Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't been discussed yet. For those who may not know, last week on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart had been razzing CNBC's Jim Cramer about the advice Cramer had been giving. Cramer retorted on his show, Jon fired back, and it all culminated with Cramer appearing on TDS last Thursday night.
Here's the history of the snarking:
March 4, 2009: CNBC Gives Financial Advice
March 9, 2009: In Cramer We Trust
March 9, 2009: Moment of Zen - Jim Cramer's Advice
March 10, 2009: Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09
March 11, 2009: Jim Cramer Battle

And here's the full (uncensored, so NSFW) Cramer interview here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I was shocked, #1 that Cramer would agree to come on Stewart's show and #2 how amazingly remorseful and humble Cramer was being. I also think we need to teach Cramer some synonyms for the word "shenanigans".

Some have said that Stewart was out of line for being so critical of a financial show because he's just a comic. But I think programs like The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and SNL are at their best when being satirical of the BS that's going on in this country. And satire is, by definition, critical of its subject.

So I say Bravo Jon! Keep up the good work.

[Alex]

I don't have a problem with Stewart doing it and for the most part his points are extremely valid.

That said, I did feel that Stewart was a bit fair in technique in that he'd lead with a video specifically highlighting something Cramer did and then when Cramer tried to defend himself personally Stewart would respond with "this isn't about you, and to prove it here is another clip of you."

Also, the examples of "shenanigans" that Stewart was providing didn't really have much to do with the structural causes of our current economic problems and so, to a degree Stewart was arguing the point about the press and business being complicit in knowingly running up and then ruining the economy.

Unfortunately that is where I part ways with Stewart apparent view. I agree that the press and business leaders should have known, and some did know but that they were deluding themselves rather than simply deceiving the hoi polloi. And by categorizing as malice what was more likely simple stupidity, it prevents us from properly addressing how future repeats might be avoided.

By the way, I read it last week and Daniel Gross's Dumb Money is a very good overview of that slide into self-deception and how it is a cycle that pretty dramatically repeats itself with each bubble and somehow we individually and socially never seen to figure out how to avoid it.

[Gemini Cricket]

It looked like Cramer wanted to cry in a couple of places.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

Unfortunately that is where I part ways with Stewart apparent view. I agree that the press and business leaders should have known, and some did know but that they were deluding themselves rather than simply deceiving the hoi polloi. And by categorizing as malice what was more likely simple stupidity, it prevents us from properly addressing how future repeats might be avoided.

Malicious or not, it should be clear to them, and everyone, in hindsight that the, admitted on tape, actions of the Cramers of the world were complicit in the societal delusion. What gets me, and to me makes Cramer and CNBC perfectly valid targets of Stewart, is their continual claims of, "We're just making our best guesses, we aren't prognosticators, we disclaim everything we say, everyone knows it's just advice." Even in hindsight. Even after admitting that they purposefully manipulate the market. I mean geez, there you had Cramer, faced with clips of him saying, "Yes, I artificially manipulated the market, and I recommend anyone in my position do the same," coming back and say, "No, no, I never did that, I just expose the fact that that happens." It's that level of bald faced deceit (even if it's because they are so good at it that they're even deceiving themselves) that I think deserves some serious ridiculing. Hell, it looked to me like Stewart might have given Cramer a glimmer of perspective on what he's said and done, that alone might be a good thing.

I do wish John had gone a little more into CNBC as a whole, rather than beating the dead Cramer horse. But then, perhaps he would have gotten flack for bringing things like that up with someone supposedly advertised as an entertainment host.

[Alex]

Yes, but the type of overt manipulation highlighted by the clips shown had little to do with the bubble caused by cheap money that put us in our current situation.

In fact, if anything, it was the hedge fund short selling manipulation that Stewart highlighted can be said to have ultimately exposed it all as a house of cards.

I'm not saying that fraud, deception, and manipulation didn't happen but would say it was on the fringe of things and focusing on it to nearly the exclusion of all else (and mislabeling other things as it) leads us down the wrong path.

You really can't be complicit in self-delusion beyond certain initial steps. And as much as we'd like to think there were a bunch of bankers sitting in executive suites rubbing their hands with glee and saying "I can't believe we're getting away with ****ing everything up like this, it'll be fun and then the government will bail us out, cackle, cackle, cackle" I don't think it is real.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, but the type of overt manipulation highlighted by the clips shown had little to do with the bubble caused by cheap money that put us in our current situation.

No, but I think it has a lot to do with what's making it difficult to get back out. It's the kind of meta-market gamesmanship that's fueling the negative feedback loop of, "The Dow is down, which means the economy's weak, so analysts practically incite panic, which causes the Dow to drop more which is more proof that the economy is weak and that Obama's worthless, which will cause the Dow to drop more, which means the economy's still weak......."

The specific types of hedge fund games may not have anything directly to do with the money market fiasco, but it is endemic of the fact that as a whole, investors, and therefore people reporting on investors, and therefore the people watching those reports, are far too, well, invested in looking at meta-investing as the be all and end all of economic opportunity and health. Who cares if a company is actually doing useful work or not, it's all about whether it APPEARS to. Companies are rewarded for short term thinking that nets their investors a quick buck on the stock market instead of for long term health of the company. So when any one part of that fantasy shows weakness, the whole thing shudders, even when it's not directly related.

So maybe Cramer can't be blamed for the unregulated overvaluation of the money market. But his world is barely one step removed, in my opinion. And, thanks to his visibility, it's something the average Joe can relate to (or thinks they can relate to) far better than the world of the money market into which they have no visibility. So I don't mind it being used as a bit of a stand in, because the principles are close enough to get the point across.

[Alex]

I don't disagree with what you say here. I just feel that the methods Stewart used (or the examples he gave) didn't support the argument he was making.

And also put Cramer in a bad spot since he was being hit in the face with examples of one thing and if he tried to respond to that Stewart would say "no, I'm talking about this other thing" and then he'd show another video showing the first thing.

I agree with most of the point Stewart was making and you've reiterated. I just don't think, despite the visceral "**** yeah" he inspired that he made a coherent argument.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Fair enough.

But he's just a comedian, so it's okay.

[Alex]

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

I don't really care if Stewart made a great presenation. I just started to feel bad for Cramer (and I do think the man deserves pretty much any scorn that can be cast his way) since the structure meant that even if he had a compelling rebuttal he probably wouldn't have been able to offer it.

But I was happy that Stewart didn't go soft as I half expected him to, even if it didn't end up as powerful as the Crossfire appearance.

[Kevy Baby]

Can I make a post where one word is bolded?