Stewart vs. Cramer: A Victimless Struggle

I just finished watching Jon Stewart's almost completely satisfying conversation with Jim Cramer on Hulu. Stewart chastised Cramer for taking Wall Street CEOs and others who abuse the stock market at face value and in turn for not looking behind their misleading statements to report the real story of how Wall Street turns a profit. He said rightly that knowing more about the house of cards that is Wall Street would have helped investors make better decisions. To remind Cramer of whom he is supposed to be serving with his CNBC show Mad Money, Stewart told the story of his seventy-five year old mother who took Cramer and CNBC and other would be financial experts at face value and bought into his advice and information and has subsequently lost everything, even though Cramer knew the system was unstable. Stewart told Cramer he had a responsibility as a self promoted authority figure to better serve those who would trust him with their wealth by revealing his knowledge of any and all structural problems in our financial system.

I might remind Jon Stewart that while he is asking CNBC to take a more serious, realistic approach to understanding the stock market and to provide its audience with a window into the ugly, volatile, criminal realities that are woven into the fabric of Wall Street, he might do well to not portray his grown-ass mother as a victim. No one put a gun to her head and said invest in the stock market. And if she didn't know the stock market was full of crooks and liars then she sure does now. Naiveté is no excuse for losing one's retirement investments. Everyone who puts his or her future into the hands of another is taking a risk, no matter how credible and well spoken that other person is who would very much like to control other people's money.

People, in case Jon Stewart hasn't noticed, have been known, on occasion, to be unreliable. We do not have the right to expect human beings to be defect free just because we would prefer they didn't screw us over. We cannot assume people will do the right thing because they say they will do the right thing, especially when large amounts of money are involved.

Others have to earn the right to be in our lives. Since we are responsible for our lives, if we don't do the proper vetting ourselves we will be the ones we hurt. The definition of an adult is someone who no longer hurts him or herself. Jim Cramer and CNBC and Bernie Madoff are not responsible for the fact that Jon Stewart's mother no longer has money for her retirement. Jon, I hate to break the news to you, but your mother is solely responsible for her current situation. There is no "but..."

Jim Cramer pointed out that his show is designed to serve the market. Stewart responded by saying hookers serve a market and coke dealers serve a market, too, which doesn't mean the market should be served. Stewart then tells Cramer he ought to serve his mother's interests. But what is the market that is Jon Stewart's mother's interests? According to Jon Stewart she did not want to do her own vetting. She wants other people, like Jim Cramer, for example, to do it for her. She bought into him hook line and sinker and she then wants these people to whom she gave all her power to take responsibility for her retirement. That is a childish market, the kind that deserves Jim Cramer and his childish antics. CNBC can provide an adult service but it can't stay in business if an adult market does not exist. A cable network can serve hard cold reality spinach but it does not have the power to send Americans to bed without supper if they don't eat it. Americans want to believe in Wall Street at any cost because they want what they goddamn want and they want it right now. Americans did not want to know how Walls Street makes its money as long as it was making money. The "House of Cards" system that Stewart wanted Cramer to reveal had practically become financial orthodoxy. It worked for generations. I knew it was a damnable house of cards. I just couldn't believe it kept on standing up.

CNBC must serve the market that is or there is no CNBC. Stewart might as well tell CNBC to stop broadcasting. Jim Cramer served spoiled, opportunistic Americans stuck in a state of financial adolescence due to their own little Peter Pan tantrum gobs of shiny candy for dinner every night, and as a result spoiled candy fat Peter Pan Americans got financial diabetes. That's why I don't watch CNBC. The Daily Show is the only remotely adult show on television.

Am I saying Jon Stewart's mother is a spoiled, financial Peter Panma with fiduciary diabetes fat from candy-ass advice? Yyyyyyup. If she let someone else be responsible for her well being she is a spoiled, financial Peter Panma with fiduciary diabetes all fat and sick from taking candy-ass advice from the happy happy fun clowns on TV.

When Jon Stewart and his mother take responsibility for the fact that they alone are responsible for their well-being, Jim Cramer will cut out the bells and whistles and clean off the white face and start providing real information. He doesn't provide viewers all the inside shenanigans that created the house of cards we are watching collapse around us not because he is lame and unethical but because Americans like Jon Stewart's mother ignored clear, visible red flags, which means they did not want to know the truth about how Wall Street works, which means Wall Street has their permission to do anything it can get away with, just like an adolescent. It is not Jim Cramer or CNBC's fault that Jon Stewart's grandma is a Peter Panma.

