Gurus 2.0

I been thinking frequently about a found correspondence between Jim Cramer (the Mad Money guy and all around slimy guy) and another Wall Street analyst/observer. This little need to point out the trouble with Cramer’s economic advice, and the man’s personal involvement in markets is also . So my real interest in discovering Cramer’s crassness about the importance of manipulating markets was little surprise, but his sinisterly lucid description of how exactly to fix the markets makes me esteem him more– in the way you have to concede the power of Machiavelli’s ideas:

You really got to control the market. You can’t let it lift (…) When your company is in survival mode, it’ really important to get the people talking as if there’s something wrong with the RIM [research in motion] (…) You just create an image that there’s going to be news next week that’s going to frighten everybody. This is what’s really going on under the market that you don’t see (…) Who cares about the fundamentals? Look at what people can do. The great thing about the market is that it has nothing to do with the actual stocks. Now look, maybe two weeks from now buyers will come to their senses and realize everything they heard was a lie.

So as awful as Cramer’s disrespect for consumers and a fair economy is, his matter-a-fact comments sound more like the attitude of most people involved in the trading game. And if enough people playing the game, think the game is fixed any way, or they can fix it, what to laws really mean.

The baseline belief here is something that Noam Chomsky would concur with– however unethical he found it–that much of the activity of the market, the trading, merging, projections, analysis, and so forth, are not the result of a democratic invisible hand, but rather ambitious brokers who take a cut wherever they can.

One angle of this problem, which I’ll be considering over upcoming weeks, it the problem of advertising. The problem of evading natural economic activity in favor of a system where consumers buy goods based on rationality and need, but are sold products base on illusionary, inflated value. I consider this as an professional who works marketing a product in large part, but also as a person troubled by the false promotion of false good to match false lifestyles



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s