Barry’s WaPo column looks at why Mom & pop have left the investing world.

For some additional reasons why, here is a brief and far-from-complete list of the people and things that have lost all credibility since the the year 2000:

1. Brokerage firm analysts
2. Chief Global Strategists
3. Every Single Regulatory Body
4. Every once-great money manager
5. The entire profession of Economics
6. S&P, Moodys and the ratings agencies
7. Morningstar’s mutual fund rankings
8. The mainstream financial media in its entirety
9. Corporate Executives in the Aggregate
10. The entirety of the banking and financial sector
11. Reaganomics
12. Keynesianism
13. Our politicians’ grasp on the economy
14. The ability and sagacity of the Federal Reserve
15. The structural integrity of our stock exchanges

My full full take is here.


Category: Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

23 Responses to “Credibility Loss”

  1. Dow says:

    Was Keynesianism thrown on the list just to make it look all fair and balanced? We haven’t seen Keynesianism in this country in decades.

  2. rww says:

    Right on Josh but even so you overstate #5 and #12. Paul Krugman and many others who have taken unrelenting shit from the boys at Zerohedge (and elsewhere) deserve better.

  3. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Wow, Josh Brown names 2/3rds of The Milky Way!

  4. Gatsby says:

    Excellent list, although I would have to disagree with Keynesianism. While there has been much bashing of the great thinker in the MSM we didn’t see a true Keynesian response in America, or Europe. A traditional Keynesian response would have taken the unique opportunity of the “Financial Crimesis” to invest heavily in America’s ageing infrastructure to create tens of thousands of jobs. Instead that money went to bankers and few jobs were created. Canada’s “Economic Action Plan” as over-politicized as it was is an example of a truer Keynesian response.

    Additionally I think that it is rather clear that Keynes would have called for the big banks to have been nationalized and broken up (as per Sweden) with the shareholders wiped out and the bond holders hit somewhat.

    None of this happened. In fact, the exact opposite did. As for Europe, they have been the same. The eurocrats seems to be more concerned with saving bankers and bank bond/share holders that taking the medicine that’s needed and stimulating the economy.

  5. Moss says:

    You could add a lot more..

    Representative Democracy
    Free market Capitalism
    Rule of Law

  6. lo574 says:

    You left out they’ve realized the farce that is Trickle Down Economics

  7. bonghiteric says:

    Umm, how ’bout… they’re all f’in broke.

  8. denim says:

    Before blaming Keynes, one really ought to know what Keynes and Hicks wrote themselves.
    It surely is not what Team Obama did. Just ask Krugman:
    “I’m not alone in marveling at the extent to which Obama has thrown his rhetorical weight behind anti-Keynesian economics…”

    The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money By Keynes

  9. stonedwino says:

    No mas!

  10. vincible says:

    The Noble Prize, because they give it to anyone who will make their version of the facts seem more credible. Related to this is the title Professor, which has also lost all credibility since the year 2000. They call anyone a professor if it will just make their view seem more legitimate. Just ask Noble prize receiving Professor Milton Friedman, who said that the economic gains are going to trickle up (tomorrow!).

  11. intlacct says:

    haven’t read article yet. were accountants (‘the dog that didn’t bark’) mentioned?

  12. philipat says:

    That’s not fair to Keynes. Keynes never represented indefinite profligacy as any part of his work. What he did represent was that Government expenditures should be counter-cyclical, such that during the “Up” phase of the economic cycle, Government would accumulate reserves, which could then be depolyed during the down part of the economic cycle. This also used to be described as “Common sense”.

    The term “Keynsianism” was usurped by the Politicians (Politicians, Period perhaps should have featured in your list?) to justify indefinite profligacy, so your list might perhaps be amended to state “Keynsianism as is incorrectly defined in MSM and by today’s Politicians”

  13. VennData says:

    Reaganomics has done EXACTLY what it was supposed to do: con the marginal GOP voter into thinking that they were getting lower tax rates from the GOP, while it was in fact the uber rich, and their many vehicles, who were getting their taxes cut dramatically, while GOP-genuflector voter/sucker has a bigger and bigger share of the national debt.

    No, Josh, Reganomics was a smashing success. In fact, they’re pitching it again. And those angry white dudes are eating it up.

  14. bman says:

    Keynes is supposed to be disproven and dead but there’s always another bozo talking about it.

  15. victor says:

    Nassim Taleb says:

    “I take a ritual bath after any contact, or correspondence (even emails), with consultants, economists, Harvard Business School professors, journalists, and those in similarly depraved pursuits.”

  16. Crocodile Chuck says:

    Economics isn’t a profession-its like the Roman Catholic Church in the 14thC-defending the divine right of kings.

  17. AHodge says:

    there are 19 big reasons,
    i think a lot of yours are basically you just cannot ” invest” anymore
    its a third world climate,
    policy rules, banana republic policy
    all of it central banks/ fiscal/ and regulation
    so you can either play that game and be a nimble trader spending some time at it and timing.
    or take your chips and go home,
    something completely safe with maybe a little small single digit income?

  18. AHodge says:

    philipat and venn data are axactly right by the way
    anyone that thinks reagan was a tax cutter
    should add in the reagan greenspan pact to raise social security contributions fourfold.
    so the only ones clear winners were the uber rich
    where social security is meaningless at the max and most of them dont earn wages anyway.

  19. mlantz says:

    Why Keynesianism?

  20. Gatsby says:

    It would seem that much like Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes is more frequently (mis)quoted than he is actually read.