Stewart can't tell me his mother saw no red flags along her road to retirement ruin. She either ignored them or felt overwhelmed by what she saw, which is a pretty big, bright, red flag, or didn't have the time in her busy day to protect her retirement cuz everything else was more important -- which is a Super Bowl type cover-the-playing field sized red flag. Or she's straight lazy, another massive red flag, or she incorrectly judged herself incapable of understanding Wall Street, and if that is the case John Stewart's mother was living in Red Flag Cop Out Doormat City. She put her future in the hands of something beyond her ability to grasp? I don't think so. If she sat there and listened to Jim Cramer and just crossed her fingers and hoped everything would be all right then she had to learn a very hard lesson in a very hard way, and that's too bad, but that is her doing.

Jon Stewart is upset because CNBC promotes Jim Cramer as an expert in whom we can trust. I don't pay any attention to freakin' promos! Who pays attention to promos? Peter Frickin Pan, that's who. Do Jon Stewart and his mother have every God given right to be Peter Pan? Hell yes. And they get to not enjoy the consequences as well. And why didn't Jon Stewart tell his own mother these TV guys are not all what they are cracked up to be?

My mother has a wonderful friend name Jean Sullivan. She embodies the now required value of self-responsibility in the face of authority. Jean and her late husband Joe worked their asses off creating real value, not paper value, for those invested in the company Joe ran and for its employees and customers. They did things the way they were supposed to be done. Any hardworking, adult American would have to be proud of and satisfied with what they accomplished.

Jean took responsibility for protecting and growing her family's wealth, in that order, which to this day remains considerable. While Jon Stewart's mother sat back and trusted CNBC, apparently, as well as others marketed as experts who must be cuz they play one on TV, Jean Sullivan was out there doing everything Jon Stewart is asking Jim Cramer to do and wished Jim Cramer had done for his Peter Panma. Jean Sullivan made every company and fund she invested in earn her trust and earn the privilege of handling her hard earned money. She took no one at face value. She learned how the system worked. She didn't let the promise of past results lull her into a rose-colored expectation of security. She didn't let overwhelm or a Peter Panma lack of belief in her abilities stop her from learning what she needed to learn. She went out there and found who was on solid ground and who wasn't.

She discovered on her own all the signs that Wall Street was not on solid ground and pulled her money out. She realized it was better to have cash than a worthless stock portfolio. She literally put her money under her mattress, and as a result she still has what she and her husband worked so hard to earn over their long, productive lifetimes. She did the search. She did not rely on CNBC or the funny bald man with the bells and whistles with the rolled up sleeves selling candy with fart noises whom we cannot trust despite those shiny promos. Ahem. As a result she has retained the bulk of her wealth while so many others who refused to take responsibility for themselves are left shaking their fists at Bernie Madoff and Jim Cramer and all the other experts who shockingly let them down. Jon Stewart made a point of showing how all over the map Cramer was with his predictions. Why then did his mother trust the advice of the world's Mad Money Men??? Every stock market analyst is all over the map.

Many Madoff victims like to say they had no reason to suspect any trouble. All that tells me is that giving away responsibility worked for these 'victims' up until Madoff collapsed. All it tells me is they got away with turning a blind eye and are pissed off they can't still get away with not caring how Wall Street manages to turn a profit. It does not tell me they are victims, not as long as Jean Sullivan is around.

I'd like to see Jon Stewart run his mother and those Madoff victims through an archived video gauntlet of their past statements and decisions just like the one he put Jim Cramer through. Let's see how their supposedly noble, pitiable victim hood survives the light of day.
If Jon Stewart can convince his mother and every other victim to take responsibility for him or herself the way Jean Sullivan did, CNBC will have a huge new market to serve that won't be entertained by Mad Money, and Jon Stewart would have the financial network he would then deserve.

Comments

[ObamaEdwards]

Honey, you should say what you want to say IN YOUR POST. Then let others say what they want. It's bad form to try and argue every point in the comments section. It also reveals your insecurity. Let everyone speak.

[William Cusack]

Honey- the whole point of being able to reply, which The Huffington Post strongly encourages, is to actually reply. That way a dialogue begins and people feel more connected to the people who post articles. My reply doesn't stop anyone from speaking, does it? And it doesn't stop anyone from replying to what i say in response to their reply, does it? In fact, there are no limits at all, which is the whole point. The fact is articles are meant to be conversation pieces, and conversations are about replying to one another. Its not possible to say everything in a post, which is why it is fun to talk the finer points in the comments section. things get lively. ok- now its your turn!

