PDA

View Full Version : Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer


Pages : [1] 2

drowe
03-12-2009, 09:17 AM
has anybody been following this epic battle? started on the March 4th 'Daily Show' and they 2 have been going back and forth ever since. Now, tonight, Jim Cramer will be the guest on the Daily Show. it's gonna be awesome.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 09:29 AM
I haven't been following it too closely but what is Stewart's big beef with Cramer? I saw him ripping him for having Bear Stearns as a buy prior to its meltdown, but come on, the guy is a stock analyst of course he's going to have a long list of misses.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 09:29 AM
this battle is fricking GREAT. I was watching a special on this the other morning. Cramer telling people to buy Bear Sterns then Bear Sterns crashing. Then Cramer saying that people should sell all but Stewart calling him out on previous stocks to buy etc. its been epic.

I feel as if Stewart is more mocking the people that listen to Cramer as the end all and be all for stock advice more so than Cramer.

I will be watching this show tonight.

Brent
03-12-2009, 09:33 AM
I am a huge Daily Show fan, so I've been following this, obviously. For those who want to see how it all started:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252

CroomDawgs
03-12-2009, 11:10 AM
I haven't been following it too closely but what is Stewart's big beef with Cramer? I saw him ripping him for having Bear Stearns as a buy prior to its meltdown, but come on, the guy is a stock analyst of course he's going to have a long list of misses.Yea but doesn't Cramer say he's like right all the time or something?

I also loved it when stewart was saying I could b e an ass and yell and play random noise buttons then shows cramer doing it, LOL.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 11:13 AM
Yea but doesn't Cramer say he's like right all the time or something?

I also loved it when stewart was saying I could b e an ass and yell and play random noise buttons then shows cramer doing it, LOL.

Cramer has most definitely never claimed to always be right. I just don't get why Stewart is attacking him. Cramer was actually one of the first guys I heard who said to get out of the market all together because it was crashing.

P-L
03-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Cramer is entertaining to watch but his advice isn't very good most of the time.

JT Jag
03-12-2009, 11:27 AM
I haven't been following it too closely but what is Stewart's big beef with Cramer? I saw him ripping him for having Bear Stearns as a buy prior to its meltdown, but come on, the guy is a stock analyst of course he's going to have a long list of misses.Ok. What happened was that, week before last, a couple guest spots canceled on the Daily Show. To fill up the time, Jon decided to run a pretty biting expose on MSNBC (largely because of that one guy who said that "we shouldn't subside these loser's mortgages" last month).

Because one of the first clips was Cramer's infamous Bear Sterns deal, Cramer interpreted the entire clip as being against him, and retaliated on his show.

Stewart retaliated to THIS by running a few clips about Cramer specifically.

Cramer retaliated to THIS by going out to everyone on NBC, and getting them to talk up the rivalry and talk down Stewart.

Stewart responded again in the last episode but held back. I assume the interview had already been booked by then, and he's saving his good stuff for today.

CashmoneyDrew
03-12-2009, 12:23 PM
It's going to be awkward with a capitol A, but hilarious nonetheless.

awfullyquiet
03-12-2009, 12:28 PM
Ok. What happened was that, week before last, a couple guest spots canceled on the Daily Show. To fill up the time, Jon decided to run a pretty biting expose on MSNBC (largely because of that one guy who said that "we shouldn't subside these loser's mortgages" last month).

Because one of the first clips was Cramer's infamous Bear Sterns deal, Cramer interpreted the entire clip as being against him, and retaliated on his show.

Stewart retaliated to THIS by running a few clips about Cramer specifically.

Cramer retaliated to THIS by going out to everyone on NBC, and getting them to talk up the rivalry and talk down Stewart.

Stewart responded again in the last episode but held back. I assume the interview had already been booked by then, and he's saving his good stuff for today.

AKA just watch this VV

I am a huge Daily Show fan, so I've been following this, obviously. For those who want to see how it all started:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252

personally i find this LIGHTS OUT hilarious. and really sad that american journalism has to stoop to this...and by stoop to this, i mean actually call them out. isn't that what journalism is supposed to do? bring light to media worthy topics? the fact that jon stewart had to do this 8 months later is just a status quo of the media... if the media would have been tougher on cnbc for it's pretty crappy 'insider' information and passing it off as gospel and pretty much being patsy's to the billionaire set... this never would have happen.

props to stewart... but sad it had to come to that... well. no. not really it's more funny that way

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 12:56 PM
AKA just watch this VV



personally i find this LIGHTS OUT hilarious. and really sad that american journalism has to stoop to this...and by stoop to this, i mean actually call them out. isn't that what journalism is supposed to do? bring light to media worthy topics? the fact that jon stewart had to do this 8 months later is just a status quo of the media... if the media would have been tougher on cnbc for it's pretty crappy 'insider' information and passing it off as gospel and pretty much being patsy's to the billionaire set... this never would have happen.

props to stewart... but sad it had to come to that... well. no. not really it's more funny that way

What are you going on about?

someone447
03-12-2009, 12:58 PM
Stewart doesnt have a beef with Cramer, he doesn't really give a damn about him. He said last night he is in a media driven war of words. He just thought CNBC deserved to be called out for being bad. Like Stewart said, he knows he doesn't know a thing about the markets so he doesn't give advice. The people on CNBC don't know what is going to happen with the markets either, but they tell people they do. The fact of the matter is, you can't really predict the market. It has way too many variables.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 01:01 PM
Stewart doesnt have a beef with Cramer, he doesn't really give a damn about him. He said last night he is in a media driven war of words. He just thought CNBC deserved to be called out for being bad. Like Stewart said, he knows he doesn't know a thing about the markets so he doesn't give advice. The people on CNBC don't know what is going to happen with the markets either, but they tell people they do. The fact of the matter is, you can't really predict the market. It has way too many variables.

The same can be said about predicting football games or the draft, yet we all do that. I don't get why people are calling out Cramer.

someone447
03-12-2009, 01:17 PM
The same can be said about predicting football games or the draft, yet we all do that. I don't get why people are calling out Cramer.

Because who does predicting football games hurt if you are wrong? Who gets harmed if you predict a player wrong in the draft?

Who gets hurt when a famous financial guru tells his audience to buy Bear Stearns for 75 dollars a few days before the stock sells for 2 dollars? People lost their entire life savings because they listened to his advice. Like Stewart said, if the CNBC slogan wasn't something as ridiculous as "In Cramer We Trust" it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But that was intentionally chosen for the connection with God. They are trying to imply that he is omniscient and never wrong. I truly wonder how many people listend to the advice on CNBC and lost their entire life savings.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 01:32 PM
Because who does predicting football games hurt if you are wrong? Who gets harmed if you predict a player wrong in the draft?

Who gets hurt when a famous financial guru tells his audience to buy Bear Stearns for 75 dollars a few days before the stock sells for 2 dollars? People lost their entire life savings because they listened to his advice. Like Stewart said, if the CNBC slogan wasn't something as ridiculous as "In Cramer We Trust" it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But that was intentionally chosen for the connection with God. They are trying to imply that he is omniscient and never wrong. I truly wonder how many people listend to the advice on CNBC and lost their entire life savings.

People who bet on football games get hurt if they're wrong.

Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal? If you are stupid enough to believe that investing in the capital markets is foolproof, you deserve to lose your money. Seriously, nobody is idiotic enough to invest their life savings into a stock because some talking head on TV said to do it.

The guy gives stock advice, not guarantees.

iowatreat54
03-12-2009, 01:36 PM
Yes, but gambling on football games = illegal majority of the times. Investing in the stock market = legal and actually strongly encouraged in most cases.

He's not saying financial advice should be illegal, he's saying that football advice doesn't hurt anyone acting legally. Big difference.

Brodeur
03-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Cramer is good for a few laughs and the fact that he appeared on Arrested Development once. That's about it.

fischbowl
03-12-2009, 01:53 PM
This will provide me with a lot of hahas

drowe
03-12-2009, 01:53 PM
also, it should be noted that Stewart didn't just decide to start picking on Jim Cramer. a guy from CNBC started it by saying people that are losing their houses are "irresponsible losers" and we shouldn't have to pay their mortgage in response to individual homeowners being bailed out as well as large corporations. the guy promply backed out of an appearance on the daily show at the last minute.

So, Jon Stewart, in response to CNBC personality calling the newly homeless 'irresponsible' played some clips of some advise CNBC gave that could be considered irresponsible...including the Jim Cramer clip. Cramer was just the one that found it necessary to fight back.

If this was an unprovoked attack by Stewart, I would agree that it is out of line. Anybody that stakes their lifesavings on a d-bag with stupid, gimmicky show is showing poor judgement. But, When the same company that advises people to invest in failing businesses calls out people losing their homes as "irresponsible losers" they should absolutely be taken to task.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 01:56 PM
People who bet on football games get hurt if they're wrong.

Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal? If you are stupid enough to believe that investing in the capital markets is foolproof, you deserve to lose your money. Seriously, nobody is idiotic enough to invest their life savings into a stock because some talking head on TV said to do it.

The guy gives stock advice, not guarantees.

If you don't have the series 66 or 65, Financial advice is illegal to give if you are compensated for it and its not part of your regular course of business(Professor, lawyers, engineers etc..I could explain that further if you would like). investment newsletters(Wall St journal doesnt count since its a news publication) and Cramer must be registered though. General advice is fine becasue it doesn't account for suitability and what not for clients.


giving financial advice is much more in depth than that so any question please dont ask. lol

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 02:07 PM
They are both idiots yet I will probably still watch just to see Stewart kiss his ass after weeks of ripping him.

someone447
03-12-2009, 02:08 PM
also, it should be noted that Stewart didn't just decide to start picking on Jim Cramer. a guy from CNBC started it by saying people that are losing their houses are "irresponsible losers" and we shouldn't have to pay their mortgage in response to individual homeowners being bailed out as well as large corporations. the guy promply backed out of an appearance on the daily show at the last minute.

So, Jon Stewart, in response to CNBC personality calling the newly homeless 'irresponsible' played some clips of some advise CNBC gave that could be considered irresponsible...including the Jim Cramer clip. Cramer was just the one that found it necessary to fight back.

If this was an unprovoked attack by Stewart, I would agree that it is out of line. Anybody that stakes their lifesavings on a d-bag with stupid, gimmicky show is showing poor judgement. But, When the same company that advises people to invest in failing businesses calls out people losing their homes as "irresponsible losers" they should absolutely be taken to task.

Even if it was an unprovoked attack it wouldn't be out of line. People are stupid, they will follow TV personalities advice. No, of course it shouldn't be illegal, but it is ethically wrong for CNBC to advertise Cramer in the way they do. They are using the phrase "In Cramer We Trust" to bring up images of an infallible god.

someone447
03-12-2009, 02:09 PM
They are both idiots yet I will probably still watch just to see Stewart kiss his ass after weeks of ripping him.

Its been less than a week, and I doubt Stewart kisses his ass.

someone447
03-12-2009, 02:11 PM
People who bet on football games get hurt if they're wrong.

Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal? If you are stupid enough to believe that investing in the capital markets is foolproof, you deserve to lose your money. Seriously, nobody is idiotic enough to invest their life savings into a stock because some talking head on TV said to do it.

The guy gives stock advice, not guarantees.

Betting on football is frowned on in most of the country, while investing is what causes our economy to go, so there is pressure to invest.

