11–20 of 71 posts
The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.
You can't talk about politics without talking about politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Nice. Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower. ...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score. You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
the only thing i can imagine is that this article doesn't line up with your own personal belief system, and you're violently rejecting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Nice. Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower. ...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score. You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
Almost every news organization has had the same headline today
The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
In general, what I take away from the article is that the tone of the Business section of the website used to be just 'business', and that you could expect clear analysis. He no longer feels that is the case, and as such, the WSJ is becoming more just another 'general media' outlet, and not as special as it once was.
I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there.
We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump.
So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others about how the president's comments caused the market to drop. This is rubbish.
Short term noise in the market happens. We were due for a pullback and this, combined with Greek CDS spreads and China's rates, prompted some weakness.
The same thing happened during the inauguration, how the market flew further south. And then the pundits came out and proclaimed how the new administration would be terrible for equities-- and then we rallied. A lot. And those pundits who thought there was some correlation between politics and markets disappeared.
Same thing here. The WSJ has increased it's politicization of it's content, when it has been known for the best financial news source out there. It may sell more papers, but they are significantly compromising the intellectual integrity of the staff and the brand.
It's not like there are alternatives. The Times has let blatant editorializing sneak onto the front page and throughout every section for as long as I've been reading it, and its the paper of record. Read The Economist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Nice. Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower. ...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score. You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.