Back in June, the New York Observer published a piece by Manhattan restaurateur, blogger and soon-to-be-book-author Eddie Huang about Red Rooster chef Marcus Samuelsson, tied to the release of Samuelsson's memoir, Yes, Chef. In it, Huang took a look at the cultural and culinary implications of Red Rooster, one of Harlem's most critically hyped (and priciest) dining destinations.

Samuelsson did not take kindly to the piece then. And over a month and a half later, he's still talking about it.

In an interview with the Washington Post's Tim Carman, Samuelsson responded with vigor to a question about Huang's piece. Emphasis ours:

TC: This seems like an appropriate time to mention Eddie Huang’s essay for the New York Observer, which essentially argued that your perceptions of Harlem were patronizing.

MS: That’s also giving it a lot of thought. The other quick answer is that maybe he wanted to punch up.

TC: Punch up?

MS: Are you kidding me? It’s a joke. You’re dealing with a guy who doesn’t want to enter a conversation. Even discussing it is a waste of time. I trust the New York Times. I trust The Washington Post. I trust the New York Herald. [1] I trust the Tribune. I trust the journalists that I’ve read and that have carefully thought about what to [say], and then render their judgment. I also trust my own work. I have zero interest to get into people who want to get famous. There’s two ways to get famous. There used to be one way: You worked really hard, and you were really good. That was the only way to get known. I still believe in that one. [2] So if I poured a beer on you and we put that on YouTube, maybe we’ll get 4 million hits. I have zero interest in that.

I can tell you my reality: I moved myself from Midtown 10 years ago. I looked at Harlem, at 22 percent unemployment [3]. I look at that block where [Red] Rooster is today, where there’s zero unemployment. I look at the 110 employees that I have, where 80 of them come from Harlem. I’m not here to defend garbage; I trust my work. It takes an incredible amount of effort, an incredible amount of skill to do that. To even answer garbage, why should I lower myself to that level? I, as a mentor, as a mentee, as an employee, as a chef, I have a responsibility, and it’s not to go bottom fishing and enter garbage. [4] It is to rise above and be the person that I set out to [be]. So I hold myself to that standard. Garbage will come.

Criticism is part of the creative man’s journey, and I appreciate it. [5] Garbage is not part [of it]. I see the game. The game is about punching up today. The game is about ‘Here’s somebody that does something great. Well, rather than applaud it, I can now punch up and be part of that conversation.’ [6] What’s fascinating today is that ... before, there was not an outlet for that garbage, and today, real platforms are actually writing about that. [7] That’s what’s fascinating to me; the real platforms are lowering their guard.

A few notes:

[1] The New York Herald hasn't been a newspaper since 1966.

[2] Eddie Huang's writing has certainly made him some type of name, but his cooking isn't bad either. It's been praised by the New York Times (twice), New York magazine, the Village Voice and plenty of others.

[3] In 2002, Harlem was actually at 11.4% unemployment, as opposed to the 22% unemployment rate Samuelsson cites. As far as "the block where Red Rooster is today" having "zero unemployment," we can't speak to the particulars of that block, but the 10027 zip code where Red Rooster is located has a current unemployment rate of 10.27%, which is more than twice the average New York rate of unemployment (4.32%).

[4] Maybe this is a matter of semantics, but if Samuelsson didn't want to "go bottom fishing," he wouldn't continue to discuss Huang's piece—as he does here, as he's done previously—more than Huang ever did.

[5] Eddie Huang's response to a bad review of his Lower East Side restaurant, Xiao Ye, was to admit that he had done something incorrectly. In response to open criticism of his piece about Samuelsson, Huang was receptive and open to conversation. Marcus Samuelsson's previous response to bad reviews and failure was to abandon ship.

[6] Samuelsson keeps referring to Huang's "punching up." Huang's memoir is going to be published by Random House in February 2013. Samuelsson's memoir was published by—of course—Random House as well. If anything, it'd seem at least in one regard (though maybe more) Huang is punching laterally. Also, Huang and Samuelsson both worked on The Great GoogaMooga together (as you can see above).

[7] Other "real platforms" that are "lowering their guard" by covering Huang that we haven't already mentioned: Time, Esquire, Salon and The Wall Street Journal, to name a few.

Huang has taken to Twitter to comment on the interview, not on Samuelsson's response, but on Washington Post interviewer Tim Carman's questions (and how Carman, in Huang's eyes, let Samuelsson off the hook by dismissing criticism as punching up). Huang has a point: Carman could have known with very little research that, if anything, Huang was (as we have just pointed out) punching laterally. Then again, it seems as if Carman may have had his mind made up about Samuelsson going into the piece.

Some choice descriptors of Marcus Samuelsson (from Carman, the interviewer):

• "You seem meticulous by nature ..."
• "You’ve been very successful ..."
• "In some ways, your journey has been a more difficult experience ..."

Of course, Eddie Huang wrote the piece for the Observer, and while not everyone at this paper will agree with what Huang had to say, most of us would argue his right to say it (on the sure footing of the aforementioned facts alone).

