Cramer Folds
| Fri Mar. 13, 2009 8:25 AM PDT
Like everyone in the galaxy, I watched Jon Stewart eviscerate Jim Cramer last night. But it was kind of weird. The conventional wisdom is that Stewart ripped Cramer to shreds — and he did — but he only succeeded because Cramer apparently made a preemptive decision not to fight back. He just sat there and took it. Felix Salmon has the right take:
Jim Cramer was craven and highly apologetic on the Daily Show last night [...] and almost never attempted to defend himself, preferring to go the mea culpa route.
....In a sense, it's a shame that Stewart had on his show the most self-loathing of all the CNBC personalities — but then again he, too, had little choice, since Santelli cancelled on him. But the lesson of this interview is that when CNBC is pressed on the way in which it has hurt America, its response is to capitulate and say "well I guess that's true". Which means that the bigger lesson is simpler still: don't watch CNBC. Doing so will do you no good at all, and will quite possibly do you a lot of harm.
There's a real sense in which CNBC is truly a microcosm of the entire financial meltdown. Sure, they were irresponsible, and they deserve the hits they're taking. At the same time, they only succeeded because the more irresponsible they got, the more their audience grew. Their audience deserves a share of the blame in the same way that the voracious buyers of preposterously leveraged and tranched CDOs share some of the blame with the financial engineers who put them together. None of this works without a willing buy side, does it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
None of this works without a
Submitted by jrw on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 8:34 AM PDT.
None of this works without a willing buy side, does it?
Well of course not. Nothing, from Bernie Madoff to Bear Stearns to CNBC, works without people willing to believe and buy what's being peddled. This seems too obvious to have to state. And it sounds too much like blaming the victim. Sure, we were greedy and incurious, but was it really our fault? Big media always tells us that audience size validates the content. So, I guess American Idol is really good, huh?
Kevin Drum is just another
Submitted by Ali Lama (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 3:37 PM PDT.
Kevin Drum is just another "tranche" of the ongoing corporate financial system of "steal from the working class/poor, and render unto the insatiably greedy"!
Similar to the talking heads at CNBC, and the rest of MSM ilk sponsoring "financial experts", said experts giving their "educated and best" current deductions regarding finance, likewise, Kevin Drum is just another bag of "sponsored" hot air.
Kevin defends, albeit surreptitiously, using (Felix Salmon has the right take: "Jim Cramer was craven and highly apologetic...the most self-loathing of all the CNBC personalities —"), words to mime his apparent position. The claimed mind numbing ignorance of these so-called "financial experts", now hiding behind the preposterous excuse of "oops!" And heaping insult upon injury, play the, it's the victims' own fault as an expanded defense of the indefensible, their so called, financial short sightedness.
One thing is absolutely clear, unlike the supposed mysterious ways of "financial market bubbles", is every one of these so called "expert financial advisers/counsellers(sp intentional)/loan originators" involved in this mortgage/financial meltdown, are far more disposed than the "average willing buyer", and the very reason the "financial experts" are/were employed to impart "responsible financial facts/information" regarding these transactions. To say nothing of required legal "fiduciary acumen".
"Oops!", doesn't cut it, "it's all the victims' fault", is blatantly disingenuous.
What we have here is, "Criminal fiduciary negligence" at minimum, and, as I see it, alongside a multitude of other observers, an ongoing criminal enterprise to intentionally fleece the "intentionally mislead" of every last penny these sorry bastards could steal.
Consequences to our Nation and world financial system is beyond the concern of these craven, money worshiping, vampires.
The greatest danger to our Nation, National finance, and world finance, is the insatiable greed of those that "control the levers of power and finance", not the gullibility of those intentionally mislead average citizens, "stretching" in an attempt to "share in the AMERICAN DREAM of HOME OWNERSHIP!"
Kevin, you are complicit as an willing enabler, "aiding and abetting", obfuscating and conflating in support of these money worshiping corporate scum.
IMNSHO
"Have a nice day, Patriot !"
Bobble headed twits
Submitted by Carol (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 8:47 AM PDT.
feed bubbles
and then they all cry when it bursts
But the big problem is that it doesn't just hurt those caught in the bubble and their gullible dupes, it hurts all of us. So, don't we have an obligation to start educating people just to defend ourselves? Start when they are in grammar school, teach real history, let the kids play bankers and bonkers and illustrate bubbles and how they work. Most people don't learn about this unless they take an economics course and by then it is too late.
