First let me declare my bias: I enjoy Jon Stewart’s show (sorry Dominie). Having watched it pretty regularly for 8 years, I think he does a better job pointing out inconsistency and illogicality in public figures than 90% of the serious television so called journalists (a reflection on the regrettable state of the broadcast media). And that was really his point last week.
Conspiracy theorists and Fox News junkies may impute to Stewart “a hidden agenda”; in some ways they are probably right - I imagine that his “agenda” includes such subversive ideas as a belief that hypocrisy, and unethical behavior in public figures should be called out. Is he “Fair and Balanced”? Probably not. Is Fox News? Of course not.
But this is all quite irrelevant. To dismiss Stewart because he is a comedian or because he probably votes Democrat is a superficial and misguided heuristic, because his substantive points have not been answered.
Cramer was shown explicitly encouraging ethically dubious market manipulation in his internet show; as an insider was may reasonably assume he had more knowledge than most about CDOs and CDSs; given is background and access to insider information, his advice on Lehman stock seems more to reflect the interests of his industry associates than those of the people his show claims to represent.
Stewart’s understandable outrage stems perhaps from seeing his mother’s 401k fall in value while those whose actions contributed to the collapse take home very large bonuses, something to which he alluded on the show.
Of course, some will argue that the problem was not just on Wall Street and I agree. Politicians of both sides contributed to relaxation of oversight regulation the evisceration of the agencies that should have been carrying out that oversight. And many people (encouraged I’m sure by unscrupulous real estate agents) made very foolish decisions that left them overextended. Yet someone who made a bad decision on their choice of mortgage looses their home; they don’t get a six or seven figure bonus (paid for by us, the tax-payers) as a reward for their poor choices.
You call him an "insider". From what I can tell, he's been retired from trading since 2001 and since that time appears to be mainly a pundit.
ReplyDeleteSo he has former experience, but is he still an insider?
Good point. By insider I simply meant someone who has worked in the industry who know the rules of the game rather than someone with current knowledge of specific market-related information.
ReplyDelete