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

At one point in the interview with Matt Lauer, Anna Gristina explains her innocence as such:

Gristina maintains that her matchmaking service was legal. She saw the show "The Millionaire Matchmaker" on Bravo and said a friend suggested she create something similar. Gristina's idea was to create a high-end "sugar daddy" matchmaking service for wealthy men who are married — like a married version of Match.com, she said.

The D.A. is accusing her of having run a prostitution ring for fifteen years.

The D.A.'s investigation of Gristina's ring has been going on for five years.

And for what it's worth, on an internet profile, she cited her job as an "internet marketer" (how wonderfully vague!) from 2005 to 2009.

The Millionare Matchmaker's first airing on Bravo was January 29, 2008.

• That's two to three years after the LinkedIn profile has her starting in the "marketing" business.
• That's at least eleven years after the D.A. has accused her of first running her business.
• And it's an entire year after the D.A. began its investigation of her.

Topher Grace (Getty Images)

Topher Grace, a sometime romantic lead in sick-day favorites like Valentine’s Day and Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, plays the antagonist in The Giant Mechanical Man, his film that premiered last night at the Tribeca Film Festival. “There was a scene where I’m kissing Jenna [Fischer] and Chris [Messina] is watching and the camera closes in on Chris,” said Mr. Grace, “and I was like, ‘Oh, I’ve been in this scene, I’ve just never played this guy.’ Josh Duhamel or someone else is playing this guy.”

Mr. Grace plays a stringy-haired motivational speaker—shades of Tom Cruise in Magnolia!—who stands in the way of Ms. Fischer’s and Mr. Messina’s happiness. The actor became engrossed by late-night paid spots for speakers in the lead-up to his taking the role, though he was a bit dubious about their merits: “There’s a tone that all of them have to aggressively get you into something—and why would somebody want to tell someone else how to lead a better life? I’d never tell someone that, I barely have me figured out.” The character is a supporting role, not entering until past the twenty-minute mark, and Mr. Grace gets why: “One more minute of that character and you’d absolutely hate him. You’re supposed to love hating him and you might hate hating him.”

The actor, who’s currently acting Off-Broadway in the play Lonely, I’m Not, hadn’t acted live since high school, when a role in a school play led to him being scouted for his star-making role on That ‘70s Show alongside Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis. “I don’t feel any guilt,” said Mr. Grace of the more indie direction he’s been taking later, “although it’s not a good story when I tell my out-of-work actor friends, “I was in a high school play, then boom! 70’s!” Mr. Grace noted he’d been the age of Matthew Perry at the beginning of Friends when That 70’s Show ended. “There’s room for more, hopefully. My feeling was if you’re in something that’s been that moneymaking of an endeavor for everyone involved, then I never wanted to make a choice based on money ever again. And I haven’t.”

Topher! Not even Valentine’s Day? “I learned a lot of things on this,” he said, “and I learned a lot of things on Predators. I learned a lot of things on Valentine’s Day. If you’ve gotta do a romantic comedy, do it with Garry Marshall. This summer I did a film where De Niro and Diane Keaton are my parents, and one day they start talking about Godfather Part II, and I’m like “Okey-dokey! So worth it!”

The interview was given to a Dutch television program, in a taped, on-record call to the program's aggressive line of questioning that Mr. van Praag responded to in full, apparently not taking any time to go off-record or end the interview at particularly hostile junctures.

Dealbook's Kevin Roose reports:

Mr. van Praag knew the telephone call was being recorded, but intended to have only the brief recorded statement used in the broadcast, according to the person. Mr. [Alexander Oey, the Dutch program's director] kept the questions coming, however, and nearly 40 minutes later, he had scored what amounted to one of Mr. van Praag’s widest-ranging interviews about Goldman’s business practices in the last several years.

The title of the report, translated, is "Goldman Will Get Back To You," a refrain plenty of journalists who've attempted to report on the banking behemoth and Mr. van Praag have no doubt heard countless times. This is a guy who has taken to criticism of the bank as Pete Sampras would a soft lob: By smashing it back in the faces of lesser humans attempting to outsmart him, which goes without mentioning the toy "vampire squid" he kept at his desk.

Dealbook posted some clips from the interview. In one of them, Lucas van Praag discusses the inherent problem facing the human inclination towards greed:

"I think greed and jealousy and sloth are all unfortunate traits of human nature, so I don't think you can come up with a system that prevents people from being greedy and jealous and lazy. I think that you can come up with a system that doesn't reward that kind of behavior. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. I think that one of the problems—one of the unintended consequences of trying to do that in this crisis has been that regulators have required banks to pay higher base salaries and lower bonuses. What happens is that the fixed costs of banks have gone up significantly. Of course, in an environment where compensation is your largest cost—which is true for all banks in the investment banking space—you suddendly have significantly reduced the bank's ability to manage its cost. So I think you need to be sure you have a system in place that doesn't reward greed, and there are lots of ways to do that, but increasing fixed costs adds an extra layer to the system."

