Jon Stewart PWNS CNBC

[kendoiwan]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice


:mellow:

[Corbin]

Is it fun being a billionare?

[kendoiwan]

Hard Hitting Journalism!!!

[TheMANimal]

It's depressing to watch the "experts" pile on the bull shit.

[kendoiwan]

They are worse than the weatherman, they don't EVER have to get it right to get paid. I want in!!!

[joft]

that was hard to watch, the pwnage was so complete...

[CEOofRawness]

"If only I'd followed CNBC's advice, I'd have a million dollars today - provided I started with a hundred million dollars." - John Stewart

I think that about sums it up. Total ownage, and totally necessary.

My theory is that those companies paid MSNBC to make it seem like their companies were doing good so their stocks wouldn't fall fast enough for them to get rid of it. Or maybe they're blindly stabbing in the dark until they're finally right and have their shining "I told you so" moment.

Or maybe they're just fucking idiots.

[Bongmaster General]

My theory is that those companies paid MSNBC to make it seem like their companies were doing good so their stocks wouldn't fall fast enough for them to get rid of it.

That's the impression I was left with. I'm glad someone in the mainstream is holding them accountable. You look at stuff like this and you start to realize some possible motives behind why all those news organizations have been criticizing the Daily Show in the past for allegedly misrepresenting the news with oversimplified humor.

[Madrigal]

I wanna marry Jon Stewart and have his babies. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[edge walker]

I wanna marry Jon Stewart and have his babies. Am I the only one who feels this way?
No. And I can't even have babies.

[C.J.Woolf]

I wanna marry Jon Stewart and have his babies. Am I the only one who feels this way?
I'd commit bigamy with Jon Stewart and adopt Stephen Colbert.

[Stryfe]

No. And I can't even have babies.We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies!

[**life is...**]

When the stock market began to crash in 1929, one of the largest bank's chairman went in to the NYSE trading room and started buying like crazy. This rebounded the stock market for a few weeks while some of the richer members of society and some of the bigger banks could pull out as much money as possible.

So ya, CNBC may have destroyed their credibility, but the trade off was possibly trillions of dollars saved. That's the way it works, all the rich people like little scared sheep all follow one another and pull out all the moneys. Then the stock market goes under, well it's no wonder, there's no money in there anymore!!!! It's a hollow shell!!

[CEOofRawness]

When the stock market began to crash in 1929, one of the largest bank's chairman went in to the NYSE trading room and started buying like crazy. This rebounded the stock market for a few weeks while some of the richer members of society and some of the bigger banks could pull out as much money as possible.

So ya, CNBC may have destroyed their credibility, but the trade off was possibly trillions of dollars saved. That's the way it works, all the rich people like little scared sheep all follow one another and pull out all the moneys. Then the stock market goes under, well it's no wonder, there's no money in there anymore!!!! It's a hollow shell!!

All while the little people get fucked.

I think we're long overdue for a revolt.

[Feops]

I think we're long overdue for a revolt.
Against what? Capitalism? The Man?

[decades]

Against what? Capitalism? The Man?

Most sensibly, it should just be against Wall Street and the practice of disguising a paper trade gamble as "investing."

I have no problem with people being rewarded for putting their money on the line to facilitate growth, but getting rich from manipulation and financial masturbation is bullshit.

[qsr]

This was great. He spent the entire show just tearing CNBC to shreds. I hope people got the point, which is that CNBC does nothing but lead people to believe they know more than they really do. It makes "the little guy" (like us) very susceptible to being the ones holding the bag after the bank/stock runs. You sit around with worthless stock, while the big hedge funds have already destroyed you.

By the way I occasionally enjoy the CNBC, but you have to realize most of what they are saying is bullshit. They know everyone watches and so much of the financial world is driven by reputation and innuendo, and their job is to prop up companies as best they can. You won't ever hear them say "looks like GM/Citi/Enron is about to go into the toilet and everyone needs to pull their money out now."

[edge walker]

By the way I occasionally enjoy the CNBC, but you have to realize most of what they are saying is bullshit.
Most of everything that passes for analysis or commentary on TV these days is bullshit.

Whenever TV reports on a subject I am well versed in, it's about 80% vague generalities, with the rest being mostly questionable exaggeration or oversimplification with the occasional hair-raisingly wrong statement thrown in. (The same is true for newspapers, but their baseline standard is generally better -- although their hit rate is more erratic.) Why would I assume that they do better in any other topic? And in fact, the topics I am well versed in tend to be ones with relatively clearly definable truths and with narratives enjoying wide consensus, in contrast to things like financial economics and social sciences.

