/lit/ - Literature

no it's pop economics trash

>>8676976
Okay. Perhaps you could elaborate more.

bump

>>8676978
Not him but I agree. If you are working for a firm of movers and shakers in finance or equities, you don't need the WSJ to tell you what you should be doing, and if you are a serious small investor and arent using index funds for 90% of your investments you are cheating yourself. Hence WSJ being pop-hack shit. Information released to the public about finances and economics is basically a used second class whore.

>>8678601
Okay. I understand your perspective, anon. But you're only considering part of what constitutes the WSJ. It, incidentally, reports on a great many other things than just economics and finance, such as science, health and medicine, and literature, even. The paper has been around for many decades and is greatly revered by readers across the globe. But I assume you didn't know that because it wasn't even mentioned in your pitiful rebuttal, you pleb.

>>8678963
>its a /pol/ tries to act smart episode

>>8676949
Its a middle brow rag, wholly disinteresting. I wouldn't pay attention to anyone who identifies as a reader of it

>>8678973
>'it's share an opinion on something I don't know about' episode

Why don't you go on back to Rebbit, kid? Let the big kids have their discussion.

>>8678983
I find it amusing you come here hoping for approval and then begin to spaz out when you don't get it.
If you want to be like us so badly stop browsing idiot boards and start reading.

>>8679000
>If you want to be like us so badly stop browsing idiot boards and start reading

Huh. Groupthink much?

You like being grouped with the other pseuds on this board: the very same people who willingly read DFW and Pynchon? It's evident that I am more /lit/ than you.

>inb4 spaz

I doubt you even read the WSJ.

>>8679019
>I doubt you even read the WSJ

What does this mean? That he isnt overly effected by brand recognition?

If you are reading the Financial Times, Seeking Alpha, and Reuters you are way ahead, to say nothing of Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and any of the tons of higher quality publications.

>>8679045
>That he isnt overly effected by brand recognition?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Why else would the WSJ-- or any other publication, really-- be widely recognized?

The WSJ, incidentally, publishes literature reviews and such quite often. Even Tom Wolfe's daughter is a correspondent for the publication. These reviews are completely apolitical, anon. Are they /lit/ or not? If you can't answer the question, then kindly return to Rebbit.

>>8679093
>These reviews are completely apolitical, anon

>>8679093
>These reviews are completely apolitical, anon.

>>8676949
it's bourgeoisie trash. much like the economist, only good if you want to know what the neoliberal illuminati are thinking.