And how did Goldman itself deal with that? The whole greed thing? the interviewer asks.

"Well, we have a very rigorous risk-management system, and we're very transparent internally about what risks we're taking and what the potential impact is across the board. But also, we don't pay people on their individual profit and loss. And that's particularly important at the most senior levels, so the most senior people at the firm have a view of what they're doing, which is across the whole organization. In other words: We really actively discourage the silo-mentality. We don't want people to think very narrowly about their business that they're running."

Also:

"We don't bet against our clients. What we were doing, in our view, was being effective risk managers."

There's that, and so much more over at DealBook.

For what it's worth, this is the kind of thing that's going be poured over and rigorously studied in the future* when people want insight into the message-mentality of the rulers of global finance in 2012.

[*And to be clear, by "future," we mean, "any time between right this instant and the next fifty years or so."]

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

This is especially delightful in light of

1. Our last Democratic Vice President, the emissions-hating Al Gore, and

2. An Onion article entitled 'Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway.'  Which he addresses with an interview that may as well appear in The Onion:

C/D: While shirtless, have you ever washed a 1981 Pontiac Trans Am in your driveway?

JB: [Laughing] You think I’d drive a Trans Am? I have been in my bathing suit in my driveway and not only washed my Goodwood-green 1967 Corvette but also simonized it.  At least the Onion should have had me washing a Trans Am convertible. I love convertibles.

And we love Joe Biden. What does Joe Biden not love, however? Not being allowed to be Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused, basically:

JB: ...I still have my 1967 Goodwood-green Corvette, 327, 350-horse, with a rear-axle ratio that really gets up and goes. The Secret Service won’t let me drive it. I’m not allowed to drive anything. It’s the one thing I hate about this job. I’m serious.

This is surprising, given that the one thing most people would assume Joe Biden hates about his job is being the White House's Mascot-In-Chief. Also, classic sans-context Bidenism:

So I jumped on that sucker and laid rubber.  A great feeling.

Indeed it is, Mr. Vice-President. Indeed it is.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Hola Newo Yorko! El stormo grande is mucho dangeroso!

A few thousand people on Twitter can't be wrong: The best thing about Hurricane Irene was the appearance among them of @ElBloombito, a sardonic, Spanglish-speaking caricature of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his earnest attempts at becoming fluent in Spanish. (This is actually a typical occurrence at pretty much every press conference, but how many people watch mayoral press conferences on a regular basis?)

The Observer reached out to Rachel Figueroa-Levin, the 25-year-old native New Yorker behind the Twitter feed—she put her main feed in El Bloombito's bio, never expecting either would become viral smashes—to find out who she was where she got this crazy idea.

Update I: Mayor Bloomberg Responds to El Bloombito >>

Update II: Rachel Figueroa-Levin Responds to Mayor Bloomberg Responding to El Bloombito >>

Like most things on Twitter, it started out as a joke. In an email, she told us, "I live in Inwood with my husband and nine-and-a-half-month-old daughter. I'm a stay-at-home mom and soap maker. We are in the process of buying a co-op in Inwood. (We close early September!) Soap making started as a hobby and turned into a mini business." What follows is an interview conducted this evening on GChat. (What, you thought we would do a phone interview with an Internet star?)

The Observer: Evening

Rachel: Hi!

The Observer: Where to begin. Are you dry? Is the baby O.K.?

Rachel: We are dry and the baby is doing well. Our dog probably suffered the most because his walk schedule is all messed up. The baby actually stood up for the first time yesterday!

The Observer: Wow. Mazel tov. Think it was weather related?

Rachel: Perhaps. My husband and I were spending so much time trying to prepare for the hurricane that maybe she stood up to get some attention.

The Observer: So, tell your probably well-into-five-figures-by-Monday-morning fans how El Bloombito came about.

Rachel: It started late last night as a joke between my Twitter friends and I. After his unfortunate Spanish attempt at that press briefing I started calling him “El Bloombito.” The twitter account was me trying to take that joke a little farther.

I didn't think it would take off the way it did!

Clear Skies for 9/11 Memorial: Hurricane Irene Actually Helped Ground Zero >>

The Observer: Why do you think that is? As my editor put it, you're way better than “the incredibly un-funny @hurricaneirene twitter.”

Rachel: Am I? I don't follow that twitter so I don't know. I'm still in shock that so many people are following an account I created to entertain maybe 15 people.

The Observer: Do you think you touched a nerve? There seems to be a certain amount of ambivalence toward the administration's response—sure, nobody died, but was it overblown?—or is there something else going on here?

Rachel: I think the Bloomberg administration handled everything very well. It's much better to prepare too much than to not prepare enough. My grandmother lives in an assisted living home in Sheepshead Bay. She was evacuated and is staying with my mother until the flood waters recede. What if she wasn't evacuated? She would be in a terrible situation.

