????迪蘭?拉提根到底覺得他這本新書《貪婪混蛋》的讀者有多蠢呢？

????拉提根是MSNBC電視臺(tái)同名節(jié)目的主持人，他使用大富翁游戲來闡釋銀行體系的運(yùn)作方式，為此，他首先向讀者解釋了每位玩家擁有的起始資金的組成（“兩張500美元、兩張100美元、兩張50美元，等等”）。他還發(fā)明了分別稱為“獲取獎(jiǎng)杯”和“制造獎(jiǎng)杯”的游戲，以展示資本主義如何運(yùn)行，并凸顯傳統(tǒng)銀行與系統(tǒng)重要金融機(jī)構(gòu)（SIFI）——那些大到不能倒的銀行——之間的區(qū)別，對(duì)這些虛構(gòu)游戲的解釋寫了好幾頁。

????他甚至覺得有必要向讀者解釋，“付多少錢享受什么樣的服務(wù)”這個(gè)表述到底是什么意思。

????拉提根本人可不是傻瓜，他曾在彭博社做編輯，在CNBC做過節(jié)目主持，美國金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)后，政府緊急救助了多家銀行和汽車廠商，此后拉提根成為大政府、大企業(yè)的活躍批評(píng)者。（憤世嫉俗之人可能會(huì)說，他朝著民粹主義的轉(zhuǎn)型與其說是信仰所致，不如說是戰(zhàn)略選擇，當(dāng)他在CNBC工作的時(shí)候，他恐怕不是該電視臺(tái)的“民眾代言人”，對(duì)于自己開著保時(shí)捷的胖小子這一形象，他似乎也頗為滿足。）

????除了上述過度闡釋的情形之外，拉提根的作品跳躍性過于嚴(yán)重，還沒說清楚某人為何是他筆下的“吸血鬼”，就開始大加控訴。書中關(guān)于教育的一章將助學(xué)貸款行業(yè)當(dāng)成了壞人，營利性的大學(xué)也不是好種，至于銀行（“銀行大盜”）也非善類——因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)试S家庭二次抵押自己的房產(chǎn)，以支付孩子的大學(xué)學(xué)費(fèi)。他的論點(diǎn)是：這些機(jī)構(gòu)通過說客和政治獻(xiàn)金，將監(jiān)管體系玩弄于股掌之上，學(xué)生們則為了一錢不值的學(xué)位，而欠下堆積如山的債務(wù)。為了還清這些債務(wù)，許多學(xué)生又不得不自己變成銀行大盜和吸血鬼。他的言下之意，似乎是證券從業(yè)人士正使眾多美國家庭趨于破產(chǎn)，而其唯一目的只是讓自己的孩子可以獲得一紙賣身契，為投行效勞。

????Just how dumb does Dylan Ratigan think readers of his new book, Greedy Bastards, are?

????Ratigan, host of an eponymous MSNBC show, uses the game of Monopoly to illustrate how the banking system functions but first explains to his readers how to dole out the $1,500 each player starts with ("two $500s, two $100s, two $50s, and so on"). He invents games called "Take a Cup" and "Make a Cup" to demonstrate how capitalism works and the difference between traditional banks and systematically important financial institutions, or SIFIs -- banks that are too big to fail -- and riffs on these make-believe games for pages on end.

????He even feels the need to explain to his readers what the expression "you get what you pay for" means.

????Ratigan himself is no dummy. He's a former Bloomberg editor and CNBC anchor who became a vocal critic of big government and big business following the U.S. financial crisis and subsequent government bailout of banks and automakers. (A cynic might say his conversion to populism was more strategic than religious; when he was on CNBC he wasn't exactly the network's man of the people, and he seemed content to be portrayed as a Porche-driving, frat-boy type.)

????When Ratigan isn't over-explaining, he's jumping from one subject to another, prosecuting villains before making the case for why they're "vampires" in Ratigan parlance. A section on education declares the student-loan industry bad guys. Ditto for-profit universities. And banks ("banksters") are baddies for enabling families to take out second mortgages to pay for their kids' college tuitions. His argument: These institutions, with their lobbyists and political contributions, are gaming the regulatory system so that they end up saddling students with worthless degrees and a mound of debt. And then to pay off that debt many of those students become, yes, banksters and vampires. The implication seems to be that the securities industry is bankrupting American families just so it can force its children into indentured servitude as investment bankers.