> But seriously, why does the financial press get away with constantly inventing causation?
I guess the customers of financial press would not find "Market did some random fluctuations with no cause whatsoever" that valuable reporting after repeated about a hundred times in row - even if that in many cases would be more accurate reporting than the invented causations.
Yeah, I get it. But when the the market is already trending in a very clear direction, to have the gall to suggest it turned that direction, when it was already plainly going there, because of some thing which is so much less significant than the very article giving it hype... The reporters have less integity than the most blatent, transparent scam. Pick the most blatent Ponzi scheme, they are no better. And yet, this finace press does it as easily and regularly as breathing.
I guess the customers of financial press would not find "Market did some random fluctuations with no cause whatsoever" that valuable reporting after repeated about a hundred times in row - even if that in many cases would be more accurate reporting than the invented causations.