All of the city agencies responded amazingly. My dad is the director of the NYPD Photo Unit (Hi, dad!) and has been at headquarters since last night—and won't be returning home until tomorrow night. The dedication and work ethic of everyone involved is inspiring.

I think El Bloombito struck a nerve because Mayor Bloomberg's Spanish is... well... laughable. I think that if he really wanted to get a message across to the Latino community he should have stepped aside and had someone who speaks Spanish fluently deliver the message.

The Observer: But isn't that the thing. Most mayors would never go this far out of their way, would they? I believe the mayor is fairly proud of his Spanish, in fact. To wit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/nyregion/04spanish.html. Is it better to have misspoken than to never have spoken at all?

Rachel: I think it's great that he wants to speak Spanish. I also think that in a situation like this, he perhaps should have let someone else do the talking. His Spanish is funny. It gave me a laugh—which I needed being stuck in an apartment with a fussy baby.

The Observer: So where does El Bloombito come from?

Rachel: The name just sort of popped into my head. I'm a huge NY1 junkie and I'm a big fan of Inside CIty Hall. I sort of pictured Gerson Borrero saying "El Bloombito" the way he calls Mayor Bloomberg "Miguelito"

On Wettest Night of the Year, at Least One Spot Parties On >>

The Observer: Are there other inspirations?

Rachel: There are probably tons of other inspirations in my subconscience that I'm not aware of. I was picturing Adam Sandler's Operaman when I tweeted "No looto el bodega. Esta es Nuevo Yorko!" I was singing it in my head.

The Observer: Yes! That was my boss' favorite! I think mine was "Los cans del treasho por favor to turn them back overo. Gracias." Because that was such a funny detail, I remember him telling everyone not to yesterday, and now it's O.K. Like they really thought of everything this time.

Rachel: And I turned the corner trash can back over.

La Bloombita.

The Observer: That's the spirit! So, besides Adam Sandler, where did you hone your Spanglish? Does it have anything to do with growing up Jewyorican, as you named your other Twitter handle?

Rachel: My father is Puerto Rican and fluent in Spanish. My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish and despite being married to my dad for 30 years doesn't speak any Spanish at all. For me Spanglish is sort of a natural evolution from living in an English speaking country. Kind of like "Yeshivish" in the Jewish community. I grew up in an English only household but the languages of your ancestors have a way of sneaking into your vocabulary.

The Observer: Amen—or should I say ah-mein—to that. So tell us a little bit more about yourself? You mentioned your grandma out in Sheepshead Bay and your dad at the NYPD. You grew up in the city? Went to school here? What were you doing before you became an artisian soap maker?

Rachel: I grew up on Staten Island. In Willowbrook, within easy walking distance of that creepy mental hospital busted by Geraldo Rivera (another Jewyorican!!!). I moved to Manhattan when I moved in with my then-boyfriend (now husband/baby daddy). Before I was a soap maker I dabbled in opera (I'm a soprano), freelance graphic and website design, and writing. Now I make babies and soap. In a year or two I'll probably be doing something else. I'm so incredibly lucky that my husband has a "real job" that allows me to just be creative without worrying about money.

Otherwise I'd be one of those starving artists. I'm a well fed starving artist.

The Observer: With plenty of time for Twitter, too! Seriously, with a new baby, how do you find the time for social media?

Rachel: I can feed the baby with one hand and tweet on my phone with the other. I have to. Between not being able to go out much during my third trimester (and the baby was 2 weeks late), a very cold winter with a newborn, and hurricanes, I'm pretty much a shut in. Thank G-d the weather is nice again!

The Observer: Did you write before, or did the blogging and twitter (and wit!) sort of just happen?

Rachel: I have always enjoyed writing. The wit I credit to my late grandfather Bernard Samith. He was a master of one-liners.

Do Not Ride Your Bike in the Hurricane (But If You Do, Don’t Forget Goggles) >>

The Observer: Were you worried about being outed? Surprised? How'd that happen?

Rachel: I put my @jewyorican twitter handle on the Bloombito profile. So I wasn't outed... just discovered.

The Observer: Does that trouble, bother or worry you?

Rachel: Not at all. Like I said, I created this for friends so I wanted them to know that the profile was me. My personal twitter is public so anyone can see it. If people are really that interested in my daily happenings... that's O.K. with me.

The Observer: So, the obvious question: Have you been offered a book deal yet?

Rachel: I have not. Is this something I should expect? You aren't the first person to mention a book deal. I think it would be funny.

The Observer: It's a thing, I guess, from Shit My Dad Says to the rash of Tumblogs-to-books. I noticed in the Daily News you've got a cook book in the works, so maybe you could parlay it into something with that. How many followers did your main account get thanks to this? Also,

Rachel: The only "book" I have ever written was for NaNoWriMo two years ago. I got maybe 300 new followers on my personal account.

The Observer: You mentioned NY1 and Inside City Hall. Are you politically active?