[MonroeMagic]

LMAO! This is getting so fun! I'm tellin you.

[William Cusack]

BTW- aside from my self esteem issues, do you have an opinion on the actual article?

[BraveWarrior]

The fall of the newspaper industry is a well deserved, self-inflicted wound. Not one reporter ever asks the democrats about the contributions from the people that they are bailing out with our money. Whether Obama is the real deal, or just a creation of political expediency will play out very soon. The search for scapegoats continues to lead our current news cycle. If we encounter brutal, dishonest, corrupt people in our society-we assure ourselves that these people are the exceptions. It would never occur to us to look in the mirror and take responsibility for ourselves. Perhaps we have evolved into a nation of liars and whores. Perhaps our culture is corrupt and violent. Perhaps we have serious shortcomings as human beings. When will the 'chattering class' explore those possibilities. John Stewart simply showed the news industry what they should have been doing all along-serve the American people by telling the truth. No matter whose ox is gored. Think there are crooks on Wall Street, most people in the world assume that the crooks control Washington. They would have been amused watching the richest, most powerful people destroy their empire, except that they will pay the consequences. Americans have been loyal to this system. Not they are out of their retirement, 401ks, and property value. If this is what it takes to wake up a nation of zombies, then it may be a good thing. Just think of all the wars that will never happen..

[getoffthecross]

Over the last 10 years, "credit default swaps" created almost entirely on the subprime mortgage phenominon, established a $60Trillion dollar shadow economy. 60 Minutes did a piece on it last fall. Frontline did a fantastic dissection in the documentary "Inside the Meltdown." But nearly all of this was after-the-fact reporting.

For almost a decade, people were offered loans they couldn't afford because the professionals behind the scenes were bundling those loans as A-rated paper and then offering a faux insurance on the same loans that were almost certain to default. People lived their lives several economic steps above what was common sense, while the rich got richer faster and younger, and a great party was had by all, even while we committed bottomless money to Iraq and killed tens of thousands in an act of revenge and an effort to salvage our insane lifestyle.

THAT's what no one was reporting. THAT's why people like Jim Cramer need to be taken to task. It's not just him. Not by a long shot. But we have to start somewhere, or it's just going to happen again.

[William Cusack]

Exactly. Wall Street thieves invent new scams and new crimes almost everyday. Even if Bush had wanted to enforce the SEC's laws there still would have been serious pitfalls. we can never assume because Wall Street says things are ok we are going to be ok. We have to dig out the info or we need to stay away from the Street. People new for a decade the housing market was fueled by bogus loans. i have friends in the business telling me fifteen years ago things were headed for trouble. anyone who cared to look to see if their investments were actually safe would have found some serious questions. Most Americans did not care how their portfolios made money. they wanted to ride it out as long as they could. Most Americans made the wrong choice, there. Instead of trying to ride it out they should have looked for safety. It should not have to be pointed out that Wall Street, no matter how they market themselves, is a very dangerous place.

[dadw5boys]

TOO BAD EVERYONE WAS NOT GIVING THE SAME ADVISE G.W. BUSH GOT IN MAY OF 2006 TO GET OUT OF FINANCIALS !!!!!!!!!

THAT IS WHEN THE MARKET STARTED TO HEAD SOUTH !!!!!!!!!!

GO LOOK AT WHEN BUSH AND OTHER REPUBLICANS SOLD OUT OF THE FINANCIALS !!!!!!!

[William Cusack]

Its not like this meltdown snuck up on anybody...

[TroyMinkowsky]

Your thesis seems to be "My mother is better than John Stewarts pathetic hypothetical mother."

Your mom got lucky because she had insight and/or help telling her to pull her money out. Not everyone had been as fortunate, perhaps even lacking the resources your mother has. It sounds like your mother gained this insight from being a partner in a business. We are all not as blessed and here I think your disconnect is.
I do get the feeling that you are viewing this whole thing from a prism or "Mommy vision" if you will. If she had made a human error and trusted the wrong person I feel your "No such things as victims" stance would surely be softened. In fact I feel if fate would have allowed your mother to cross paths with Bernie Madoff you would be quite peeved at him right now.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps you would be scolding your Mother about personal responsibility.

[oregonbird]

Absolutely untrue. Stewart NEVER said his mother put her trust in Cramer, or that she played the market. The aged in our country had their retirements in safe, long-term investments and in 401Ks, they believed, and were led to believe, that their funds were being carefully and conservatively managed. My father lost his retirement funds,(for the second time, the Keating Five took half his savings the first time) and he was not playing the market at all.

