And now to the Goldman Sachs outrage

Internal emails among Goldman Sachs top executives reveal -- quite vividly -- what was going on. I cannot see how anyone could say this is ethical, or even legal.

In a nutshell, as I understand it, they encouraged their investors to buy subprime mortgage-based securities that they knew were poor risks -- and at the same time bought insurance against the loss in value of those very securities they had peddled.

As framed succinctly in a Huffington Post article:

The firm made money on the upside -- originating, securitizing and selling subprime mortgage-based securities to investors -- and on the downside, thanks to the insurance.

"Bad news," a May 17, 2007, email began from one Goldman employee to another. A security the firm had underwritten and sold had just lost value, costing Goldman about $2.5 million.

Further down in the email, the employee, Deeb Salem, wrote "Good news...we own 10mm protection...we make $5mm."

The firm made $5 million betting against the very securities it had underwritten and sold. . . .

On another day in July 2007, the chief operating officer wrote the chief financial officer that the firm lost $322 million on mortgages but made $373 million on its insurance bets against the market.

The firm made $51 million that day -- on nothing. This is really just gambling by very smart people at the very highest level of finance. But it has nothing to do with goods and services -- or with ethics -- and it should be a crime, if it is not in fact a crime. Maybe it is. That's the point at issue with the criminal charges filed against them.

This is obscene greed and utter disregard for not only their own investors but the financial system itself. And we know what happened. It all collapsed -- except that taxpayers bailed them out -- and now they're back making obscene profits already. This must not go unpunished.

So what are we supposed to think about the ties to Goldman Sachs of the two highest financial officials in the Obama administration?

Ralph