3 ms·
Well first, and I mean this with minimal disrespect, but you clearly have a hero worship thing going here (see your last sentence). So you really have a bias o
by SamAtt 17y ago
Well first, and I mean this with minimal disrespect, but you clearly have a hero worship thing going here (see your last sentence). So you really have a bias of your own.
On your point, there are still people on the floor if you don't believe me turn on CNBC and you can see them. But even in a virtual floor it isn't like people don't keep in contact. The market lives and dies by social interactions and it always has. That's why the guy on his computer using e*trade isn't as effective as the guy in the brokerage house.
The point still remains that every news institution I can find reported this the same way (Dow drops because of Bank Regulation). So using it to attack the WSJ individually is ridiculous.
- rayval 17y agoThe point remains that the WSJ was unique in providing rock solid objective financial journalism, and now it is sliding down to the same level as "every other news institution".
- SamAtt 17y agoBut that's only true if the facts aren't true. If the Dow did really fall because people are worried by the new regulations than the title isn't sensationalist it's just factual reporting. So the question is this: Was it impossible to find out the motivation of investors? I don't think it is (especially when you have big time investors like Warren Buffett coming out against it)