Heck, even when I'm not well versed in a subject, and have only what I'd consider a passing understanding of it, I can smell from miles away that most of what TV tells me is platitudes and party lines. I literally feel dumber for watching TV every time it happens.

Except when I'm watching Stewart or Colbert, or the occasional stand-up comedian.

[Corbin]

No. And I can't even have babies.

I am willing to put forth the time, money, and effort to make it possible for me to bear his children.

[qsr]

People who want actual news about the economy listen to NPR/public radio. CNBC is a dog and pony show for the stock market. What does one hope to learn from the decabox?

[**life is...**]

All while the little people get fucked.

I think we're long overdue for a revolt.

You'll have to get through these guys first:

http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/pictures/images/police/3B.jpg

Ya, there's not to much we can do anymore, at least not without killing an enormously large number of hypnotized, and just plain genetically inferior people. Like sad truth, social safety nets mostly just lower the bar on what's genetically allowed to survive. It all starts there ya know. Kinda sad, but that's how it works, you care for retards and allow them to reproduce and multiply and then holy crap!! You have a nation of retards! Then you blame the school system for failing at teaching these people. You blame big business when in reality they are forced to treat their employees as cattle, because they are! You blame TV even though you never watched it because you knew that it would only lead to a shallow and meaningless life. You blame the mainstream-media even though all of you can see strait through it. You blame the consumer economy even though most of you probably only consume enough to live well. You blame religion even though most of you believe in some god that transcends institutions.

All these things are blamed, yet no one ever asked why it was that these things are even around if none of us partake in them. Any one here have a large family?

It's a genetic disaster and that's just how it works, that's just the way it is on this planet.

this one is ok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics)

this is better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)

[Ferrus]

The one on the Dow index was especially poignant.

[Madrigal]

You'll have to get through these guys first:

http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/pictures/images/police/3B.jpg

Ya, there's not to much we can do anymore, at least not without killing an enormously large number of hypnotized, and just plain genetically inferior people. Like sad truth, social safety nets mostly just lower the bar on what's genetically allowed to survive. It all starts there ya know. Kinda sad, but that's how it works, you care for retards and allow them to reproduce and multiply and then holy crap!! You have a nation of retards! Then you blame the school system for failing at teaching these people. You blame big business when in reality they are forced to treat their employees as cattle, because they are! You blame TV even though you never watched it because you knew that it would only lead to a shallow and meaningless life. You blame the mainstream-media even though all of you can see strait through it. You blame the consumer economy even though most of you probably only consume enough to live well. You blame religion even though most of you believe in some god that transcends institutions.

All these things are blamed, yet no one ever asked why it was that these things are even around if none of us partake in them. Any one here have a large family?

It's a genetic disaster and that's just how it works, that's just the way it is on this planet.

this one is ok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics)

this is better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)

If it makes you feel better I don't think you could grasp capitalism if it flew out of your ass singing the Star Spangled Banner.

[INThoughtPolice]

Rich people can afford the best education.

[Limey]

I saw Cramer was on Colbert, what a douche he was made to look, (not to say he isn't a douche)

[Toonia]

"If only I'd followed CNBC's advice, I'd have a million dollars today - provided I started with a hundred million dollars." - John Stewart

I think that about sums it up. Total ownage, and totally necessary.

My theory is that those companies paid MSNBC to make it seem like their companies were doing good so their stocks wouldn't fall fast enough for them to get rid of it. Or maybe they're blindly stabbing in the dark until they're finally right and have their shining "I told you so" moment.

Or maybe they're just fucking idiots.
That crossed my mind also, but it could also be a more generalized kissing up to gain access sort of thing, so that it is essentially what you said, but in a less explicit way.

[Limey]

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to just bash CNBC, Fox also performed bukkake on Peter Schiff, with Ben Stein iterating and reiterating, while having his turn on Schiff's face, that the sub prime "was a tiny blip" on Cavuto's show on at least one occasion, with Cavuto himself labeling Schiff as a stick in the mud.

[dubbeltop]

Jon Stewart PWNS CNBC

Insn't CNBC just a paid commercial...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercialism

I think that commercialism is the opposite of the other big C...

[Roger Mexico]

Ya, there's not to much we can do anymore, at least not without killing an enormously large number of hypnotized, and just plain genetically inferior people.

Because that turned out so well the last time...

[**life is...**]

Because that turned out so well the last time...

Don't talk about the last time. Hitler was only one part of the story. World War 2 is just proof in my mind that it will happen again. And I'm not looking forward to it.