For the majority of older Americans, who were never informed of or realized the scope or intent of deregulation, the belief was that their funds were being handled in the same, reliable manner that had been prevelent before deregulation.

To blame the victims of corporate greed for being deliberately misled, misinformed and outright lied to -- makes you yet another corporate shill. Laying the blame away from the perpetrators of the fraud of the entire world's population -- not merely the American people -- is criminal. These are world-wide corporations, who have taken down several governments within the last few months, and will take down more. While continuing to demand the last pennies from our pockets.

[William Cusack]

Stewart said his mother was the victim of people like Cramer. who said 401ks are safe? That IS playing the market. Any time you hold a stock you are playing the market. If your father didn't know THAT much he had no chance. Again- there is no gun to anyone's head to invest on Wall Street. There are dozens of safe investments that don't involve hedge funds and short selling and all the other crap that passes for safe in investment houses. Older Americans were never informed??? It was their job to inform themselves. What was more important than learning about their investments? Walking the dog? Knitting? We're talking about their retirement. Did no one have any interest??? "I'm sorry office, i wasn't informed" will not get you out of a ticket. that is the lamest excuse i've heard so far. Nobody stood up and said "Hey! The deregulated the markets! What does that mean?" Everybody just kept assuming everything would be fine, that is, everyone but those who took the time to protect their future instead of letting corporate hacks take care of everything.

I think those CEOs ought to be thrown in jail for ever. Stewart was absolutely right in taking Cramer to task for his buffoonery. The only thing I thought was missing was Jon taking responsibility for himself. He knew they were buffoons and yet he didn't suggest to his mother- "hey- you might want to check on your retirement, things are looking scary!"

[kengotaces]

Almost everything John Stewart stands for is the idea that news and those who report it have a responsibility to do it the right way or they shouldn't be doing it.

[William Cusack]

And until they do the right thing we had better not let them ruin our lives.

[kengotaces]

no offense, but you're way off base and missed the whole point of what John Stewart is trying to do. You really think this is about his grandmother?

[Truby]

Ah yes the blame game....Who is the guilty party, the man who stole the money or the victim for not recognizing the that the man was a thief? If you engage in an activity that deceives people for profit, you are the guilty party. If you have knowledge that the investment funds manipulate the markets and you do not disclose this information while you promote products that are subject to this manipulation, then you have deceived people for profit too.

Yes people should be wary but the lack of it is not an excuse to behave in a predatory manner.

[William Cusack]

The Predators on Wall Street are disgusting and should be thrown in jail. However, I've known for quite some time Wall Street was not safe, and many others have, too. People turned a blind eye knowing something wasn't right and for whatever reason did not look after themselves. There is no excuse for not protecting yourself. When you get into Wall Street you are getting into the ring. The first thing the ref says is "Protect yourselves at all times!"

[MonroeMagic]

"When you get into Wall Street you are getting into the ring. The first thing the ref says is "Protect yourselves at all times!"

Well at least before going into the ring you automatically get head gear a mouth piece and gloves. And if you decided to go into the ring without protection, guess what? You wouldn't be allowed to fight.

[AZBunny]

Bill, I too was lucky enough to understand what was going on and pull my money out. HOWEVER I will NOT put the blame for losing one's nest egg on them.
I am NOT a financial expert and every time the warning bells were dinging loud and clear to me SOMEBODY who was a financial expert was right there drowning out those warning bells and saying everything was fine.
I got to the point where I sat my husband down and said "here's what I THINK, nobody else is saying that though so tell me what course you want me to take"
I was scared to death that what I was doing was going to cost us a LOT of missed returns on our investments when I pulled out of stocks. I honestly thought I was maybe in the thralls of a hormone imbalance that was causing me to not think clearly so loud was the cry that things were going great.
After I pulled all our money I advised my husband to hire a REAL investment counselor "because I obviously do NOT understand a darn thing like I thought I thought I did"
Only I was right, and I think that was Jon Stewart's point. Even those of us whose didn't like the way things were looking were being convinced that we were clueless by the "experts" and some of us left our money right where those "experts" wanted us to.

[William Cusack]

Well that's the thing- we have to learn to rely on our own expertise. if we don't , we can't complain!

[IsaacKuo]

"Everyone who puts his or her future into the hands of another is taking a risk, no matter how credible and well spoken that other person is who would very much like to control other people's money."

Yes, but eveyone who puts his future into the hands of himself is ALSO taking a risk.

