What on earth is The New York Times doing giving its valuable op-ed space to Henry Blodget to write about the good aspects of the dotcom boom?
Blodget, for those with short memories, was the Merrill Lynch analyst who shot to fame for his hugely exuberant hyping of every Internet stock that came down the pipe. He refers to his fame-making forecast for Amazon.com in his op-ed, and jokingly to the fact that it eventually meant the end of his Wall Street career. He was actually fined millions for his deceptive practices.
Of course many good things came out of the dotcom boom, as Blodget explains. But he and his ilk were the villains, not the innovators or visionaries.
Update: Chris Nolan voices her outrage far more eloquently:
Here’s why it pisses me off: Because Bloget was knee, no hip-deep in the process of delusion in which everyone connected with the birth of Internet willingly, freely, happily and enthusiastically participated. His punishment? A fine, a ban from working on the Street, a book deal and a gig with Slate. For a guy who started out as a production assistant at CNN, that’s not a bad writing career. See, crime might not pay – Bloget’s fine was in the millions – but unethical behavior sure as hell does. I’m looking forward to reading a Times op/ed from Marc Rich on the benefits of the presidential pardon system.