If it makes you feel better I don't think you could grasp capitalism if it flew out of your ass singing the Star Spangled Banner.

What's your version?

[kendoiwan]

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to just bash CNBC, Fox also performed bukkake on Peter Schiff, with Ben Stein iterating and reiterating, while having his turn on Schiff's face, that the sub prime "was a tiny blip" on Cavuto's show on at least one occasion, with Cavuto himself labeling Schiff as a stick in the mud.

He pwns Fox regularly... :ph34r:

[CEOofRawness]

He pwns Fox regularly... :ph34r:

Anyone with common sense will know that they pwn themselves regularly.

[dubbeltop]

Jon Stewart PWNS CNBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ARbKvUyUM
(hudsucker proxy) LOL ,watch after 5:30

[Scarecrow]

Read "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" and watch Jon Stewart pwn the whole country and its history.

[HerExcellency]

The hilarious thing about this is that Cramer and the entire network (MSNBC, NBC, other shows on CNBC) is now having it out with Jon Stewart. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[CEOofRawness]

The hilarious thing about this is that Cramer and the entire network (MSNBC, NBC, other shows on CNBC) is now having it out with Jon Stewart. It's absolutely ridiculous.

They were better off ignoring Jon Stewart. Now they look like even bigger jackasses.

[reenpeery]

They were better off ignoring Jon Stewart. Now they look like even bigger jackasses.

I don't think there is any way they will ever "beat" him either. He's got them against the ropes now. Until they start to actually think and see that the guy is right... he is going to keep on jabbing. i love it.

[YHWH]

This is just merciless onslaught.

[Ferrus]

This is just merciless onslaught.
I've been watching some of the clips, it is pretty damn funny. It seems like a sort of cathaxis against the financial industry.

[kendoiwan]

Jim Cramer is going to be on his show today. Oh Joy! :banana:

[HerExcellency]

They were better off ignoring Jon Stewart. Now they look like even bigger jackasses.

Totally. I think one of MSNBC's anchors called it "A war of words between Jon Stewart and CNBC." Somewhere out there, Fox News is laughing their asses off.

[MCYhon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7PV0cupneM


ownage. much respect to jon stewart in exposing how much bullshit we get fed. I wonder how much farther he can take it, and expose more, since he had the ability to do that to cramer and cnbc.


this video makes me think how many people knows about this or even think about the scams... how many blind followers that are driving these markets. How can this society change if the greater population buys bullshit... or is this real? do that many people buy these bullshit?
i do not know what is real anymore.

i see many faces everyday... we people are so powerless.

[Wise Fool]

Anyone watch Cramer on the Daily Show tonight? It was fucking awesome TV. I give credit to Cramer to actually coming on the show to defend himself. Jon Stewart was great, it seemed like he actually left an impression on Cramer. I think Cramer's got a really a confused conscience, and he seems like he's trying to make amends, or find some sense of equilibrium, its just that it's difficult because he's so deeply part of the system which has sustained him so well for so long, unfortunately on false bases.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the status quo must go with regard to this casino capitalism/federalism... time is growing ripe for a new sublimation....

[MCYhon]

Anyone watch Cramer on the Daily Show tonight? It was fucking awesome TV. I give credit to Cramer to actually coming on the show to defend himself. Jon Stewart was great, it seemed like he actually left an impression on Cramer. I think Cramer's got a really a confused conscience, and he seems like he's trying to make amends, or find some sense of equilibrium, its just that it's difficult because he's so deeply part of the system which has sustained him so well for so long, unfortunately on false bases.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the status quo must go with regard to this casino capitalism/federalism... time is growing ripe for a new sublimation....


i do not have much tolerance and empathy towards these people.

I don't even think Cramer was clueless... I surprised and i also do not know how to make out of it that you can empathize and say he was too deeply part of the system, and that he was tricked into doing it.

i don't think so. I'm sure he is fully conscious of what he is doing. He is surely acting and still backing the people who tells him what to do and who provide him a job.

He may be just coming on the show to just support himself and make gullible people pity him, and make people who believes in bullshit to believe more bullshit. That is what i see.

[Melody]

maybe i'm not aware of something, but the market is pretty random. that the guy has made some wrong calls is meaningless. secondly, john stewart assumes a kind of seriousness that i think was simply not present before the downturn. if it weren't for the downturn no one would care how right or wrong his calls were

and on that show recently he was probably nervous so he gave too much of the conversation to stewart

[Wise Fool]

i do not have much tolerance and empathy towards these people.