Of course not, I know that investing is far from foolproof, but like Stewart said, I don't claim to be a guru, and it is irresponsible for anyone to claim intimate knowledge like CNBC does.

Yet he claims, a the very least insinuates, they are guarantees. That is where the problem lies.

Tampa 2 4 life
03-12-2009, 02:14 PM
Jon Stewart: First crossfire(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)

now Mad Money.

Watch your back Stewart, the most awesome tv host on the planet is a'coming.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 02:14 PM
Its been less than a week, and I doubt Stewart kisses his ass.

Ok.

Edit:

They are both idiots (why anyone would listen, trust or give credence to either's advice on finances or politics is beyond me) yet I will watch just to see Stewart likely kiss Cramer's ass after less than a week of ripping him on his show.

drowe
03-12-2009, 02:20 PM
Ok.

Edit:

They are both idiots (why anyone would listen, trust or give credence to either's advice on finances or politics is beyond me) yet I will watch just to see Stewart likely kiss Cramer's ass after less than a week of ripping him on his show.

you MAY be right on the ass kissing part..but, i'm not so sure. he does tend to kiss ass when he has a big name guest that he disagrees with, like Bill O'Reily...and there have been others. he kinda sells out so people like that keep coming on his show.

But, i don't think anybody gives two craps about Jim Cramer. so, we might see a show.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 02:28 PM
you MAY be right on the ass kissing part..but, i'm not so sure. he does tend to kiss ass when he has a big name guest that he disagrees with, like Bill O'Reily...and there have been others. he kinda sells out so people like that keep coming on his show.

But, i don't think anybody gives two craps about Jim Cramer. so, we might see a show.

No way in hell people in his demographic care more about Bill O'Reilly than Jim Cramer. His audience hates O'Reilly but like you said...he was a softy with him, he will be a softy with Cramer tonight too. I can tell you exactly how the interview will go:

Joke
Joke
Tough question about Bear Stearns
followup
Joke
Joke
I love you
/end interview

:cue huge ratings

drowe
03-12-2009, 02:38 PM
No way in hell people in his demographic care more about Bill O'Reilly than Jim Cramer. His audience hates O'Reilly but like you said...he was a softy with him, he will be a softy with Cramer tonight too. I can tell you exactly how the interview will go:

Joke
Joke
Tough question about Bear Stearns
followup
Joke
Joke
I love you
/end interview

:cue huge ratings


i think the tone of the interview will be dictated by Cramer. if he's gonna come on and be nice, Stewart will lay off. but, if he comes out throwing punches and blasting Stewart for taking his quotes out of context, I think Stewart will follow suit and crucify him.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 02:41 PM
i think the tone of the interview will be dictated by Cramer. if he's gonna come on and be nice, Stewart will lay off. but, if he comes out throwing punches and blasting Stewart for taking his quotes out of context, I think Stewart will follow suit and crucify him.

Cramer always comes out acting nice, he will be his usual zany, annoyingly funny (only to John Stewart and his live audience though, watch how much they laugh at his stupid jokes) self. He doesn't come out throwing punches.

gameplaya2435
03-12-2009, 02:56 PM
This whole "feud" is comical. Jon Stewart is just doing what he always does, a satirical show where he takes clips and quotes and points out the idiotic things people say. Some douchebag thinks that Jon Stewart is attacking him for taking things he said out of context/only pointing out his flaws/ what the **** ever. Not news. Yet CNBC is trying to blow this up in order to get more publicity for their ****** cable financial advice. It's one thing for Cramer to stand up there and say based on the market trends, here's what I think will happen. It's a whole other issue when he says this company will not fail. It will sell at $60/share soon. The market is getting better. Invest accordingly!

Of course some fool is going to see his show, think he knows what he's talking about and stick all their money in the next tanking Bank/Insurance Company.

Brent
03-12-2009, 03:01 PM
what the **** ever. Not news.
I think this is one thing a lot of people miss about The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Neither of them are news shows, nor claim to be. Instead, they parody news shows and make satire out of them and the things that they cover. For ****'s sake, Crank Yankers used to come on before them.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 03:03 PM
I think this is one thing a lot of people miss about The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Neither of them are news shows, nor claim to be. Instead, they parody news shows and make satire out of them and the things that they cover. For ****'s sake, Crank Yankers used to come on before them.

I had a friend tell me absolutely straight face and serious that he gets all his news from those two shows. I was floored by that, but he did not understand what could be shocking about that; he thought it was the most normal thing ever.

Brent
03-12-2009, 03:08 PM
I had a friend tell me absolutely straight face and serious that he gets all his news from those two shows. I was floored by that, but he did not understand what could be shocking about that; he thought it was the most normal thing ever.
I dont know what to tell you. I can't say I get my news from there. I keep up with what's going on around the nation/world thanks to newspapers; I just enjoy watching satire.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 03:11 PM
I dont know what to tell you. I can't say I get my news from there. I keep up with what's going on around the nation/world thanks to newspapers; I just enjoy watching satire.

You don't have to tell me anything other than my friend is a ******* idiot for letting that be a source of news for him haha.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:07 PM
Betting on football is frowned on in most of the country, while investing is what causes our economy to go, so there is pressure to invest.

Of course not, I know that investing is far from foolproof, but like Stewart said, I don't claim to be a guru, and it is irresponsible for anyone to claim intimate knowledge like CNBC does.

Yet he claims, a the very least insinuates, they are guarantees. That is where the problem lies.

Show me one example where Cramer has guaranteed anything. He is giving stock advice, just like THOUSANDS of other people. Ever watch BNN? Ever listen to Warren Buffet? Jim Rogers? Cramer did absolutely nothing wrong, nor did CNBC.

Further, you do not need any sort of licensing to give out stock advice on television.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Even if it was an unprovoked attack it wouldn't be out of line. People are stupid, they will follow TV personalities advice. No, of course it shouldn't be illegal, but it is ethically wrong for CNBC to advertise Cramer in the way they do. They are using the phrase "In Cramer We Trust" to bring up images of an infallible god.

So you think some guy turns on CNBC, sees the slogan "In Cramer We Trust" and assumes he is an infallible god and his stock picks are going to be right 100% of the time?

Come on, what planet do you live on?

bored of education
03-12-2009, 04:11 PM
Show me one example where Cramer has guaranteed anything. He is giving stock advice, just like THOUSANDS of other people. Ever watch BNN? Ever listen to Warren Buffet? Jim Rogers? Cramer did absolutely nothing wrong, nor did CNBC.

Further, you do not need any sort of licensing to give out stock advice on television.

I never said you did. You need licensing to give advice for compensation directly associated with that advice.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:17 PM
I never said you did. You need licensing to give advice for compensation directly associated with that advice.

Which has nothing to do with this thread at all, but OK...

bored of education
03-12-2009, 04:19 PM
Which has nothing to do with this thread at all, but OK...
Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal?

you said that and i was going over the parameters in which you have the right to give out advice for a fee.

drowe
03-12-2009, 04:20 PM
Show me one example where Cramer has guaranteed anything. He is giving stock advice, just like THOUSANDS of other people. Ever watch BNN? Ever listen to Warren Buffet? Jim Rogers? Cramer did absolutely nothing wrong, nor did CNBC.



1-so, just to be clear, you have no problem with the dude on CNBC referring to the people losing their homes as "irresponsible losers"?

2-also, yeah, CNBC has every right to be wrong. and The Daily Show has every right to point out that they were wrong. so, what's the difference?

MetSox17
03-12-2009, 04:21 PM
You don't have to tell me anything other than my friend is a ******* idiot for letting that be a source of news for him haha.

How does your friend enjoy those two shows then? In my case, i don't laugh, or appreciate the jokes as much if i don't know what's going on (don't keep up with news). I think it would be pretty pointless to watch it for news, since they hardly provide full stories, and the jokes aren't funny at all if you don't know the background on it.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:25 PM
1-so, just to be clear, you have no problem with the dude on CNBC referring to the people losing their homes as "irresponsible losers"?

2-also, yeah, CNBC has every right to be wrong. and The Daily Show has every right to point out that they were wrong. so, what's the difference?

As far as generalizations go, I don't think that's a terrible one to make. Obviously he should have worded it better but I get the point he's making. I also don't think they should be bailed out in any fashion. Americans have a NEGATIVE savings rate. That is ridiculous. For some reason people think they are entitled to have a $500k home, flat screen TVs, and two SUVs. Since a middle-class lifestyle can't afford that, they borrow the difference and now we're seeing the result of it. Is this the case for everybody that lost their home? Of course not, but the vast majority of people who did lose their home overspent and overleveraged.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Daily Show pointing out a mistake that Cramer made in his predictions. That's what the show does. I just don't get the argument that Cramer did something "wrong" or "unethical" when all he was doing was providing his opinion on the market. It's not like he was only one who was still bullish at that time.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:26 PM
Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal?

you said that and i was going over the parameters in which you have the right to give out advice for a fee.

Right, but there's no fee involved so it really has no bearing on this conversation.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 04:29 PM
How does your friend enjoy those two shows then? In my case, i don't laugh, or appreciate the jokes as much if i don't know what's going on (don't keep up with news). I think it would be pretty pointless to watch it for news, since they hardly provide full stories, and the jokes aren't funny at all if you don't know the background on it.


I don't know? We will have to ask him. He is a strange kid though, Peruvian and a closeted homosexual who acts exactly like Butters from South Park.

Brent
03-12-2009, 04:33 PM
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Daily Show pointing out a mistake that Cramer made in his predictions. That's what the show does. I just don't get the argument that Cramer did something "wrong" or "unethical" when all he was doing was providing his opinion on the market. It's not like he was only one who was still bullish at that time.
The problem is that while he is providing his opinions, the network CNBC, makes him out to be right. Whether he agrees with them projecting him as such is not what Stewart is attacking. The Daily Show was making a commentary on the network as a whole. All day, that network talks about what they cover as if they are the authority on the subject, thus, indirectly proclaiming they know the most. They play commercials that say that they are "the only network with the information and experience you need" as if you should look no where else for advice.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:40 PM
The problem is that while he is providing his opinions, the network CNBC, makes him out to be right. Whether he agrees with them projecting him as such is not what Stewart is attacking. The Daily Show was making a commentary on the network as a whole. All day, that network talks about what they cover as if they are the authority on the subject, thus, indirectly proclaiming they know the most. They play commercials that say that they are "the only network with the information and experience you need" as if you should look no where else for advice.

Every network does that. Every news network claims to be the most fair, balanced, informative, blah blah blah.

Show me even one example where CNBC made a claim that they cannot back up. They never said they were always right. They never said they were the best at picking stocks.

And who says CNBC isn't the authority on the stock market? Do you think ANY of the networks predicted the meltdown? Nobody did, or if they did, they are sitting on a pile of cash right now!

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 04:42 PM
And who says CNBC isn't the authority on the stock market? Do you think ANY of the networks predicted the meltdown? Nobody did, or if they did, they are sitting on a pile of cash right now!


I am hoping/assuming this refers only to networks. Plenty of well respected people predicted this and the signs were/are fairly obvious.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:44 PM
I am hoping/assuming this refers only to networks. Plenty of people predicted this and the signs were/are fairly obvious.

People predicted this? Like who? And what were the signs?

You realize that you could have made millions upon millions of dollars if you predicted the meltdown, right?

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 04:46 PM
People predicted this? Like who? And what were the signs?

You realize that you could have made millions upon millions of dollars if you predicted the meltdown, right?

