Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.
Touche indeed  |
Oh, and I decided to check "the archives" to confirm your post about Carney being fired "shortly after the piece was authored." Turns out that it was not shortly after the piece was authored, but 9 months later and had nothing to do with "the piece."
His firing was a surprise move and was motivated not by his article on the effect of the CRA on the housing crises of 2008, but "The general consensus seems to be that Carney is out because he, Blodget, and publisher Julie Hansen could not agree on how to cover and present stories. Blodget pushed for clicks through sensational headlines and features, like galleries, while Carney preferred focusing on breaking stories and in-depth reporting." Sounds like Carney was the more reputable reporter on the magazine, and those firing him were the sleazy ones--http://www.adweek.com/digital/john-carney-fired-from-business-insider/
And Carney did well professionally after leaving BI. As of 2013, "John Carney is a senior editor at CNBC.com, covering Wall Street, hedge funds, financial regulation and other business news. Prior to joining CNBC.com, John was the editor of Clusterstock.com and DealBreaker.com." So he is not a gossip hack, but is a credible financial analyst.
So you tried to twist the story to make it sound like Carney was some incompetent gossip columnist who lost his job because he wrote a fallacious, fake news, story.
Seems like you're the faker. A rather sleazy trick to make the article by Carney that I posted to be stupid and not worth refuting. That you didn't have to refute anything he said--probably because you couldn't. I've read the leftist attempt by the Center For American Progress to acquit the CRA of any fault in the 2008 financial crisis, and Carney, in the article that you could not refute, rebutted that sort of whitewashing of the CRA, point by point.