As mentioned in the quote thread I'm burning through Galbraith's The Great Crash 1929. It's the first real explainer of the stock market in which there isn't a lot of moral certainty about stock markets. Galbraith is fully willing to call greed out by name, point out that plenty of people who could have stopped things didn't and describe the mechanisms of the stock market in terms of good and bad, as opposed to "if it makes money it's good' the way most writers do.

I also burned through War Dogs, the book, not the article, and it's not very good. The author spends the whole book calling his protagonists shifty and dishonest and then gets all high and mighty when the New York Times does the exact same, only better. Here's the meat so you don't have to read it: there was a kid whose dad was an arms dealer and whose uncle was an arms dealer and who knew a rich guy in Utah who liked to deal in arms and a Belgian arms dealer who couldn't directly deal with the US sold arms to this kid for use in Iraq in order to bypass an embargo but ZOMG the Internet is involved. Also, the kid is a dick, except when the NYT calls him a dick, then he's a saint. And he has a buddy who was a massage therapist.

It's really shitty, actually. It's making me realize that Rolling Stone has become the home of shitty journalism.