Most of us a smart enough to realize that we aren't financial experts, so it makes LESS sense for us to make our own investment decisions than to seek out expert advice.

Consider how stupid this argument becomes if it's talking about medical advice rather than financial advice. Who is smarter and more responsible? The one who puts his or her future into the hands of another (i.e. a surgeon)? Or the one who is "smart" enough to rely 100% on self-medication?

This article is simply blaming the victim.

[William Cusack]

Think how stupid it is to not check to see if your doctor is good or a quack? Just because he wants your business doesn't mean he's telling you the truth. It is our job to make sure the people who enter our lives are who they say they are, and do what they say they will do. We don't get to just turn our power over to an authority figure then complain when they screw us over. that is not taking responsibility for one's actions.

[freeUSofcorp]

I do agree with you(William) on some levels. Lets go a little deeper, you have a tooth ache, you can not give yourself a root canal, you are not even sure you need one. You have to go to the dentist, so you go to your dentist you have been to for years. All you have ever needed in the past is a check up and your teeth cleaned. The dentist is nice and really seems knowledgable so you mostly trust him. The thing is, his hand has been shaking lately or his sight is not what it's been or maybe he is just having a bad day (take your pick) He does a bad job, he fills it and leaves behind decay. You have just been screwed and end up in more pain. Yes I worked for a few dentist and I have worked for some great talkers with the diplomas to back them but there work was crap, they just did not take the time to do a good job. The bottom line is everyone that does a job is human, we all screw up here and there. We have no choice but to trust others here and there. It sucks because so much of the time people are just not putting there all in it. John Stewart is just making the point to Crammer to do a better job. But I do agree that his mother should not of put all her eggs into Crammers basket.

[wseadawg]

Mr. Cusack: First, you could make your points in about 3 paragraphs. It does seem, however, that the singlemost important point Stewart was making eluded you.

You have grown up in a predominantly post Watergate world as I have where trusting our political and business leaders must always be seen as incredibly risky. Our parents did not grow up in that world, and many of prior generations were raised during times when ethics, honor, and responsibility actually meant something. Many still believe they ought to be able to trust their government to look after their interests through regulation such as the FTC and FDIC are supposed to do. You and I may know better, but we didn't grow up in the 30s and 40s. We've been conditioned to expect nothing in return for our tax dollars. Previous generations who built this country believe otherwise, for good reason.

So while your uber-libertarian view that anyone who trusted CNBC was too stupid for their own good and should suffer the fate of social darwinianism that they are getting, you too easily surrender and impugn your own morals and eithics by suggesting that you are okay with that scenario. Wrong is still wrong, Mr. Cusack.

[William Cusack]

There is absolutely no way the Pre-Watergate generation is too trusting to question authority, especially after Watergate and all the other 'Gates that have happened since. Anybody alive who didn't wak up and smell the coffee after Watergate is a doormat. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I didn't say CNBC's followers were too stupid for their own good, i said they were not willing to do the work that they would have Jim Cramer do for them. I said they gave away their power. I said they are responsible for who they give their money to. I said many are pissed that they can't get away with trusting authorites blindly anymore.

[LanceJetson]

There's a hole in any argument that relies on anecdote or analogy...yours included Mr. Cusak. What you and Mr. Stewart are both alluding to is the bigger picture, the human condition. John Stewart had a much bigger point about the dishonesty of Wall Street and the supposed "objective" journalists that end up cheerleading instead. Something should be done. People need to be honest.

Your bigger point seems to [cynically] accept the mendacity of Wall Street almost as a cherished tradition and poo on those dummies who don't see through it because of their own pipe dreams. Yes we should all be as clever and investigative as Jean Sullivan and therein lies individual responsibility.

Any argument that claims "there is no 'but..." like yours does, is suspicious in it's one-sidedness. There is also societal and institutional responsibilities, and that is the broader point I think Mr. Stewart was making: that we need to hold the feet to the fire of the institutions who duped millions of people (who might have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked) and demand that they jettison their mendacious practices.

[William Cusack]

Nobody can be duped without giving their permission. By sticking with a system known for its corruption and greed, Wall Street investors turned a blind eye to the pitfalls facing them. IF more had been responsible, and pulled out their money, Wall Street would have faced a capitalization crisis. IF investors insisted Wall Street clean up its act before they would return their money, there would have been no meltdown. Investors told Wall Street in effect, by their negligence- "Do whatever you want, just as long as i get my return on my investement." THOSE days are long gone. There will be no more of that kind of ostrich sticking its head in the sand behavior,