This is just an ad hominem attack as far as I can see.  He links to two things to support his point but neither actually do<p>1.  "Boskin's Obama Crash"  But when you follow that link you find the article he was pointing to was an opinion piece so it doesn't support his point (which was that he'd always thought the OpEd page was crazy but that he now feels that's bleeding into the reporting)<p>2.  "New Bank Rules Sink Stocks".   His problem with this article, in his own words, is "we know that day-to-day action is mostly nonsense".  He goes on to say "Assigning a definitive causative factor is at best a guessing game, at worst an exercise in futility."  That's just foolish.  There are brokers on the trading floor, you can ask them why they're selling and every news outlet reported it was because of proposed banking regulation so the logical assumption was that there is an overall sentiment on the floor.  This isn't the WSJ.  ABCNews, BBC, et al. reported the same thing (<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/01/dow-drops-200-on-obama-plan-to-crack-down-on-banks.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/01/dow-drops-20...</a>, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473720.stm</a>)