Jon Stewart destroys CNBC shills

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Bluer White said:
What is your idea of a good business news outlet? And who owns it?
Click to expand...



the best one i can think of would probably be The Economist.

however, i think predicting the markets is like predicting the weather, and when we're tantalized by the promise of near-instant riches, American men in particular seem to want to deify whomever appears to know more than the average schmo.

one of the best things to come out of this period of economic instability will be the virtual death of the worshiping of the markets and the Masters of the Universe.

i think that one of the worst things i've seen in my generation (i'm 31) has been the elevation and adulation of things like the MBA or going to Wall Street immediately after graduation. it was the fast-track to an instant 6 figure (or more) salary, and the money is what lured many of the best-and-brightest in the under-40 crowd to these financial institutions and they used their brain power not to cure cancer or build space shuttles but to buy and sell NINA loans.
 
Irvine511 said:
the best one i can think of would probably be The Economist.

however, i think predicting the markets is like predicting the weather, and when we're tantalized by the promise of near-instant riches, American men in particular seem to want to deify whomever appears to know more than the average schmo.

one of the best things to come out of this period of economic instability will be the virtual death of the worshiping of the markets and the Masters of the Universe.

i think that one of the worst things i've seen in my generation (i'm 31) has been the elevation and adulation of things like the MBA or going to Wall Street immediately after graduation. it was the fast-track to an instant 6 figure (or more) salary, and the money is what lured many of the best-and-brightest in the under-40 crowd to these financial institutions and they used their brain power not to cure cancer or build space shuttles but to buy and sell NINA loans.
Click to expand...

Good points you make here.

A lot of the best maths and psychics people went into finance in recent years whereas in previous generations they would have gone into academia, but it's not too late for many of them to change careers back, some might have no choice!

The funny thing is, it's not that long ago (say, thirty years or so) where for gifted science people to go into (non-research based) positions in industry of any type, not just financial services, was viewed as an eccentric choice. If you couldn't really cut it as a pure research scientist, you might deign to try for a job in industry.

I remember being at a banking conference a few years ago and the guy moderating the discussion at the table I was sitting at was giving some background as to his career trajectory, basically saying he had studied psychics at a good university, ended up with a PHD, but after a few years he thought he had given the field of science everything he could, and, uh, so he decided to go and work for a bank. I thought, that's odd. You decided you had given the world of science everything you could, so you became a banker. You had a qualifcation that is only one in a million could ever get, and you go into a profession which you're probably way overqualified for. Banking isn't really rocket science, frankly. The fallacy of the last few years is to try to turn it into rocket science. Truth is, this guy probably made more money in banking and that's the real reason he left science.

In conclusion, finance could go back to being a boring and staid profession, maybe that's not a bad thing!

For me, I am not and probably will never be a master of the universe, but I am more fascinated by the markets than ever.
Finally I will say that the free market isn't going away, old lessons have just come back to re-haunt us...
 
This interview is unreal. I thought it was going to be a joke. Stewart is going for the kill. I'm stunned.
 
phillyfan26 said:
This interview is unreal. I thought it was going to be a joke. Stewart is going for the kill. I'm stunned.
Click to expand...

Didn't see it, but I am sensing Stewart has something definitive on this guy. Something that might be used in a court...

But it seems to have descended into an ego battle, when in reality its the CULTURE of these shows that should be attacked, not individuals.
 
He found a video of him online from December 2006 talking about managing his hedge fund. He talks about the existence of all the "shenanigans" that go on that "the SEC doesn't notice" in the video. Stewart really fired at him throughout.
 
Yeah I was pretty shocked he went for the jugular so early on and kept on hitting at Cramer when he already had his head in the sand. It seems that Cramer didn't know he had that tape on him too, so he was just thrown under a bus.

How many more SLAUGHTER analogies can I use?
This is going to be all over the news tomorrow. I feel for Cramer because he just got all the verbal massacre (that's 4) that the whole network should have gotten.
 
Stewart was conscious of that the whole time, too. I think he said a few times that, "You've become the face of this whole thing, which is unfortunate" and made great pains to say, "It's not just you, it's the whole network."

I was completely blindsided by that. Stewart seemed furious when he was barking out the tape numbers one after one.
 
I really want to watch it again (and the tapes, which I really didn't understand off the bat), uninterrupted. I feel like it was Frost/Nixon, except the roles were reversed and Frost didn't have a moment of redemption near the end. It was the equivalent of watching a lion take down a 3-legged antelope.
 
