Matt Taibbi has a recent blog giving his analysis of a jobs bill signed into law by our President, Barack Obama. Taibbi believes it is a very bad law. He gives his view and quotes the opinion of others in position to have informed opinions.
Boy, do I feel like an idiot. I've been out there on radio and TV in the last few months saying that I thought there was a chance Barack Obama was listening to the popular anger against Wall Street...
Then the JOBS Act happened.
The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.
In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.
I would like to know if there is a legitimate counter-argument to the points that Taibbi makes. Are the faults that he sees just a part of an overall good law? Or, is he accurate when he says:
In the meantime, let's just say this is a dramatic step taken by Barack Obama. Nobody should have any illusions about where he stands on Wall Street corruption after this thing. Boss Tweed himself couldn't have done any worse.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-...
The first comments replying to Taibbi's blog strongly disagree with him but offer no argument except that the law saves startup companies a lot of paperwork. Is this enough to justify the problems apparent in the law?