Check out the hundreds of thousands of us who were Ron Paul/Peter Schiff followers. Do a youtube search of Peter Schiff predicts collapse. Here is a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 04:52 PM
and the most obvious sign BTW were me looking outside my window and seeing hundreds of thousands of new rooms going up in these huge condos in Hollywood, Hallandale and all of South Florida and using common sense saying where are all these buyers going to come from? Who is financing this? Why are people paying half a million for an 800 square foot one bed one bath Condo in Hollywood that would be $80,00 five years ago??

It was not right and if people used common sense instead of greed it was fairly obvious IMO.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:53 PM
Check out the hundreds of thousands of us who were Ron Paul/Peter Schiff followers. Do a youtube search of Peter Schiff predicts collapse. Here is a good one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Right, so that's two guys? Out of thousands/millions? Come on...

Don't even get me started on Paul either...

Gold standard? LOL.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:53 PM
and the most obvious sign BTW were me looking outside my window and seeing hundreds of thousands of new rooms going up in these huge condos in Hollywood, Hallandale and all of South Florida and using common sense saying where are all these buyers going to come from? Who is financing this? Why are people paying half a million for an 800 square foot one bed one bath Condo in Hollywood that would be $80,00 five years ago??

It was not right and if people used common sense instead of greed it was fairly obvious IMO.

So why didn't you short the market and make a killing if it was so obvious?

jayceheathman
03-12-2009, 04:53 PM
People who bet on football games get hurt if they're wrong.

Are you trying to say giving financial advice should be illegal? If you are stupid enough to believe that investing in the capital markets is foolproof, you deserve to lose your money. Seriously, nobody is idiotic enough to invest their life savings into a stock because some talking head on TV said to do it.

The guy gives stock advice, not guarantees.

The difference is that if you lose on a football pick you lose 100% no matter what. If you lose on the stock market one day then you have thousands of other days to get out or for it to come back. Your stock may go down 1% here and another 1 % there. Very few you will see a stock crash like Bear Sterns or Fannie Mae. Everyone knew Fannie Mae and Citi were in trouble so people had their opportunity to get out. You can invest in Bank of America and pretty much lose 30% or gain 30% every day.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 04:55 PM
The difference is that if you lose on a football pick you lose 100% no matter what. If you lose on the stock market one day then you have thousands of other days to get out or for it to come back. Your stock may go down 1% here and another 1 % there. Very few you will see a stock crash like Bear Sterns or Fannie Mae. Everyone knew Fannie Mae and Citi were in trouble so people had their opportunity to get out. You can invest in Bank of America and pretty much lose 30% or gain 30% every day.

I have no clue what point you're trying to make here, sorry.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 04:57 PM
So why didn't you short the market and make a killing if it was so obvious?

How do you know I didn't? And it was not two guys, it was hundreds of thousands of his followers like me who were screaming this at the top of our lungs a year and a half ago.

EDIT: And let's not make this about Dr. Paul and his gold standard ideas as they will just lock this thread.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 05:02 PM
How do you know I didn't? And it was not two guys, it was hundreds of thousands of his followers like me who were screaming this at the top of our lungs a year and a half ago.

EDIT: And let's not make this about Dr. Paul and his gold standard ideas as they will just lock this thread.

So did you short the market or not? I somehow doubt it because you could be sitting on millions if you were so sure of the meltdown.

I think it's reasonable to say a lot of people expected a correction (as we tend to get every few years, last one was post 911/tech bubble) but nothing like what we're experiencing now.

So let's say good old Peter and Ron were wrong about this and the recession never came...would you be ripping them for pretending to be infallible or would you realize they just made a bad prediction?

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 05:06 PM
So did you short the market or not? I somehow doubt it because you could be sitting on millions if you were so sure of the meltdown.


I did short the market but I am not sitting on millions. As the saying goes you need millions to make millions.


I think it's reasonable to say a lot of people expected a correction (as we tend to get every few years, last one was post 911/tech bubble) but nothing like what we're experiencing now.

I think it is fair to say a lot of people did expect a correction but from where I am sitting I also think it's fair to say that a lot of us did expect things to get this bad and do expect it to stay bad/get worse.


So let's say good old Peter and Ron were wrong about this and the recession never came...would you be ripping them for pretending to be infallible or would you realize they just made a bad prediction?


No. I would never blame someone for my losses as I am the one and only person responsible for my own actions. Come on, that is libertarian 101. :)

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 05:11 PM
I did short the market but I am not sitting on millions. As the saying goes you need millions to make millions.



I think it is fair to say a lot of people did expect a correction but from where I am sitting I also think it's fair to say that a lot of us did expect things to get this bad and do expect it to stay bad/get worse.




No. I would never blame someone for my losses as I am the one and only person responsible for my own actions. Come on, that is libertarian 101. :)

OK, so we're on the same page. I'm not saying it's wrong to cut into Cramer for being wrong, that's perfectly acceptable. We always rip into people for predicting the wrong thing. But...we should never rip people for making predictions period. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong.

You could have easily leveraged yourself and shorted certain stocks like big financial conglomerates to make millions even if you only had thousands to play with.

The point is nobody knows exactly how the market is going to play out or the timing of it either. Plus, the market is 100% human-controlled so you're basically trying to predict how a huge group of individuals are going to valuate the future potential earnings of a company. Not an easy proposition for anybody.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 05:17 PM
this could get interesting. people saw it comming but didnt know how bad or when it was comming or which sectors(some have been doing ehhhh some have been ****)

jayceheathman
03-12-2009, 05:18 PM
I have no clue what point you're trying to make here, sorry.

Werent you guys arguing about why betting on fooball is illegal and the stock market is legal? I could have read it wrong.

One thing though is that no one is 100% sure on any stock. I used to hate Cramer back when people thought he was the best thing to ever hit the market. My stock would go down 10% one day with no news at all except for Cramer saying he doesnt like it. Now, not too many people buy or sell based on what he says nearly as much as when the show just started getting popular. He is an entertainer first and then a stock analysis second. He gets more money from that show than he does with his stocks.

Oh yeah, I dont know about other brokers but Fidelity has had a rule for quite some time that you cant short a stock without having at least one million dollars in your account. Its too risky since you could easily lose it all and more on top of that and they dont know if they will see that money.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 05:21 PM
OK, so we're on the same page. I'm not saying it's wrong to cut into Cramer for being wrong, that's perfectly acceptable. We always rip into people for predicting the wrong thing. But...we should never rip people for making predictions period. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong.



predictions are 50-50. somtimes people forget that. and of course someone will get ripped for a prediction gone wrong more so than praised for a prediction gone right

bored of education
03-12-2009, 05:24 PM
Werent you guys arguing about why betting on fooball is illegal and the stock market is legal? I could have read it wrong.

One thing though is that no one is 100% sure on any stock. I used to hate Cramer back when people thought he was the best thing to ever hit the market. My stock would go down 10% one day with no news at all except for Cramer saying he doesnt like it. Now, not too many people buy or sell based on what he says nearly as much as when the show just started getting popular. He is an entertainer first and then a stock analysis second. He gets more money from that show than he does with his stocks.

Oh yeah, I dont know about other brokers but Fidelity has had a rule for quite some time that you cant short a stock without having at least one million dollars in your account. Its too risky since you could easily lose it all and more on top of that and they dont know if they will see that money.

There are shorting stock rules and each company may have their own policies about it

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 05:25 PM
Werent you guys arguing about why betting on fooball is illegal and the stock market is legal? I could have read it wrong.

One thing though is that no one is 100% sure on any stock. I used to hate Cramer back when people thought he was the best thing to ever hit the market. My stock would go down 10% one day with no news at all except for Cramer saying he doesnt like it. Now, not too many people buy or sell based on what he says nearly as much as when the show just started getting popular. He is an entertainer first and then a stock analysis second. He gets more money from that show than he does with his stocks.

Oh yeah, I dont know about other brokers but Fidelity has had a rule for quite some time that you cant short a stock without having at least one million dollars in your account. Its too risky since you could easily lose it all and more on top of that and they dont know if they will see that money.

There are rules with shorting but you definitely do not need a million dollars to short sell stocks. You can also limit downside and leverage by buying Short ETFs. Also, options would have been VERY profitable due to how leveraged they are.

If you know what the market is going to do, you will make a ton of money, period. There are financial instruments that you can use to bet on pretty much anything happening.

jayceheathman
03-12-2009, 05:36 PM
There are rules with shorting but you definitely do not need a million dollars to short sell stocks. You can also limit downside and leverage by buying Short ETFs. Also, options would have been VERY profitable due to how leveraged they are.

If you know what the market is going to do, you will make a ton of money, period. There are financial instruments that you can use to bet on pretty much anything happening.

I have tried shorting but Fidelity wont let me and I have been told by them that you have to have one million. I have been considering signing up with Scottrade.

My worst ever pick that was so unlucky was Fannie May. I knew it was volatile but it hit like $2 and was making a pretty nice run up that week. I bought in and not too much happened the first day. I was getting bored and wanted to pick a fun stock where I have a chance of making a lot but also getting destroyed. I wasnt planning on getting as destroyed as I did. 2 days after I bought in is when the Government announced they were going to buy Fannie and Freddie out and of course they do this after the market is closed. The next day the stock opened 90% lower and there was nothing I could do about it but watch. So many people were on Yahoo message boards for that stock wondering what was going to happen when the market opened.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 05:40 PM
I have tried shorting but Fidelity wont let me and I have been told by them that you have to have one million. I have been considering signing up with Scottrade.

My worst ever pick that was so unlucky was Fannie May. I knew it was volatile but it hit like $2 and was making a pretty nice run up that week. I bought in and not too much happened the first day. I was getting bored and wanted to pick a fun stock where I have a chance of making a lot but also getting destroyed. I wasnt planning on getting as destroyed as I did. 2 days after I bought in is when the Government announced they were going to buy Fannie and Freddie out and of course they do this after the market is closed. The next day the stock opened 90% lower and there was nothing I could do about it but watch. So many people were on Yahoo message boards for that stock wondering what was going to happen when the market opened.

Ouch, that's rough. I almost bit into Sirius/XM when it got low...thankfully I kept my senses and didn't. Still, I got burned badly when the agriculture sector came down.

jayceheathman
03-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Ouch, that's rough. I almost bit into Sirius/XM when it got low...thankfully I kept my senses and didn't. Still, I got burned badly when the agriculture sector came down.

I thought about Sirius myself and luckily didnt get in either. It had a very nice day today but the whole market did as well. Well, besides my stock. I have Marvel and they announced today that they are pushing back the release dates on Thor and The Avengers so it went down 2%. The last time I checked I heard Sirius/XM were about to file bankruptcy.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 05:46 PM
I have tried shorting but Fidelity wont let me and I have been told by them that you have to have one million. I have been considering signing up with Scottrade.

My worst ever pick that was so unlucky was Fannie May. I knew it was volatile but it hit like $2 and was making a pretty nice run up that week. I bought in and not too much happened the first day. I was getting bored and wanted to pick a fun stock where I have a chance of making a lot but also getting destroyed. I wasnt planning on getting as destroyed as I did. 2 days after I bought in is when the Government announced they were going to buy Fannie and Freddie out and of course they do this after the market is closed. The next day the stock opened 90% lower and there was nothing I could do about it but watch. So many people were on Yahoo message boards for that stock wondering what was going to happen when the market opened.

many brokerages have min/max requirements for shorting

El Peefs?????
03-12-2009, 05:47 PM
Who the hell is Jim Cramer

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 05:49 PM
Who the hell is Jim Cramer

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/Jim-Cramer.jpg

Guy who yells about stocks on his CNBC show.

someone447
03-12-2009, 07:08 PM
Ok.

