MarketNeutral
27th April 2010, 03:46 AM
This has to be the most embarrassing thing I have ever seen from a CNBC reporter – and we all know we’ve seen a lot of them. In an interview with Tech Ticker today, Maria Bartiromo pretends to be some sort of market expert and opines on the boom bust economy:
“There’s nothing wrong with a boom bust economy. What’s wrong with a boom bust economy? Things are booming and then you get a bust and that opens the door for wealth creation.â€
There are so many things wrong with these statements I don’t even know where to begin. First, Bartiromo is a lifelong reporter. She has ZERO market experience. Yeah, I know, she’s been around for a while. But you know what? I’ve watched a helluva a lot of war movies. Does that mean I am ready to pick up a rifle and start lecturing people about the ways of war? No. It’s simply absurd that her employer even allows her to opine on markets.
As for the actual boom/bust comments – it’s insane to say that the boom bust cycle is part of the American way or in any way healthy. As we’ve previously explained, the boom bust cycle is the direct result of severe economic imbalances and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy that Alan Greenspan has admitted was a failure. We have slowly and methodically gutted the middle class in this country while the largest wealth redistribution in human history has taken place – in large part thanks to the ever increasing wealth of the banks and bankers. And this endless attempt to inject liquidity into a flailing economic model has only made matters worse by further indebting the middle class and further enriching the bankers. The results speak for themselves.
Why does CNBC insist on allowing their market reporters opine on the stock market? This network is slowly destroying itself by constantly allowing their reporters (who are professional reporters and not analysts) interject with their market opinions. With all due respect, no one on the planet cares what Maria Bartiromo thinks about the stock market. In fact, one of the reasons why I have always been a fan of hers is due to the fact that she tends not to opine on the markets and instead asks poignant and excellent questions while also reporting the news.
We all know that 80% of buy side and sell side opinions add little to no value to begin with. The idea that a journalist can add value to a debate as complex as the financial theories behind the business cycle is comedic at best. Comments such as Bartiromo’s above only verify this. This is the primary reason, in my opinion, why they are losing viewers. After 10 years of a sideways market and a financial crisis that nearly destroyed the US economy no one is interested in listening to cheerleading from a bunch of reporters that have never worked at abuy side or sell side firm.
I’m very sorry to rail against anyone in particular (ad hominem attacks are not my style), but this is the sort of propaganda from a very misguided commentator that does nothing to move our economic progress forward.
http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2010/04/cnbc-collapsing-due-to-insane-economic.html
“There’s nothing wrong with a boom bust economy. What’s wrong with a boom bust economy? Things are booming and then you get a bust and that opens the door for wealth creation.â€
There are so many things wrong with these statements I don’t even know where to begin. First, Bartiromo is a lifelong reporter. She has ZERO market experience. Yeah, I know, she’s been around for a while. But you know what? I’ve watched a helluva a lot of war movies. Does that mean I am ready to pick up a rifle and start lecturing people about the ways of war? No. It’s simply absurd that her employer even allows her to opine on markets.
As for the actual boom/bust comments – it’s insane to say that the boom bust cycle is part of the American way or in any way healthy. As we’ve previously explained, the boom bust cycle is the direct result of severe economic imbalances and Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy that Alan Greenspan has admitted was a failure. We have slowly and methodically gutted the middle class in this country while the largest wealth redistribution in human history has taken place – in large part thanks to the ever increasing wealth of the banks and bankers. And this endless attempt to inject liquidity into a flailing economic model has only made matters worse by further indebting the middle class and further enriching the bankers. The results speak for themselves.
Why does CNBC insist on allowing their market reporters opine on the stock market? This network is slowly destroying itself by constantly allowing their reporters (who are professional reporters and not analysts) interject with their market opinions. With all due respect, no one on the planet cares what Maria Bartiromo thinks about the stock market. In fact, one of the reasons why I have always been a fan of hers is due to the fact that she tends not to opine on the markets and instead asks poignant and excellent questions while also reporting the news.
We all know that 80% of buy side and sell side opinions add little to no value to begin with. The idea that a journalist can add value to a debate as complex as the financial theories behind the business cycle is comedic at best. Comments such as Bartiromo’s above only verify this. This is the primary reason, in my opinion, why they are losing viewers. After 10 years of a sideways market and a financial crisis that nearly destroyed the US economy no one is interested in listening to cheerleading from a bunch of reporters that have never worked at abuy side or sell side firm.
I’m very sorry to rail against anyone in particular (ad hominem attacks are not my style), but this is the sort of propaganda from a very misguided commentator that does nothing to move our economic progress forward.
http://thecomingdepression.blogspot.com/2010/04/cnbc-collapsing-due-to-insane-economic.html