3 ms·
I find many of these financial sites to be close to BS. There’s a part they get right and part they get wrong: 1. “X happened” 2. “Because of Y” They usually
by tyleo 2y ago
I find many of these financial sites to be close to BS. There’s a part they get right and part they get wrong:
1. “X happened”
2. “Because of Y”
They usually get the first bit right—the facts. Unfortunately, they frequently BS the second part.
Oddly this time I’m not even sure the facts are right on observation of today’s market.
- FloorEgg 2y agoI've been observing this for years. They predetermine the "because of Y" as it usually has to do with some narrative they are being paid to propagate. At best the link between x and y is tenuous, and at worst it makes no sense to cause x didn't even happen. See this one and it's a head scratcher, see it a few times and it's suspicious, see it 100 times and it appears insidious. It's a shame. I think Reuters used to be trustworthy.
- JoeAltmaier 2y agoDoesn't the timing indicate a link? We can't wave our hands and so 'No Proof!' again and again.
- jdlshore 2y agoNo, sometimes things happen by coincidence. And in the market, where something is always going up or down, there are a lot of coincidences to be found.