Edit:

They are both idiots (why anyone would listen, trust or give credence to either's advice on finances or politics is beyond me) yet I will watch just to see Stewart likely kiss Cramer's ass after less than a week of ripping him on his show.

The thing is, Jon Stewart doesn't want anyone taking his advice. He is a comedian, so why that makes him an idiot, I don't know.

someone447
03-12-2009, 07:11 PM
So you think some guy turns on CNBC, sees the slogan "In Cramer We Trust" and assumes he is an infallible god and his stock picks are going to be right 100% of the time?

Come on, what planet do you live on?

If you don't think that was there intent, I just don't know what to tell you. It is using a classic symbol to give credence to a different person, it is something that has been done since the dawn of civilization. Of course they don't expect people to believe he is a god. But it does bring to mind "In God We Trust." And if you don't think some people put absolute faith in whatever is said on TV, well I don't know what planet you are living on. How many people STILL believe Obama is Muslim, and that was just from Fox News and emails.

someone447
03-12-2009, 07:21 PM
No. I would never blame someone for my losses as I am the one and only person responsible for my own actions. Come on, that is libertarian 101. :)

I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I am gradually further and further left. I would still vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, because he is one of the few politicians who you know what you are going to get, he sticks to his guns. Same with Kucinich(even though he is too far left for me.) Hell, my ideal system of government/economics is anarcho-capitalism, but it isn't a feasible system.

I would never blame someone else for MY losses, but that is because I am smart enough to do research. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with most people(and thats why I keep moving further and further from libertarianism, people are just so dumb they couldn't handle pure libertarianism, they would get fleeced regularly.) Most people are easily manipulated, and even insinuating that Cramer is almost always right, like CNBC does is a bad faith move. Way too many people put their trust in what is said on TV, and they know that.

I Know It All, I also predicted a meltdown. I had no idea when it would happen, but you can ask any of my friends and they will tell you I have been saying we are heading for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, back about a year ago. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to short anything, because I've barely had the money to eat, much less invest.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 07:38 PM
I used to be a hardcore libertarian, but I am gradually further and further left. I would still vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, because he is one of the few politicians who you know what you are going to get, he sticks to his guns. Same with Kucinich(even though he is too far left for me.) Hell, my ideal system of government/economics is anarcho-capitalism, but it isn't a feasible system.

I would never blame someone else for MY losses, but that is because I am smart enough to do research. Unfortunately, that isn't the case with most people(and thats why I keep moving further and further from libertarianism, people are just so dumb they couldn't handle pure libertarianism, they would get fleeced regularly.) Most people are easily manipulated, and even insinuating that Cramer is almost always right, like CNBC does is a bad faith move. Way too many people put their trust in what is said on TV, and they know that.

I Know It All, I also predicted a meltdown. I had no idea when it would happen, but you can ask any of my friends and they will tell you I have been saying we are heading for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, back about a year ago. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to short anything, because I've barely had the money to eat, much less invest.

See to me libertarianism is not just trusting yourself to make the right decisions; it's about the community and others helping those who are not smart enough to make the right decisions instead of trusting the government to do that.

It comes down to who you trust more: the people around you or the government?

someone447
03-12-2009, 07:50 PM
See to me libertarianism is not just trusting yourself to make the right decisions; it's about the community and others helping those who are not smart enough to make the right decisions instead of trusting the government to do that.

It comes down to who you trust more: the people around you or the government?

I trust neither. I think Libertarianism would work for most people. But there are always those that would take advantage of the situation. I am of the school of thought that the governments job is to protect the individuals rights. That's a very libertarian philosophy, but I don't think Libertarianism can accomplish that.

Boston
03-12-2009, 08:30 PM
God I hope this turns hostile. I hope Jon just kicks the **** out of Cramer.

Primetime21
03-12-2009, 08:33 PM
God I hope this turns hostile. I hope Jon just kicks the **** out of Cramer.

It wont but would love to see it. Stewart vs. Crossfire shows how awesome it can get.

Colbert>Stewart. You guys agree or disagree.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-12-2009, 08:59 PM
It wont but would love to see it. Stewart vs. Crossfire shows how awesome it can get.

Colbert>Stewart. You guys agree or disagree.

Apples to oranges IMO. Stewart is a guy that spins real news. He makes fun of actual events. Colbert is a caricature, that makes fun of everything.
In terms of pure laughs though, Colbert has an edge.

P-L
03-12-2009, 09:13 PM
Anyone who takes Cramer's word as gospel is stupid and deserves to lose their life savings. Like I said, he is good for entertainment purposes only. If you are stupid enough to listen to someone that just yells and screams for one hour on television than I feel bad for you. Get a real stock broker. Remember, you get what you pay for.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 09:14 PM
Anyone who takes Cramer's word as gospel is stupid and deserves to lose their life savings. Like I said, he is good for entertainment purposes only. If you are stupid enough to listen to someone that just yells and screams for one hour on television than I feel bad for you. Get a real stock broker. Remember, you get what you pay for.

He is just as much entertainment as ummmm John Stewart on the Daily Show :D

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 09:14 PM
Anyone who takes Cramer's word as gospel is stupid and deserves to lose their life savings. Like I said, he is good for entertainment purposes only. If you are stupid enough to listen to someone that just yells and screams for one hour on television than I feel bad for you. Get a real stock broker. Remember, you get what you pay for.

LOL @ stock brokers...

Brodeur
03-12-2009, 09:15 PM
Apples to oranges IMO. Stewart is a guy that spins real news. He makes fun of actual events. Colbert is a caricature, that makes fun of everything.
In terms of pure laughs though, Colbert has an edge.

Colbert is a caricature, but he can provide some real analysis beneath it all. An example would be when he ripped Michael Brown, the former FEMA director, to shreds.

P-L
03-12-2009, 09:16 PM
LOL @ stock brokers...
Whether you care for stock brokers or not, their advice will be 1000 times more useful than Jim Cramer's.

Paul
03-12-2009, 09:21 PM
Bill, if you're a character--then what am I?

..................

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 09:21 PM
Whether you care for stock brokers or not, their advice will be 1000 times more useful than Jim Cramer's.

And why is that?

kwilk103
03-12-2009, 09:22 PM
cramer was actually a pretty successfull businessman

someone447
03-12-2009, 09:28 PM
Whether you care for stock brokers or not, their advice will be 1000 times more useful than Jim Cramer's.

The problem with Cramer/CNBC is that they portray themselves to be these gurus, and they use imagery that points to their infallibility. They don't deserve to be punished or anything, but they do deserve to get laid into for giving such terrible advice when it was quite obvious we were in a bubble and it was going to burst.

Staubach12
03-12-2009, 09:29 PM
Jon Stewart is a genius.

P-L
03-12-2009, 09:32 PM
The problem with Cramer/CNBC is that they portray themselves to be these gurus, and they use imagery that points to their infallibility. They don't deserve to be punished or anything, but they do deserve to get laid into for giving such terrible advice when it was quite obvious we were in a bubble and it was going to burst.
Actually I have no problem with Stewart taking shots at Cramer. I just don't feel bad for people who put tons of money into Bear Sterns just because Jim Cramer yelled "buy, buy, buy."

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:00 PM
It's ON! yaaaaaaa

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:01 PM
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

someone447
03-12-2009, 10:02 PM
Actually I have no problem with Stewart taking shots at Cramer. I just don't feel bad for people who put tons of money into Bear Sterns just because Jim Cramer yelled "buy, buy, buy."

Neither do I, they are ********. I wouldn't put my trust in a stockbroker either. At least not now in the age of the internet, when there is tons of information available for anyone. I would much rather do my own research than listen to someone else.

Paul
03-12-2009, 10:06 PM
Cramer literally has his sleeves rolled up. Go time :/

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:06 PM
"why were you mad at us?"

Brodeur
03-12-2009, 10:07 PM
Well that was anticlimactic.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:07 PM
Gonna be a hugfest.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 10:08 PM
Cramer literally has his sleeves rolled up. Go time :/

That's his 'signature'. BTW I hope Stewart calls him out on that terrible dye job! I mean seriously, Cramer is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, get a stylist!

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:11 PM
hmmm, Stewart. Well. This got intense.

Boston
03-12-2009, 10:13 PM
Gonna be a hugfest.

Damn that username is appropriate!

JT Jag
03-12-2009, 10:13 PM
This is getting good. That said, if Stewart doesn't embarrass Cramer entirely by the end of the show I'll be disappointed. This is an extremely stilted battlefield.

Chucky
03-12-2009, 10:13 PM
Stewart isnt being very funny... too serious

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:13 PM
Stewart is owning this.

JT Jag
03-12-2009, 10:15 PM
Stewart isnt being very funny... too seriousStewart has a switch with two settings: Funny satirist and vicious, biting political commentator. "Daily Show" and "Crossfire" modes, respectively.

He's in Crossfire mode.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:17 PM
This is not a ******* game!

wow.

I know this is Stewart's forum and wow. I am impressed.

Tampa 2 4 life
03-12-2009, 10:17 PM
Stewart is making cramer look like tucker carlson.

Paul
03-12-2009, 10:18 PM
Cramer sounds like he's choking up a little bit.

JT Jag
03-12-2009, 10:20 PM
"This song is not about you."

Damn.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 10:21 PM
Damn. I was wrong...Great job by Stewart so far, this is excellent stuff and I never thought I would see Cramer so quiet like this.

Boston
03-12-2009, 10:22 PM
http://www.xtcian.com/StewartCrossfire(bl).jpg

Jim Cramer, you wear a bowtie.

Brodeur
03-12-2009, 10:22 PM
Stewart isnt being very funny... too serious

You're as big a dick on this show as you are on any show.

Just felt like making the Crossfire joke.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:23 PM
The thing is Cramer could do it on his forum and ask John..who would you trust advising your IRA and 401k..and he would say "well if I was going through TV shows and didnt want to pay someone alot of money for advice and sales charges..then i would say you". So I dont know how Cramer could arm himself. But I think Stewart is doing well, Cramer is opening up by closing down and is visably shaken.


I liked how Stewart was not just attacking Cramer, but CNBC and the commentating of the markets in general by other news organizations.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:28 PM
Ha, somehow I don't think Cramer is going to change his show.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 10:28 PM
I liked his last line of 'get rid of the financial expert and in Cramer we trust lines and get back to reporting'. Good stuff.

drowe
03-12-2009, 10:29 PM
that.
lived up to the hype.

bored of education
03-12-2009, 10:30 PM
definatly lived up. i really liked it.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 10:31 PM
I wonder if Stewart will go on Cramer's show now?

Tampa 2 4 life
03-12-2009, 10:32 PM
I wonder if Stewart will go on Cramer's show now?

He doesn't have to.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:34 PM
I liked his last line of 'get rid of the financial expert and in Cramer we trust lines and get back to reporting'. Good stuff.

Hypocrit if you ask me. Why doesn't Stewart cover serious political issues instead of just joking around all the time? The same reason Cramer jumps around and yells.

Wally03
03-12-2009, 10:35 PM
The thing is Cramer could do it on his forum and ask John..who would you trust advising your IRA and 401k..and he would say "well if I was going through TV shows and didnt want to pay someone alot of money for advice and sales charges..then i would say you". So I dont know how Cramer could arm himself. But I think Stewart is doing well, Cramer is opening up by closing down and is visably shaken.


