A bit obnoxious as a headline for the Wall Street Journal (and of us for telegraphing it), no? Really, the entire piece makes this entry more about the continuing slide in Wall Street Journal quality than any political statement or position. (Actually, we find it quite amusing what some of the readers here think our politics are, though).
It should go without saying that the Journal is being beyond manipulative here. It is a statement that we are simply annoyed rather than outraged. Nothing the Journal does anymore seems to surprise us.
Perhaps Mr. Bernanke's blunderbuss political intrusion will win him more Democrat friends, and maybe even Mr. Obama's goodwill. To the rest of the world, he has harmed the Fed and made himself less credible.
Bernanke Endorses Obama [WSJ]
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 1:51AM
my cock endorses Bess
Posted by shalimar , Oct 21, 2008 2:17AM
Eloquent wit, but lacks brevity.
I'd say your politics are rational, and, as yet, unachievable.
The opening statement is most egregious. A Bernanke association can only hurt Obama - that is, if anyone cares anymore. Record low voter turnout?
Relatively uncommented was Paulson's earlier power play during the Senate hearings. "I'm only here till Jan 30..." (that is, unless you think nobody else is smart enough to watch over my 35-yr old Ferrari chauffeur).
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 2:54AM
wow. i didn't realise wsj had slipped that far. the article reads more like a parody than journalism.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 3:06AM
Even though it was too long didn't read
I'm the CEO of a Hedge Fund and my cock endorses Bess
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 5:56AM
there are so many excesses in all departments of an IB.
I am sure a 50% staff reduction can be managed without as much reduction in the revenues/profits.
Look at IT. People sit and await emails (Support staff) and have a good time. The Indian IT companies are earning a hell a lot of money out of these IBs
GS - Infy
MS,JPM,BoFA,ML - TCS
ABN - TCS
RBS -Infy
the western IT companies, gosh, they are toast big time.
Accenture has some insurance clients like UHS but others are generally gone.
Not even a single IT staff of TCS was fired from ML so far.
Trading desks are gone but the support staff just sit and read weird websites all day long.
Does ML have a contract or something that enables TCS to keep their employees until Dec 08 ?
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 7:23AM
ep's politics?
Feudal system or....benevolent dictatorship!
Posted by chernevik , Oct 21, 2008 7:45AM
Their editorials have always been trick-or-treat. They make the best possible case for their argument, but the broad cracks in some of those cases reveal that they haven't changed their mind even when the arguments suggest they should.
As you think they're sliding, where are you turning instead?
Posted by bittergreen , Oct 21, 2008 7:46AM
In defense, this ran on the opinion page. This wasn't front-page a la "NY Post".
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 7:47AM
I've been known to fire people for citing the WSJ editorial page.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 7:53AM
@9 - I thought the Department of Motor Vehicles was supposed to be free of politics.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 7:54AM
I canceled my subscription after the Jimmy Cayne pot smoking article. I knew that paper was headed down the fucking toilet after they went to press with that story.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:08AM
Learn the difference between the editorial page and the news pages, you f*ing moron.
This is on the OPINION page. It is, therefore, OPINION. Perhaps this is the first time you've read a newspaper? It would appear to be the first time you've read the WSJ, which happens to have a more conservative, at times libertarian, slant.
And the points made in the opinion piece are right on target. The Fed is now involved in the legislative process, by virtue of Bernanke jumping offsides. At this point, he need not pretend to have any objectivity.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:09AM
Ron Paul?
Posted by FigJam , Oct 21, 2008 8:24AM
I second what @12 said. The journal piece is on their OPINION page; it is not a news item! And where is your outrage about a paper being "manipulative" with respect to the NY Times, a newspaper that regularly disguises its opinion pieces as news articles?
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:36AM
Friedrich der Große endorses Obama from beyond the grave.
Posted by strangebrew , Oct 21, 2008 8:47AM
@9- Who are you, Barney Frank?
Yeah, it's too bad how those numbnuts on the WSJ ed page weren't banging the drum about the pending troubles at Fannie and Freddie for years. If only someone there had warned us.
You may resume tea-bagging Krugman now.
Posted by Thoth , Oct 21, 2008 8:48AM
12, 14 - Try reading the op-ed before you rant. EP's point was that the headline was "Bernanke Endorses Obama" but what actually happend was Bernanke said he would support Obama's stimulus proposal. Big difference. And yes, that is manipulative.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:48AM
@12 is on the money. opinion pieces are not supposed to be objective. give me a break.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:51AM
Ugh, EP, you are the biggest douche bag ever to walk the planet. Pointing out your own hypocrisy (telegraphing the WSJ article) doesn't alleviate it; and, making an ad hominem attack against Bernanke is probably the lowest of the low! Ugh, I wish that other guy who's name I can't remember was still here. He was funny. Not some arm chair philosopher/banker like EP. Oh, ad hominem attack means you attack someone's character (i.e. credibility) so as to avoid the strength of their ideas. Well done EP - well done . . .
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:55AM
Whereas the NYTimes may be "in the tank" for Obama, the WSJ Obsequiously Felches the GOP daily
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 8:59AM
@20 - you obviously don't read the WSJ (probably too busy felching) because if you did, you would know that one of the harshest critics of the GOP over the past few years has been the WSJ editorial page.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 9:19AM
We used to sit armchairs and felch each other all the time when we were in highschool. It was no big deal.