It is worrying that a comedian is the most effective interviewer I see on tv
 
it was kind of stunning.

it struck me that the biggest point Stewart was trying to make was that the news and "reporting" we get on the financial markets is similar to the "news" in North Korea -- people are given their talking points, and then told to sell, sell, sell.

and there's a cult of personality that needs to be destroyed.

i agree with FG -- bankers used to be boring. somewhere along the line in these past 10-15 years, they became rock stars. and that, in and of itself, is simply bad for the industry, and it hurts everyone.

i really don't have the knowledge to go in much deeper than this broad sort of cultural analysis, but i feel as if democracy was well served last night.
 
financeguy said:
I remember being at a banking conference a few years ago and the guy moderating the discussion at the table I was sitting at was giving some background as to his career trajectory, basically saying he had studied psychics at a good university, ended up with a PHD, but after a few years he thought he had given the field of science everything he could, and, uh, so he decided to go and work for a bank. I thought, that's odd. You decided you had given the world of science everything you could, so you became a banker. You had a qualifcation that is only one in a million could ever get, and you go into a profession which you're probably way overqualified for. Banking isn't really rocket science, frankly. The fallacy of the last few years is to try to turn it into rocket science. Truth is, this guy probably made more money in banking and that's the real reason he left science.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily come to this conclusion, having myself made a similar move (although into corp law and not finance) and since I know a very good number of people who have done the same.

You have to understand that university degrees have become watered down. I've said it many times here, and often people have disagreed, but bottom line, today, a BA or BS is essentially worthless except in the sense that it lets you get more degrees or that some of them have inherent value because they let you get into a profession (like nursing, teaching, engineering). Most of them have very little value in 2009 on their own. This then pushes people to get graduate or professional degrees on top of it, which further dilutes the bachelor's.

The number of grad students in science is staggering compared to prior years. The rate of success in biological sciences for a person who completes a PhD to get a tenure-track position and their own research lab is about 2%. Do you understand how low this is? So now you have the vast majority of these people ending up either in industry, or editing for research publications, or working as research associates on non-tenure track, etc. That person pretty much HAS contributed all that he or she can to science because they have no independence, they don't decide what grants to apply for and they don't dictate the direction of their lab. Sure, banking or law also happen to be more financially rewarding, but don't mistake it as the only or even the primary driving force behind this kind of switch.

It is also a hell of a lot easier to go get a 3-year JD or a 2-year MBA and go into finance or corporate law than it is to do a 7-year PhD and then a 3-year postdoc and gamble on whether you'll be tenured. It used to be that you could get a PhD in science in 3 years, that was common with all of the older tenured profs. Now it's basically unheard of to do it in anything less than 5 years, and my own head of the department said he didn't remember anyone in the last 10 years who had done it in less than 6 years. Plus the mandatory postdoc on top of that....remember that research-based science PhDs are nothing like PhDs in say, English, which are considerably shorter, considerably cheaper. Although those can be even worse since there are more students getting them.
 
wow.

any real journalist would want to nail someone in an interview the way stewart cleaned up cramer.

it is unfortunate for cramer that he's become the face of it, especially when originally the daily show was going for that other numpty whose name i can't recall offhand.
 
^It was originally Rick Santelli who asked why the government should be bailing out people, or in his words, "losers" who can't pay their mortgages, while he was kissing the asses of the banks and lending companies that made these bad loans in the first place. Cramer might be somewhat of a tool and is far from a serious analyst, but at least he's not a complete jerk-off like Santelli. However, CNBC should have to face what they've done, and Jon Stewart was absolutely brilliant and right in everything he said. As much as I may disagree with what Cramer and the gang over at CNBC have done during the economic crisis, I do applaud him for being willing to go on the show and also keeping his cool during it.
 
MissVelvetDress_75 said:
Is it me or did Cramer appear at times that he was about to cry? His voice sounded like it was quivering at times. I enjoyed the interview and think Jon Stewart raised his creditability last night.
Click to expand...

I could hear it too. I dont think that it was that he was on the edge of tears though. People tend to get like that when they are really apologetic and submissive. It seems to be an unconscious defense mechanism of sorts
 
Don't know if it's been mentioned (and I haven't read past the first page so if this is off topic now, my bad), but we have a channel called the Business News Network up here in Canada. Actual, sober analysis of real market issues and events that doesn't (seem to) cradle the nuts of corporate CEO's all the time, as opposed to Jim Cramer's inane bullshit for people that know nothing about money. It is how financial channels ought to be :up:
 
anitram said:
The number of grad students in science is staggering compared to prior years. The rate of success in biological sciences for a person who completes a PhD to get a tenure-track position and their own research lab is about 2%. Do you understand how low this is? So now you have the vast majority of these people ending up either in industry, or editing for research publications, or working as research associates on non-tenure track, etc. That person pretty much HAS contributed all that he or she can to science because they have no independence, they don't decide what grants to apply for and they don't dictate the direction of their lab. Sure, banking or law also happen to be more financially rewarding, but don't mistake it as the only or even the primary driving force behind this kind of switch.

It is also a hell of a lot easier to go get a 3-year JD or a 2-year MBA and go into finance or corporate law than it is to do a 7-year PhD and then a 3-year postdoc and gamble on whether you'll be tenured. It used to be that you could get a PhD in science in 3 years, that was common with all of the older tenured profs. Now it's basically unheard of to do it in anything less than 5 years, and my own head of the department said he didn't remember anyone in the last 10 years who had done it in less than 6 years. Plus the mandatory postdoc on top of that....remember that research-based science PhDs are nothing like PhDs in say, English, which are considerably shorter, considerably cheaper. Although those can be even worse since there are more students getting them.
Click to expand...
Why did you choose corporate law instead of another area of law which might have offered more potential for tie-in with your background and experience in biology research? Not asking to be confrontational nor to imply that you "should've" chosen something else, just curious.

Anyhow, it's valuable and interesting to get the perspective of someone with a 'hard sciences' background on this, since that's a careers trajectory I know nothing about. As an academic and a social scientist I can relate somewhat to the points in your second paragraph; tenure-track academic opportunities have of course contracted enormously in virtually all fields, even as the number of PhDs has risen. A colleague of mine in English standardly advises any of his undergrads who mention an interest in grad school NOT to do it unless they can get a fellowship which would leave them mostly debt-free, because the chances of landing a job that will enable them to pay off their debts in a reasonable amount of time (not to mention to publish and attend conferences and win grants and all the other stuff they'd presumably want to do) are so small. The situation isn't quite that dire in political science since--depending significantly on which subfield you study--the opportunities available outside academia are somewhat greater; but I understood his perspective completely, and not infrequently give the same advice myself. And even in political science, there are considerable differences between how long it typically takes to complete a PhD in one of the more fieldwork-intensive subfields as opposed to, say, political theory.

I can also really see where Irvine is coming from, though. So many times since I've started teaching, I've had former grad students drop by to say hello, whereupon they inform me that they're going back to get an MBA or a law degree because, as more than one explicitly put it, "I feel like a loser" making "only" ~$40,000 when all their fellow class valedictorians from high school and undergrad seem to be making six-figure incomes, all their siblings from the upper-class families they grew up in have bigger houses and more cars than they do, etc. And in many cases these were young people who'd been doing what I'd consider very exciting and important work--serving as translators at the UN, or journalists in DC, or liaisons for human rights NGOs working within the US and abroad. Yet they feel like "losers" because this work doesn't bring them a good salary. Obviously people are free to make their own career choices and it's not my place to tell anyone how they "should" feel about the work they've been doing, but I do find something very sad in all that. The devaluation of work which is socially important and valuable, just because it doesn't come with the sort of paycheck that someone with their background of academic success "should" have been aiming for.
 
yolland said:
Why did you choose corporate law instead of another area of law which might have offered more potential for tie-in with your background and experience in biology research? Not asking to be confrontational nor to imply that you "should've" chosen something else, just curious.
Click to expand...

Because I found Intellectual Property to be boring, unchallenging and very paper-intensive. It is also incredibly slow-moving, especially if you are in patents where you may be trading submissions with the patent office for 20 years. I actually went to law school with the intention of doing IP and simply didn't want to do it once I found out a bit more about it.

I was also very good at corp tax law, and it is by far the most challenging area of law to get into. As a very well-known lawyer once told me, "tax is for gold medalists and people who want to be gold medalists." I admit, part of me liked that challenge.

Hope that answers the question for you.

ETA: With respect to salary, I was never much driven by money. I grew up not having any, and therefore I had no luxury lifestyle to support or wish to maintain. At the same time, it is really nice to be in a position where money isn't something that I have to obsess about.
 
Yes, it does. :) And now that you say that, I vaguely remember talking awhile back to someone whose daughter had also gone to law school intending to focus on intellectual property law, and had the same experience with it you did.

I agree that being forced by circumstances to 'obsess about' personal finances is something everyone would prefer to avoid, and particularly for those who have multiple kids, elderly dependents, or one or more people with serious medical problems in the family, said circumstances are all too common. But I also think too many people's sense of when it's time to start 'obsessing' is far more shaped by questionable peer pressures than they'd like to admit, and it's distressing to me to see bright, talented young people who already are or could shortly be doing some genuinely exciting and important things conclude that such work isn't worth the effort if it won't quickly (or ever) yield them an 'enviable' socioeconomic status.
 
Last edited:
Joh Stewart is the only one who ask the right

I watch the news all the time, after the Jon Stewart show Thursday night,
no one even mention it Friday morning like morning Jo or CNN, I was waiting for someone else to talk about it eve, Nightly News, NOBODY,
I"ve seem Jon Stewart ask other people questions nobody every ask,
I think he should get a longer show and call every body out

Joh is GREAT
 
yolland said:
A colleague of mine in English standardly advises any of his undergrads who mention an interest in grad school NOT to do it unless they can get a fellowship which would leave them mostly debt-free, because the chances of landing a job that will enable them to pay off their debts in a reasonable amount of time (not to mention to publish and attend conferences and win grants and all the other stuff they'd presumably want to do) are so small.
Click to expand...


it seems kind of sad for me to say this, because i dearly loved many of my undergraduate courses and i honestly do thrill at the thought of spending hours doing close, careful reading and analysis of literature with other likeminded individuals, but part of me really feels like i dodged a bullet in not pursuing a PhD in likely English or American Studies. it's not that i wouldn't have derived tremendous pleasure and satisfaction and fulfillment from doing something i know i love to do (teach), but i think that i might have been setting myself on a near-impossible task. i suppose it was the right decision, since there were (and still are) many things that interest me, and so perhaps the rigors of the PhD market (and simply getting the degree itself) did the right thing and weeded an individual such as myself out early on.



I can also really see where Irvine is coming from, though. So many times since I've started teaching, I've had former grad students drop by to say hello, whereupon they inform me that they're going back to get an MBA or a law degree because, as more than one explicitly put it, "I feel like a loser" making "only" ~$40,000 when all their fellow class valedictorians from high school and undergrad seem to be making six-figure incomes, all their siblings from the upper-class families they grew up in have bigger houses and more cars than they do, etc. And in many cases these were young people who'd been doing what I'd consider very exciting and important work--serving as translators at the UN, or journalists in DC, or liaisons for human rights NGOs working within the US and abroad. Yet they feel like "losers" because this work doesn't bring them a good salary. Obviously people are free to make their own career choices and it's not my place to tell anyone how they "should" feel about the work they've been doing, but I do find something very sad in all that. The devaluation of work which is socially important and valuable, just because it doesn't come with the sort of paycheck that someone with their background of academic success "should" have been aiming for.
Click to expand...



just to build on this a bit ... what i was sensing as a turn-of-the-century undergrad was not so much that it was the salary and promise of a 6-figure income that drew people to Wall Street and MBA programs (actually, if you ask me, the people who are in it for the security and status and 6-figure income seemed to go to law school), but that the entire business profession somehow became "cool." that it was the people on Wall Street who were the innovators and the best and the brightest and creative. the idea of the CEO as some sort of rock star -- think Richard Branson -- really took hold in the 1990s as the economy took off, and i think that heavily influenced many people around my age as they were discovering what it is they might have wanted to do in life. i think lots of bright people are capable of doing lots of different things -- it just seems like "business" (for lack of a better word, and so that i can compare it directly to "medicine" or "law") took a larger share of said bright people because it was so shiny and glittery than it did in decades past.

here's an interesting article from the NYT today about how business schools are reacting to the current crisis. it's very interesting reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15school.html?em
 
Jon Stewart's Epiphany
Has a Comedian Just Saved America?

By PAM MARTENS

As testimony to how Orwellian life has become under the outrages of Wall Street hubris, last week saw a comedian, who poses as an anchor on a fake news show, grab the reins of the Wall Street investigation from the actual investigators in Congress.

Either Jon Stewart is the smartest man in America or he has incredible instincts. In a week’s time, he has zeroed in, like a heat-seeking missile, on the core of Wall Street’s malady. How insightful of Stewart, host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” to rationalize that the core of Wall Street’s corruption might well be the same core that it has drawn the darkest curtain around: trading.

Stewart is the son of an educational consultant mother (Marion Leibowitz), physicist father (Donald Leibowitz) and trading technology guru brother (Larry Leibowitz) an executive at the New York Stock Exchange. He’s got a smart family and he’s equally smart, advancing the national debate on a comedy channel.

After a week of explosive commentary and video clips of questionable reporting at the cable business network, CNBC, Stewart interviewed Jim Cramer on Thursday, March 12. Cramer hosts CNBC’s “Mad Money” show which promotes itself as an advocate for the small investor while, at the same time, suggesting lots of buying and selling of specific stocks. Stewart used the highly anticipated interview to show a devastating clip revealing Cramer to be the embodiment of the market manipulators that he rails against on his show. Acknowledging on the clip that he would never say something like this on TV, Cramer states:

“You know, a lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures. It doesn’t take much money.”

Allow me to translate:

You know, a lot of times when I was making a large bet that prices would decline in a specific stock or bond or derivative when I worked in the largely unregulated world of private money called hedge funds, and I needed to give that decline a little unseen assistance to make my bets profitable, I would go into the futures market to trade. That’s because I could put down as little as 4 to 10 percent of the money I needed for the trade and borrow the balance in what is called a margin account.

The academics and economists (none of whom ever worked a day on Wall Street) have been telling us in OpEds and speeches and testimony before Congress that the crumbling Wall Street structure results from bundled subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and asset backed securities.

Trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds have been spent on the premise that these toxic assets are the problem. The fate of a nation has been staked on that analysis: that if we get these assets off the balance sheets of the major firms, the credit spigots will begin to flow once again, the banks will once again trust each other and lend to each other, and investors will resume buying stocks and bonds with their confidence in the system restored.

Stewart’s weeklong commentary and clips helped to dramatically expose this logic as bogus. None of the toxic instruments would have grown to a problem capable of collapsing the country’s financial system if their trading had been regulated, transparent and fairly reported on by mainstream media. The security instruments were never the problem; how they were traded was the problem. For example, the mortgage and debt securities were, in reality, junk bonds but they were traded as triple A. They were not traded on an exchange where price discovery would have shown them to be junk bonds, they were traded in an opaque over the counter market. In the case of credit default swaps, they were traded in a market created by the very firms who needed to hide for as long as possible (while executives reaped windfall compensation and bonuses) the dubious pricing of the securities and gargantuan amounts being issued. (See CounterPunch column “How Wall Street Blew Itself Up.”)

Wall Street is supposed to have an early warning system that if something is amiss it will self correct in time to avoid a collapse of the system. That early warning system is known as price action. In other words, the trading price of Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG should have begun a downward trajectory years ago as these firms loaded up on leveraged junk. There is only one possible scenario, in my opinion, to explain why this did not happen: trading in the market was rigged. Thanks to Jim Cramer, the public now knows how easy it is to get stock prices to move up or down. (As one more example, see “Wall Street Powerhouses Invested Alongside Madoff.”)

To be a fair marketplace, the trading price of stocks and bonds must represent the composite wisdom of all market participants who have the same opportunity to ferret out information from public sources. When trading is internalized at the big Wall Street firms (meaning they are allowed to match customer stock orders in-house), when they are able to create and clandestinely operate their own trading venues off the radar screens of the regulators, when they are able to create offshore vehicles like Structured Investment Vehicles to hide bets gone bad, there is no longer any composite wisdom. There is only dumbed down information which the public possesses from CNBC and the superior information available to those operating inside the clandestine system. (See Maria Bartiromo and the Co-Branding of CNBC and Citigroup.)

The big Wall Street firms that taxpayers are bailing out even gobbled up some of the largest specialist firms. Those are the folks who are required to maintain fair and orderly markets on the regulated stock exchanges. But here’s what the specialists are really doing, according to charges disclosed on March 4, 2009 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):

“…from 1999 through 2005, the firms violated their basic obligation as specialists to serve public customer orders over their own proprietary interests. As specialist member firms on one or more of the regional and options exchanges, the firms had a duty to match executable public customer or ‘agency’ buy and sell orders and not to fill customer orders through trades from the firm's own accounts when those customer orders could be matched with other customer orders. However, the firms violated this obligation by filling orders through proprietary trades rather than through other customer orders, thereby causing millions of dollars of customer harm.”

The $70 million in disgorgement and penalties the SEC charged 14 specialist firms (some of which are owned by Wall Street powerhouses like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) is now effectively coming out of the taxpayers’ pocket since these are two firms enrolled in the taxpayer cash for toxic asset trash bailout bonanza. In other words, the public investor is now paying back the money that was stolen from the public investor in the continuing Wall Street saga of heads I win, tails you lose. Is it any wonder it takes a comedian to deal with this stuff.

The speed at which Congress begins daily sessions investigating trading of both toxic and non toxic securities will determine the speed at which this country begins to rebuild from the ashes.

After the 1929 crash and as the nation entered the Great Depression in the early 1930s, the Senate convened hearings by the Committee on Banking and Currency that peeled back month after month from 1932 to 1934 previously impenetrable layers of trading fraud. Each layer of fraud opened a window into the next layer. The hearings did not focus on assets, toxic or otherwise, it focused on the trading of assets: how Wall Street created dark pool operators (today’s hedge funds) to trade on inside information and manipulate prices; how some of the most respected men on Wall Street had participated in trading frauds; how some of the largest firms were secretly manipulating stock prices; how respected business columnists were taking bribes from Wall Street players to move trading prices.

I’ve often pondered just how it was that every large brokerage firm had the same idea at almost the same time in the early 1990s: to put a TV set airing CNBC in every stockbroker’s office. The managers came around and offered the broker a deal they couldn’t refuse: a deeply discounted price on the TV and the firm would install it hanging from the edge of the ceiling so it wouldn’t take up precious desk space. Out of 55 brokers in my office at the time, only myself and one other broker declined. Can you think of any other industry that wants its workers sitting around watching TV instead of working? Unless, of course, what CNBC is telling brokers to buy and sell is actually considered part of the work day by the Wall Street masters.

As you ponder that, consider this excerpt from testimony given at the Friday, June 3, 1932 Senate hearings:

William A. Gray, Counsel to the Committee: So that the committee may understand the matter which I am now going to present, permit me to say that I am going to show by Mr. Lion himself that he is a publicity man, and that for a period of three years he was acting for numerous brokerage houses in the city of New York, that he furnished through various journals, including radio speeches, publicity for certain stocks, pools which were then being operated by the brokerage houses, he being paid for such by cash and by being given calls on the particular stocks in questions, at prices that he could sell them to his advantage, the brokerage house of course giving him credit for same in an account which he carried and settling with him the same as they would settle with any other person who had actually bought and sold, he not being required to put up any cash at all. Now, Mr. Lion, please give us your full name.

Mr. Lion: David M. Lion…

Mr. Gray: What is your business?

Mr. Lion: Financial publicity.

Mr. Gray: How long have you been engaged in that business?

Mr. Lion: Five years or more.

Mr. Gray: Prior to engaging in that business and for the past five years have you at any time conducted a paper of your own?

Mr. Lion: Yes.

Mr. Gray: What was the name of that paper?

Mr. Lion: The Stock and Bond Reporter…

Mr. Gray: How long did you continue the use of the radio for the purpose of disseminating information about stocks?

Mr. Lion: I used it all of 1929…

Mr. Gray: Now, you did not do your own radio talking, did you?

Mr. Lion: No, sir.

Mr. Gray: What was the name of the man you employed to do your radio talking?

Mr. Lion: I employed William J. McMahon…

Mr. Gray: Who is he?

Mr. Lion: He was an economist…

Mr. Gray: Each of his talks was devoted to a particular stock, wasn’t it?

Mr. Lion: No.

Mr. Gray: Sometimes only one stock?

Mr. Lion: Yes, sir…

Mr. Gray: But when he ended up his talk as a usual thing he referred to a particular stock and boosted it. That is true, isn’t it?

Mr. Lion: Yes, sir.

Mr. Gray: And he was a salaried man on your staff for that purpose, wasn’t he?

Mr. Lion. Yes, sir.

Jon Stewart has opened the floodgates. Let the hearings begin.
 
John always goes in for the kill. You can't help but respect the guy, right? I mean, even if you disagree with him, you have to hand it to him.
 
I watched MSNBC briefly today and some WASP with a fat face was trying to tell me the criticisms of the AIG bonuses were motivated by 'class war' politics. What a stupid dumb bastard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
386
Views
11K
mikal
mikal
A
The little stranger chapter 12
Replies
0
Views
729
annj
A
nbelcik
Jon Stewart retiring from the Daily Show
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
A
The little stranger chapter 10
Replies
0
Views
679
annj
A
A
The Little Stranger chapter 14
Replies
0
Views
519
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom