The thing I find most fascinating about Kramer is not that he's wrong a lot. Lots of people are wrong a lot. I'm wrong a lot. That's no big deal and I don't fault Kramer for it. The question of whether you're more right than wrong takes time to answer, and it's almost always reasonable to give someone a bit more time. Besides the other folks on CNBC aren't winning any great awards for logical consistency either.
What's most interesting about Kramer though is that even though there is no one on CNBC who is more a subject of automatic ridicule among investment professionals, somewhere there is a group of people who think "boy that Kramer - he's really great". It's not in the hedge fund world. And it's not on the exchange floor. Those guys think Kramer is a nice guy but a bit of a buffoon.
So who is it that is not only ignorant enough of economics to think Kramer makes sense, where his Harvard degree buys him automatic credibility, and no one ever thinks to look beyond that at his actual record? Who is it that thinks "fame" is a better standard to judge a person's performance than an objective look at his results? The answer of course, is among journalists.
It's guys like Andrew Ross Sorkin who keep the Jim Kramer's of the world going. Donald Trump is a considered a great business man because he's famous. Jim Kramer is a great investor... why? Because he's famous. Tom Friedman is an expert on ... well everything... because he's famous. It seems to me to be nothing more than the self aggrandizing nature of the guy with the megaphone. they think journalism is key to all wisdom and fame in journalism is the proof it's arrived.
I get that being on TV is about personality and not substance. I'm OK with all the girls in business news being beautiful. But at least get your opinions form people who are supposed to have them - like you normally do on Squawk. We don't need to see the journalists interviewing each other anymore.
10 comments:
I can't say Tom Friedman is famous in the same sense that Kramer or Krugman are...
Kramer is all about schtick, but when he spouts "statistics" on a show that should be "statistically accurate", it no longer serves an intended purpose. He has the allure of the pitchman "Vince" trying to sell me Shamwow or some other such crap.
Maybe I'll sue CNBC for false adverstisement.CNBC is not financial News, it's a variety show.alas - no cause for action.
When I started in this business - CNBC was a budding, bland network that did a decent job chasing news and promoting rumors courtesy of Dan Dorfman.
Internet in 1992 wasn't widley available.
As a result, my first job had a dedicated satellite dish that grabbed data-feeds form S&P and Dow Jones, and each feed had o hit two seperate terminals and appeared in DOS. We were responsible for doing our homework:
After work I'd watch Nightly Business Report with Paul Kangas. On the weekends - Lou Rukyser, and Addam Smith's Money World.
I made a brief 8 second appearance on Money World because I was at a Biotech conference at the Waldorf and Jerry (Addam Smith) was taping for broadcast reactions to the conference and the keynote.
Some really attractive woman was buttering up Jerry with how she valued the insights during the keynote. He walks up to me and we're scarfing down some lox and rye. I say to him, ya know - the first book I ever read about finance or wall st was "The Money Game".
He waves the camera crew over and says : "Go!"
I give 8 seconds of how Addam Smith's Money Game should be required reading...
"Cut! Thanks!"
ANd that was that.
I beg to differ about Friedman. Finance people don't think much of him but there are some circles where he's absolutely revered. I was at a Reuters editorial thing once, and a pretty young girl nearby was talking about having met him. She was acting like he was Elvis - it was bizarre.
that is bizarre.
(cue-up Tom Friedman Bulbous Head Image)
Paul Kangas??...Didnt he read his quotes off the telegraph ticker?? Ikaika you are telling your age.
Kangas had one hell of a sun tan. We used to say that he delivered his report from Palm Beach or Boca Raton.
I'm 45
Wondered where he got the sun.. There werent tanning salons or spray on crap back then.. Id say Boca..And your a pup.Though a very smart pup.
At least Kangas was funny sometimes.
"You're not really anybody in America unless you're on TV"
Cramer just tried to compare JPM's 2% loss to AIG...
What a Joke - Italy is teetering, the Spanish Bailout is as palatable as sour milk and the only thing these boobs report on is Jamie Dimon being called in for a 2% loss.
This isn't news is public opinion.
Now Cramer is trying to equate "Errors" to some kind of Black Mark on a trader's record. I had plenty of errors in my carreer at BSC and JPM. I never got fired or reprimanded for eporting an error, and I never tried to hide an error. usually it resulted in management saying "good catch" or how can we minimize the potential for this happening again?
It's part of business and reporting those errors is part of the risk process. Sometimes its a machine error, sometimes its a client error, but ultimately, errors flow back to the person that discovered them.
Cramer is full of baloney.
Errors are quite common on Wall St. It's rare when an error works in your favor, but when it does and it gets reported/booked to the error account - it's not news.
Tomorrow he's going to explain to us the issues in developing testable hypotheses for string theory, and the burdens of mining the genome for treatable disease.
He may not know much, but he certainly doesn't know it.
Post a Comment