X-Post: Stewart's nihilist attack on Cramer

American Nihilist X-Post
-------------

First off, I urge anyone who hasn't yet seen Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer: The Extended Interview, to do so. What made it on air was good, but the whole thing, uncut and uncensored, is a thing of beauty.

Predictably, there are naysayers, and even more predictably, Donald Douglas of American Power seems to be one of them. His post on the subject (his first one, anyway--He has a habit of doing several, on some subjects) is titled: Jon Stewart Attacks Jim Cramer (and Markets).

But rather than say much of anything about Jon Stewart, Jim Cramer, the interview, or the state of the economy and/or the financial news media in general, himself, professor Douglas quotes others, leaving us to assume he agrees with their take on the subject (unless of course their take turns out to be unpopular or devoid of fact, in which case he can claim to simply be quoting them, and not taking a position himself.)

The meat seems to be from James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce (usnews.com) Donald quotes him thusly:

There was a lively exchange last night on The Daily Show between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer, in which Stewart hammered Cramer and the network for being subservient to Wall Street and not alerting viewers to the coming meltdown. Cramer and the network can defend themselves, but what became clear to me is that Stewart really doesn't believe in the idea of a stock market where individuals can go to invest their money and build wealth over the long term. This, I think, is a revealing quote:

Isn't that part of the problem, selling this idea that you don't have to do anything? Anytime you sell people the idea that, sit back and you'll get 10 to 20 percent on your money, don't you always know that that's going to be a lie ...

So what is Stewart suggesting, that we "workers" just save insane gobs of money that we squirrel away into low-yielding savings accounts and rely on those savings and Social Security for our retirement? Even plenty of Democrats believe that, which is why many are pushing universal savings accounts. Now, of course, investors tend to be more conservative than folks without investment portfolios. So maybe that is what really bugs the liberal Stewart, as well as those Dems who want to get rid of 401(k) plans.

Links as in Donald's original post.

Yes, I know he links to the same few things a 2 or 3 times...
I know two of the links appear to go to the same nowhere in particular--(the top of an ever changing comment stream... I can't even guess what the intended target was...)
I know.
Don't ask me why...

Now, before I even reply to that, permit me to show you what Donald did, here... What appears "quoted" above isn't what the original article said, and needless to say, those crazy repetitive links didn't appear in the original article, either.

James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce (usnews.com) actually said:

There was a lively exchange last night on The Daily Show between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer, in which Stewart hammered Cramer and the network for being subservient to Wall Street and not alerting viewers to the coming meltdown. Cramer and the network can defend themselves, but what became clear to me is that Stewart really doesn't believe in the idea of a stock market where individuals can go to invest their money and build wealth over the long term. This, I think, is a revealing quote:

Isn't that part of the problem, selling this idea that you don't have to do anything? Anytime you sell people the idea that, sit back and you'll get 10 to 20 percent on your money, don't you always know that that's going to be a lie. When are we going to realize in this country that are [sic. should be "our"] wealth is work, that we're workers.

Me: So what is Stewart suggesting, that we "workers" just save insane gobs of money that we squirrel away into low-yielding savings accounts and rely on those savings and Social Security for our retirement? The only reason to do that is if you don't believe in the long-run soundness of the American economy. And if the American economy isn't dynamic over the long run, don't expect Social Security or Medicare to meet their meager promises.

Americans need to be building asset wealth, they need to think of themselves as "investors" and not just workers. Even plenty of Democrats believe that, which is why many are pushing universal savings accounts. Now, of course, investors tend to be more conservative than folks without investment portfolios. So maybe that is what really bugs the liberal Stewart, as well as those Dems who want to get rid of 401(k) plans.

(Yeah, as it turns out, the last two of Pethokoukis' links take you back to the same 2008 article, too... Don't ask me why...)

If you ask me, Donald's version changes the meaning of some of what he was supposed to be quoting, but both of them are misunderstanding Stewart's point in pretty much the same way.

Jon Stewart isn't saying don't invest. He's saying don't be a schmuck. Don't trust these fools like Cramer & the rest, or anyone who tells you that you can just drop your money here, and have it gain 10, 20, 30%, while you pay no attention. There are few, if any, get rich quick schemes that're on the up and up. Anything that seems too good to be true probably is. And Stewart was laying into Cramer (& by extension, much of the financial "news" media) because even if a whole lot of the people were too naive to realize that, these professional financial experts and reporters should've known, and should've spoken up, rather than playing along.

Many of the people commenting get what Stewart was saying, and get that this writer, James Pethokoukis (& Donald Douglas, who quotes him--sorta) are missing the point, probably as a result of political partisanship. Here's one example. There are many comments a lot like it...

Investing is work, duh.

Actually, I think you've grabbed the concept badly.

Investing is work. It's not "sit back and sip a julep while your money makes money." Anyone who actually invests pays attention to far more things than the Cramers, and you, of the world would have them.

Investing is work, you don't get 20% returns for free, it takes a lot of research, takes understanding of the companies you're investing in, takes concern for the management of those companies, etc. That would be his point, and that's what gets short-shrift from guys like you, who think that we should all be pumping money into the market without taking the time to do the homework necessary to make wise decisions.

This makes you as dumb a rock and Cramer and the rest of the CNBC cheerleading squad. Congratulations.

Donald then offers up Megan McArdle as being someone "worth a read" on this subject:

"Ultimately, I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously."

I haven't seen Stewart do this concerning anything meaningful, and neither Ms. McArdle or Mr. Douglas offer any examples of the claim, so it's a bit hard to evaluate. The closest I can come to what they may be talking about is when Stewart appeared on Crossfire in 2004, and Tucker Carlson asked him why he didn't ask hard hitting, in depth news questions (of John Kerry, in particular) on the Daily Show, and he responded by saying (in part), "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." (See video, below).



Surely there is a difference in the responsibility to report truth to the audience between Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, and Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on CNN, or Jim Cramer on CNBC. To some extent, all of 'em are trained monkeys just putting on a show. But even still, there is a difference between 'em, just based on the arenas where they're paid to dance and sing.

If you were to ask Jon Stewart about what he said to Cramer, or what he said on Crossfire to Carlson and Begala, I have the feeling he wouldn't pretend he wasn't dead serious, or retreat from his words in any way.

Yes, he is a clown on his show, and no, he doesn't follow strict journalistic standards (or any standards, in some cases)... But it is a comedy show, after all. Even there he finds a way to tell more truth than many of our "real" news gatherers. A more reasonable give-and-take would be to directly confront what he said to Jim Cramer in those segments, or even to Begala and Carlson on Crossfire, rather than to question his (lack of) journalistic standards... That's what I think, anyway...

More about James Pethokoukis' article can be found here. Others talking about the Megan McArdle piece appear here.