Rachel: I don't know about active... I'm politically aware. I blog about it occasionally—but not much. I like political pundit shows—a little too much maybe. I'm also addicted to Hardball.

The Observer: Did you vote for El Bloombito?

Rachel: I did. To be honest, if he ran for a fourth term I'd probably vote for him again.

The Observer: Speaking of fourth terms, here are a few questions from Twitter readers (please respond in character):

Rachel: O.K., shooto.

The Observer: From @dsrbroadway, Is he seeking a quatro term?

Rachel: Yo no seeko un quatro term por que yo necesito to be paid more than uno peso per yearo. Tengo bills.

The Observer: From CFWard57, "Donde can yo vayo to learn Español as bueno as yours?"

Rachel: Watcho El Streeto del Sesame!

The Observer: From MikeZ37, "¿Quien es macho, Fernando Llama o Ricardo Montalban?"

Rachel: Ricardo Maltoban es el man.

This Transplanted Frank Lloyd Wright House Is About to Have a Very Ironic Weekend in The Hamptons >>

The Observer: All right. Back to you. What is your fondest non-El Bloombito memory of or experience from Hurricane Irene?

Rachel: My husband's birthday was yesterday. Blew out emergency candles. My daughter also stood up without holding onto anything for the first time. That was fantastic.

The Observer: What was your weirdest hurricane provision?

Rachel: Coconut toasted marshmallows.

The Observer: And the question that's on everyone's mind: With Irene gone, is this the end, or just the beginning?

Rachel: Everyone is telling me to continue El Bloombito. I will for now, as long as it stays fun.

The Observer: Anything else you'd like to add/plug for/let the world know?

Rachel: I run a hyperlocal website for my neighborhood Inwood, In the Wood. My neighborhood is amazing and very important to me. All you stranded Brooklynites should come up here! No flooding!

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Who's laughing now? (Shultz/The Real Deal)

We hate to break it to our colleagues at The Real Deal, but it seems like Boston Properties boss Mort Zuckerman is not a reader, and if he was, he's not anymore.

If Mr. Zuckerman were a subscriber, he would have known the paper's "Closing" interview, which runs on the back page each month, is a lighthearted affair. Yet the developer—who as owner of the Daily News, you would think could take a joke—was having none of it, especially after The Real Deal got a little personal.

When The Real Deal asked about the size of his apartment, one of the tamer questions slated for him, the 74-year-old billionaire said he didn't "have any idea" about the square footage, called the question "silly" and terminated the interview.

[...]

You live at 950 Fifth Avenue. What's the square footage of your apartment?

I don't have any idea. I'm not going to answer these kinds of questions. This has got to be serious. Why don't we speak later? I'm sorry, I've got too many things to do. This is silly. The size of my apartment? This is silly. Come on. I don't deal with these things. I'll call you back. I'm going to get off. I'm sorry. [Click]

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

NYO: You've emphatically noted in the past intentional deception as what distinguishes being wrong from lying or from fraud. Much of the outrage directed at S&P when they downgraded American debt was: they failed to downgrade the CDOs and other toxic assets that assisted the 2008 crash, their credibility is shot, ergo, how dare they downgrade our debt. It’s pretty clear that—among the other reasons—they failed to downgrade these products because they’re paid to rate them by the people creating them. From a prosecutorial standpoint, is there an inherent deception in the system?

ELIOT SPITZER: Deception's a strong word to use without actual proof of intent to deceive. When you look back at all the cases [the New York Attorney General's office] made, we actually had that proof. There were actual deceptive acts taken. I just want that as a backdrop.

NYO: But again, we’re talking about deception on a systemic scale.

ES: Right. There’s a structural flaw and has been forever in the way [ratings agencies] have been paid that’s led to a failure of hard analysis underlying many of their ratings. There should have been prosecutions in the past, there should’ve been a deeper analysis of those conflicts and the tensions that led to very poor analysis.

NYO: How would they’ve been prosecuted, though? It doesn’t seem like there’s an existing statute...

ES: Sure there is, the same way we brought the ratings case against the analysts. All you need is a common law fraud concept that people—and you go back to the emails, just as we did in the analyst case—and again, I’m not saying “let’s relive the past” This is a more theoretical matter. Go through the emails, and you would’ve seen—“this isn’t a triple-A, but they’re a good client, and we’re gonna...”—that tension between what ratings were put on a product, and one’s belief or recognition that they may not deserve it. There are many theories about what would be there, but you have to get the evidence, to state the obvious. I don’t want to say "gee, they should’ve been prosecuted.” But there should’ve been greater scrutiny over the years, and the structure has always been problematic. It was next on our hit parade, if I had been there for that.

NYO: Is there any way to effectively reform this system?

ES: The best answer—and I think the marketplace is moving to this—is to essentially tell the ratings agencies: “You’ve got to earn your credibility.” Let’s remove from them the position they had for many years, which was the government saying “You are designated as agencies to which we ascribe a certain elevated position. And you have been given this power by the government without having earned it.“ There’s no reason for that. And now I’m going to sound like a freemarketeer.

