Stumping James Carville

As the Democrats' primo Pit Bull attack dog describes in his Wednesday Financial Times opinion article, Mr. Carville has a problem:

As someone who has prided himself on being able to reduce complex problems to simple messages, I am totally stumped by derivatives.

But then, he's not quite totally stumped since he continues on with this 'seeming' explanation of derivatives:

After hours of research, they seem to be something rich, greedy bankers thought up to make more money selling them to other rich, greedy bankers. They did not understand what they were selling. Buyers did not understand what they were buying and insurers did not understand what they were insuring. Now the taxpayer is stuck with these things that no one can explain. It is notable that the single most eloquent quote of the crisis by a flummoxed Mr. Bush came in the first bail-out debate when he said: “If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.”
Wonder if he asked his wife, Mary Matalin, for an explanation of derivatives before he decided to take that shot at Bush?  I wouldn't be surprised if she's up-to-speed on the subject.  And do you think Mr. Carville has in the past ever asked himself if he over-reduced those "complex problems" into overly-simplified messages?  "Sesame Street" politics, if you will.

I would recommend that James spend some time checking out Joe Bob Briggs's 2002 National Review article "
How Enron Works." Though ostensibly about the "Mule Market," a simple substitution of 'mortgage' for 'mule' will go a long way towards clearing things up regarding derivatives. 

Or add greater confusion.  I haven't yet decided which.  But it is a fun read.