Not the best reporting I’ve encountered about the financial crisis — that would be an episode of This American Life — but an incredibly substantive discussion for TV. It’s pathetic that TV this good can seemingly only happen on a comedy show.
(If you need background on the Stewart vs. Cramer thing, watch the first two videos here.)
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald points out that the only thing unusual about Cramer, among media talking heads, is that Cramer expresses some contrition.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
i thought stewart was conflating issues, busting cramer for “pump and dump” schemes he ran during his hedge fund days, schemes that were a big part of the last bubble (internet) but have little or nothing to do with the housing bubble and sub prime mess.
cramer’s bad call on bear is legit game, but one doesn’t judge a money manager by one bad call. in this game failure is common, as in baseball batting averages. stewart also didn’t do himself any favors by conflating crammers advice to keep you money in bear (ie, your accounts are protected, separated, and safe in case of a bankruptcy) with keeping money in bear stock.
I think Stewart was talking about a common cause rather than saying that the “pump and dump” schemes were somehow causing the current mess. That is, both the late ’90s-2001 bubble and the current crisis are due to people’s obsessing over temporary value instead of lasting value. For example, there was a legitimate increase in housing value in most of NYC from 1990 to 2002, because NYC became a better place to live for many people due to the decrease in crime. So long as the city stays fairly safe and clean, that value remains. Much of the increase from 2002-2007, however, was temporary hype and i-banker demand, and has rapidly evaporated.
Cramer is part of a culture of hype and false valuation. Good money managers are the folks who actually sit down and read about what’s going on with the companies, find the info that’s required to be disclosed in SEC filings but isn’t being trumpeted by the corporation. One doesn’t get the sense that Cramer or anyone else at CNBC is doing much of that kind of thing. Instead, it seems to be done mainly by academics.
The problem of being part of the culture that you’re supposed to be reporting on also seems to occur with Santelli. Political journalists have identified this long before now: don’t feel like you’re part of the clique of which you’re supposed to be taking a critical view. (This is why some political journalists dislike the White House press association dinner — they’re not supposed to be chumming around with the president.)
Cramer and Santelli seem to suffer from this problem of identifying with the folks about whom they’re supposed to be giving us hard info. If you admire the guys at the top of Bear Stearns and feel a sense of fellowship with them, how are you supposed to consider the possibility that they’ve built a house of cards? If you, like Santelli, only see looters among the “losers” who made bad bets in the housing market, how will you see looters among your old buddies in the industry?