Last week, the Journal edit page continued to minimize the banks’ Libor fiasco, calling it “a minor scandal” in the subhead, reiterating Jenkins’s “fudge” line, and writing that the “political circus” is “largely an excuse for politicians to beat up on ‘greedy bankers.’”
This is just a cynical defense of fraud:
The bipartisan outbreak of market purism in Parliament and the media is refreshing in one sense—never have so many, of such different political persuasions, argued so eloquently for the virtue of unadulterated price signals.
In defending banker con-artistry, the Journal forgets that marketplace corruption, among other things, wrecks the market itself.
The Journal ran an op-ed the same day by former Bear Stearns economist David Malpass—last seen here downplaying the possibility of a deep recession, that deftly shifts the focus to lawyers—on how the “world can’t afford endless litigation against the financial system.”
This morning, the paper runs another editorial shifting attention away from the banks and on to regulators. At least we can agree on its kicker:
If heads are going to continue to roll over Libor, they should also include those of Mr. Geithner and the rest of the regulators who let this slide.