Posted by diablo , Oct 21, 2008 9:27AM
The WSJ's editorial board, where one of Carney's wingnut brothers resides, is shameless and politically to the right of Attila the Hun.
For ages serious people have been ignoring it. EP should do the same. (However, she's bringing it up because she shares her hate for Bernanke's latest "crusade" to bring more fiscal stimulus to the train wreck that is the US economy.)
Posted by ep , Oct 21, 2008 9:30AM
Quiz for the class: Who pens the headlines for Op-Eds?
Turn your papers in at the front and see you for the midterm!
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 9:36AM
@23 - what editorial page do serious people read?
Posted by diablo , Oct 21, 2008 9:47AM
@25
None. Facts matter more than opinions.
@24
As far as I know headline writers are not credited. It could be anyone from Paul Gigot to somebody they brought in from the New York Post.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 10:30AM
@23 and I thought I was serious
"I'm not one of those call now people, but you should call now..."
Posted by mj , Oct 21, 2008 10:37AM
@26 - agreed on op/ed pages. theres no such thing as an unbiased ed. board anymore, esp. when talking abt the ny times or the wsj whose editorials reflexivelly sprint to their respective side of any issue. The best you could right now are the l.a. times (slightly left of center) and the washington post (believe it or not, slightly right).
as for the headline, in this case whoever penned the editorial probably came up with it themselves to be tongue in cheek but it came off as hamhanded and manipulative. paul gigot, stephen moore, brian carney, or whoever wrote this is more upset that bernanke's statement was in line with statements by the democrats on the stump or john maynard keynes or maybe someone else i can't think of. the point is they didn't like it so they cried foul (not the first time). bernanke is entitled to his opinion and whether or not to give it if he feared doing so would compromise the fed's activities. but wsj isn't suggesting he do so for apolitical reasons. they'd prefer bernanke to shut up in this instance for explicitly political reasons, because his position coincideds with politicians the ed. board doesn't like. if the opposite were true, i'm sure they'd want to make sure the fed issued a follow-up release to make sure people heard the comments. the editorial is just another example of partisan hackery that has come to characterize the wsj ed. board under gigot.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 10:45AM
Isn't there some kind of software that automatically adjusts interest rates when required, who needs Ben?
Posted by strangebrew , Oct 21, 2008 10:46AM
diablo-
Any serious person who read the WSJ continued diatribes against Fannie and Freddie and understood the serious nature of what was being outlined could have made a serious amount of money by shorting those stocks. Turns out they were seriously right about it all and now the rest of the financial system has been serisouly f*cked. I'm serious.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 10:47AM
The WSJ's opinion page hasn't gone downhill at all. It's always been garbage. I say this as a long-term subscriber who intends to continue reading the WSJ for it's Money & Investing and general news sections, but has never found much use for the Opinion page except as toilet paper.
Posted by strangebrew , Oct 21, 2008 10:52AM
-31
You must not be doing too well in life if you have to use newspaper as toilet paper. But if that's the case, buy the Sunday NY Times. Far more bang for your buck.
Posted by diablo , Oct 21, 2008 11:47AM
@30
First let me assume you are sincere in your comment.
Second, there are much better sources for the analysis of the real estate situation and they are available for free. If you have checked those sources from the beginning, you would have made a lot more money "shorting" everything from builders, to banks, to investment banks, countrywide, monolines, etc, etc, etc.
If you were stuck with the propaganda in the op-ed pages of the WSJ I'm certain you missed a lot of short opportunities.
After many years of subscribing to the WSJ, I finally decided I don't need it anymore. Even their news section is deteriorating. In fact, I don't subscribe to any newspaper except for the weekly The Economist.
Posted by strangebrew , Oct 21, 2008 12:12PM
Diablo. I am being completely sincere, but you are blinded by your own ideology. You claim that anything on the ed pages is propaganda that should not be taken seriously. I said they were right in their long running warnings about one of the most significant financial issues of the time. They are, after all, a financially oriented newspaper. You disacknowledge this.
Posted by Novice , Oct 21, 2008 12:43PM
31: You don't understand. The Wall Street Journal doesn't have any comics. Instead it has a few pages of satire attached to the end of the frontsection. The stuff's not always the subtlest-- their "lucky duckies" editorial was a little over the top-- but they give a consistent effort. Plus, major conservative figures often drop in to write self-parody pieces.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 1:08PM
@35
there are comics in the wsj
@20
while the wsj is conservative, it takes cracks at GOP stupidity as well. its only true bias is the free market.
@EP
former spartacus youth member?
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 1:26PM
WSJ OP-ED's have always been complete dickweeds.No shedding of standards here because they never had any. I pull out the Money & Investing Section right in hallway, and the rest of the paper goes down the garbage chute x 50 other people in my building who do the same thing. Not even worth scooping up the dog's poop with.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 1:33PM
Indeed - tumbling, tumbling dickweeds at WSJ OP-ED.
Posted by guest , Oct 21, 2008 2:42PM
@37 - are you the Super in your building? How else would you know what the other 50 people in the building do with their newspapers?