As a 10 year "veteran" of BofA who resigned when the shit started hitting the fan in 2008, there are a few things I feel I should clarify.

Bank of America used to be a reputable organization, and Taibbi did touch on this. I joined the company right as it was completing its "merger" (i.e. hostile takeover) with Nations Bank--a crummy, aggressive Southern bank with a penchant for fascist business models led by criminals Hugh McColl and his lackey Ken Lewis.

In the months that followed Nations Bank's acquisition of BofA, which, prior to the "merger," only had domestic coverage on the West Coast and some of the Southwest, most of the key San Francisco leadership were either forced to resign or resigned in protest against the inevitable wave of dirty business dealings coming in from the South--this, of course, was Nations Bank's plan.

So, the company changed drastically over a period of several years during the last decade--and so did the business ethic. It became more militaristic, and Sigma 6 "procedures" were adopted (a lot of good that did...), and much of the new management either came directly from the military or from executive positions at other major retail companies such as Pepsi Cola, Best Buy, Home Depot--basically ANY line of business OTHER than banking. These people had no experience in banking, and that was ok, because BANKING just became RETAIL. Money and debt became a commodity to be sold to clients instead of managed responsibly.

Nations Bank of America then continued on an extremely irresponsible course of acquiring HUGE numbers of smaller banks across the country--artificially increasing stock value for several years. I remember my stock options doubling TWICE in one year because the value was such that the stock had to split. I took a nice trip to Europe in 2003, as a result. Fortunately, (or unfortunately...) I was younger and much more naive then...

However, depite the Bank's many dastardly doings (resulting directly from Congress/the Bush Administration's continued push to deregulate the banks; beginning, as we all know, with the Clinton administration) the TRUE error that led to the bank's ultimate downfall was the acquisition of Countrywide and perhaps, to a lesser extent, Merrill Lynch.

I still remember that, even during this time, getting a loan done for a client at BofA was a relatively difficult process. BofA was really late to the game in offering clients sub-prime mortgages and the like. Quite frankly, if you couldn't afford the loan, chances were that you wouldn't be able to get it at BofA. Risk management slowly started relenting when they started seeing the profits of its major competitors--and they toyed with the idea of providing subprime loans--but it never really got off the ground before the Financial Crisis. Countrywide, on the other hand...

So, Mr. Lewis chose (and was, in someways, apparently "forced") to acquire Merril Lynch and Countrywide--creating an UNholy trinity that not only decimated the once tremendous value of the company, but has virtually thrown it into a terminal state. The "market" won't correct anything, because no one will touch the BofA toxic waste dump with a 10 foot pole. Also, what is one to do with all the hopeless people who STILL maintain their assets and debt--and, god forbid, INVESTMENTS--with this company? Its reputation amongst people in the know is tarnished beyond repair--and the only reason the government IS helping it, in my opinion, is that with SO MANY incredible obligations and worthless assets (due to it's many irresponsible acquisitions), the government probably knows that it would probably be MORE trouble for the GLOBAL market to let them fail than to slowly "bail" them out with conditions. One could compare this to letting somebody die slowly in hospice as opposed to using a "bomb" to end his/her misery in a hospital full of innocent people...

Whew, that was long...I guess I needed to get some of this off my chest.

EDIT: spelling

It's a bit too easy and somewhat condescending to brush off public speaking as strictly inferior to written communication. In fact, I disagree strongly with Graham's stance. Sure, pure information transmission is enhanced in written form: there's less noise, the reader can skip and backtrack at will, and so on.

Speaking, however, gives you many more channels, and I refuse to consider these channels (inflection, speed, choice of words, prosody, emotionalization, what have you) mere baggage. Also, it's deceiving to propose that essays are baggage-free. Good style makes a huge difference, even in writing. Compare the great essayists to lowly part-time bloggers: the difference rarely boils down to just ideas. Delivery matters. Emotional content, something Graham appears to see as noise, distorts and enhances in written and spoken form alike.

All in all, I find it a bit too convenient that a mediocre speaker and good essayist happens to think writing is simply the better medium.