted to make only themselves richer.

Of the many incredulous ploys that he explains in layman's terms, one that I was particularly struck by was that after receiving billions of interest-free dollars from the government, meant to stimulate lending, the banks instead purchased newly issued Treasury bonds. So essentially Wall Street just lent tons of money it got free from the government back to the government, but with interest. In doing so, they made additional billions from the bailout money, without using much of it to aid the people on Main Street. No wonder Goldman Sachs just announced its first-quarter profit up 91 percent, to a staggering $3.46 billion.

In "Looting Main Street," Taibbi exposes how the nations biggest banks are ripping off American cities--Birmingham, AL being central to the story--with "the same predatory deals that brought down Greece."

All in all, pretty amazing stuff and absolutely spectacular reporting. Although others have exposed some of the same-type of malfeasance--most notably, Michael Moore, especially with his Capitalism documentary--Matt Taibbi has been on top of it since the beginning and has educated me more than anyone with his outstanding journalism.

He definitely deserves a Pulitzer Prize, my thanks & admiration, and the appreciation of anyone--of any political stripe or social status--who believes in financial fair play.

(All above illustrations are by Victor Juhasz and from RollingStone.com with great appreciation extended and no violation intended.)

Happy Birthday to YouTube

As alerted to by Steve Johnson in yesterday's Chicago Tribune, accompanied by a great collection of related statistics (see below), the video sharing website YouTube today celebrates the fifth anniversary of its first video posting.

The level of mass popularity the site has reached--supposedly 1 billion views per day--is staggering. With over 24 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, I guess I use the site relatively sparingly, certainly in what I upload, and even in the amount of viewing I do.

Except for a rare sports highlight or excessively-referenced viral video that I feel compelled to watch, I use YouTube predominantly for one thing: music.

If there's a song I really want to hear and don't otherwise own, or especially if I want to share a tune on Facebook to commemorate a certain occasion, I can pretty much find it on YouTube.

And I find YouTube especially useful for seeing concert clips of some of my favorite performers--Bruce Springsteen, U2, Pearl Jam, Radiohead--often within hours of them performing a particular show.

But while I certainly have enjoyed YouTube, I also can't deny that there is something seemingly very wrong about it. Although I know there are many people who create their own content for YouTube, from family movies to extensive productions, and that YouTube (and its owner, Google) have reached agreements with many record companies and production studios that understand that YouTube is a great promotional vehicle, even if individuals are watching videos and hearing songs without any expenditure.

Yet despite YouTube's supposed efforts to adhere to copyright policy, there are millions of videos posted that clearly violate the rights of artists, broadcast networks and other creators. While I admit that I watch concert clips of performers who have never granted permission to be filmed or posted--and this is a clear violation of the artist's and their record company's rights--I do at least buy their official albums and DVDs.

This isn't to fully condone my actions, although in simply watching what others have posted of artists I financially support in other ways, I don't think I am doing anything illegal or too ethically corrupt. But there are even more egregious examples of unauthorized content anyone can easily find, that makes me often wonder how YouTube can rightfully exist.

For example, I pay to to hear Sirius Satellite Radio, with its content--including the popular yet controversial Howard Stern--available only to subscribers. But if you search for Howard Stern on YouTube, you can find over 2,000 clips--doesn't matter that they're audio-only on a "video" site--of content from his Sirius show posted in April 2010 alone. So it somewhat rankles me that others are easily able to hear for free what I have to pay for. And yet, as Stern mentioned one day on air, if he wants to have his privileged material pulled from YouTube, his lawyers have to file a detailed complaint about every single video that they feel are in violation. All told this seems to be more than 15,000 clips. So the illegal stuff stays up there, at least long enough to be heard by thousands of people.

I actually was intending this post to be a birthday salute to YouTube, which I really do like and can honestly say has enhanced my life to a somewhat significant degree. But I guess I couldn't help and point out that in being a site "operated" largely by its billions of users, YouTube often seems to traipse on legally suspect grounds.

So while you celebrate the 5th birthday of this internet phenomenon, next time you watch oodles of trademarked or otherwise privileged content, without compensating anyone, perhaps at least give it some thought. And yes, I am aware that the clip above of The Ramones playing Happy Birthday on The Simpsons in honor of Mr. Burns, clearly violates the rights of The Ramones, Fox Television, Matt Groening and The Simpsons' producers.

But I like it. And at least "Happy Birthday" is in the public domain, isn't it?

While I'm at it, here's my favorite YouTube clip. It's of Bruce Springsteen singing Thunder Road from a hotel balcony in Naples, Italy in 1997. (It's been on YouTube since 2006 without getting pulled, so it's seemingly OK with the Boss).