I liked how Stewart was not just attacking Cramer, but CNBC and the commentating of the markets in general by other news organizations.

I think that was the part so many people overlooked in this whole thing was that Stewart's issue wasn't really with Cramer personally, rather the manner in which news organizations have come to handle commentating on the markets. Personally I walk away from that interview saddened that it seems over time we are seeing the degradation of news organizations and that it takes a comedian to be one of the real voices illustrating this fact.

Boston
03-12-2009, 10:39 PM
Hypocrit if you ask me. Why doesn't Stewart cover serious political issues instead of just joking around all the time? The same reason Cramer jumps around and yells.

"You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls! What is wrong with you?"

Really? Are you really going to ask that?

JT Jag
03-12-2009, 10:44 PM
I just re-watched the Crossfire interview. Just absolutely brutal. More impressive then his slaughter of Cramer because he went on their show and obliterated them.

He POSTERIZED Cramer though, no doubt about it.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Really? Are you really going to ask that?

So just because Cramer is on a serious network he has to act a certain way? Why should Comedy Network even exist if we should just be watching serious TV shows?

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 10:49 PM
Hypocrit if you ask me. Why doesn't Stewart cover serious political issues instead of just joking around all the time? The same reason Cramer jumps around and yells.

Yes but Stewart has not admitted on tape to doing anything illegal or completely unethical to make money. I think that was the key point.

Boston
03-12-2009, 10:55 PM
So just because Cramer is on a serious network he has to act a certain way? Why should Comedy Network even exist if we should just be watching serious TV shows?

What the **** are you talking about? Jon Stewart has a show on Comedy Central, which, last time I checked, expects him to hold a certain standard of humor. He isn't judged on how accurately he portrays the news, rather on how funny each segment is. Jim Cramer on the other hand, has a show on CNN that is expected to be serious and hold a certain degree of intellectual responsibilty, and I think it's been proven that it isn't and it doesn't. So I don't really know what you're arguing here...

I KNOW IT ALL
03-12-2009, 10:59 PM
What the **** are you talking about? Jon Stewart has a show on Comedy Central, which, last time I checked, expects him to hold a certain standard of humor. He isn't judged on how accurately he portrays the news, rather on how funny each segment is. Jim Cramer on the other hand, has a show on CNN that is expected to be serious and hold a certain degree of intellectual responsibilty, and I think it's been proven that it isn't and it doesn't. So I don't really know what you're arguing here...

Mad Money is on CNBC first of all, which shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Cramer's job is to entertain and pick stocks. That's it. He does his job.

Boston
03-12-2009, 11:00 PM
CNN, CNBC, it's all blurred into one giant beating.

Hollywood
03-12-2009, 11:12 PM
I just watched the Crossfire interview for the first time because you all kept talking about it and I don't think Stewart came off that well at all. He just came off as bitchy and upset because he thinks the media wasn't partisan enough and giving a fair enough share to his guy.

It was funny that he was attacking them on their show, I think those guys were just unprepared for that. He was not really debating or discussing issues though, just sort of being a dick.

The Cramer interview was much better.

someone447
03-13-2009, 02:36 AM
I just watched the Crossfire interview for the first time because you all kept talking about it and I don't think Stewart came off that well at all. He just came off as bitchy and upset because he thinks the media wasn't partisan enough and giving a fair enough share to his guy.

It was funny that he was attacking them on their show, I think those guys were just unprepared for that. He was not really debating or discussing issues though, just sort of being a dick.

The Cramer interview was much better.

I agree the Cramer interview was much better. But I still think he was good on Crossfire, he did debate an issue. He called Fox News out for being a right wing propoganda machine. Now I am just waiting for him to do the same to MSNBC as a leftist propoganda machine, but I'm not holding my breath(although I do like Olbermann much more than O'Reilly, but that is because of his days with Sportscenter.)

drowe
03-13-2009, 08:00 AM
Hypocrit if you ask me. Why doesn't Stewart cover serious political issues instead of just joking around all the time? The same reason Cramer jumps around and yells.

wow. this post is too stupid for words.

Brent
03-13-2009, 09:57 AM
wow. this post is too stupid for words.
It's obvious he does not know all.

I thought last night's show, while nothing but one long interview was great.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:01 AM
wow. this post is too stupid for words.

Maybe you can explain the difference for me?

Cramer and Stewart are both on TV for one reason: to get ratings. Why is Cramer expected to do all these things for the "greater good" yet Stewart can use his show simply to chase yuks?

Yes, CNBC markets itself as a more serious news show but look at other networks. FOX News is the most "fair and balanced" yet their big draw is the Bill O'Reily show. Is that a serious news show or is it just entertainment? Look at CNN with Larry King Live. Does he ask relevant, in-depth questions on his show to help out the public or does he lob softballs to his guests in the name of entertainment?

It's all about ratings, and has been since the inception of advertising in the news media.

drowe
03-13-2009, 10:11 AM
Maybe you can explain the difference for me?

Cramer and Stewart are both on TV for one reason: to get ratings. Why is Cramer expected to do all these things for the "greater good" yet Stewart can use his show simply to chase yuks?

Yes, CNBC markets itself as a more serious news show but look at other networks. FOX News is the most "fair and balanced" yet their big draw is the Bill O'Reily show. Is that a serious news show or is it just entertainment? Look at CNN with Larry King Live. Does he ask relevant, in-depth questions on his show to help out the public or does he lob softballs to his guests in the name of entertainment?

It's all about ratings, and has been since the inception of advertising in the news media.



COMEDY Central. not all TV programming is created equal.

Yeah, all TV is entertainment. Comedy Central is what they say they are. a few good laughs.

If CNBC would market themselves as purely entertainment, no harm, no foul. but, they don't. they go beyond that. Think about it. Jim Cramer was shown last night, bragging about the fact that he used to use very questionable trading tactics, and openly tried to sway public opinion to move the market. Now, he has a show where he tells people what to do with their money. how can you not question his motives?

Ya also have to go back to the fact that if a guy from CNBC didn't pull a total b!tch move and back out of the Daily Show after committing to it, this is probably never an issue. Yeah, the Daily Show was hard on CNBC...because they're an easy target for laughs and that is what the show is about.

Beans
03-13-2009, 10:13 AM
it's replaying here in the tech lab, and holy crap, stewart is just going all-out on this guy. crazy

P-L
03-13-2009, 10:16 AM
Now I am just waiting for him to do the same to MSNBC as a leftist propoganda machine, but I'm not holding my breath
This will never happen. Everyone always jumps all over Fox News but rarely is it acknowledged that there are news sources (MSNBC being one of them) that are just as biased towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:17 AM
COMEDY Central. not all TV programming is created equal.

Yeah, all TV is entertainment. Comedy Central is what they say they are. a few good laughs.

If CNBC would market themselves as purely entertainment, no harm, no foul. but, they don't. they go beyond that. Think about it. Jim Cramer was shown last night, bragging about the fact that he used to use very questionable trading tactics, and openly tried to sway public opinion to move the market. Now, he has a show where he tells people what to do with their money. how can you not question his motives?

Ya also have to go back to the fact that if a guy from CNBC didn't pull a total b!tch move and back out of the Daily Show after committing to it, this is probably never an issue. Yeah, the Daily Show was hard on CNBC...because they're an easy target for laughs and that is what the show is about.

He already said that he was trying to draw attention to securities fraud by doing that. He was speaking like that to show how commonplace and easy it is to commit securities fraud right now because the SEC doesn't understand what is going on. The time period of this was all prior to his show as well, back when he was a hedge fund manager.

It's not like Cramer's show is a complete joke. The guy does do analysis and he does have some great information on the show. It's just presented in a way to draw your average non-investor in because there aren't many shows that do that.

I have no problem with Stewart attacking Cramer for making bad stock picks, but when he attacks his credibility and his entire show and demands that it be some sort of regulatory light for the government...I mean, come on. Stewart admittedly knows next to nothing about the finance industry so maybe he should refrain from making wild accusations?

someone447
03-13-2009, 10:21 AM
Maybe you can explain the difference for me?

Cramer and Stewart are both on TV for one reason: to get ratings. Why is Cramer expected to do all these things for the "greater good" yet Stewart can use his show simply to chase yuks?

Yes, CNBC markets itself as a more serious news show but look at other networks. FOX News is the most "fair and balanced" yet their big draw is the Bill O'Reily show. Is that a serious news show or is it just entertainment? Look at CNN with Larry King Live. Does he ask relevant, in-depth questions on his show to help out the public or does he lob softballs to his guests in the name of entertainment?

It's all about ratings, and has been since the inception of advertising in the news media.

The news media in our country has failed us. You can't claim to be a serious news station and then just go for entertainment. Market yourself as entertainment, like Jon Stewart does, or report the news. You can't do both. That is the problem Jon Stewart has with CNBC. It is disingenuous for the news stations to claim they are journalists. That needs to change. People trust what is said on the major news stations, they are betraying their trust by focusing on entertainment rather than news.

As you can probably tell, this is something near and dear to my heart, considering I want to be a journalist.

j05son
03-13-2009, 10:23 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533

Last nights episode with Jim Cramer on the Daily Show.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:26 AM
The news media in our country has failed us. You can't claim to be a serious news station and then just go for entertainment. Market yourself as entertainment, like Jon Stewart does, or report the news. You can't do both. That is the problem Jon Stewart has with CNBC. It is disingenuous for the news stations to claim they are journalists. That needs to change. People trust what is said on the major news stations, they are betraying their trust by focusing on entertainment rather than news.

As you can probably tell, this is something near and dear to my heart, considering I want to be a journalist.

Cramer does provide legitimate advice. He just does it in an entertaining manner. What's wrong with that?

someone447
03-13-2009, 10:30 AM
This will never happen. Everyone always jumps all over Fox News but rarely is it acknowledged that there are news sources (MSNBC being one of them) that are just as biased towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

Thats because MSNBC wasn't the mouthpiece for one of the most hated presidents in recent history. If Obama ***** up and they continue taking talking points from him, people will start to do it.

MSNBC and Fox are the only ones that are overly biased. The rest of them are actually pretty centrist, or at least have equal numbers from the right and left.

someone447
03-13-2009, 10:32 AM
Cramer does provide legitimate advice. He just does it in an entertaining manner. What's wrong with that?

Go back and read my other posts, I'm not going to explain it again.

drowe
03-13-2009, 10:35 AM
This will never happen. Everyone always jumps all over Fox News but rarely is it acknowledged that there are news sources (MSNBC being one of them) that are just as biased towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

well....

-saying they're "equally biased" is a bit of a stretch.

-and national mood plays a big part in that. and i do think there's more reasons why a network appears to lean left...but, i'd be treading over to a political discussion, so i'll drop it.

edit...yup. someone just said what i was thinking.

bored of education
03-13-2009, 10:52 AM
Their is no fair news network, so many suck the liberal balls of the democrats. it makes me sick. but i dont want this to turn politcal. CSPAN is only middle of the road network lol

drowe
03-13-2009, 11:00 AM
meh. it's a center-left country right now. but it's cyclical. right now, the rush limbaughs and bill o'reilly's of the world are walking punch lines.

but, i remember back in 2002 when it was a center-right country. people like al franken and michael moore were ridiculed and even anne coulter was semi-relevant. seemed like sean hannity was everywhere. *shudder*

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 11:11 AM
meh. it's a center-left country right now. but it's cyclical. right now, the rush limbaughs and bill o'reilly's of the world are walking punch lines.

but, i remember back in 2002 when it was a center-right country. people like al franken and michael moore were ridiculed and even anne coulter was semi-relevant. seemed like sean hannity was everywhere. *shudder*

America is extremely right-wing if you go by the standards of the rest of the Western world.

josh07039
03-13-2009, 11:12 AM
Thats because MSNBC wasn't the mouthpiece for one of the most hated presidents in recent history. If Obama ***** up and they continue taking talking points from him, people will start to do it.