The words of WC Fields ring
Submitted by troglodyte (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 9:04 AM PDT.
The words of WC Fields ring true:
You cant cheat an honest man.
Never give a sucker an even break.
Um Kevin, ome of us were
Submitted by gab (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 9:05 AM PDT.
Um Kevin, ome of us were watching more important stuff. Like U Conn and Syracuse going into 6 overtimes!
buying or selling based on CNBC would be foolish
Submitted by tpx's (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 9:34 AM PDT.
Watching CNBC is neither good nor bad, but buying or selling based on what is seen is on CNBC would be foolish.
This is painful. I don't
Submitted by ed (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 9:44 AM PDT.
This is painful. I don't especially defend Cramer or CNBC, but Stewart obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yes, it's true Cramer came
Submitted by Lynn Dee (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:04 AM PDT.
Yes, it's true Cramer came on in a fetal position and never moved. But is that self-loathing? Or is he just the one CNBC guy who cares about his role in all this?
As for "there has to be a buy side, doesn't there?", I see you've missed the point, which is -- if these financial geniuses didn't see it coming and were on T.V. encouraging folks to buy, then how do the people who took the advice get blamed?
And, if they did see it coming, or if the only reason they didn't is because they were foolish enough to think the party would go on longer than it did, then shame on them.
BTW, it hit me as I was linking to this site, Kevin, that, proud contrarian that you are, you would find a way not to be impressed by anything Jon Stewart said. You didn't disappoint. As always -- or no, not always, just when there appears to be a groundswell -- you're driven more by your fantasy of yourself as an iconoclast than anything else.
Hmmm.
Submitted by Pinko Punko (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:13 AM PDT.
But wasn't AAA supposed to mean something? At some point you don't get a bubble if someone isn't just lying straight out.
Quote: "Watching CNBC is
Submitted by Lynn Dee (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:16 AM PDT.
Quote: "Watching CNBC is neither good nor bad, but buying or selling based on what is seen is on CNBC would be foolish."
And now we all know that. But, these guys were sold as experts. Just because 50% or 60% or 70% or whatever percentage of the populace is smart enough to know that any such claim re these guys' so-called expertise is "mere puffery" doesn't mean there wasn't some sizable number of their audience that didn't.
And that's really inexcusable for a network to be participating in. I'm guessing CNBC wouldn't want folks to think that their defense is: "Caveat emptor, suckuh!"
First, they dealt with the
Submitted by Daddy Love (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:30 AM PDT.
First, they dealt with the question of the "willing buy side" on the show when Jon Stewart commented that "there is a market for cocaine and hookers," too.
The reason you can't fault the "buyers" is because this is not a perfect free market--there is a HUGE information gap between the presenters and the viewers. That's, again, the point Jon was making. The viewers don't know better, but THESE GUYS DO KNOW BETTER.
Apportioning blame
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:35 AM PDT.
Kevin - you're obviously right that there's blame to be had on both sides, but you've got to apportion the blame in proportion to the degree to which they should have known better. To my mind, that's about a 90-10 split.
What??
Submitted by Socrates (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 10:38 AM PDT.
Jon Stewart doesn't know what he's talking about?
Are you serious?
Sorry, but I think it's "ed" doesn't know what he's talking about.
Most working folks don't have much choice in what they invest in, aside from maybe choosing percentages between small cap and big cap mutual funds, since most of us save through an employer matched (somewhat) 401k. Mine, for instance, has no option for Money Market Funds. So it was those "smart" people on Wall Street doing the investing for me. That's a big buy side that maybe wasn't so willing, but went along for the ride since there wasn't much choice.
Your employer needs a lesson in fiduciary responsibility
Submitted by cynthiadogmom on Sun Mar. 15, 2009 3:27 PM PDT.
mctee, I work in a group that recordkeeps 401K plans. One of the duties of the fiduciaries of an employer-sponsored 401K qualified plan (usually a group of executives or a board) is to make sure the plan offers a range of investment options, with different levels of risk. This is required by the IRS and the Labor Department in order for that plan to qualify for federal tax benefits. Most certainly a low-risk investment option should be included for the benefit of employees who are nearing retirement and who do not have time to make up losses due to market fluctuation. This is something that should be brought to the attention of your HR department.
self-loathing This is
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 12:26 PM PDT.
self-loathing
This is complete bullshit from Salmon. Unless Salmon is a fucking mindreader, unless Salmon is a shrink who has had Cramer on the couch, he has no business playing with words like self-loathing.