3D or Not 3D: That Is The Question?

When the movie Avatar was out in theaters recently, in both standard and 3D versions, I ponied up the most money I ever spent for a non-IMAX movie--$13.00--to see it in three dimensions.

And relatively speaking, I would have to say it was worth it. Although a bit much to take in, especially for nearly three hours, the 3D was extremely cool and seemed to be the way the movie was meant to be seen.

Tomorrow, Earth Day, the super-sized environmental (and anti-imperialism) polemic is being released on DVD. But although 3D TV is the "next big thing" in consumer electronics, with its hype greatly accentuated by the success of Avatar--the highest grossing movie ever--and both 3D HDTVs and Blu-Ray players are now available for purchase, the Avatar DVD is not being released in a 3D format.

While I am someone who has purchased dozens of DVD movies on the day of their release, I don't know that I will be getting Avatar anytime soon, even though I really liked the movie.

To begin with, I don't currently have a steady income, so I haven't been buying DVDs like I used to, and though I did get a Blu-Ray player this year, I've only purchased one Blu-Ray movie. I think the Blu-Ray price point is a bit steep, even for new releases--the Avatar Blu-Ray is $19.99 through Amazon; $22.99 at Best Buy--especially compared to standard DVDs, so I've largely stopped buying either format (as it makes no sense to invest in lower quality, but I can't justify the higher cost for Blu-Ray).

Second, I am a Netflix user and I'm sure I can eventually borrow the Blu-Ray version when I care to see it again, or rent the standard DVD through RedBox for just a dollar (although I'm sure the Blu-Ray is not only so much cooler than the standard, it comes with a revamped plot that wasn't recycled from Dances With Wolves). 

But beyond my own personal economics or rental options, I'm not buying Avatar because I--and even director James Cameron--believe it's really meant to be seen in 3D. And though I don't know that I'll be jumping on the 3D bandwagon anytime soon, especially as I just got the standard Blu-Ray player and have it connected to a projector that I also hope to use for many years to come, perhaps I might upgrade my equipment one day when 3D becomes truly ubiquitous.

Still, per the insight of this CNET article (this 3D TV FAQ page is also good), the reason that Avatar wasn't released in 3D is kind of a Catch 22. You see, there isn't enough of a market yet for 3D movies because not that many people have the needed equipment (a new 3D TV, 3D Blu-Ray player and Active Shutter glasses), but without more 3D movies, the 3D-equipment market won't blossom all that quickly.

And while it might seem that there'll never be a better movie than Avatar 3D to prompt consumers to invest in the equipment, I guess Fox Home Video didn't want to acutely make people think about waiting to buy the 3D version if they could get their $20-25 for the standard or Blu-Ray version now.

According to CNET, the 3D version of Avatar won't be released for another year or two, with the November release of a Special Edition DVD & Blu-Ray coming first.

So if you are going out to buy Avatar tomorrow, be aware that even if you buy the Blu-Ray as a step up from the Standard DVD, you're going to wish you waited until November for the one with a bunch of special features, and if you want the 3D version--especially if you were one of the few early adopters of the equipment, expecting to enjoy Avatar in all its glory--you're going to have to wait and/or pony up again.

Cripes, I think I'll just read a book.

With Ad Age Now 80, an Interesting Look Back

I don't read Advertising Age--or even its website--as often as I should, but I do occasionally peruse it, especially as I look for interesting things to write about on this blog.

In looking at the Ad Age website today, I was intrigued by coverage of their own Digital Conference, as well as the top story in this week's magazine, about how after spending billions blasting each other's wireless phone coverage, AT&T and Verizon have seemingly reached a detente and will embark on new ad campaigns. Thus, Luke Wilson is looking for work again.

But the most interesting thing on AdAge.com isn't about hot trends, great campaigns, the present or the future. Rather, it's that this is the magazine's 80th year of existence, which the site commemorates with an informative special section, highlighted by a timeline showing what's happened in advertising, and the world, over the last 8 decades.

The magazine's 12-page debut edition from January 1930 is shown above, and not only do I find the central front page story--Federal Expert Tells Food Advertisers To Get Housewife's View--somewhat fascinating, it's interesting to read that the issue included coverage of several brands still in existence today, including Time, The New Yorker, Quaker Oats, Buick, NBC and Gillette.

As this article about Ad Age's milestone points out, Ad Age has covered the rise of new media -- again and again: Radio, which went from essentially zero to 55% household penetration in 12 years; TV (0.4% to 55% penetration in six years); cable (6% to 50% in 19 years); internet (broadband penetration soared from 1.7% to 54% in eight years).

It was also cool to glean some eye-opening tidbits from the timeline, such as:

1937 American Tobacco Co. struck deals with a handful of U.S. senators to endorse Lucky Strike cigarettes. In a testimonial ad, North Dakota Sen. Gerald P. Nye praised the "comfort and safety a light smoke gives my throat." The senators each received $1,000; some gave it to charity.

1945 Ad Age published the first Agency Report. Five largest agencies: J. Walter Thompson (now JWT); Young & Rubicam (now Y&R); N.W. Ayer (absorbed by Kaplan Thaler Group in 2002); Foote, Cone & Belding (now DraftFCB); McCann-Erickson.

1954 TV ad revenue moved ahead of magazines and radio. (TV didn't displace newspapers as the nation's largest ad medium until 1994.) TV household penetration passed the halfway point in 1954, with TVs in 55% of U.S. homes, up from just 0.4% in 1948.

1962 Discount chains swept the nation. Dime-store operator S.S. Kresge Co. opened Kmart. Rival F.W. Woolworth formed Woolco (closed in 1982). Dayton's, a Minneapolis department store, launched Target. Kohl's opened its doors. And Sam Walton, another five-and-dime retailer, started Walmart.

1975 Bill Gates and Paul Allen saw a cover story in Popular Electronics about the MITS Altair, a pioneering build-it-yourself computer kit, and they spotted an opportunity: Microcomputer hardware needs software. They started a company called Micro-Soft.

1983 Ameritech, one of AT&T's Baby Bell spinoffs, switches on the nation's first cellphone system in Chicago. The percentage of households owning wireless phones passed 50% in 2005, according to government data. Wireless-phone household penetration in 2009: 82%

1992 Starbucks, a Seattle-based chain of 165 coffee stores, completed its initial public offering. Today, Starbucks has 16,700 stores worldwide.

2004 Google, founded in 1998, held its initial public offering. Also in 2004: Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook as a place for his fellow students to connect.

Google market cap today -- $177 billion -- is more than the combined value of Disney, News Corp., Time Warner and Yahoo. Facebook is still private.

2010 The economy, consumer spending and ad market show signs of improvement. The job market continues to be weak. But the Great Recession of 2007-2009 -- the longest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s -- gives way to a modest recovery.

Across the Universe: Yelp Adjusts; Apple Upgrades; Ad Spend Upswings

Today brings an assortment of topics of interest. Following recent news (see my post from March 21) of multiple class action suits against Yelp alleging that representatives of the online review giant offered to remove or modify placement of negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars, BrandChannel reports that the site is now making filtered-out reviews visible.

Yelp has also removed the option for companies to push their favorite review to the top of their company’s page. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman posted on his blog that “Lifting the veil on our review filter and doing away with 'Favorite Review' will make it even clearer that displayed reviews on Yelp are completely independent of advertising – or any sort of manipulation."

The controversial review filter exists--according to Yelp--in order to protect business owners from unwarranted, unfavorable reviews by competitors, but the algorithmic process does at times eliminate legitimate reviews. Some have speculated that the yanked reviews were pulled by Yelp because the subject did not want to pay for advertising on the site, but in a recent NY Times article, Yelp denies this allegation.

---

After resisting for several years, a friend of mine recently bought an iPhone. Within a week, he declared it "the greatest thing I've ever owned."

Being an iPhone devotee myself, and noting this JD Power Marketing Chart ranking Apple tops for Smartphone satisfaction, this is far from shocking.

And now, just days after the high profile launch of the iPad, which utilizes much the same technology, Apple has announced its biggest iPhone software update ever, to OS4.0. It promises more than 100 new features and over 1,500 new developer tools. Likely the most significant upgrade for the end-user is the ability to now multi-task, meaning you will no longer have to log out of listening to Pandora in order to check your email, and can utilize myriad other features simultaneously.

The upcoming software upgrade only applies in full to the iPhone 3Gs, with older versions like mine lacking the necessary hardware to accommodate it. But a fourth generation iPhone is rumored to be released in conjunction with the 4.0 software this summer, so perhaps it may be time for me to upgrade.

---

Finally, as someone still waiting for the economy to truly recover for those of us on Main Street, and with
advertising spending an important indicator from--and for--the industry in which I've longed made my living (and hope to again soon), this chart from today's e-Marketer article is encouraging.

While ad spend was down across all media in 2009, indications are that nearly all avenues will be on the upswing in 2010 and 2011. Keeping in mind that forecasts are far from facts, this is far better news than the alternative.

iThink iCan Resist the iPad

Just in case you've been stationed in Siberia, with access to nothing but the books in your backpack, Apple has invented this thing called the iPad. And it will be released in Apple Stores tomorrow, April 3, 2010.

Thus you will see scenes of people camping out in line as though they were buying Led Zeppelin tickets in 1977. Or Cubs World Series tickets in, um, I guess 1908.

But despite having read the Newsweek cover story about how the iPad will change everything I do (use computers, read books, watch TV, etc.), I think I'll be sleeping in tomorrow as the hordes gobble up the first batch. And while I may one day find some reason to acquire one--and the $500 needed to do so--at this point, I'm not really all that excited.

While I very much enjoy newfangled technology and what it has brought to my life, I have also found that the hype can turn out to be a bunch of hooey in terms of day-to-day consequence.

I have an xBox 360 I rarely play. iPods of two generations, with a combined 100gb of music on them, which largely collect dust. I have an iPhone, which I think is fantastic, but I've never upgraded to the 3G or 3Gs and of millions of available applications, I have downloaded about 15 and readily use about three (Scrabble, IMDB and PhoneFlicks, all of which simply duplicate what I can easily do on my desktop). I have access to over 500 TV channels and watch about seven. And of the billions of websites that exist, they could do away with all but about 500 for all I'd ever care, and there are only about 20 that are part of my weekly routine.

You can certainly call me an artifact at 41, but I still prefer physical books, newspapers, magazines, CDs and DVDs over their electronic equivalents. I have never owned a laptop computer and feel much more comfortable using a desktop. I have never been a business traveler, but took nearly 100 flights over the last decade--including at least a dozen of more than 6 hours--and found sleep, a paperback mystery and the airline-supplied movies to be more than sufficient time-passers. During the month of March, I sent a total of 7 texts and still communicated with everyone I wished. I've never owned a GPS and have gotten everywhere I needed to be--with some help from the wonderful Google Maps, but an atlas always worked just fine.

As I mentioned, I love my iPhone and like that I can check my email and Facebook page from anywhere at any time, but beyond not being truly essential in the first place, I certainly don't see why I would ever need to do so on the larger format iPad.

In the Newsweek article, Daniel Lyons writes about getting a sneak peak at the iPad and says, "Right away I could see how I would use it. I'd keep it in the living room to check e-mail and browse the Web. I'd take it to the kitchen and read The New York Times while I eat breakfast. I'd bring it with me on a plane to watch movies and read books." Are any one of these things he couldn't already do?

I understand the coolness factor. Apple has made not only some of the most useful products ever, but also several of the best-designed. So it's not like I would blame anyone for wanting an iPad or even getting one. For people with disposable incomes, $500 is relatively cheap for all the iPad can seemingly do.

But without wanting to sound like a grinch, I think as a society we've become detrimentally carried away with our impersonal technologies. And without dismissing the advantages all the advances have brought, I think it's vitally important to retain a balance.

I like the expediency of Facebook, texting or email, but it doesn't beat having a conversation with my best friend. I like the convenience of streaming movies on Netflix, but I also like going to my public library. I enjoy having infinite musical choices at my fingertips, but I miss the artwork of record albums or even the liner notes of CDs. I constantly look things up on Wikipedia, but still appreciate an 800-page thoroughly-researched biography. I enjoy the ease of my camera phone, but will never give up lugging around my SLR when I travel. I love watching concert videos on YouTube, but will always prefer to see artists perform live (and feel compelled to occasionally compensate those creating "free" content). And I love to share my opinions on my blogs and Yelp and the like, but I also enjoy reading the critiques of professionals employed by newspapers and magazines.

Unfortunately, I don't think those of younger generations have been given the wherewithal to appreciate both sides of the balance. And I certainly include myself when I say we have become a world of fat, lazy, asocial people.

So do I really need one more--no matter how much more sleek and sophisticated--excuse to not get out of bed even to check my email, or to not take a walk to and through Barnes & Noble, or to not speak to the person sitting next to me on a transatlantic flight? And with so many people out of work and struggling in America, let alone in Haiti and elsewhere--where the newfound ability to see YouTube wirelessly on a 9.7 inch screen probably isn't the most pressing concern--even if I could easily part with $500, is a shiny new toy really the best way to use it? Especially when it doesn't allow for anything I can't already do?

So despite an admiration for Steve Jobs, Apple and its industrial design wizards, iRefrain. At least for now. And iThink I'll be just fine.