>Of course the victims of the official crimes were shareholders - those are
>the only victims recognized under our securities laws. If you want to
>emphasize that point, fine, but Milken is no different from anyone else who
>has gone to jail under those laws, so why do you feel any great need to
>defend him?
Because he serves to sustain a liberal mythology about financial markets specifically and capitalism in general - that the problem is bad apples that if carefully plucked keep the rest of the barrel fresh. It was revolting to read Rohatyn and Buffett and Ted Forstman of all people denouncing Milken in the NYRB and WP. What good did Rohatyn or Buffett ever do? Rohatyn screwed the working class of New York City, but he gets to assume the moral high ground. Somehow it becomes progressive to celebrate the prosecution of a guy whose main victims were other - mostly bigger - financiers and pampered CEOs. And whose prosecution helped sustain the illusion that "normal" Wall Street was honest and decent.
>Milken was enormously destructive to the lives of millions of working folks.
Millions? Really? How do you know this?
>Better to have spent the space at Feed on
>Peltier or the drug war. That's the real problem with your piece. I know
>you care about those, but it would be better if others did too.
I'm writing these things every other week, so it's not like I squandered a rare opportunity. I'm really not the guy to write about Peltier or the drug war. Can you think of a good union story to write?
Doug