Michael Lewis makes a lot of sense in his latest column for Bloomberg.com, but he's also on the wrong side of the blame game. Blaming the,

Millions of people [who] borrowed money they shouldn’t have borrowed and, not, typically, because they were duped or defrauded but because they were covetous and greedy: they wanted to own stuff they hadn’t earned the right to buy

is simplifying the issue and lets the lending banks off the hook. It's been said before, but it's important to remember (and will become painfully clear over the next couple years) that in the bank/borrower relationship, the lending party has the upper-hand. Finally, as the one guaranteed financial professional in the relationship, the lending bank, frankly, should have known better.

But then this fascinating nugget:

Goldman Sachs, which received about 8 percent of the pile, or $13 billion, has claimed publicly that the money was, to them, a matter of indifference, as Goldman had hedged itself against a possible collapse of AIG -- by making bets against AIG.

If I understand this correctly, Goldman was making bets against the insurance company it was paying to insure its bets. If that's correct, is it any wonder we're in the mess we're in?