MSNBC and Fox are the only ones that are overly biased. The rest of them are actually pretty centrist, or at least have equal numbers from the right and left.Thats not true at all, Cnn is really left. Having a guy like David Gergen, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc is hardly balanced and centrist.

CashmoneyDrew
03-13-2009, 11:57 AM
Thats not true at all, Cnn is really left. Having a guy like David Gergen, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc is hardly balanced and centrist.

Lou Dobbs is not a left wing anchor....

Rob S
03-13-2009, 12:13 PM
I am feeling the lock coming............

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 12:19 PM
I am feeling the lock coming............

The "head moderator" was making political comments in here, so I doubt it.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 12:22 PM
Lou Dobbs is not a left wing anchor....

He's a Xenophobic centrist for the most part.

Addict
03-13-2009, 12:22 PM
Hypocrit if you ask me. Why doesn't Stewart cover serious political issues instead of just joking around all the time? The same reason Cramer jumps around and yells.

you know, for someone with that username, that's a pretty ignorant statement. The Daily Show is not, and doesn't pretend to be, a news show. Their JOB is to joke around about daily events. They don't act like a news organisation, don't pretend to be right and sure as hell don't pretend to be journalists.

He's NOT a journalist. The Daily Show is on COMEDY CENTRAL for crying out loud, what the hell do you expect from them except jokes?

bearsfan_51
03-13-2009, 12:25 PM
This will never happen. Everyone always jumps all over Fox News but rarely is it acknowledged that there are news sources (MSNBC being one of them) that are just as biased towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

Fox News manufacturs propoganda as news. MSNBC reports news from a left-leaning perspective. There's a difference.

When, in 2004, Fox News asked if John Kerry "looked too French" during an actual news broadcast, I stopped even considering them a news source. There are legit sources of right-leaning news (Wall Street Journal for example), but Fox News is smut and trash. Not because it's right-leaning, because it plays to the fears and the stupidity of America, which is exactly the opposite of what news should be about. CNN is almost as bad by the way, and anyone that thinks CNN is liberal is out of their ******* mind. James Carville is not a liberal. Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

This is NOT, by the way, a left-leaning country. Canada is a left leaning country. France is a left leaning country. We are one of the most economically and culturally conservative democratic countries on the planet.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 12:26 PM
you know, for someone with that username, that's a pretty ignorant statement. The Daily Show is not, and doesn't pretend to be, a news show. Their JOB is to joke around about daily events. They don't act like a news organisation, don't pretend to be right and sure as hell don't pretend to be journalists.

He's NOT a journalist. The Daily Show is on COMEDY CENTRAL for crying out loud, what the hell do you expect from them except jokes?

And Cramer jumps around on his show mashing buttons, yelling things, and making crude remarks. The difference is that he actually does include some relevant news/commentary into his entertainment. Why does Cramer have this big responsibility to educate the masses and shine his "regulatory light" on the markets when Stewart can just sit back and crack jokes?

Both these guys have the same job: to get ratings. Both do a good job at it. What's the difference? Why doesn't Stewart go on CNN or something and use his popularity to bring up real issues? Because that's not what he does! And it's also not what Cramer does! He gives his commentary on the market with a fun/exciting twist. Nothing more, nothing less.

CashmoneyDrew
03-13-2009, 12:26 PM
He's a Xenophobic centrist for the most part.

Exactemundo.

Brent
03-13-2009, 12:35 PM
Fox News manufacturs propoganda as news. MSNBC reports news from a left-leaning perspective. There's a difference.

When, in 2004, Fox News asked if John Kerry "looked too French" during an actual news broadcast, I stopped even considering them a news source. There are legit sources of right-leaning news (Wall Street Journal for example), but Fox News is smut and trash. Not because it's right-leaning, because it plays to the fears and the stupidity of America, which is exactly the opposite of what news should be about. CNN is almost as bad by the way, and anyone that thinks CNN is liberal is out of their ******* mind. James Carville is not a liberal. Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

This is NOT, by the way, a left-leaning country. Canada is a left leaning country. France is a left leaning country. We are one of the most economically and culturally conservative democratic countries on the planet.
+rep when I can give it again.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 12:36 PM
Fox News manufacturs propoganda as news. MSNBC reports news from a left-leaning perspective. There's a difference.

When, in 2004, Fox News asked if John Kerry "looked too French" during an actual news broadcast, I stopped even considering them a news source. There are legit sources of right-leaning news (Wall Street Journal for example), but Fox News is smut and trash. Not because it's right-leaning, because it plays to the fears and the stupidity of America, which is exactly the opposite of what news should be about. CNN is almost as bad by the way, and anyone that thinks CNN is liberal is out of their ******* mind. James Carville is not a liberal. Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

This is NOT, by the way, a left-leaning country. Canada is a left leaning country. France is a left leaning country. We are one of the most economically and culturally conservative democratic countries on the planet.

The American definitions of a liberal and conservative are both very far from their actual definitions. Any time someone is even remotely liberal by definition in this country they get labeled as a socialist or god forbid, a communist.

Brent
03-13-2009, 12:38 PM
The American definitions of a liberal and conservative are both very far from their actual definitions. Any time someone is even remotely liberal by definition in this country they get labeled as a socialist or god forbid, a communist.
In America, the left is in the center and called liberal.

BTW, if anyone wants to see the whole unedited interview, it's all on The Daily Show site.

kwilk103
03-13-2009, 12:39 PM
this is a very INteresting thread

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 12:41 PM
Fox News is hilarious...

http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama/story.jpg

I'm still undecided whether they are consciously acting like that or if they really are that ignorant and don't see any issues with their actions.

someone447
03-13-2009, 12:44 PM
Thats not true at all, Cnn is really left. Having a guy like David Gergen, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc is hardly balanced and centrist.

But CNN also has right wing anchors. That is how they are balanced. Fox and MSNBC don't even have token anchors of the opposite side.

Brent
03-13-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm still undecided whether they are consciously acting like that or if they really are that ignorant and don't see any issues with their actions.
They do it because it nets ratings.

But CNN also has right wing anchors. That is how they are balanced. Fox and MSNBC don't even have token anchors of the opposite side.
Yeah they got rid of Alan Colmes on Fox.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 12:47 PM
They do it because it nets ratings.

I agree, but I'm just wondering if it's conscious all the time. I think the same thing will Bill O. He makes tons of outlandish statements but he seems to actually believe them. Hard to say if you ask me.

Brent
03-13-2009, 12:52 PM
I agree, but I'm just wondering if it's conscious all the time. I think the same thing will Bill O. He makes tons of outlandish statements but he seems to actually believe them. Hard to say if you ask me.
I think a lot of their on-camera people feel they way the act (at least they play it up a bit more on-camera). As for the people that work there or run the channel, they may or may not feel that way but their job is to get ratings, not to agree with what is said on camera. Hell, if I am not mistaken, Rupert Murdock donated a lot of money to Hillary Clinton's campaign even though he owns FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal.

someone447
03-13-2009, 12:54 PM
And Cramer jumps around on his show mashing buttons, yelling things, and making crude remarks. The difference is that he actually does include some relevant news/commentary into his entertainment. Why does Cramer have this big responsibility to educate the masses and shine his "regulatory light" on the markets when Stewart can just sit back and crack jokes?

Both these guys have the same job: to get ratings. Both do a good job at it. What's the difference? Why doesn't Stewart go on CNN or something and use his popularity to bring up real issues? Because that's not what he does! And it's also not what Cramer does! He gives his commentary on the market with a fun/exciting twist. Nothing more, nothing less.

BECAUSE HE CLAIMS TO BE A LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE!! That is why he needs to be held to a higher standard. Like Stewart said, if he(or more accurately CNN) would stop implying he was always right, this wouldn't be a problem. Don't claim to be a legitimate news source and then claim you are only trying to get ratings. It doesn't work that way, one or the other.

someone447
03-13-2009, 12:55 PM
They do it because it nets ratings.


Yeah they got rid of Alan Colmes on Fox.

He was hardly a liberal anchor anyway. He was put there to timidly disagree with Hannity and then fold when he brought up another point.

someone447
03-13-2009, 12:58 PM
Fox News manufacturs propoganda as news. MSNBC reports news from a left-leaning perspective. There's a difference.

When, in 2004, Fox News asked if John Kerry "looked too French" during an actual news broadcast, I stopped even considering them a news source. There are legit sources of right-leaning news (Wall Street Journal for example), but Fox News is smut and trash. Not because it's right-leaning, because it plays to the fears and the stupidity of America, which is exactly the opposite of what news should be about. CNN is almost as bad by the way, and anyone that thinks CNN is liberal is out of their ******* mind. James Carville is not a liberal. Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

This is NOT, by the way, a left-leaning country. Canada is a left leaning country. France is a left leaning country. We are one of the most economically and culturally conservative democratic countries on the planet.

MSNBC is nearly as bad as Fox News. Give it a few years of the Obama presidency and you will see them becoming the propoganda mouthpiece. CNN is no where near as bad as Fox and MSNBC.

I think we can all agree the MSM is terrible, and in the internet age won't be able to stand up to the increasingly online news. Getting your news from a bunch of different sources is always the best idea. Read and watch things with completely different slants, and use your own judgment to decide which is right.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 01:03 PM
BECAUSE HE CLAIMS TO BE A LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE!! That is why he needs to be held to a higher standard. Like Stewart said, if he(or more accurately CNN) would stop implying he was always right, this wouldn't be a problem. Don't claim to be a legitimate news source and then claim you are only trying to get ratings. It doesn't work that way, one or the other.

He IS a legitimate news source. Show me one instance where either CNBC or Cramer claimed to always be right. He makes PREDICTIONS. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. He makes legitimate commentary on the market. There is no denying that.

Also, news is a business. They have the fiduciary relationship with shareholders to maximize return on investment. What does that mean? Ratings means all. Why do you think CNN covers the latest Britney Spears meltdown instead of the War on Drugs? Would you consider them a "legitimate news source"?

drowe
03-13-2009, 01:06 PM
This is NOT, by the way, a left-leaning country. Canada is a left leaning country. France is a left leaning country. We are one of the most economically and culturally conservative democratic countries on the planet.


yeah, i should have clarified. what i meant was; by America's standards, we're currently a center-left country. i do realize this would NOT be a global perception.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 01:11 PM
MSNBC is nearly as bad as Fox News. Give it a few years of the Obama presidency and you will see them becoming the propoganda mouthpiece. CNN is no where near as bad as Fox and MSNBC.

I think we can all agree the MSM is terrible, and in the internet age won't be able to stand up to the increasingly online news. Getting your news from a bunch of different sources is always the best idea. Read and watch things with completely different slants, and use your own judgment to decide which is right.

