Gottfried, re: Asian money...
I didn't see the entire WSJ article, but going on what you posted, I once again disagreed with an initial WSJ assumption, then only scanned the remainder of the article. This lead-in sentence is typical of what really gets me upset about the WSJ...
"U.S. stocks may sometimes feel tremors, as they did briefly last week, from market turmoil in Southeast Asia."
Now I ask - what "tremors"? Where is the evidence that Asian affaris had anything at all to do with the U.S. stock market? Do the authors have any idea what they are talking about? I must wonder!
This isn't to poo-poo the thrust of the article. Only to express what is typical of my frustration with WSJ articles. They often start off with some highly dubious assumption, then quote this-or-that person, and various other persons at who-knows-where, and then come to some non-conclusion, all in the name of, or appearances of, unbiased reporting. Basically, too many of the WSJ articles are nothing more than "he says -- she says -- he says -- she says" crap.
Having vented my frustration once again with the WSJ (see my post #1217) , the article may be entirely on-target. I don't know, because I'm not inclined to read much past the first sentence of this one either.
Ice |
