Kass' constant attacks on Buffett are puzzling. According to disclosures at the end of his articles he was, a while ago, short BRK-A. But lately he says he is more bullish on the market. So unless he is lying, PB may be wrong about DK wanting to destroy the market and BRK stock - at least now. But why is every article an attack? Is DK just trying to pump his own ego, because WB gets pub and he doesn't? I don't get it. Kass professes to be a nice guy just trying to help his partners and readers. Doesn't seem that way. Did Buffett attack Kass when DK was very short, and very wrong, for a couple years? Yeah Kass was correct to short the homebuilders and the market, but he was early and took a major beating. Everybody is right at times and everybody is wrong at times. No need for the attacks, Dougie...
maybe there is....... stranger things have happened, and been exposed. and why Vickery and Nocera on CNBC today?
So here's Kernan kissing Chanos' azz again. Barf... Edit: Just to be clear - if Chanos was, as he tries to project, just a savvy trader who tries to find over-valued and or crooked companies. And who legally shorts, I don't see how you can fault the guy. But if he is using slimy reporters like Cramer and Greenberg and is in cahoots with crooked "analysts", then he needs to get smacked down. The markets are farked up enough without that shiite.
With Buffett doing three hours on TV Monday morning, here is his friends rendition of how he got to the dance. http://www.deepcapture.com/why-the-apparatchiki-of-finance-didnt-see-it-coming/ sometimes you can be too smart for your own good. I love the quote from the Senator. And I can only hope Patrick tells us all the names of who spit in our face. I know some of them, but not all. Now, Buffett sweats. Remember his taunt? âIf anyone wants to naked short Berkshire, they can do it until the cows come home. In fact, weâll hold a special meeting for them,â he says, to laughter. http://jeffmatthewsisnotmakingthisup.blogspot.com/2008/09/naked-nothing.html Betcha he ain't laughing now.
Cenk Uygur: "The Real Problem with CNBC" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-real-problem-with-cnb_b_173761.html The Real Problem with CNBC Cenk Uygur Host of The Young Turks Posted March 11, 2009 | 03:02 AM (EST) I know that Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer have been in a bit of a "fight" lately. Of course, it's not really a fight because Stewart isn't doing this to pick a fight with Cramer or because he doesn't like him. He's making fun of him -- because that's what he does. Stewart also makes fun of Obama from time to time (check out him ripping Obama here). Does this mean he doesn't like Obama? No, it means he's a comedian. Over the last couple of days Cramer and Joe Scarborough have been using that word as a pejorative, but that's the guy's job -- to make people laugh. They are pissed because he's good at it. But if they think there is a kernel of truth in what Stewart is saying -- which, of course, is why they're actually angry -- they're right. Stewart also wants to make you think about what the role of the media is. And when you think about that in regard to CNBC, Jim Cramer is the least of their problems. In fact, I don't blame Cramer at all (disclaimer: he's been on our show and I had a friendly interaction with him personally once). Everybody knows what Cramer does -- he yells and screams about his stock predictions. That's his job. You'd have to be crazy to think Cramer knows everything and that you should invest all of your money purely based on what he says. And I think he would be the first to admit that. That's not the problem with CNBC. The real problem is their reporting -- or lack thereof. The CNBC reporters and anchors make the Bush press corps look like draconian inquisitors. They are obsessed with access. This is a problem with all of the media, and something Jon Stewart points out all the time. But it is particularly acute at CNBC (and all other business news channels). I have a close friend who works at a business news station -- and here is the worst kept secret in show business -- it's all about the access. If you piss off the CEOs or the companies, you're going to get a call from your boss. You have jeopardized our relationship with them! That is very thinly disguised code words for -- don't ever say anything negative about a company we cover otherwise your job is in the trouble. The message is clear -- go along to get along. This isn't journalism. It's public relations by another name. CNBC never did any exposés about the enormous risks these financial companies took. They never exposed the insanity of the derivatives market. And they never told their audience that the executives of these companies have been robbing their shareholders blind. Because they didn't see that as their job. They saw their job as doing whatever it took to keep Wall Street happy and playing ball with them. They were part of the broken system. There was no journalism going on at CNBC. That is what our underlying complaint is. That is what CNBC continues to miss to this day as they try to defend themselves by saying their words were taken out of context. The problem was the context! Will they straighten ship and start doing real investigative journalism uncovering the abuses of Wall Street now that they have been called out. I doubt it. That's not how they're structured. They don't view the average guy in their audience or the American public overall as their main constituency. They view Wall Street as their constituency. So, they will continue to serve them. I don't say this because I have some sort of axe to grind with CNBC. They didn't lose me any money (that was the upside of having no money to lose before the crash). I don't even begrudge them what they do. I get it. They do fluff pieces on Wall Street. So, if you want to know what the companies are telling the public, check out CNBC. That's also a service. Buyer beware. If you want hard hitting business journalism, look elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that. The question is, does CNBC? If they can make their peace with that, then they should carry on. If they want to change that image, then they have to change the reality. It's up to them. I'm wildly indifferent either way (as long as they don't pretend to be something they're not). It depends on what they think their role is. And that's for them to decide.
http://www.deepcapture.com/what-we-should-learn-from-jim-cramer-vs-the-daily-shows-jon-stewart/ the hits just keep on coming. Look at the part about journalists still being shut down. What are they trying to hide?
Someone on the DC site mentioned Richard Ney, who turned from Hollywood, to the the street of broken dreams (Wall) in later life . His big shtick was claiming the NYSE Specialists rigged the market. He was a technical analyst long before every dickwad with a straight edge got into the game. Just so you don't think the scams just started in the last decade.
The article is by Joe Nocera. Its title tells you everything you need to know: the title, which Nocera likely did not write but which bespeaks the column very well, is âMadoff Had Accomplices: His Victims.â Not his wife. Not his brother. Not his sons. Not his niece. Not his putative auditor. Not the dozens of Wall Streeters who suspected something was wrong but didnât tell the SEC. Not the SEC, which publicly announced in 1992 that no fraud was involved and then ignored Harry Markopolos. No, none of these. Rather, his victims. They were his accomplices. http://www.opednews.com/articles/No-Siree-Nocera-h--You-A-by-Lawrence-Velvel-090317-743.html