Pethokoukis explains. This really appears to be part of a government/media war on investors.
[Update a while later]
More thoughts on the matter from Mark Hemingway:
Anyone who has tuned into his show and seen Cramer strutting around a soundstage that looks like the helm of the Starship Enterprise as envisioned by the Teletubbies’ set designer and pushing buttons that make wacky sound effects could tell you that Cramer is to stock-picking what The Daily Show is to TV news: something not to be taken too seriously.
Ouch.
I think Stewart’s main philosophy would come from him being in the entertainment industry. I’d be forced to assume he’s never had to invest or think about his future like most Americans. His outlook seems more like he’s always had a lot of money so the lower rates don’t matter to him. Cramer on the other hand, carries a lot of weight in the market and had he predicted the coming crash, it would have been marginally worse. However, with the market low like it is, the opportunity for bargains is tremendous right now.
You don’t see The Daily Show going after Warren Buffet. Stewart attacked CNBC because they’ve turned finance into a carnival sideshow, given their viewers terrible advice, and given voice to a ridiculous notion of wealthy investment professionals being victimized by delinquent homeowners. The scandal is that there aren’t more media voices pointing out that CNBC and the like are as useful to investors as Vegas casinos.
“ridiculous notion of wealthy investment professionals”
Yea, that is a ridiculous notion. Being that a fairly sizable percentage of people with investments aren’t wealthy or professional investors.
In other words CNBC has just turned into Foxnews. They don’t want to blindly tow the liberal party line and they get attacked for it.
About half of American households own stock. A quarter of that half owns stock worth less than $5,000. It is a unusual “average American” who owns stock worth more than her car, much less her house.
That leaves the people who run and appear on CNBC far from the mainstream of American economic life. So far, apparently, that they can rant without irony about how the victims of the housing market collapse are “losers” who are ruining things for Wall Street pros.
There’s plenty to go after him for…
I would not trust a finance guru who would ever vote for Obama. Doesn’t he know by now that liberal Democrats scare thew living hell out of investors?
I don’t see the “war on investors” here. Cramer is an easy target of opportunity due to his recent bad advice and slapstick schtick. And I don’t see Stewart’s remarks about money requiring work as somehow being anti-investor. As I still am learning, good investments do indeed take some work. They pay better return on effort than being employed by someone, but I think it’s a mistake to completely ignore them.
For as long as I can remember, the Democratic leadership’s overall fiscal policy has been one that increases the cost of doing business in America. Obama stays that course, promising higher taxes and godzillions of dollars in spending.
I didn’t use the term “war,” but if the bayonet fits…
> About half of American households own stock. A quarter of that half owns stock worth less than $5,000. It is a unusual “average American” who owns stock worth more than her car, much less her house.
Jim “forgets” indirect ownership, through pensions and the like.
For example, almost every California public employee “owns” more than $5k worth of stock.