Counterparties

By Felix Salmon
April 16, 2010
Risk

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Argentina Offers 66.3% Haircut in $20 Bln Bond Swap — iMarketNews

Clark Hoyt, the NYT public editor, adjudicates Krugman vs Sorkin, comes down in favor of Krugman — NYT

Israel vs the iPad: Imports are banned and customs agents are confiscating devices — AtlanticWire

Mr. Murdoch and family find faith, fame and Nicole Kidman by the River Jordan — NYT

Central clearing of derivatives is a good idea — but only if the clearer is robust. There are questions over IDCH — Risk

“Barneys has been able to get away with it for the past quarter-century only because it hasn’t antagonized any powerful hippie conglomerates” — Racked

If the WSJ is trying to go more mainstream, why did it replace John and Dottie with the self-parody of Jay McInerney? — WSJ

The Brooklyn Museum’s Andy Warhol pinata — BM

Boone and Johnson, having brought down Greece, move on to Portugal — Baseline Scenario

3 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

The link for the Hoyt article doesn’t work.

Posted by JM2010 | Report as abusive

sorry, fixed

The spat between the two NYT columnists makes me respect Sorkin much less. Even as a casual reader of Krugman’s column and blog, I came away under the impression he was in favor of nationalizing banks in deep trouble, vs. pumping money into them, both because of moral hazard and turning them into zombie banks (as happened in Japan).

Advocating nationalizing the entire US banking system would be a VERY BIG deal and I would not have missed that if Krugman did advocate it. Sorkin seems to be arguing that he didn’t mis-categorize Krugman’s position, it’s all just a matter of semantics.

Well, I beg to differ. Sorkin is paid to read the news and analyze and comment on them; I’m not. And if I know the difference between what he said Krugman said and what Krugman actually said, he definitely should know it. Just come out and apologize already. We all make mistakes, the point is we learn from them and not repeat it. To deny our mistakes is much much worse than the actual mistakes, in most cases.

Posted by jian1312 | Report as abusive