NYO: Haven’t they earned it, though? There are only ten ratings agencies certified by the government.

ES: They haven’t earned it based upon their performance.

NYO: ...On the merit of their ratings.

ES: Right. In other words, when I say “earn it,” I mean “earn it” in terms of establishing to the marketplace that your ratings actually mean something.

NYO: Somehow, this hasn’t already happened.

ES: No. [There’s a] notion that there are no straight lines in the world, and what most people do—and understandably—is presume that lines continue in perpetuity. Rating agencies have been uniquely bad at spotting inflexion points, and that is, of course, what you’re paying them to do.

NYO: Not just that, but they’re being paid to be bad.

ES: Anybody can extend the line in the direction in which it has been moving. The hard part is saying “Wait a minute. There’s too much securitized mortgage debt out there, and therefore there’s a problem.” Quality control is lagging, and that’s what we’ve picked up by actually digging into the underlying mortgages.

NYO: That...is what the short-sellers picked up.

ES: That’s what the short-sellers picked up. That’s the sort of analysis the rating agencies should have done, if in fact they had been worth their mettle.

NYO: It’s not exactly a trenchant observation, but isn’t the inherent problem facing rating agencies as they stand that if one takes their bad products to a ratings agency, and they don’t rate it triple-A, you can just take it to the next guy? The free market!

ES: It’s why the rating agencies need to make a determination: either they will maintain their integrity, and they will be paid because people will value them in the marketplace, or you need to come up with a different payment mechanism. I’m not saying any of this is easy. “Who’s going to pay for honest research?” becomes a very difficult question.

NYO: Doesn’t honest research benefit these companies in the long-term?

ES: I’d think so. You need a payment mechanism to those who are going to do the real analysis that will not taint it or, if it’s tainted, let the marketplace know it.

NYO: What do you mean by ‘payment mechanism’? For the government to pay them?

ES: Well, look: I never wanted that. Remember, way, way back, we tried to come up with all the different permutations that were out there. We wanted to have independent research. And who’s gonna pay for it? There was a notion—and this caused a hullabaloo when it was floated; it wasn’t even my idea, but conceptually there’s nothing wrong with it—that the stock exchange would have research. The stock exchange as a not-for-profit would say: “Look, you guys go out there and do research” sort of as an academic exercise. But the question is, in this day and age, how can you derive a revenue stream from research whether you’re an analyst in the tech sector of a Morgan Stanley or you’re Fitch doing bond analysis. Because the information? Once it’s out there you can’t protect it very well. And if you put a negative rating, who’s going to pay for it? These are real problems. But what we do know is that as a consequence of this, the bond ratings—much like the analysts that we pursued—were uniformly and excessively positive.

NYO: The consequences of these excessively positive ratings have greater implications on the world beyond the private sector. You’ve said that “only government can take the steps necessary to overcome market failures.”

ES: Well, one type of intervention might just be: Take away all the government imprimatur that the rating agencies have and say ‘These guys are no better than what you have made of them in the past. They really haven’t spotted anything important. And you’ve got to do your own work.”

NYO: What was your reaction when you saw the S&P downgrade of American debt?

ES:  I thought it was...interesting. It wasn’t an economic analysis.

NYO: It was a political analysis.

ES: It was a political analysis. The one thing we’ve thought there might be some modicum of skills retained by these companies was economic analysis. We haven’t ever viewed them as being political barometers. So now, in a way, they’re putting on an entirely different hat saying as a political matter, they’re downgrading our debt.

NYO: Are they out of their depth?

ES: I don’t think they are. But I don’t think they have any unique skills either. They’re smart people, and I think they reached the same conclusion that many folks have reached: our government has been somewhat—or greatly—dysfunctional dealing with macroeconomic issues, and that we’re kicking the can down the road both in terms of the deficit and in terms of what I view as the more important issue, job creation. But we don’t need S&P to tell us that. In other words: this wasn’t a very sophisticated analysis of debt exposure, where they picked up something we hadn’t seen about some pension obligation, and said “A-ha! Now we see where you’re hiding it. Hence: we’re downgrading you.”

NYO: What’s interesting about it, though, is that they actually did go out on a limb and distinguish themselves from the other agencies. And it feels like they’re being punished for it.

ES: They were not wrong in their political analysis. They’re wrong in their economic analysis. The risk of a default, having watched this exercise, is actually lower than it was in the past. In a sense, you could say that even with the Tea Party there, at the end of the day everybody said “We will not tolerate a default.” We know that. At that point I don’t think the downgrade makes sense, when you look at where we now stand in comparison to other government and private sector entities. Having said that, there was some criticism that this was sort of a finger back in the eye of government saying “Okay, you want to give us a tough time for missing the sub-prime debt? We’ll show you we still have some cards to play.” You know, look: I don’t want to challenge motive. Frankly, the market, to a great extent, has ignored their downgrade.

