But it was a good piece of journalism; sort of like their expose of the phony Free Market in Energy, six months before the California debacle.

Not to worry: Rupert Murdoch will take care of all that good financial journalism.

And hey, has ANYBODY over there (I’m in England at the moment) bothered to cover Murdoch’s amazing and incredible conversion after talking to Blair and Gore and realizing that global warming is for real? You probably think I’m making this up. The USA needs to get a couple of newspapers that cover some news.

As for Enlightened Liberal, it would be hypocrisy if he was still deriving money from it and arguing against it at the same time. Like Edwards being Mr. Poverty and Mr. $400 Haircut at the same time. Or all the Hollywood celebs following Gore’s “the sky-is-falling” environmental routine while flying around in private planes and driving Hummers. That is hypocrisy.

The sooner the right-wingers stop flapping their ignorant gums about Edwards, the better off we’ll all be. You’re simply too uninformed and too ignorant to comment on the actual blog post. So why don’t you be quiet?

“Nothing wrong with hedge funds.”

Let’s see if we can clear things up for you. I have no problem at all with hedge funds and understand them perfectly. The issue is that Edwards worked for a hedge fund that was a player inthe subprime lending market while railing against “predatory practices” such as those inherent in the subprime lending market. Some (read, anyone but Libs) might call that hypocrisy. Others (read, anyone but Libs might be amused by the idea of a trial lawyer being against “predatory practices” when said trial lawyer derived his cast fortune from preying upon defendants with varying degrees of responsibiltiy and even more varying degrees of deep pockets.

As the former research director of a dorm-room hedge fund (it was the sort of thing that kids started at Harvard during the tech bubble) I feel that I’m in good position to explain what hedge funds are and why we should have no serious problems with them.

Hedge funds are basically like mutual funds — you give them your money and they manage it for you. The big difference is that they’re allowed to pursue more complicated strategies than just buying stocks, like short-selling and playing with derivatives. Since the government doesn’t want ordinary citizens blindly investing in funds that might be doing strange and risky things, hedge funds are only open to wealthy investors and institutions like banks and pension funds.

I am not sure how to understand these two paragraphs, but my initial take is to think less of Neil and of Harvard “kids.”

As for trial lawyers, chum, they are a drain on society whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

My guess is Hedley loved trial lawyers in Bush v Gore.

Maybe Edwards should have got involved with war bonds based on his erstwhile support for Bush’s military endeavors.

Anyone who invests in a hedge fund needs to have their profits siphoned off by a tool like Edwards. I’d rather be dealing with my neighborhood bookie

Hedley: You’re badly misinformed. In fact, your whole perception of torts law is inverted: The overwhelming majority of settlements and verdicts are relatively small and account for expenses and lost opportunities; the ones you’re referring to are the biggest, most controversial punative awards. Applying the exception as the rule works in both directions, and in neither case are they welcome in a rational discussion about tort and liability law.

Nothing wrong with hedge funds. A great place to “investigate poverty.”

And, by the way, this thread is about hedge funds. I’m not playing your diversionary game about “teh trial lawyers!@#!!!!11!!!”