Lefties do this, righties do this. Republicans are like Dad, Liberals like Mom. Jews that want peace are self-loathing.
Argue on the observables goddamnit.
Self-loathing is ad-hominem. It is an ad-hominem trump card intended to get us to agree with Salmon without inspecting his argument.
Cramerica on King of the Hill
Submitted by roublen (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 12:38 PM PDT.
My favorite satire of Cramerica is the King of the Hill episode where Peggy, after being burned on last week's stock pick ("Bioteca de Brasilia"), fumes at the TV, then yells "C'mon you idiot! Say something smart!"
the bigger lesson?
Submitted by Ned Hodgman (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 1:09 PM PDT.
"the bigger lesson" isn't just "don't watch CNBC." It's "find a way not to be a part of the financial system that CNBC promotes" or just "stop being a part of the system."
It helps not to have any money to invest, which has gotten a lot easier recently.
Every day that starts with a broadcaster yapping (on any channel where there's a talking head -- TV or radio) about what's going to happen with the Dow Jones Industrial Average is another step along the road we're already on, and another step towards the next financial meltdown.
Sheep
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 1:43 PM PDT.
I've spent the past two years immersed in finance and economics blogs and the one thing I take away from the commenters who play the market and are much smarter than myself is that the market is for professionals. The market eats the uninformed for lunch and "pump & dump" specialists are the conduit. All financial shows are pump & dump. By the time a good investment makes it onto a CNBC it's already a crowded trade and the real opportunity is gone.
People who know what they are doing can make money. Everyone else who doesn't have the time to learn and pay attention will get creamed. The commenters over at Global Economic Analysis regularly joke that doing the exact opposite of anything Cramer says to do is a pretty good strategy.
Ned Hodgman has the right
Submitted by tpx'd (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 1:49 PM PDT.
Ned Hodgman has the right idea. Being connected to the financial system makes one both an accomplice and a victim. Wall St. has played this very well, becoming the holders of the political class's wealth.
Wealthy people do not want to pay the opportunity costs of holding wealth, so they manipulate the political economic rules to make the little people pay the risks. The best thing the little people should do is turn their backs on this system and withdraw their deposits from national sized banks and sell their equities, vowing never to be suckered again in the speculators' schemes.
I agree partly...
Submitted by Paul Miller on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 3:59 AM PDT.
I agree in part, but that might also resemble a run on banks, which could be bad. There are ways to invest conservatively in more stable, staple stocks, like food and essentials, that are a little pricier to buy into and don't fluctuate as wildly, but which, if stuck to moderately over a long haul, will yield a respectable profit. I think that's the problem with shows like Cramer's - they made everyday people feel emboldened to 'play' the market, moving their money around erratically and merely because so and so told them to, rather than being more steady and reasonable. I don't invest other than that I have a pathetic [more so now than ever] little IRA from a previous job that I don't touch or even think about. Still, even when things improve, I would not now think about trying to be a wisenheimer regarding trade. I feel bad for people who lost a lot because, while I am a skeptic through and through, I know there are people who just trust the system. They're the ones who eat McDonald's daily and drink sodie-pop as an alternative to water. There are no worries to be had - if it were bad for you, it would be illegal. That is the thinking. Hopefully, a little healthy pessimism will prevail even after things moderate in the markets.
Blaming CNBC for the
Submitted by Anonymous JC (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 2:13 PM PDT.
Blaming CNBC for the financial mess ranks somewhere between blaming Fox for the Bush years and blaming HGTV for the housing bubble.
Jon Stewart's value to society
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 2:46 PM PDT.
Jon Stewart's value to American society is that he's one of the most credible and consistent voices in holding the media's feet to the fire. What he had to say to Cramer last night was essentially the same thing he said to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala a few years ago: your sideshow performances are driving a stake into the country's heart.
CNBC (Cramer) and CNN (Carlson/Begala) are, at least nominally, media outlets. It's time journalists and the media went back to their roots in NEWS over entertainment. (Hey, when the news outlets stop doing entertainment, maybe comedians like Stewart can get out of the news business!)
Whether or not one agrees with Stewart's politics, we owe him a debt of gratitude for continuing to demand that our news outlets behave responsibly. For this alone I consider him one of the greatest American patriots of the day.
I decided a long time ago
Submitted by Don K (not verified) on Fri Mar. 13, 2009 7:13 PM PDT.
