So banks didn't rig interest rates, or blatantly launder money for drug lords and terrorists, or foreclose on people who didn't even owe money on their homes? Are these things false? But you worked for Apple and an unnamed investment bank, so don't worry folks, it's all good, you can trust these guys. If only 40% of the things written about the banking industry are true, we should nuke the whole thing, throw every executive in prison, and start from scratch. So really you're just splitting hairs here.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Henry Ford

The problem with shoddy journalism is that even when it's right, it can do a disservice by providing a vulnerable story for wrongdoers to poke holes in. Your comment is a non sequitur, assuming as it does that someone who thinks financial journalism is frequently inaccurate must believe whatever financial firms say instead.

My intent was to take issue with the OP's assertion that the majority of what is printed is an outright fabrication. Even when journalists get some details wrong, or quote a source who may be misinformed or lying, the broad strokes are often the most important aspect of a story.

Additionally, the tidbit about OP having worked for two high-profile companies is completely useless information. Just because you get a paycheck doesn't mean you are privy to inside details related to why or how things happen.

So yes, the article in question isn't necessarily perfect, but making wild, unsupported claims about fabricated stories is no better.

About as much as Apple employs children, forces them to inhale aluminum particulate, and then protest by means of suicide.

But given your clumsy reasoning, I doubt I'll see anything insightful from this conversation.

Oh wow, so now you're insulting people who disagree with you? Impressive, makes me think even less of the big banks if one of them employed you, frankly.

I don't see anything clumsy about my reasoning. The Libor scandal, for instance, is pretty clear-cut. The rate was set by, simplifying greatly, polling the banks and averaging. There is evidence that some of the banks misrepresented their actual cost of borrowing in order to further their own interests, and thus skewed the rate improperly.

Is any of this in doubt? Now, it might not be the Illuminati secretly picking the president and ordering him to clone Hitler, but it sure does demonstrate that our market economy isn't quite as "market-ish" as we had hoped.

That's a big problem in my book because the fundamental argument in favor of markets as a means of organizing economic activity is that they generate socially optimal outcomes. Otherwise, there's no reason for most of us to buy into the system, it's just feudalism (which economists and capitalists take great pride in having vanquished) all over again and most of us are still just serfs. If those markets are being manipulated, then are the outcomes socially optimal? Or, more specifically, are they more socially optimal than some other method of organizing things? If not, then the whole system is called into question, and that's a huge deal.