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.