Friday, March 13, 2009

Cramer v. Non-Cramer

Jon Stewart's interview with CNBC's Jim Cramer (you can view it in its entirety here, here, and here) is really worth viewing. I'm not sure whether it's Stewart at his most effective or most annoying. Perhaps both.

It's actually very similar to his appearance on Crossfire back in 2004. In both interviews, you have an admittedly fake journalist lecturing slightly more real journalists on their responsibilities. Stewart proceeds from an almost unassailable position. His show is an entertainment show, and he doesn't claim it to be anything beyond that. Then he criticizes journalists for resorting to entertainment to sell their shows. With Crossfire, he told Carlson and Begala that they posit themselves as a debate show, but they're really providing cheap entertainment that just serves the politicians. Cramer, Stewart alleges, actually understands finance but dumbs it down with cheap stunts and convinces people to buy stocks they shouldn't be buying.

Stewart is undoubtedly right in his criticism. Of course, imagine what shows like Crossfire and Mad Money would look like if Stewart ran them. They would invite politicians and CEOs on the show and criticize them heavily when they dissembled and try to explain to viewers when they're being lied to. This would certainly be useful, except that no one would go on the show. With no one on the show, no one would watch it.

It was no accident that the only one telling King Lear the truth was the fool.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?

China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.

The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See:


Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.