- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
In contrast to those who are just appalled by the "false analogy" that Mr. Leonard here uses, can I say that I think it is a brilliant analogy?
I'm not talking about investment=gambling which is an old analogy accurate in some ways but maybe not in others.
I'm talking about his further analogy of gamblers becoming the active force in sports contests, influencing outcomes in the way that "mere wagering" does not. Whether you accept the moral term "corruption" for this, or not, you can't deny that these practices have a real influence on the actual economy.
We are now in a position where those who for years lived within their means may very likely be asked to subsidize either the fatcats who encouraged subprime mortgages or those who took them on despite the risks. It will be impossible to bail out only the "worthy" even if we could all agree who they are.
That it should have come to this is tragic.
I suspect that most of those slamming Mr. Leonard work in the financial industry. Tell the people who used to produce real goods and services until the financial wizards told them they were too expensive that there's no difference between the "real economy" and the "speculative economy."