I decided a long time ago that the financial media (and that includes the three major magazines as well as TV) are all whores who will say anything they need to in order to keep their access to the executive suites and get invited to lunch in the Executive Dining Room. I also learned (the hard way, but luckily at little cost since I was young and had not too much to invest) that stock trading is a great way for the average guy to go broke. There are pros out there who are able to spend all day staring at the screens who will eat me up every time. If you have to hold down a job there's no way you can expect to beat the pros.
Now, I didn't take away from this that I should drop out of the system entirely and plan to live on $1,500 a month from Social Security, but rather that I should put my money in index funds or money-market funds (and get the company match out of company stock as soon as I could). Yeah, I've taken a beating in the last couple of years, but I'm not too worried about it in the long term.
THE "INSIDER" SECRET @ CNBC
Submitted by JNH88KR on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 7:48 AM PDT.
While there have been many illuminating revelations to emerge from the latest dust-up over the media coverage of Wall Street, I am a bit curious why the MOST egregious offense of the Finance Shows has NOT gotten any airplay.
When you have literally millions of viewers it is obvious that anything you broadcast can have a POSITIVE or NEGATIVE effect on the market. I read in another article a while back that the Big-Whigs at CNBC get a list of "guests" to be interviewed on the show for that day. They then hedge their stock "bets" accordingly to account for the corresponding market "bump" or "dip" in the related stocks that are discussed.
This smacks of "Insider Trading" to the "N"th degree! Why Jon Stewart didn't reveal this obvious criminal activity is a mystery to me. Maybe no one is aware of it, but it is just ANOTHER example of how the Wall Street elite feed at the trough of "insider info" while the clueless Joe-Sixpacks that kneel at the feet of the Jim Cramer's of the world get hosed from behind without an ounce of lubrication!
SAVE AMERICA..................................SHOOT A CEO!
blaming the media
Submitted by Mark Follman (not verified) on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 12:14 PM PDT.
Kevin-- Indeed, I'm intrigued as to how Felix Salmon (and so many others) are piling on with the idea that CNBC "has hurt America." How so, exactly? Are we ready to say that a TV station is responsible for the financial decisions of its legions of viewers? (Does anyone watching Cramer's ridiculous show really think it should be taken seriously as an investing tool?) As much as I admire Stewart's talent and enjoyed the grand takedown -- it was riveting television -- there is an undercurrent of dishonesty running through this whole thing, and here's why: http://markfollman.com/2009/03/13/about-that-big-jim-cramer-beatdown/
I think you are
Submitted by Godless Heathen on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 3:34 PM PDT.
I think you are overestimating the astuteness of the average American when you refer to CNBC as “infotainment”. If a person wanted to see a clown dance around “like a frat guy on meth,” they would watch larry the cable guy. If you ask CNBC what they think of their own coverage, their website’s title bar will tell you “Stock Market News, Business News, Financial, Earnings, World Market News and Information.” I didn’t catch “tainment” in any of those. Let’s see what “Fast Money” is talking about. Oh, Boy! “New Wave of Dealmakers * With big deals being made in big Pharma, is this a one-sector phenomenon? * This Week’s Hidden Winner” Hidden Winner? Sounds entertaining, and in no way useful to helping me make some money by playing the stock market. Don’t like Fast Money? Let’s ask Mad Money or On the Money. One last kick for this dead horse: the entire front page of CNBC.com doesn’t have the letter group “tain” anywhere, which means there are no “tainments” or “tainings” or “tained”
It sounds to me like somebody is trying to take themselves seriously. A “serious” financial network making these claims is a lot like a “serious” news network continuing to bring up President Obama’s birth certificate weeks after the inauguration.
PS - truthiness is Colbert, not Stewart.
G-d's wrath on the greedy
Submitted by Moses (not verified) on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 4:40 PM PDT.
80% of the Wall Street hucksters are the Jews whose god is money. Now the wrath of G-d has come upon them all. The greedy people are experiencing their just rewards for their greed.
None of this works without a
Submitted by jonas (not verified) on Sat Mar. 14, 2009 10:06 PM PDT.
None of this works without a willing buy side, does it?
Well, Cramer is a former hedge fund manager, right? This is pretty much how the game works. Find an oversold market. Peg the suckers who are still buying and short them. CNBC has cornered a niche market -- a fairly narrow one -- of people who are turned on alternately by both Maria Bartiromo and Larry Kudlow and who are thereby rendered so stupid that they will listen to whatever financial advice is spewed by Jim Cramer. These people are completely wiped out, yet make CNBC a lot of money. Classic hedge move.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://www.lyricsdigs.com
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
