Heisenberg Report

Peter Navarro Tells Joe Kernen The Wall Street Journal Produces ‘A Lot Of Garbage’

On Friday morning, CNBC anchor (and man who knows better than Ray Dalio) Joe Kernen conducted a very “compelling” interview with the only person in the world who takes Peter Navarro seriously: Peter Navarro.

The last time we checked in on Peter, his angry visage had materialized on CNN to explain why rate cuts are still desirable despite a scorching-hot June jobs report. That was on July 5.

A couple of days previous, Navarro told CNBC what “has to happen” to get the Dow to 30,000 “and above”. It won’t surprise you to discover that Fed rate cuts made Peter’s list.

Read more: Peter Navarro Knows Just ‘What Has To Happen’ To Get The Dow To 30,000 ‘And Above’

In any event, Peter’s Friday CNBC cameo was predictably silly. At one point, Kernen said “I wish we had as much time as we could possibly have with you”. Navarro looked confused. Presumably, nobody has ever expressed a desire to spend an open-ended amount of time talking to Peter about anything.

The highlight came when Navarro called the Wall Street Journal’s reporting “garbage” and likened the paper to the People’s Daily, a bizarre thing to say considering the Journal’s generally pro-Trump bent.

“There’s just going to be a lot of garbage coming out of the Wall Street Journal and the People’s Daily and everything in between”, he said. “I’ve seen this movie before”. Here’s Friday’s “movie”:

You do not have sufficient freedom levels to view this video. Support free software and upgrade.

(If the video does not load, please refresh your page)

He continued, insisting that, during previous rounds of negotiations, “all sorts of stories [were] written and they were designed to shape the negotiations”. As CNBC dryly notes, “Navarro didn’t discuss any specific stories or present any evidence to back up his point”.

The Journal says they stand by their reporting.

Multiple reports this week indicated that China has not yet made good on a commitment Trump claims was either implicit or explicit in the Osaka handshake deal with Xi, regarding purchases of US farm goods.

If you want Navarro’s advice (and I don’t know why you would), he says investors shouldn’t “believe anything you read in either the Chinese or the US press about these negotiations unless it comes from the mouth of either the president or advisor Lighthizer”.

Ok, Peter, fair enough. How about this, then?:

Does that count?