There's still bias in most internet based sites. The biggest news site on the internet is run by/was created by a massive conservative in Matt Drudge.

someone447
03-13-2009, 01:11 PM
He IS a legitimate news source. Show me one instance where either CNBC or Cramer claimed to always be right. He makes PREDICTIONS. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. He makes legitimate commentary on the market. There is no denying that.

Also, news is a business. They have the fiduciary relationship with shareholders to maximize return on investment. What does that mean? Ratings means all. Why do you think CNN covers the latest Britney Spears meltdown instead of the War on Drugs? Would you consider them a "legitimate news source"?

"In Cramer We Trust" implies an infallibility by alluding to God when talking about Cramer. Go back and watch the interview again, Jon Stewart said it perfectly. If you are going to claim to be a legitimate news source BE A GOD DAMN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE! That goes for every source out there. Don't bury stories because you are afraid of a ratings drop, don't bury stories because the government doesn't want it printed, DON'T BURY STORIES FOR ANY REASON! Our mainstream media needs an infusion of journalistic integrity. They need to realize there job is to report the news, as it is, not to sensationalize and stir up trouble where there is none. What happened to the Woodward and Bernsteins of the journalism world? What happened to the Edward R Murrows? What happened to the hard hitting journalism this country so desperately needs. We have glimpses of this, like when Gitmo was exposed, but this needs to become a constant. We need our journalists to be journalists. We need them to stand up for what is right, we need them to tell the truth.

Like I have said previously, our mainstream media has completely failed us. I think CNN claims to be a legitimate news source, but by covering Britney instead of the War on Drugs they have lost all credibility with me. There is not a single television news station(and very few print news sources) that I still consider credible.

someone447
03-13-2009, 01:15 PM
There's still bias in most internet based sites. The biggest news site on the internet is run by/was created by a massive conservative in Matt Drudge.

I know that. The beauty of the internet is there are so many sites you can go to, that you can get the same story from multiple angles, and sift through that to find what you believe to be true. What I do is I read something from Drudge, then go look it up on Huffington Post. Then I go to The Economist, then I go to smaller more biased blogs like American Thinker(makes Fox News look liberal) and Daily Kos(makes MSNBC look conservative). Then I will check out a few different libertarian leaning blogs. Then I will check out a few of the MSM's websites and see what they have written.

Addict
03-13-2009, 01:15 PM
The American definitions of a liberal and conservative are both very far from their actual definitions. Any time someone is even remotely liberal by definition in this country they get labeled as a socialist or god forbid, a communist.

Living in Europe, I always need to remind myself that what is 'the left' in America is what we here would call 'middle of the road' or even 'leaning towards the right'. It's funny how people are still so eager to call anyone with Socialist ideas a communist. There is a very, very big difference between socialism and communism, but in the US political spectrum, it's non-existent.

And Cramer jumps around on his show mashing buttons, yelling things, and making crude remarks. The difference is that he actually does include some relevant news/commentary into his entertainment. Why does Cramer have this big responsibility to educate the masses and shine his "regulatory light" on the markets when Stewart can just sit back and crack jokes?

Both these guys have the same job: to get ratings. Both do a good job at it. What's the difference? Why doesn't Stewart go on CNN or something and use his popularity to bring up real issues? Because that's not what he does! And it's also not what Cramer does! He gives his commentary on the market with a fun/exciting twist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because, Mad Money was promoted as a show with actual insight and knowledge. Because Jim Cramer was promoted as a guru with that 'In Cramer we trust"-bs. That's why. Because the currency in which these two shows operate are very very different. Besides, it was never ABOUT cramer, it was about CNBC's lack of journalistic integrity, about the blind faith they showed in every CEO who bothered to spoon-feed them lies about their company. The Daily Show deals in LAUGHTER for god's sake.

This isn't about Cramer, they invited him because he threw a tantrum about the Daily Show calling him out on a few MAJOR screwups of his. Then it became about him. The fact is that Stewart has more journalistic integrity in pinky finger than CNBC has, period. They didn't do anything and even when the market was going down hard, they were there playing the parrot for fraudulent CEO's and ditto companies.

MSNBC is nearly as bad as Fox News. Give it a few years of the Obama presidency and you will see them becoming the propoganda mouthpiece. CNN is no where near as bad as Fox and MSNBC.

I think we can all agree the MSM is terrible, and in the internet age won't be able to stand up to the increasingly online news. Getting your news from a bunch of different sources is always the best idea. Read and watch things with completely different slants, and use your own judgment to decide which is right.

I don't think MSNBC will be AS bad as fox. MSNBC (for as far as I can judge) is left-leaning, maybe even a left-wing network, but they still do their journalistic duty. Fox on the other hand is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has made no secret of the fact that he wants to influence politics via the media. There's a big difference between the way they look at politics. MSNBC takes the news and shows it in a left-wing light, whereas FOX creates news.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 01:15 PM
"In Cramer We Trust" implies an infallibility by alluding to God when talking about Cramer. Go back and watch the interview again, Jon Stewart said it perfectly. If you are going to claim to be a legitimate news source BE A GOD DAMN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE! That goes for every source out there. Don't bury stories because you are afraid of a ratings drop, don't bury stories because the government doesn't want it printed, DON'T BURY STORIES FOR ANY REASON! Our mainstream media needs an infusion of journalistic integrity. They need to realize there job is to report the news, as it is, not to sensationalize and stir up trouble where there is none. What happened to the Woodward and Bernsteins of the journalism world? What happened to the Edward R Murrows? What happened to the hard hitting journalism this country so desperately needs. We have glimpses of this, like when Gitmo was exposed, but this needs to become a constant. We need our journalists to be journalists. We need them to stand up for what is right, we need them to tell the truth.

Like I have said previously, our mainstream media has completely failed us. I think CNN claims to be a legitimate news source, but by covering Britney instead of the War on Drugs they have lost all credibility with me. There is not a single television news station(and very few print news sources) that I still consider credible.

Cramer is not an investigative journalist. He commentates on the market. His job is to predict whether it will go up or down. That is precisely what he does!

I have already said how stupid it is for you to imply that "In Cramer We Trust" makes people believe he is never wrong.

So you don't think any news station is credible? Cool, so why are you singling out Cramer? I don't think you understand how media works. It is a commercial enterprise. They don't have any responsibility when it comes to what they report. They can report on the O.J. Simpson 24/7 if they want (which they did). They report what people want to hear about. That's capitalism, get used to it.

someone447
03-13-2009, 01:22 PM
Cramer is not an investigative journalist. He commentates on the market. His job is to predict whether it will go up or down. That is precisely what he does!

I have already said how stupid it is for you to imply that "In Cramer We Trust" makes people believe he is never wrong.

So you don't think any news station is credible? Cool, so why are you singling out Cramer? I don't think you understand how media works. It is a commercial enterprise. They don't have any responsibility when it comes to what they report. They can report on the O.J. Simpson 24/7 if they want (which they did). They report what people want to hear about. That's capitalism, get used to it.

You underestimate the stupidity of some people, and the willingness for others to capitalize on that stupidity. I'm not saying that "In Cramer We Trust" makes people believe he is infallible, but it sure implies he is. That is the problem I have with the whole thing.

I am singling out Cramer because that is what the thread was about, no other reason.

I understand completely how the media works, and it is ******* over this country. Within the next 10 years, the MSM will be dead. It will be taken over by internet news sources who report the actual news. The internet is completely changing the way companies do business, and the vast majority of large companies are so set in their ways they will become obsolete in a short time.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 01:23 PM
Because, Mad Money was promoted as a show with actual insight and knowledge. Because Jim Cramer was promoted as a guru with that 'In Cramer we trust"-bs. That's why. Because the currency in which these two shows operate are very very different. Besides, it was never ABOUT cramer, it was about CNBC's lack of journalistic integrity, about the blind faith they showed in every CEO who bothered to spoon-feed them lies about their company. The Daily Show deals in LAUGHTER for god's sake.

This isn't about Cramer, they invited him because he threw a tantrum about the Daily Show calling him out on a few MAJOR screwups of his. Then it became about him. The fact is that Stewart has more journalistic integrity in pinky finger than CNBC has, period. They didn't do anything and even when the market was going down hard, they were there playing the parrot for fraudulent CEO's and ditto companies.


Cramer does provide insight and knowledge. Have you ever watched the show? He gives his opinion on stocks based on his analysis. He does it in an entertaining matter, but it doesn't change the fact that he does know what he is talking about. Cramer operated a hedge fund for a number of years. I would say you can give him that "guru" label, at least as much as you can in the industry he is in.

You expect Cramer to somehow uncover the lies told by CEOs? If the government can't figure out the lies, if the SEC can't figure out the lies, if investors playing with billions of dollars can't figure it out...how do you expect some market commentator to figure it out?

So Cramer made some bad predictions? Of course he did! All stock analysts do! These weren't Cramer's first screw-ups and they certainly won't be his last. He is in the business of PREDICTING THE FUTURE. You will never find somebody with 100% accurary or anywhere even close to that.

Cramer didn't do anything when the market was going down? What was he supposed to do? His job is to give market commentary and that's what he did. Here's what he did:

SWksEJQEYVU

someone447
03-13-2009, 01:38 PM
Cramer does provide insight and knowledge. Have you ever watched the show? He gives his opinion on stocks based on his analysis. He does it in an entertaining matter, but it doesn't change the fact that he does know what he is talking about. Cramer operated a hedge fund for a number of years. I would say you can give him that "guru" label, at least as much as you can in the industry he is in.

You expect Cramer to somehow uncover the lies told by CEOs? If the government can't figure out the lies, if the SEC can't figure out the lies, if investors playing with billions of dollars can't figure it out...how do you expect some market commentator to figure it out?

So Cramer made some bad predictions? Of course he did! All stock analysts do! These weren't Cramer's first screw-ups and they certainly won't be his last. He is in the business of PREDICTING THE FUTURE. You will never find somebody with 100% accurary or anywhere even close to that.

Cramer didn't do anything when the market was going down? What was he supposed to do? His job is to give market commentary and that's what he did. Here's what he did:

SWksEJQEYVU

I don't even really have a problem with Cramer, it is CNBC on the whole. Cramer does his job, he isn't the one who markets it. That is CNBC. CNBC IS A NEWS SOURCE, IT IS THEIR ******* JOB TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH! If they blindly air what the CEO's have to say they ****** up. In order to report the news, they have to uncover the truth. Blindly airing what the CEOs have to say without any sort of journalistic investigation is no better than what Fox News does when they parrot the Bush Administration's talking points. That's all there is to it. You are so wrong on this it is unbelievable.

someone447
03-13-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't think MSNBC will be AS bad as fox. MSNBC (for as far as I can judge) is left-leaning, maybe even a left-wing network, but they still do their journalistic duty. Fox on the other hand is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has made no secret of the fact that he wants to influence politics via the media. There's a big difference between the way they look at politics. MSNBC takes the news and shows it in a left-wing light, whereas FOX creates news.

No, they probably wont, but they are going to be pretty damn bad.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't even really have a problem with Cramer, it is CNBC on the whole. Cramer does his job, he isn't the one who markets it. That is CNBC. CNBC IS A NEWS SOURCE, IT IS THEIR ******* JOB TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH! If they blindly air what the CEO's have to say they ****** up. In order to report the news, they have to uncover the truth. Blindly airing what the CEOs have to say without any sort of journalistic investigation is no better than what Fox News does when they parrot the Bush Administration's talking points. That's all there is to it. You are so wrong on this it is unbelievable.