NYO: Funny how that nebulous “market” will take the ratings agencies’ stamps of approval when it wants them, but ignore them otherwise. Are they just totally useless right now?

ES: The rating agencies have provided a legal and emotional backstop for entities that have to make certain decisions and need to rely upon something. It’s somewhat akin to opinion letters in a takeover context. You need something that gives you the legal foundation to act. So if you’re a board of directors or an investment committee you can say “here’s our portfolio, and we’ve done our due diligence. Here are the rating agency’s statements.” You don’t really think that they’re worth that much. On the other hand, you also know that you don’t have the internal capacity to analyse the bonds out of some tiny sewer department that’s issuing the debt in the tiny county in some state out in the Midwest. To that extent, they provide some sort of baseline utility.

NYO: Allow us a moment of total, wide-eyed naivety: As someone who’s navigated the ridiculous thoroughfare of government bureaucracy, what are the odds that any legislator anywhere would take significant action on the systemic issue of ratings agencies?

ES: Probably slim.

NYO: Why? Because it seems like something that...

ES: Should have been done a long time ago? Or any prosecutor for that matter. I mean, there hasn’t been any meaningful effort to take a hard look at it.

NYO: It seems like now more than ever, this could be a win-win situation for somebody both in terms of political capital, and in terms of the climate required for one to actually succeed in that situation. And yet—again, this is knowingly naive—but nobody’s going through with it.

ES: It’s hard to finally close that loop. The institutional presence of the rating agencies—not to be excessively cynical...

NYO: It seems excessive cynicism is the realistic approach, here.

ES: Well, the status quo has its own momentum. Think how many localities and entities have received rating agencies work that have permitted them to access the markets. They receive the triple-A. They show up on Capitol Hill saying “Don’t take away this stamp of approval. We would never be able to get the teachers pension fund from Alabama to buy us, if we didn’t have this stamp of approval. So we need it.”

NYO: Enter lobbying dollars.

ES: Yeah, yeah. But it’s a shame. ‘Cause I think the reliance on the rating agencies was—as we all now know—one of the critical errors that permitted the bubble to inflate.

NYO: After the bubble inflated and popped, and after S&P recieves scrutiny over their sovereign debt rating, do you think, moving forward, that the mistakes made in the past could be repeated again with the ratings agencies?

ES: The mistakes inevitably will be repeated again.

NYO: Taking a different form.

ES: In a slightly different form. And it’s just a question of how long until it happens again.

NYO: Like Mark Twain says: “The past doesn’t repeat itself but...

ES: ...it rhymes.” The best little book on this ever was Galbraith’s A Short History of Financial Euphoria. Galbraith gets it right. We keep doing it historically ‘cause debt and leverage are so addictive. As a narcotic, they get into our blood stream. We can’t get rid of them. So we’ve learned the lesson. The metaphor I used to use is that it’s like getting a speeding ticket. You learn the lesson for some period of time but then 20 miles down the road, 30 miles down the road, your foot starts going back down on the accelerator. It’s a question of for how long we’ve learned the lesson.

NYO: Is this something just inherent in human nature that can’t be controlled? On one hand, controlling it would really be sticking a deep hand in the free market, but on the other hand, if you leave it unattended to do this again, the only people we have to blame are ourselves.

ES: Which I think we know. The regulatory structure worked pretty well from the Depression until the mid-’80s, when we did have a slightly more aggressive approach to regulating leverage in those sectors that could cause enormous harm. Not without problems here and there. The answer is when we have some brake that can be applied to leverage and risk in that regard, we can do okay. When we take our foot off that brake, inevitably the bubbles re-emerge.

NYO: It seems like the foot’s coming off the break again. It’s only been two years.

ES: Well, let’s see what happens. It’s what makes life interesting, right? It’s what keeps a journalist in business. It’s what keeps prosecutors in business. 'Makes it more fun.

Where do you live?
I live at the Gramercy Starck--a new construction condo built in 2007.

How is work these days? What is your latest deal?
Work is extremely busy. I'm closing on a two-bedroom at 4 West 21st Street this afternoon. I closed two others this month and have three more that are in contract. I am also busy on the rentals side, but my amazing team member Morgan Turkewitz handles all of my rental transactions.

What was the best meal you've ever eaten in New York?
Il Mulino. You have to call about a month in advance to get a reservation but it's well worth the wait!

What was your first apartment like?
Many of my friends graduated college before me, so they found a convertible-three in Hells Kitchen. As soon as there was an opening, I jumped on the opportunity to live in Manhattan. My room was the size of a closet, but I didn't care. My portion of the rent was only $600 a month so as long as a bed could fit I was happy.

What is your recession war story?
I had money saved so I really wasn't that worried, as I was confident that the Manhattan real estate market would persevere. I didn't get discouraged that I wasn't doing deals. I just kept working hard and stayed in touch with all of my customers. It was a scary time, and I understood their fears as there was so much uncertainty at that time. I continued to keep them informed while they waited the crisis out. When the market shifted, the fear began to subside and they revisited the marketplace. I wound up doing 6 deals in June of 2009 as a result.

