What do you think will happen with Jim Cramer on the Daily show?

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Stewart complained the market is a game to many and that those with pension funds and 401k's in the market are at a disadvantage. I never heard him complaining when those same game players were putting money into the market taking it to alltime heights. Its hypocritical.

Hardly. Stewart has never held himself out as a financial guru. He was in the same boat as most of the rest of us (other than the high end Wall Street wheeler dealers, themselves) until the big fall, which made the subject a prime target for his news based humor. As Stewart said to Cramer:

We're both selling snake oil, but you're actually a snake.

Cramer was trying to defend himself by labeling himself as an entertainer, not a financial "expert." Stewart was making the point that he is also an entertainer, but no one tunes into his show expecting to be able to invest real money based on his material.

Individuals with pension funds and 401k's are playing the game just like everyone else (with exception of illegal trading activity, which is a very small %.)

Bernie Madhoff is one guy, but his crimes had far reaching effects. Do you think he's the only Wall Street crook manipulating funds? Likewise the top financial execs taking their megabucks "bonuses" from their failing companies have walked off with investors' pensions without batting an eye.

In the video clips, Cramer came off as close to being a Madhoff wannabe.

 

[TallBill]

A show telling people to invest regularly into Stock Indexes and to invest for the long haul would be very boring.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jjsole

No, I really didn't, he said emphatically the market "is not a fvcking game".

The market is a game to most who play it, that's a fact and it has been that way since the inception of stock exchanges. To reap the benefits while diss the pitfalls is hypocritical. The fact that cnbc makes money off the game and doesn't advertise all the right tricks to play the game is hardly irresponsible. There has always been a lot of shill games going on in the markets as well and that's hardly cnbc's fault for not exposing the big ones.

What Stewart was ripping him for was not just that CNBC failed to expose these shell games, but that they were complicit in them. THAT is the problem.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

Stewart complained the market is a game to many and that those with pension funds and 401k's in the market are at a disadvantage. I never heard him complaining when those same game players were putting money into the market taking it to alltime heights. Its hypocritical.

Hardly. Stewart has never held himself out as a financial guru. He was in the same boat as most of the rest of us (other than the high end Wall Street wheeler dealers, themselves) until the big fall, which made the subject a prime target for his news based humor. As Stewart said to Cramer, "We're both selling snake oil, but you're actually a snake."

Individuals with pension funds and 401k's are playing the game just like everyone else (with exception of illegal trading activity, which is a very small %.)

Bernie Madhoff is one guy, but his crimes had far reaching effects. Do you think he's the only Wall Street crook manipulating funds? Likewise the top financial execs taking their megabucks "bonuses" from their failing companies have walked off with investors' pensions without batting an eye.

In the video clips, Cramer came off as close to being a Madhoff wannabe.

He was wrong suggesting they both sell snake-oil. Cramer is like a successful horse better selling his tips based on the suggestion of credibility that he was successful before therefore its valuable info. No crime or deception here.

I'm not defending Cramer's show, I don't like it or him for that matter, but he's nothing like Madhoff who ran a ponzi scheme and defrauded people (and basically never traded/invested).

In Cramers infamous interview a few years ago, he talked about manipulating perception using $5m to temporarily change the price of stocks in order to manipulate perception. His $5m is at risk, 100k shares of a $50 stock...that's not sleezy and is not enough to have any affect in the long run. Manipulating perception is an everyday occurance in the markets and is a very integral part of how the markets trade..

As to admitting to spreading rumors....sure that's sleezy but think about it. Those who have their ears pinned to rumors they hear are none other than game players as well who want to take advantage of short term volatility. Rumor spreading has been in the markets since its inception as well. I don't condone it but again, there probably has never been a market in existence that wasn't susceptible to people spreading false info.

 

[TallBill]

Hmm, I thought it was a good interview. Cramer didn't really come off as stupid. He knows what's going on.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jjsole

No, I really didn't, he said emphatically the market "is not a fvcking game".

The market is a game to most who play it, that's a fact and it has been that way since the inception of stock exchanges. To reap the benefits while diss the pitfalls is hypocritical. The fact that cnbc makes money off the game and doesn't advertise all the right tricks to play the game is hardly irresponsible. There has always been a lot of shill games going on in the markets as well and that's hardly cnbc's fault for not exposing the big ones.

What Stewart was ripping him for was not just that CNBC failed to expose these shell games, but that they were complicit in them. THAT is the problem.

I thought Cramer clearly stated regret for not knowing more about what was really going on. What do people want from cnbc? If they knew of major shell games sure it would have been irresponsible to not report about it, but they have broken many corruption stories, and were duped by madoff and stafford like nearly everyone else. The ones that are responsible for turning a blind eye is the SEC. And while many knew about the banks highly leveraged portfolios, few saw the risks at stake. That's hardly "complicit" as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What Stewart was ripping him for was not just that CNBC failed to expose these shell games, but that they were complicit in them. THAT is the problem.

I thought Cramer clearly stated regret for not knowing more about what was really going on. What do people want from cnbc? If they knew of major shell games sure it would have been irresponsible to not report about it, but they have broken many corruption stories, and were scammed by madoff and stafford like nearly everyone else. The ones that are responsible for turning a blind eye is the SEC.

Again, he was only partially ripping them for being bad journalists. His point was that CNBC DID know better, and did nothing about it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

He was wrong suggesting they both sell snake-oil.

By "snake oil," Stewart meant that, in his opinion, they both dealt in fantasy. The difference being that Stewart's material is presented for what it really is, comedy and satire, while Cramer's show and others on CNBC present themselves as being based on factual information.

Cramer is like a successful horse better selling his tips based on the suggestion of credibility that he was successful before therefore its valuable info. No crime or deception here.

Not THAT successful, as some of the clips Stewart showed over the last few days, and as Cramer, himself, NOW admits.

In Cramers infamous interview a few years ago, he talked about manipulating perception using $5m to temporarily change the price of stocks in order to manipulate perception. His $5m is at risk, 100k shares of a $50 stock...that's not sleezy and is not enough to have any affect in the long run. Manipulating perception is an everyday occurance in the markets and is a very integral part of how the markets trade..

As to admitting to spreading rumors....sure that's sleezy but think about it. Those who have their ears pinned to rumors they hear are none other than game players as well who want to take advantage of short term volatility. Rumor spreading has been in the markets since its inception as well. I don't condone it but again, there probably has never been a market in existence that wasn't susceptible to people spreading false info.

Stewart's point was that CNBC presents many of their financial shows as though they were offering information based advice. Either they should stop doing so, or they should post warning notices at the start and end and throughout such shows that they're blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

I thought Cramer clearly stated regret for not knowing more about what was really going on.

... NOW, at long last, well after the horses were out of the barn, not earlier, when the clips show him pimping the very shill games he says he now regrets. :thumbsdown: :|

What do people want from cnbc?

Could it be truth in adverising??? :shocked:

The major columns at the top of their homepage are labeled MARKET OVERVIEW, TOP NEWS AND ANALYSIS and WHAT INVESTORS SHOULD KNOW.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, he was only partially ripping them for being bad journalists. His point was that CNBC DID know better, and did nothing about it.

Here is his point:

Cnbc could be an incredible tool of illumination for people that believe that there are two markets - 1) that has been sold to us as long term: "put your money in 401k's, put your money in pensions, and just leave it there, don't worry about it, we're all doing fine. Then there is this other market, this real market that's occuring in the back room, where giant piles of money are going in and out and people are trading them, and its transactional, and it's fast, but its dangerous, its ethically dubious, and it hurts that longterm market. So what it feels like to us, and I'm speaking purely as a layman, it feels like we are capitalizing your adventure by our pension and our hard ear...that it is a game that you know, that you know is going on, but that you go on television and pretend isn't happening.

Stewart really (and admittedly) shows his ignorance here, suggesting as a generalization any large 'upstairs' trading and scheming is "dangerous" and done at the expense of these long term investors. Wall street and other trading professionals always have an edge on short term volatility - they have more information that affects markets and more money to move them. Is that a secret to anyone? It works both ways...they can take stocks up and they can take them down with there volume.

Stewarts suggestion that it's dangerous and ethically dubious, and especially that it hurts markets in the long run need more substantiation if he's going to make absurd assumptions like that.

What cracks me up is the sudden awareness of stewart that there are traders, and not just long term investors in the markets. There always have been 'two markets'...the long term investors who diversify and hold for the long run, and those who want to take advantage of short term volatility. How could markets function otherwise? Who would sell stocks to people looking to buy them in the longterm??

Cnbc has always primarily catered to the short term interest, not the buy and hold forever investors. However they have had many discussions on long term proportioning and diversification etc.

To suggest they are COMPLICIT in a large selloff is naive and cowardly imo.

 

[Miramonti]

while Cramer's show and others on CNBC present themselves as being based on factual information.

They have never portrayed themselves as based on fact, and have always had disclaimers distancing themselves from views and opinions of participants. Would they like you to think they are the best source for market info on television? Sure, they probably would and any other news show would.

Stewart's point was that CNBC presents many of their financial shows as though they were offering information based advice. Either they should stop doing so, or they should post warning notices at the start and end and throughout such shows that they're blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Cnbc tries to present varying opinions with their guests. Cramer offered stock advice...lots of people do. Whether or not he was an asset to some or many I have no idea, but his opinions are his opinions and people could listen to him or not. If you can catch him in lies, that would be more serious but is not the case of discussion here.

... NOW, at long last, well after the horses were out of the barn, not earlier, when the clips show him pimping the very shill games he says he now regrets.

When the market sells off, it takes everything with it. That is always unavoidable and make good picks look bad. Its unfortunate that it wasn't seen in advance, but few EVER predict timing of large market downturns. Should Cnbc and Cramer be responsible for alerting people of the bank lies and fraud? I don't see how anyone can conclude that unless they knew facts but didn't present them (which there is no significant evidence of. ) I think they are extremely remissed at the opportunity to gain credibility in this mess but instead have lost it by not catching on to things earlier. Lets not forget that the govt. has withheld all information about which banks are getting how much money as well, so very few people really know who was and is on the bubble if not already technically insolvent.

MARKET OVERVIEW, TOP NEWS AND ANALYSIS and WHAT INVESTORS SHOULD KNOW.

I don't see anything wrong with this...they are offering analysis from *others*, and information links they think are relevant. False advertising?? I don't understand the concern.

People have found Cnbc very helpful in following the market for Many years...now that there is a global selloff, they are complicitly to blame? I don't get it - they never said they were going to tell anyone where the market was going to go.

 

[Carmen813]

The biggest problem I have with what CNBC does is the same problem I have with most major media outlets. They sensationalize *everything* all in the name of making news "entertaining." There is a frankly frightening lack of actual journalism.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Stewart really (and admittedly) shows his ignorance here, suggesting as a generalization any large 'upstairs' trading and scheming is "dangerous" and done at the expense of these long term investors.

How is that ignorance when that's exactly what happened?

Wall street and other trading professionals always have an edge on short term volatility - they have more information that affects markets and more money to move them. Is that a secret to anyone? It works both ways...they can take stocks up and they can take them down with there volume.

Stewarts suggestion that it's dangerous and ethically dubious, and especially that it hurts markets in the long run need more substantiation if he's going to make absurd assumptions like that.[/quote]

Stewart made more than "suggestions" that the back room planning, wheeling and dealing involved more than "having" an edge. He specifically accused them of manufacturing "edges" by starting false rumors and creating false "indicators" in the market through short selling and other manipulations, all without the knowledge of the investors whose money capitalized their schemes.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The biggest problem I have with what CNBC does is the same problem I have with most major media outlets. They sensationalize *everything* all in the name of making news "entertaining." There is a frankly frightening lack of actual journalism.

Welcome to capitalism, but yes its annoying. Does Cnbc sensationalize the market...why, YES THEY DO! :Q:Q:Q If they didn't help build interest in the markets, they wouldn't have a show that can sell advertising to make money. Does that make them responsible for the industry's shortcomings?...uhm, no.


Frankly I'm still pissed O'Reily gets away with calling his show 'fair and balanced'.

(if he does that is...)

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

Stewart really (and admittedly) shows his ignorance here, suggesting as a generalization any large 'upstairs' trading and scheming is "dangerous" and done at the expense of these long term investors.

How is that ignorance when that's exactly what happened?

Wall street and other trading professionals always have an edge on short term volatility - they have more information that affects markets and more money to move them. Is that a secret to anyone? It works both ways...they can take stocks up and they can take them down with there volume.

Stewarts suggestion that it's dangerous and ethically dubious, and especially that it hurts markets in the long run need more substantiation if he's going to make absurd assumptions like that.

Stewart made more than "suggestions" that the back room planning, wheeling and dealing involved more than "having" an edge. He specifically accused them of manufacturing "edges" by starting false rumors and creating false "indicators" in the market through short selling and other manipulations, all without the knowledge of the investors whose money capitalized their schemes.[/quote]

That's *what* happened, and *when* did it happen?

Yes, wall street 'manufactures' potential edges spreading rumors...some take and they make money, some don't and they lose money. Bloggers and forum members also spread rumors. I already pointed out earlier that *every* market has always been susceptible to false rumors. And who does it hurt, the pension and 401k'ers?...NO...remember, they are the buy and hold diversifiers who aren't stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket or try and shift their funds in and out to trade the market's short term volatility.

Rumors affect short term traders, those who Stewart is not concerned about. But it can also help traders as well if they have the right positions. Net net, its a wash in the long run.

Btw, remember the newsletter that was sold a few years ago..."whisper numbers" for what people on the inside really think earnings are going to be, lol. Funny stuff, but again, that's short term trading.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, he was only partially ripping them for being bad journalists. His point was that CNBC DID know better, and did nothing about it.

Here is his point:

Cnbc could be an incredible tool of illumination for people that believe that there are two markets - 1) that has been sold to us as long term: "put your money in 401k's, put your money in pensions, and just leave it there, don't worry about it, we're all doing fine. Then there is this other market, this real market that's occuring in the back room, where giant piles of money are going in and out and people are trading them, and its transactional, and it's fast, but its dangerous, its ethically dubious, and it hurts that longterm market. So what it feels like to us, and I'm speaking purely as a layman, it feels like we are capitalizing your adventure by our pension and our hard ear...that it is a game that you know, that you know is going on, but that you go on television and pretend isn't happening.

Stewart really (and admittedly) shows his ignorance here, suggesting as a generalization any large 'upstairs' trading and scheming is "dangerous" and done at the expense of these long term investors. Wall street and other trading professionals always have an edge on short term volatility - they have more information that affects markets and more money to move them. Is that a secret to anyone? It works both ways...they can take stocks up and they can take them down with there volume.

Stewarts suggestion that it's dangerous and ethically dubious, and especially that it hurts markets in the long run need more substantiation if he's going to make absurd assumptions like that.

What cracks me up is the sudden awareness of stewart that there are traders, and not just long term investors in the markets. There always have been 'two markets'...the long term investors who diversify and hold for the long run, and those who want to take advantage of short term volatility. How could markets function otherwise? Who would sell stocks to people looking to buy them in the longterm??

Cnbc has always primarily catered to the short term interest, not the buy and hold forever investors. However they have had many discussions on long term proportioning and diversification etc.

To suggest they are COMPLICIT in a large selloff is naive and cowardly imo.

I think Stewart hit the nail on the head.

You try to divide it all into 'long term and traders', but that's not the real distinction.

The issue Stewart was actually highlighting was the excessive derivate industry, finding more and more ways to mile more out of transactions in dangerous ways - to the point that every dollar put into a straightforward products was then changing hands many more times in derivatives, creating the vast profits - 30% of all US corporate profits in recent years - that are a drain on the economy, and based on a 'house of cards' that created massive risk for investors and the nation with 'too big to fail' global financial companies.

People look to a network like CNBC to do some journalism on these issues. While no one could pinpoint when the house of cards would fall, they had shows on "House of concrete!!".

There's blame to go around in varying degrees to many places, but the financial journalists have an especially heavy share in my view for not better exposing the risks.

That's the role of journalism - to expose the things the public can benefit by knowing and taking measures to fix, preferably before the disaster.

When instead they just cater to the narrow market of the financial industry and provide cheerleading, it's not just a 'well, that wasn't quite what it should have been'.

 

[sandorski]

Stewart did a good job, not only to criticize Cramer, but CNBC as a whole. His criticisms were well placed IMO. If you want good Financial information Bloomberg(from what I have seen of it anyway) in the US and BNN(Business News Network) in Canada are 2 good sources that avoid sensationalism and stick to sober analysis. On BNN when someone comes out cheerleading, they provide a good balance with contrary Experts, often the Interviewers themselves provide counter-balance to overly enthusiastic Guests.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, he was only partially ripping them for being bad journalists. His point was that CNBC DID know better, and did nothing about it.

Here is his point:

Cnbc could be an incredible tool of illumination for people that believe that there are two markets - 1) that has been sold to us as long term: "put your money in 401k's, put your money in pensions, and just leave it there, don't worry about it, we're all doing fine. Then there is this other market, this real market that's occuring in the back room, where giant piles of money are going in and out and people are trading them, and its transactional, and it's fast, but its dangerous, its ethically dubious, and it hurts that longterm market. So what it feels like to us, and I'm speaking purely as a layman, it feels like we are capitalizing your adventure by our pension and our hard ear...that it is a game that you know, that you know is going on, but that you go on television and pretend isn't happening.

Stewart really (and admittedly) shows his ignorance here, suggesting as a generalization any large 'upstairs' trading and scheming is "dangerous" and done at the expense of these long term investors. Wall street and other trading professionals always have an edge on short term volatility - they have more information that affects markets and more money to move them. Is that a secret to anyone? It works both ways...they can take stocks up and they can take them down with there volume.

Stewarts suggestion that it's dangerous and ethically dubious, and especially that it hurts markets in the long run need more substantiation if he's going to make absurd assumptions like that.

What cracks me up is the sudden awareness of stewart that there are traders, and not just long term investors in the markets. There always have been 'two markets'...the long term investors who diversify and hold for the long run, and those who want to take advantage of short term volatility. How could markets function otherwise? Who would sell stocks to people looking to buy them in the longterm??

Cnbc has always primarily catered to the short term interest, not the buy and hold forever investors. However they have had many discussions on long term proportioning and diversification etc.

To suggest they are COMPLICIT in a large selloff is naive and cowardly imo.

I think Stewart hit the nail on the head.

You try to divide it all into 'long term and traders', but that's not the real distinction.

The issue Stewart was actually highlighting was the excessive derivate industry, finding more and more ways to mile more out of transactions in dangerous ways - to the point that every dollar put into a straightforward products was then changing hands many more times in derivatives, creating the vast profits - 30% of all US corporate profits in recent years - that are a drain on the economy, and based on a 'house of cards' that created massive risk for investors and the nation with 'too big to fail' global financial companies.

People look to a network like CNBC to do some journalism on these issues. While no one could pinpoint when the house of cards would fall, they had shows on "House of concrete!!".

There's blame to go around in varying degrees to many places, but the financial journalists have an especially heavy share in my view for not better exposing the risks.

That's the role of journalism - to expose the things the public can benefit by knowing and taking measures to fix, preferably before the disaster.

When instead they just cater to the narrow market of the financial industry and provide cheerleading, it's not just a 'well, that wasn't quite what it should have been'.

He's correct in pointing out the dangerous derivative industry, but not at pointing the blame. That goes to the Sec as well as congress by being swayed by lobbyists that have successfully pushed for loosened restrictions and accountability.

Regulation and oversight is critical in the markets and on wallstreet, they are thieves with the goal of thieving as far as I'm concerned, many of them atleast. It attracts the worst of the worst, and also creates them from within.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Harvey

Stewart made more than "suggestions" that the back room planning, wheeling and dealing involved more than "having" an edge. He specifically accused them of manufacturing "edges" by starting false rumors and creating false "indicators" in the market through short selling and other manipulations, all without the knowledge of the investors whose money capitalized their schemes.

That's *what* happened, and *when* did it happen?

Sorry you haven't been paying attention. :Q

I'm even sorrier that, regardless of how those backroom wheeler dealers avoided scrutiny or legal controls, you think such manipulations at the expense of others is somehow ethical and should be allowed. That doesn't speak any better for you than it did for Cramer when he was pimping such unethical crap or when he sheepishly, and far too belatedly, "saw the light," now. :roll:

 

[Miramonti]

I'm not one to claim Cnbc for being 'all that' either. But you can't blame an idiot for being a moron.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stewart did a good job, not only to criticize Cramer, but CNBC as a whole. His criticisms were well placed IMO. If you want good Financial information Bloomberg(from what I have seen of it anyway) in the US and BNN(Business News Network) in Canada are 2 good sources that avoid sensationalism and stick to sober analysis. On BNN when someone comes out cheerleading, they provide a good balance with contrary Experts, often the Interviewers themselves provide counter-balance to overly enthusiastic Guests.

We really do need an industry of 'reliable journalism'.

There are going to be people who lie for gains - be they CEO's denying their companies' problems, hedge fund managers like Cramer manipulating opinions on companies, or even just industry cheerleaders who 'keep the viewers hering what they want to hear' and not what they would benefit from hearing. Some people react with anger at these people - 'how bad for the CEO to violate our trust' - but that's not a fixable situation, that I see. Dishonest, propaganda-spewing spokespeople aren't going anywhere.

So, what's to determine whether a network serves the interests of the spokespeople - or the interests of the public? Simple analysis might say "well, if their customers are the public, they'll serve them", but it's not so simple. The accuracy and usefulness, and its popularity as a packaged product, are not necessarily linked that closely.

But importantly, this is an example where media consolidation comes into play - so many eyes glaze over when it's brought up, but it's a big problem in having good journalism.

With the diversity of ownership going from hundreds to dozens to five, and the newspapers so weakened, we're inadvertantly racing to a society filled with crap news.

The scary thing is, while one entertainer's interview with Cramer might make headlines for pointing out the problem, it's terribly ineffective at actually getting it fixed.

Where are the other efforts to champion the cause than Stewart? We hear crickets. There are few.

So what should we do?

Well, a couple ideas are to support the government, er pressure the government, to reduce media consolidation; another is to call CNBC and praise the good stories.

Stewart mentioned some reporters who do good stories there - help the marketplace increase the product of the good reporting by getting involved.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Harvey

Stewart made more than "suggestions" that the back room planning, wheeling and dealing involved more than "having" an edge. He specifically accused them of manufacturing "edges" by starting false rumors and creating false "indicators" in the market through short selling and other manipulations, all without the knowledge of the investors whose money capitalized their schemes.

That's *what* happened, and *when* did it happen?

Sorry you haven't been paying attention. :Q

I'm even sorrier that, regardless of how those backroom wheeler dealers avoided scrutiny or legal controls, you think such manipulations at the expense of others is somehow ethical and should be allowed. That doesn't speak any better for you than it did for Cramer when he was pimping such unethical crap or when he sheepishly, and far too belatedly, "saw the light," now. :roll:

Seriously Harvey, what event are you talking about? The entire selloff? That didn't happen in any back room. And Cramer's antics are not insider trading or anything close. If someone wants to bid up a stock with $5m, good, I'll sell it to them overvalued and make some money.

And for the rumor game in wall street...what would you propose to silence everyone? I don't condone it, but its an AGE OLD SHORT TERM GAME. Don't judge me for recognizing that. Wall street is a bunch of crooks. But that didn't start this decade, that started generations ago. Again, I'm not condoning it, but recognizing it. Don't get sidetracked by the supposed 'scandalous' rumor game because that will NEVER change. What needs to happen is accountability and oversight, period, and cnbc can be a cog in the wheel here if they choose to step it up, but that will not significantly change wall streets behavior.

 

[Miramonti]

Why isn't anyone blaming the NYT or WSJ? These guys have hard hitting investigative journalists (with lots of wall street connections) and they failed big time as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jjsole

He's correct in pointing out the dangerous derivative industry, but not at pointing the blame. That goes to the Sec as well as congress by being swayed by lobbyists that have successfully pushed for loosened restrictions and accountability.

Regulation and oversight is critical in the markets and on wallstreet, they are thieves with the goal of thieving as far as I'm concerned, many of them atleast. It attracts the worst of the worst, and also creates them from within.

I'd lke to repeat my previous comment:

There's blame to go around in varying degrees to many places, but the financial journalists have an especially heavy share in my view for not better exposing the risks.

You can only understand this in understanding the various elements.

On issues of societal institutions, I often look to analogies with criminal justice. If you want to understand how a wrongful conviction can happen, there are elements from the personal behaviors of the defense and prosecution attorneys and the judge, to the jury, to the courtroom rules, to the technology (DNA?), to the police competenece, resources, corruption, etc., to the legislature's competence and corruption in the law involved, to voters, to the effectiveness of the systemic oversight to catch problems, and so on.

In this case, I agree with you on the point you make, just as I agree with the blind guy who describes the elephant's trunk - but not if he says that's the whole elephant.

If you look too hard at any one part, nothing changes. You can complain all day about the lack of 'ethics' by the people in the market; they are responding to market rewards and won't change, as if they do, they get replaced. You can complain all day about the government, but if the election system rewards those who want bad policies and get their side elected, nothing's getting fixed there. If you just blame the voters, it's impractical for voters to get all that informed on complicated issues. It's just not gonna happen.

So you try to say what would help - and that's where I point multiple fingers, but a big one (not that one) at the financial journalism industry.

We need to not only 'fix it', which may not be that hard for a while, but to look at how to prevent the same problem from happening again when the economiy is better.

You're not wrong to point out the role of officials like Paulson - but by the time you have the chairman of Goldman Sachs, who was fighting for the deregulation you say was such a key part of the problem just before his appointment as Treasury secretary, in an administration that's all about 'let the industries do what they want', what do you expect? You are in a bad situation already at that point.

If you elect better people, that helps change the culture, helps regulate better. If you have good financial journalism, that helps create the demaand for better offiicials and better policies. If you have responsible companies identify problems and support fixing them to prevent competitors from bad practices, that can help.

Stewart identified one important element. You discussed another. Why attack him for being *wrong* on blame, instead of just saying that there are additional areas for it too?

 

[Superrock]

I'm shocked that he ripped into Cramer the way he did considering Stephen Cobert just had the same guest pressing buttons that made funny noises.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Why isn't anyone blaming the NYT or WSJ? These guys have hard hitting investigative journalists (with lots of wall street connections) and they failed big time as well.

Probably because of CNBC's prominence and dominance in financial journalism, and their cheerleading being especially clear (and easy to pull video clips for).

You might remember that the NY Times was made the poster child for the bad journalism on WMD in Iraq, both because of its prominince on those issues, and the esepcially controversial reporting by Judith Miller who had become very cozy with the Neocon leaders, reporting their leaks and allowing them to then point to the NY Times stories as 'independant verification' of their claims.

CNBC appears more reckless than the WSJ news section (my views on their terrible editorial section are well known already...)