Friday, March 13, 2009

The Ultimate Meaning of Stewart/Cramer

It's very easy to get to the bottom line of the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer war and that's the fact that neither Rick Santelli nor anyone else on CNBC is going to do any more big rants against President Obama.

CNBC is a right-wing, anti-Obama network--a version of Rush Limbaugh directed specifically at investors. As Salon observed, practically all of the pundits on CNBC blame the recession on Obama. Santelli pushed extremely hard against Obama on behalf of CNBC's audience.

But NBC, CNBC, Santelli, Cramer, and their whole target audience found out that the left-wing media represented by Jon Stewart could push back . . . and push back hard.

And they found out quickly.

Santelli himself stood down on his comments within days.

Jim Cramer also gave up after an initial effort to defend himself. After Stewart hammered Cramer for appearances on The Today Show and Morning Joe, he hammered Cramer again for that day's appearance on convicted felon Martha Stewart's program. Finally, Cramer just gave up and pulled out the white flag almost as soon as Stewart started to question him.

Not that it helped him much. He was still "eviscerated" by Jon Stewart. But surrendering probably does mean that Jim Cramer and CNBC are out of the daily news cycle, off the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and off the radar of the left-wing media in general.

Given that CNBC will want out of the cross-hairs of the left media, it is highly likely that none of their personalities will be trying to rally opinion against Barack Obama again.

It's unfortunate that the bottom line is the fact that the left-wing media is now more powerful and influential than CNBC.

Because Jon Stewart had some interesting things to say. He was especially effective at juxtaposing the naive confidence of middle and upper-middle class people in the integrity of the markets with the greedy cynicism of market insiders like Cramer. The 401k plans and pensions of the middle class lost heavily as Wall Stret insiders played games with enormous amounts of money and Stewart accused the whole financial world of gratuitously destroying the hard-earned wealth of the American middle-class.
It’s very easy to get on this after the fact. The measure of the network, and the measure of mess. CNBC could act as—No one is asking them to be a regulatory agency, but can’t—but whose side are they on? It feels like they have to reconcile as their audience the Wall Street traders that are doing this for constant profit on a day-to-day for short term. These guys companies were on a Sherman’s March through their companies financed by our 401ks and all the incentives of their companies were for short term profit. And they burned the f---ing house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on.
It was helpful information and great entertainment and Jim Cramer had no answer.

3 comments:

jinchi said...

As Salon observed, practically all of the pundits on CNBC blame the recession on Obama.

I've never understood the ability of supposed free-marketeers to argue that the market is strongly susceptible to being talked up or talked down.

Stocks either have some fundamental value or they don't. Unless you're a day trader, it doesn't matter what Obama or Bernanke or anyone else says on any given Tuesday.

Ric Caric said...

The key here is to use the term "supposed" when you're talking about free marketeers. There may have been a time when the market wasn't a rigged game, but I certainly am not old enough at 54 to remember that time.

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: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

Thanks,

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