I don't even think Cramer was clueless... I surprised and i also do not know how to make out of it that you can empathize and say he was too deeply part of the system, and that he was tricked into doing it.

i don't think so. I'm sure he is fully conscious of what he is doing. He is surely acting and still backing the people who tells him what to do and who provide him a job.

He may be just coming on the show to just support himself and make gullible people pity him, and make people who believes in bullshit to believe more bullshit. That is what i see.

I'm just happy to see Jon Stewart put him in his place in front of everyone to see. It will have an effect on him, one way or the other. It was constructive for the two parties to meet, and for this I can not be cynical.

I more empathize with the viewers watching this spectacle than Cramer himself. I know Cramer wasn't clueless. And now so do a lot of other people. I'm sure these events will inflict a little bit of humility onto Cramer.

[MCYhon]

I'm just happy to see Jon Stewart put him in his place in front of everyone to see. It will have an effect on him, one way or the other. It was constructive for the two parties to meet, and for this I can not be cynical.

I more empathize with the viewers watching this spectacle than Cramer himself. I know Cramer wasn't clueless. And now so do a lot of other people. I'm sure these events will inflict a little bit of humility onto Cramer.


keep the skeptical cap on!

[Wise Fool]

maybe i'm not aware of something, but the market is pretty random. that the guy has made some wrong calls is meaningless. secondly, john stewart assumes a kind of seriousness that i think was simply not present before the downturn. if it weren't for the downturn no one would care how right or wrong his calls were

and on that show recently he was probably nervous so he gave too much of the conversation to stewart

Originally, Jon Stewart made a poignant criticism to the ethic of CNBC. I believe Cramer's convoluted conscience led him to take it more personally than the criticism was made out to be. He unconsciously set himself up so that his conscious could find its equilibrium. He was being true to himself, which exposes him as kinda fucked up.

The problem is that the downturn was a long time coming, it was only a matter of time, and somewhere along the line, these people who are gambling for short term profits and eroding real value knew what they were doing. OBVIOUSLY if it weren't for the downturn no one would care, but this is how these things work, unfortunately.

He was nervous for a reason, because he is guilty. That's not to say Jon Stewart is not guilty of something else; we are all guilty of something.


keep the skeptical cap on!

you think I have taken it off!? - I have fooled you.

[YHWH]

What conscience ? This is a typical power shift, happens when every regime or ideology falls, the people involved in it try claiming they were working against it from the inside and when you find proof that they were never opposed to it; they claim they turned against it now because they can see the light - it's just their survival instinct guiding them.

[kendoiwan]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/03/jon_stewart_bea.php


There was something unusual about Jim Cramer's appearance last night on "The Daily Show." We've never seen a Jon Stewart guest so obviously expecting to get his ass kicked, and never seen Stewart kick anyone's ass so thoroughly.

In fact, Cramer was so sweaty, nervous and contrite, and Stewart dished so much shit to him -- showing 2006 clips of the CNBC financial shouting head telling people how to manipulate the market and, basically, telling Cramer that he was a co-conspirator -- "disingenuous at best and criminal at worst" -- in a giant fraud that had been played on investors -- that you might think it was something out of The Wrestler, a rigged match in which the supervillain allows himself to be defeated by the crowd favorite.

Cramer had reasons to take a dive. Even in the pugnacious response he gave Tuesday to Stewart's earlier, mocking reports on the irrational exuberance Cramer and other financial "analysts" peddled in the run-up to the Wall Street collapse, Cramer took care to say he was a Democrat who didn't like what the Republicans had done to the economy, either, and that Hank Paulson had "confused" him and that he'd been "had," etc. He was looking for wiggle room even while giving a rebuttal.

Cramer must have known the time was absolutely wrong for him to throw up clouds of econospeak, as conservatives have been doing since the market collapse, in an attempt to convince Stewart and his viewers that they didn't have enough erudition to criticize him. No one cares: they know they've been screwed and that the market experts were the ones who dosed them with roofies. Also, Cramer's appearance on "The Daily Show" came on the day Bernie Madoff finally confessed to his ponzi scheme and went to jail. And people are beginning to talk about investigating Cramer for his collusions.

[CEOofRawness]

If MSNBC is going to stand behind the "it's only entertainment" excuse, they should be forced to give a warning before their shows (and during) saying just that.

I'm thinking of starting an angry mob... who's with me??!? :bigguns:

[Ferrus]

From a blog:




Jon Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer last night was a remarkable example of what contemporary journalism isn't.

Many journalists probably wish they could do something like Stewart did, although perhaps a bit toned down: sit a subject in a chair and have at him with arguments, video clips, and righteous indignation in the name of The People until the interviewee produces a weak and compliant mea culpa.

