Watching the Senate hearingson Goldman Sachs is both educational and entertaining.
I call it a "rumble" for rich white guys.
Some of the Senators don't fully understand Goldman Sachs' business, and some of the executives have trouble answering clear, direct questions.
Was it legally wrong for Goldman Sachs not to disclose everything it knew about Abacus to buyers? Was it, at the very least, unethical? Or should ACA and others have done more due diligence and assumed everyone involved was hedging their bets with short positions? Should ACA have hedged as well?
Someone suggested to me on Twitterthat we might better understand what happened by replacing the word "Abacus" with the old Ford Pinto, the car made infamous for blowing up when rear ended.
Imagine this testimony instead:
Senator: Did you know the Pinto was a sh--ty car?
GS: I'm not sure what you mean.
Senator: When you sold this sh--ty car to ACA, did you have a duty to tell them it was sh--ty?
GS: ACA is a major car dealership and had access to the Pinto's history.
Senator: So they wanted to buy a Pinto?
Senator: And you sold them one.
GS: Yes. But we bought some Pintos, too.