How do you get around town?
I usually take mass transit to get to and from my appointments. If the appointments are close to one another we usually walk, otherwise we will cab it. If a buyer comes in from out of town on a Sunday and we are going to be all over Manhattan I'll often get a car service as parking is very tough on Sundays.

What is your favorite building in the city and why?
I guess I'm biased, as I love where I live. With my hectic schedule, having a gym in my building was crucial, and the Starck offers one of the best gyms in Manhattan. We also have a billiards room, a movie theater, two roof decks and a fantastic staff. 

If you weren't a broker, what would you be?
I'd be a writer/producer. It's my dream. Whenever I'm not doing real estate I'm working on my script.

What is your dream home?
A chalet at the top of China Bowl in Vail.

You just won the lottery. What store do you stop by and what do you buy?
I'd call my two brothers, have them come by our bar Traffic for a round of beers and an order our famous Mac and Cheese Bites to celebrate. Then I'd quit my job and work with my charity Kid-Care full time.

If there was one thing you could change about New York, what would it be?
I would make it cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter.

Correction: An earlier version of this article referred to Mr. Morgan as Brian Miller. The Observer regrets the error.

Where do you live?
We live in a loft on Greenwich Street just above Canal in the neighborhood now referred to as "Hudson Square." We have great views of the Hudson River and wonderful light. We love the loft but, as gluttons for punishment, are about to take on a renovation of our kitchen and bathrooms. Gulp.

How is work these days? What is your latest deal?
Work is great--very busy. We just went into contract on a nine-room apartment in one of the grand Candela co-ops in Sutton Place for high-seven figures. We represent the buyers who plan to move from Tribeca, so we will also be listing their home for sale in the near future. It's actually a very good example of how we work both up and downtown.

What was the best meal you've ever eaten in New York?
ROBIN: Le Bernadin has always been a favorite of mine. For any birthday, anniversary or special occasion it is my number one choice

JEREMY: Any and all meals at Giorgione on Spring Street. As a creature of habit (and loyal patron), it's become our commissary and I can never get enough of it.

What was your first apartment like?
The first apartment we bought together was an A.I.R loft in Soho on Grand Street. Jeremy was still working in the theater so he qualified for an artist certificate. The loft was over 3000 square feet and in need of a total renovation. The first thing we did was tear down the dropped ceilings which revealed an extra 2 feet of space and the original tin ceiling which was beautiful. The loft was cavernous with amazing bones but the real estate broker in Robin couldn't resist putting it on the market for a number we thought was a total pipe-dream. We were in contract a week later.

What is your recession war story?
Robin had a client who was selling a very high end condo and just kept chasing the market down-rejecting offers at prices we would later drop the price below. Ultimately our buyer accepted an offer $1 million dollars another offer he had received and rejected six months earlier. It was a painful and eye opening experience. That said, unlike a lot of brokers, by winter of 2009, we were very much back in business representing both buyers and sellers. 2009 ended up being the best year Robin had had in her career and 2010 far surpassed 2009 for us both.

How do you get around town?
When we are on our own, we take a lot of cabs so we can stay in touch with clients and work on ipads. With clients, we either hire a driver who drives our car or take car services.

What is your favorite building in the city?
Our favorite building in New York is 812 Park Avenue, designed by famed architect James Carpenter. The building has a grand lobby and a top notch staff. The apartments, mostly duplexes, have elegant layouts with curving staircases, high ceilings, beautiful details, and working fireplaces. The scale of the rooms is grand but not gratuitous. What we love most is that you really feel like you're in a house rather than an apartment.

If you weren't a broker, what would you be?
ROBIN: I think I'd still be in real estate but would be an investor/flipper of apartments and/or homes. There is nothing more gratifying than seeing a project through to the end.

JEREMY: Unemployed.

What is your dream home?
Between owning homes, we rented in a non-descript loft building in Hudson Square at 533 Canal Street. It's a total sleeper building that has the most amazing bones, water views, and southwestern light. We tried to buy the loft we were renting but it didn't work out. When people walk past the building, they probably think it is abandoned when in fact it houses some of the greatest lofts in the city. Owning a high floor remains a dream of ours--so much so we had to think twice about mentioning it here.

You just won the lottery. What store do you stop by and what do you buy?
We would go to the Yancy Richardson Gallery and buy an Andrew Moore photograph we've been coveting for a while but not been able to justify.

If there was one thing you could change about New York, what would it be?
ROBIN: I'd like the waterfront to be more boat-friendly. It would be nice to be able to rent a boat and go for a cruise down the Hudson on one of the many weekends we here during the summer. I've always thought it was strange that we live on an island yet have virtually no access to being on the water (except for The Beast, of course). It's a shame.

JEREMY: I'd like to do away with the local city tax, which simply adds insult to injury when you live in a city where a $150 dinner for 2 is considered reasonable.

Read last week's interview here. >>

realestate@observer.com