But one shouldn't take too much from the actual exchange between the two men: In an important sense, the outcome was rigged from the start. Stewart was aggressive, perhaps overly so, and Cramer was surprisingly passive and and even apologetic; he took most of Stewart's criticisms without doing much in the way of fighting back. Had someone like Karl Rove sat in the chair opposite Stewart, the interview would not have gone the same.

The reason we don't see interviews like this on television is first, that interviewees don't sit there and take accusations of this type-- they fight back, spin, obfuscate, or change the subject; and second, that if a contemporary reporter started laying into a subject the way Stewart laid into Cramer, no one would ever agree to an interview with that reporter again. It was a rare combination of circumstances that led Cramer to agree to sit still and listen to Stewart engage in his j'accuse.

What is important about the interview, however, is that both Stewart and Cramer are playing journalistic roles. Stewart is a comedian who does journalism through comedy; Cramer is a financial journalist who does journalism through entertainment. They are two sides of the same coin. One is interviewing the other, and what they are talking about is journalism itself. That is why the exchange is significant.

Stewart the comedian as journalist criticized Cramer the financial journalist as entertainer for being a bad journalist-- for sucking up to and being coopted by the people he should be covering, for failing to ask these people tough questions, for failing to treat their answers with appropriate skepticism, for failing to do independent investigation to discover the problems in the U.S. economy and the misbehavior of financial elites. Stewart criticized Cramer and his network CNBC, above all, for allowing sycophancy and a desire for ratings to overcome journalistic judgment so that CNBC had essentially become a cheerleader for a financial bubble and thus had encouraged millions of ordinary Americans to invest in ways that caused them to lose much of their savings later on.

This explains some of Cramer's passivity: he thinks of himself as more than an entertainer-- he thinks of himself as an expert and financial journalist who is entertaining. Stewart called him a bad journalist, even a corrupt journalist, who had sided with financial elites over the ordinary citizens he was supposed to inform, and Cramer was not able to mount a defense of his professionalism.

We should congratulate Jon Stewart for outstanding television, and for an absorbing interview that raised really important issues. In this sense, he is doing great journalism. But we should not assume that regular journalists could simply imitate his mannerisms and his aggressive questioning tactics and turn journalism around. Their subjects will not behave like Jim Cramer, a journalist, did. Professional journalists must abandon the bad habits of contemporary journalism, and the sycophancy, corruption, and complicity that come with them; but to do that, they also have to find some way to free themselves from much larger social and economic forces that lead to co-optation.

[reenpeery]

maybe i'm not aware of something, but the market is pretty random. that the guy has made some wrong calls is meaningless. secondly, john stewart assumes a kind of seriousness that i think was simply not present before the downturn. if it weren't for the downturn no one would care how right or wrong his calls were

and on that show recently he was probably nervous so he gave too much of the conversation to stewart

i sort of think that is Stewart's point... The market is unpredictable, yet CNBC's market watch shows make people believe certain things because they are the "experts" and their predictions are wrong.

It is more of the claim of expertise and unquestionable knowledge that stewart is heckling..

[daveshane]

It bugs me that only a "Comedy Central" show can bring this up - if any serious news outlets started on about it, they would have their own skeletons brought out the closet on previous investment "advice".

[CEOofRawness]

It bugs me that only a "Comedy Central" show can bring this up - if any serious news outlets started on about it, they would have their own skeletons brought out the closet on previous investment "advice".

Back then, only the jester could tell the truth without getting hung. The same holds true today.

(Actually, I think Al Gore said something like that when he was a guest on the Daily Show...)

If you think about it, though, the Daily Show and Colbert Report wouldn't be successful shows if our political system (and select officials) weren't so ridiculous/retarded. They just repeat the news without using the mainstream lens. And those "serious news outlets" shouldn't be taken too seriously to begin with.

[MCYhon]

You'll have to get through these guys first:

http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/pictures/images/police/3B.jpg

Ya, there's not to much we can do anymore, at least not without killing an enormously large number of hypnotized, and just plain genetically inferior people. Like sad truth, social safety nets mostly just lower the bar on what's genetically allowed to survive. It all starts there ya know. Kinda sad, but that's how it works, you care for retards and allow them to reproduce and multiply and then holy crap!! You have a nation of retards! Then you blame the school system for failing at teaching these people. You blame big business when in reality they are forced to treat their employees as cattle, because they are! You blame TV even though you never watched it because you knew that it would only lead to a shallow and meaningless life. You blame the mainstream-media even though all of you can see strait through it. You blame the consumer economy even though most of you probably only consume enough to live well. You blame religion even though most of you believe in some god that transcends institutions.

All these things are blamed, yet no one ever asked why it was that these things are even around if none of us partake in them. Any one here have a large family?

It's a genetic disaster and that's just how it works, that's just the way it is on this planet.

this one is ok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics)

this is better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve)


i think we just need proper and strict education. Hold people with power accountable, if that is even possible. If that is impossible, then that is why reality is like this.

[Ferrus]

This amused me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g&e

[Melody]

i think we just need proper and strict education. Hold people with power accountable, if that is even possible. If that is impossible, then that is why reality is like this.that's one of the things Obama and the CIO are trying to do (transparency and accountability.) obviously they were inspired by my request for public madmin logs on INTPc

it makes a crazy difference when all of a sudden your actions can be scrutinized. it makes so much difference that i'm surprised a huge deal isn't made out of it all over the world. it's freaking game-theoretic, by which i mean that small increases in transparency will have significant effects on cooperation and effectiveness, because game-theoretic issues which would normally "dead-lock" things will be minimized. then again, it wasn't until recently that we had the ability to broadcast information the way we do now

if obama can effectively implement transparency, it will EASILY be his most significant contribution

[kendoiwan]

"Shall I jump out the window? Yes, precisely!"

"They have good names."

:popcorn:

[MCYhon]

that's one of the things Obama and the CIO are trying to do (transparency and accountability.) obviously they were inspired by my request for public madmin logs on INTPc

it makes a crazy difference when all of a sudden your actions can be scrutinized. it makes so much difference that i'm surprised a huge deal isn't made out of it all over the world. it's freaking game-theoretic, by which i mean that small increases in transparency will have significant effects on cooperation and effectiveness, because game-theoretic issues which would normally "dead-lock" things will be minimized. then again, it wasn't until recently that we had the ability to broadcast information the way we do now

if obama can effectively implement transparency, it will EASILY be his most significant contribution

what do you mean by transparency? if it means what i think it means, then how does it work?

[Melody]

what do you mean by transparency? if it means what i think it means, then how does it work?see-through bricks of course. will reduce sex scandals by a lot

what transparency would entail for an organization today is: placing as much information as it can in standard digital formats (like XML) and having it freely available for download. automation is implied -- software would take care of collecting/updating the data. the info would depend on the organization of course, but for "transparency" the data would be decisions. there are a lot of decisions which occur regularly, like say for an insurance agency a regular decision is whether to accept or deny the payment of a member's medical bill. there are also other kinds of decisions, like the organization's budget. the ultimate transparency of this kind will happen when documents are completely digitized, but i don't see that happening for another decade or two

also you might wonder what the point of just uploading the data in a standard format is, rather than displaying the info on their websites like they do now. the point is so that independent websites can take the data and implement user interfaces to it that aren't complete shit. imagine a site that can perform clever searches across data from multiple agencies

beyond the benefits of sharing data, it works because people will understand that if they do their job poorly, it will be noticed. it's a much more universal psychological thing than merely screwing with the heads of a few would-be criminals

and i believe it is reinforcing. if you see that other people are actually trying to do what's good for the public, and not just scheming around like dirty backstabbing bitches trying to get to the next rung, then you will give public service an honest shot yourself. i think currently, a lot of people get disillusioned about things and don't really try... this is more touchy-feely territory though

[Roger Mexico]

[QUOTE=**life is...**;1067462]Don't talk about the last time. Hitler was only one part of the story. World War 2 is just proof in my mind that it will happen again. And I'm not looking forward to it.
QUOTE]

Yeah, and the rest of the story is that eugenics is and was bullshit everywhere else. Bad public policy based on junk science.

Intelligence testing is bullshit, too, by the way, at least in terms of trying to measure some innate ability to pin it all on genetics. All you can ever test is the performance of learned skills, with the one most commonly measured being the skill of taking tests.

[Hustler]

see-through bricks of course. will reduce sex scandals by a lot

what transparency would entail for an organization today is: placing as much information as it can in standard digital formats (like XML) and having it freely available for download. automation is implied -- software would take care of collecting/updating the data. the info would depend on the organization of course, but for "transparency" the data would be decisions. there are a lot of decisions which occur regularly, like say for an insurance agency a regular decision is whether to accept or deny the payment of a member's medical bill. there are also other kinds of decisions, like the organization's budget. the ultimate transparency of this kind will happen when documents are completely digitized, but i don't see that happening for another decade or two

also you might wonder what the point of just uploading the data in a standard format is, rather than displaying the info on their websites like they do now. the point is so that independent websites can take the data and implement user interfaces to it that aren't complete shit. imagine a site that can perform clever searches across data from multiple agencies

beyond the benefits of sharing data, it works because people will understand that if they do their job poorly, it will be noticed. it's a much more universal psychological thing than merely screwing with the heads of a few would-be criminals

and i believe it is reinforcing. if you see that other people are actually trying to do what's good for the public, and not just scheming around like dirty backstabbing bitches trying to get to the next rung, then you will give public service an honest shot yourself. i think currently, a lot of people get disillusioned about things and don't really try... this is more touchy-feely territory though

This seems naive. I suspect you have never read a major corporation's quarterly report to the shareholders. It's about as transparent as lead. Forcing people in this culture of corporate greed to share more information will just lead to more incomprehensible jibber-jabber that you can waste your time trying to decipher.

And that's if they comply, which is unlikely. The more likely conclusion is that more back channels are used. I'll give you a for instance in the context of the madmin logs you so desperately want to see (which, by the way, would only be about 1% as informative as a window into the private madmin forums). Suppose all madmin logs are made public. All that has to be done to circumvent this is that a joint admin account be created which allows any madmin to login and use it to perform the type of action that shows up in a log. Now what is your transparency worth? Not much. All you'll have at this point is a bunch of effectively anonymous log entries, 99% of which comprise banning spammers.

You talk about it as though it's a game-theoretic certainty that transparency will lead to accountability and efficiency and so on. The only certainty I see is that it will lead to more gamesmanship. As Madrigal would no doubt tell you, you're suggesting a band-aid for cancer patient.

[omnirook]

As of Wednesday, NYC's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was officially the city's wealthiest person. W/16 billion dollars, Bloomberg is the the 17th richest person in the world. Bloomberg forced the NYC council to overturn the public referendums that had established term limits, so that he can now run for a third term. His stated reason for doing this was that the city needed his financial expertise in this time of crisis. Bloomberg made his billions by collecting, collating, packaging and selling financial information. Yet, like Kramer, Hizzoner did not see this mess coming. I want Jon Stewart to ask Bloomberg why HE didn't see what was happening and open his hole to warn the world. NY does NOT need "experts" like Bloomberg - who, like Sargent Schulz "see nothing, nothing" - except when it comes to their own money. Bloomberg is 4.5 billion dollars richer than he was a year ago.

[Ferrus]

Bloomberg forced the NYC council to overturn the public referendums that had established term limits, so that he can now run for a third term.
It's kind of funny - when a non-American (like Chavez) pulls this trick it is 'dictatorship'.

[Melody]

This seems naive. I suspect you have never read a major corporation's quarterly report to the shareholders. It's about as transparent as lead. Forcing people in this culture of corporate greed to share more information will just lead to more incomprehensible jibber-jabber that you can waste your time trying to decipher.

And that's if they comply, which is unlikely. The more likely conclusion is that more back channels are used. I'll give you a for instance in the context of the madmin logs you so desperately want to see (which, by the way, would only be about 1% as informative as a window into the private madmin forums). Suppose all madmin logs are made public. All that has to be done to circumvent this is that a joint admin account be created which allows any madmin to login and use it to perform the type of action that shows up in a log. Now what is your transparency worth? Not much. All you'll have at this point is a bunch of effectively anonymous log entries, 99% of which comprise banning spammers.i dont care about them logs. i proposed the idea and defended it because i proposed it, but INTPC could become totalitarian for all i care. the madmins have done a good job all these years, and i like that they don't take bullshit from people. that's a good thing. to be clear, i proposed the idea because it feels very "efficient," like when you look at a mathematical proof and see how something simple takes into account lots of things. some people were asking for the mods to discuss every account they banned. i thought, why not automate that? and while we're at it, automate other stuff? so easy! and what made it truly efficient was that no one would have to actually look at the logs. the major effect is a psychological one

those problems you note are one of the reasons it has to be automated. the data has to be drawn from the very systems that the organization uses. the extreme example i gave was if documents were fully digitized, so that the whole paper trail would be in the computer system. in a budget example, i can see people trying to hide where money is going by creating a vague category like "miscellaneous." but in that case i would keep track of the organization's actual bank account -- the horse's mouth. it becomes harder to game the closer we get to the actualities. though i do question how close to the facts we can get in the general case (in terms of humans allowing it)

either way, the choice of what is made public shouldn't fall completely to the organization. i think Obama is setting up a central "transparency" agency. such an agency would report to the president and thereby have some enforcement powers


You talk about it as though it's a game-theoretic certainty that transparency will lead to accountability and efficiency and so on. The only certainty I see is that it will lead to more gamesmanship. As Madrigal would no doubt tell you, you're suggesting a band-aid for cancer patient.i'll be the first to admit that it does feel naive, but i think it might be one of those problems that looks impossible but which actually has not-so-cumbersome solutions, or that is impossible in theory but not in practice. one example that comes to mind is gold farmers in MMORPG's. everyone thought it was impossible to get rid of them... then someone came up with "soulbinding" (might have been Blizzard, not sure,) so that when you get a new item, it's bound to your character and can't be given to anyone else... it can't be sold to anyone else. it's so "duh," and in addition to royally screwing gold farmers, this little alteration actually solves problems about the game "quality of life" and economy and item inflation as well. and all it really took was a moment of not considering the problem insoluble and actually thinking about it. World of Warcraft is full of things like that. i think tenacity of that sort is important

and btw, i'm no longer lost. thanks for the help you seem to always be exuding. even if people don't recognize it outright, it will seep into their skulls subconsciously whether they want it or not

[edge walker]

those problems you note are one of the reasons it has to be automated. the data has to be drawn from the very systems that the organization uses. the extreme example i gave was if documents were fully digitized, so that the whole paper trail would be in the computer system.
That will just lead to shadow workflows, secondary paper trails and selective data entry. Actually, scratch that -- it will not, it already does: software developers in large corporate environments with their heads on right will tell you stories about that.

Often, there is only a strenuous relationship between how middle management thinks the company works and the way the company actually works. Internal software projects are often predicated on the difference between how management thinks the company works and how management thinks the company should work -- with no basis in the reality of how the company really works and how it would actually work better. Often, there are politicisation issues at work -- eg. the perverse budget expansion incentives for managers in typical budget allocation approaches mean they will counteract any change that makes things too much more efficient than they are. Many times what happens is that a software system is introduced that is based purely on manager ideals but actively fails to help the people in the trenches who do the real work. As a result, the people in the trenches invent their own (often complicated and, from a global perspective, suboptimal) ways of doing their jobs and avoid using the ordained system. The majority of internal software projects (some 70%) are failures. Surprise!

What do you reckon are the chances to successfully impose an undesired constraint externally in such an environment?


in a budget example, i can see people trying to hide where money is going by creating a vague category like "miscellaneous." but in that case i would keep track of the organization's actual bank account -- the horse's mouth. it becomes harder to game the closer we get to the actualities. though i do question how close to the facts we can get in the general case (in terms of humans allowing it)
That too just leads to shadow bank accounts and possibly a thicket of straw/puppet companies set up to divert money to indirect destinations. In fact they don't even have to be obviously sinister puppets. It is already a well-established tactic to split a corporation into a bunch of different legal entities, even though they effectively remain a single unit, in order to exploit special clauses in tax legislation or other legal requirements.

[Melody]

...:yes: indeed. i'm not dissuaded though, in large part because i'm not really worried about corruption at all. it's small fries. Madoff could have gotten off on some technicality and i would have laughed. i don't know how much Obama realizes it, but transparency will have the greatest effect on the performance of non-corrupt people, and the potential there is huge

what you explain about software compared to what the actual needs of the organization are, that's understandable. though most such software projects probably fail because those organizations don't understand software, nevermind its development. luckily, "enterprise" software has been heading in the right direction, which is down the toilet, to be replaced by the much more adaptive granularity of small companies that can offer actual solutions instead of unusable monolithic crap

[Ferrus]

J.S. Mill:


Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

[edge walker]

transparency will have the greatest effect on the performance of non-corrupt people, and the potential there is huge
Ah! Suddenly your argument goes from naive to enlightened in my mind. I very much agree with that position.

[kendoiwan]

As of Wednesday, NYC's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was officially the city's wealthiest person. W/16 billion dollars, Bloomberg is the the 17th richest person in the world. Bloomberg forced the NYC council to overturn the public referendums that had established term limits, so that he can now run for a third term. His stated reason for doing this was that the city needed his financial expertise in this time of crisis. Bloomberg made his billions by collecting, collating, packaging and selling financial information. Yet, like Kramer, Hizzoner did not see this mess coming. I want Jon Stewart to ask Bloomberg why HE didn't see what was happening and open his hole to warn the world. NY does NOT need "experts" like Bloomberg - who, like Sargent Schulz "see nothing, nothing" - except when it comes to their own money. Bloomberg is 4.5 billion dollars richer than he was a year ago.


:ph34r: