Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
20100512
20090319
Like the Scent of Fresh Lemon.. you see.
I gave Cramer too much credit apparently.
When asked yesterday if Stewart had a point to his criticism, Cramer responded thus:
Right, where have I head this one before...
Cramer's argument childishly assumes that because he is receiving blame this precludes anyone else from taking their rightful fall. Were such an assumption true it would indeed call into question whether we were going after the correct person or institution. Thankfully it is not.
I had high hopes that Cramer was intent on actual reform, but they are now dashed upon the rocks. Neither he nor NBC seem interested in their faults or the correction thereof. This is, again, a shame and ill omen of our times.
When asked yesterday if Stewart had a point to his criticism, Cramer responded thus:
Cramer ... called it "a naive and misleading thing to attack the media."
"We weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this," he argued. "I think there are people who bear so much more responsibility [than the media] that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. ... It's just a naive focus, it really is Meredith."
Right, where have I head this one before...
Dad: You shouldn't have pulled up mom's plants.
Me: But it was her idea, and she pulled up more!
Cramer's argument childishly assumes that because he is receiving blame this precludes anyone else from taking their rightful fall. Were such an assumption true it would indeed call into question whether we were going after the correct person or institution. Thankfully it is not.
I had high hopes that Cramer was intent on actual reform, but they are now dashed upon the rocks. Neither he nor NBC seem interested in their faults or the correction thereof. This is, again, a shame and ill omen of our times.
20090318
Ah, the Days of my Youth
I'm going to quote two paragraphs from a Huffington Post article which includes a response from NBC's chief executive Jeff Zuker to Jon Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer. I am then going to point out something incredibly obvious.
Quote:
Funny, I have encountered this form of reprimand and rebuttal before. I think it went something like this:
It is irrefutable that I did not knock over her dolls (on that particular occasion). It is also a terrible defense when the alleged crime is trespassing.
I highly doubt Jeff Zucker watched the clash between his subordinate and some comedian. If he did, he obviously didn't understand the signifigance of the event. Pervading his response is this assumption that this was standard media outlet finger pointing, lacking any nuance or discernment beyond "blame X for the problem of the week/month/year/decade". The disconnect is blisteringly obvious from the two quoted paragraphs.
It's a shame, as Stewart's plea was so genuine and concerned. CNBC and similar networks could have mitigated in some notable way the impact of the current crisis, but instead lined up and drank the koolaid. They can still change and be helpful to the public, but rather than listen it's all blown off. However terrible Jim Cramer's advice has been, he at least has the guts to answer for it, admit he was at fault, and accept that change is in order. He deserves that much credit.
Quote:
Stewart has had strong words for CNBC on his Comedy Central show, arguing that journalists who cover Wall Street should have done more to warn of the financial meltdown through critical reporting, instead of acting like market cheerleaders.
Zucker said while interviewed on a stage by BusinessWeek that while "everyone wants to find a scapegoat," to suggest that the business media or CNBC was responsible for the economic meltdown is "absurd."
Funny, I have encountered this form of reprimand and rebuttal before. I think it went something like this:
Dad: You are not allowed to enter your sister's room without her permission.
Me: But I wasn't the one who knocked over all of her dolls!
It is irrefutable that I did not knock over her dolls (on that particular occasion). It is also a terrible defense when the alleged crime is trespassing.
I highly doubt Jeff Zucker watched the clash between his subordinate and some comedian. If he did, he obviously didn't understand the signifigance of the event. Pervading his response is this assumption that this was standard media outlet finger pointing, lacking any nuance or discernment beyond "blame X for the problem of the week/month/year/decade". The disconnect is blisteringly obvious from the two quoted paragraphs.
It's a shame, as Stewart's plea was so genuine and concerned. CNBC and similar networks could have mitigated in some notable way the impact of the current crisis, but instead lined up and drank the koolaid. They can still change and be helpful to the public, but rather than listen it's all blown off. However terrible Jim Cramer's advice has been, he at least has the guts to answer for it, admit he was at fault, and accept that change is in order. He deserves that much credit.
Wakanai
There are several elements of this recession that bother me. This discomfort and irritation stems from the lack of understanding I have regarding them. They don't make sense to me, and I don't see why they should make sense to anyone.
The first is AIG. They'll be paying out $165 million in bonuses to 370 people who are largely responsible for tanking the company. Now that seems unthinkable, idiotic, and stupid but hold your judgement. They're only paying the bonuses because they are contractually obligated to. Wait, what?
For the common worker, a bonus is something they get when they work hard and deliver for the company above and beyond the call of duty. It's an optional reward, usually tied to a specific, tight deadline or milestone. The average office worker is never guaranteed a bonus, they have to sweat for them. That's the whole point of bonuses, excel and you can reap the benefits. It's a pat on the back for a job well done, a reminder that companies value those who put in their best effort.
What in the name of sanity was AIG's HR department thinking when they made "bonuses" a contractual obligation. How can you even call it a bonus? I don't understand how that works or makes sense. It defeats the entire purpose and concept to award people who seriously fubar'd the company and economy such lofty sums.
The second confusion is short selling. I want to make sure I have this concept down. You borrow someone else's stock, which you don't actually own, and sell it. Then you rebuy it at a later date and give it back to them. You're betting the stock will drop, so that when you rebuy the price will be less than it was when you sold.
First issue: Whose stock are you borrowing? I want to know, because the idea that some creep can use my stock for such things is terribly upsetting. I can't walk into someone's house and sell their antiques, promising to buy them back later. It doesn't work that way.
Second issue: Doesn't this create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? Say Mr. Financial Guru suggests short selling stock A. A whole crapton of people follow his suggestion and low and behold the stock drops. Tadah, short sellers make money, while whoever was actually holding on to the stock loses.
The financial markets are seriously whack. Seriously.
The first is AIG. They'll be paying out $165 million in bonuses to 370 people who are largely responsible for tanking the company. Now that seems unthinkable, idiotic, and stupid but hold your judgement. They're only paying the bonuses because they are contractually obligated to. Wait, what?
For the common worker, a bonus is something they get when they work hard and deliver for the company above and beyond the call of duty. It's an optional reward, usually tied to a specific, tight deadline or milestone. The average office worker is never guaranteed a bonus, they have to sweat for them. That's the whole point of bonuses, excel and you can reap the benefits. It's a pat on the back for a job well done, a reminder that companies value those who put in their best effort.
What in the name of sanity was AIG's HR department thinking when they made "bonuses" a contractual obligation. How can you even call it a bonus? I don't understand how that works or makes sense. It defeats the entire purpose and concept to award people who seriously fubar'd the company and economy such lofty sums.
The second confusion is short selling. I want to make sure I have this concept down. You borrow someone else's stock, which you don't actually own, and sell it. Then you rebuy it at a later date and give it back to them. You're betting the stock will drop, so that when you rebuy the price will be less than it was when you sold.
First issue: Whose stock are you borrowing? I want to know, because the idea that some creep can use my stock for such things is terribly upsetting. I can't walk into someone's house and sell their antiques, promising to buy them back later. It doesn't work that way.
Second issue: Doesn't this create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? Say Mr. Financial Guru suggests short selling stock A. A whole crapton of people follow his suggestion and low and behold the stock drops. Tadah, short sellers make money, while whoever was actually holding on to the stock loses.
The financial markets are seriously whack. Seriously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