How exactly should Cramer go about performing a journalistic investigation on what CEOs are telling him? He has no more information on these companies than you have.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
03-13-2009, 02:13 PM
I just watched the interview. Stewart pretty much killed him on it. All it was was Stewart attacking and Cramer retreating, especially after he realized any counterpoint he brought up was immediately shot down with the tape Stewart had. Although, to be fair, it was on Stewart's home turf, and it's really difficult because if Cramer did really fight back, the audience would let him hear it.

Hollywood
03-13-2009, 02:52 PM
I agree the Cramer interview was much better. But I still think he was good on Crossfire, he did debate an issue. He called Fox News out for being a right wing propoganda machine. Now I am just waiting for him to do the same to MSNBC as a leftist propoganda machine, but I'm not holding my breath(although I do like Olbermann much more than O'Reilly, but that is because of his days with Sportscenter.)

Everyone keeps bringing up Fox news, the problem was the Crossfire interview was not Fox news; it was on CNN which leans left.

bearsfan_51
03-13-2009, 03:17 PM
CNN does NOT lean left. Show some proof of this or stop saying it.

This would of course first require one to establish what exactly left means, which would probably go over just as swimmingly.

yodabear
03-13-2009, 03:24 PM
MSNBC is nearly as bad as Fox News. Give it a few years of the Obama presidency and you will see them becoming the propoganda mouthpiece. CNN is no where near as bad as Fox and MSNBC.

I think we can all agree the MSM is terrible, and in the internet age won't be able to stand up to the increasingly online news. Getting your news from a bunch of different sources is always the best idea. Read and watch things with completely different slants, and use your own judgment to decide which is right.

Nah, I think MSNBC has reached FOX News' level, but one is very left leaning, and FOX News is about as fair and balanced as my midsection cuz I only have a right testicle. CNN is way too boring for me to watch, so if I watch a cable news source I watch the one I agree with between FOX News and MSNBC, but I won't tell ya which one.....

yodabear
03-13-2009, 03:26 PM
BTW, Stewart owned Cramer's ass last night, it was kinda sad. Cramer just looked like a beaten man from the get go.

someone447
03-13-2009, 03:47 PM
Nah, I think MSNBC has reached FOX News' level, but one is very left leaning, and FOX News is about as fair and balanced as my midsection cuz I only have a right testicle. CNN is way too boring for me to watch, so if I watch a cable news source I watch the one I agree with between FOX News and MSNBC, but I won't tell ya which one.....

That is exactly the wrong way to watch news. All that does is reinforce your preconceived notions. It is always better to watch it froma different point of view than your own.

someone447
03-13-2009, 03:48 PM
Everyone keeps bringing up Fox news, the problem was the Crossfire interview was not Fox news; it was on CNN which leans left.

It was a calling out of the MSM in general, I bring up Fox News because it is easily the most biased, followed by MSNBC(and that has been getting more liberal by the day.)

Brent
03-13-2009, 04:00 PM
This would of course first require one to establish what exactly left means, which would probably go over just as swimmingly.
As far as most Americans are concerned it would probably be a centrist view.

I know that. The beauty of the internet is there are so many sites you can go to, that you can get the same story from multiple angles, and sift through that to find what you believe to be true. What I do is I read something from Drudge, then go look it up on Huffington Post. Then I go to The Economist, then I go to smaller more biased blogs like American Thinker(makes Fox News look liberal) and Daily Kos(makes MSNBC look conservative). Then I will check out a few different libertarian leaning blogs. Then I will check out a few of the MSM's websites and see what they have written.
I'm a big FiveThirtyEight fan, as far as blogs go. Outside that I usually read New York Times and/or The Dallas Morning News online.

Vikes99ej
03-13-2009, 05:02 PM
I had no idea what in the hell they were talking about, but it looks like the bald dude got his ass kicked.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 06:00 PM
I'm not sure if this was posted already, this is the extended and uncensored version of the interview...

http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/

M.O.T.H.
03-13-2009, 07:17 PM
Cramer seems so choked up in just about every interview he does now. I was waiting for the tears in the Daily Show interview.

Whistler6
03-13-2009, 07:36 PM
I am neither right nor left wing.. But "in your face" liberals like Jon Stewart, Joy Behar, etc are really frustrating to watch. They are right your wrong, period. It's always attack.. Ann Coulter on the other side is the same way, but God almighty let people have their own opinions and don't F***ing slay them for it...

someone447
03-13-2009, 08:01 PM
I am neither right nor left wing.. But "in your face" liberals like Jon Stewart, Joy Behar, etc are really frustrating to watch. They are right your wrong, period. It's always attack.. Ann Coulter on the other side is the same way, but God almighty let people have their own opinions and don't F***ing slay them for it...

Dude, don't compare Jon Stewart to Ann Coulter... Jon Stewart is a comedian, he doesn't want people to take him seriously. I agree, people like Keith Olbermann are just as frustrating as O'reilly/Coulter, but Stewart doesn't belong in that conversation. He is a left wing comedian, he is supposed to make fun of people. That's like saying you don't like George Carlin because he was in your face(although Carlin is a much better comedian, but Stewart is probably the best social critic of our time(right now, of course Carlin was better, but he is dead.) Comedy will always be left wing, because it will always mock the establishment, which, by its very definition is conservative.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 08:10 PM
Dude, don't compare Jon Stewart to Ann Coulter... Jon Stewart is a comedian, he doesn't want people to take him seriously. I agree, people like Keith Olbermann are just as frustrating as O'reilly/Coulter, but Stewart doesn't belong in that conversation. He is a left wing comedian, he is supposed to make fun of people. That's like saying you don't like George Carlin because he was in your face(although Carlin is a much better comedian, but Stewart is probably the best social critic of our time(right now, of course Carlin was better, but he is dead.) Comedy will always be left wing, because it will always mock the establishment, which, by its very definition is conservative.

I would say Stewart strayed far from being a comedian last night and entered into the political commentator (aka Bill O/Coulter/Olbermann) style of journalism.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 08:13 PM
I am neither right nor left wing.. But "in your face" liberals like Jon Stewart, Joy Behar, etc are really frustrating to watch. They are right your wrong, period. It's always attack.. Ann Coulter on the other side is the same way, but God almighty let people have their own opinions and don't F***ing slay them for it...

Are you saying that Jon Stewart was an "in your face" liberal in that interview? As far as I could tell, he was just saying that NBC was claiming to be a group of informed financial reporters but was actually being mostly either incompetent towards their own standard or complicit in the activities that led to this crisis. That's not even political. That's asking people to do their job.

someone447
03-13-2009, 08:13 PM
I would say Stewart strayed far from being a comedian last night and entered into the political commentator (aka Bill O/Coulter/Olbermann) style of journalism.

Do you honestly not realize the difference? Stewart ventures into political commentary quite often, but he doesn't claim to be a journalist, he is very vocal about being a comedian. He wants people to know he is a comedian first and foremost. When he becomes a political commentator, it is almost always to call out the people who claim to be political experts.

If you don't understand that, it is a complete waste of time to continue this conversation. If you can't understand the difference between a comedian and a "political expert" there is no hope for you.

Please, go listen to some good stand up comedy. George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Mitch Hedberg, Richard Pryor, or Lenny Bruce and tell me they weren't political. Tell me they went from being a comedian first and foremost to being a social commentator. Humor is a form of social commentary.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 08:15 PM
Do you honestly not realize the difference? Stewart ventures into political commentary quite often, but he doesn't claim to be a journalist. He wants people to know he is a comedian first and foremost. When he becomes a political commentator, it is almost always to call out the people who claim to be political experts.

If you don't understand that, it is a complete waste of time to continue this conversation. If you can't understand the difference between a comedian and a "political expert" there is no hope for you.

I was defending the other guy's point who said he doesn't like in your face commentators, which is what Jon Stewart was last night...

someone447
03-13-2009, 08:17 PM
I was defending the other guy's point who said he doesn't like in your face commentators, which is what Jon Stewart was last night...

I'm not disagreeing with that, he was an in your face comedian. I edited my last post while you were posting yours, so I will say this again. Many times humor is social commentary.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 08:19 PM
Are you saying that Jon Stewart was an "in your face" liberal in that interview? As far as I could tell, he was just saying that NBC was claiming to be a group of informed financial reporters but was actually being mostly either incompetent towards their own standard or complicit in the activities that led to this crisis. That's not even political. That's asking people to do their job.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying if a financial reporter can't see a crisis coming they are incompetent?

Seriously, I don't understand why people who clearly do not understand finance/economics feel they have the expertise to pin the blame on the media for this crisis. Stewart has absolutely NO IDEA about the market or what caused this crisis yet he feels he can scapegoat people for it? Pathetic, and I'm a fan of the guy.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 08:20 PM
I'm not disagreeing with that, he was an in your face comedian. I edited my last post while you were posting yours, so I will say this again. Many times humor is social commentary.

Humour was not the purpose of that show. He came on with the intent of ripping Cramer, which he did. You can't tell me that Stewart's show last night was any different than what Bill O does on a daily basis.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 08:26 PM
Are you kidding me? Are you saying if a financial reporter can't see a crisis coming they are incompetent?

Seriously, I don't understand why people who clearly do not understand finance/economics feel they have the expertise to pin the blame on the media for this crisis. Stewart has absolutely NO IDEA about the market or what caused this crisis yet he feels he can scapegoat people for it? Pathetic, and I'm a fan of the guy.

I understand perfectly what caused this crisis. Hell, Cramer admitted himself that he was aware of the misleading actions of particular financial institutions and the threat they posed. People were absolutely aware of the threat of crisis. It was a long time coming.

I'm saying that if a financial reporter is aware of the threat of pending crisis but plays into the idea that as long as the market is rising, everything will be fine is absolutely incompetent. They are, at that point, reporting not for the people who need their expertise, but to prop up the people who are informed participants.

Jon Stewart, as far as I can tell, isn't really scapegoating anyone. This whole thing with NBC started because NBC had reporters on who were blaming other people. So the Daily Show pointed out that NBC should shoulder some of the blame. Which they should.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 08:31 PM
I understand perfectly what caused this crisis. Hell, Cramer admitted himself that he was aware of the misleading actions of particular financial institutions and the threat they posed. People were absolutely aware of the threat of crisis. It was a long time coming.

I'm saying that if a financial reporter is aware of the threat of pending crisis but plays into the idea that as long as the market is rising, everything will be fine is absolutely incompetent. They are, at that point, reporting not for the people who need their expertise, but to prop up the people who are informed participants.

Jon Stewart, as far as I can tell, isn't really scapegoating anyone. This whole thing with NBC started because NBC had reporters on who were blaming other people. So the Daily Show pointed out that NBC should shoulder some of the blame. Which they should.

When did Cramer admit that he knew the crisis was coming and didn't do anything about it?

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 08:59 PM
When did Cramer admit that he knew the crisis was coming and didn't do anything about it?

Well, I didn't even say that he said that, but here's what he did say...


Stewart: These guys at these companies were on a Sherman's March through their companies, financed by our 401k's. And all the incentives of their companies were for short term profit and they burned the ******* house down with our money and walked away rich as hell. And you guys knew that you were going on.
Cramer: Alright. Okay

And Stewart goes on the make the point, which is one I echo, that this isn't about Cramer. He was just the guy who objected to the Daily Show pointing out his mistakes. It's about a financial news network which claims to bring the truth but has been largely complicit in the function of a broken system rife with problems that built up to such a degree that it spilled over into the rest of the economy.

The best point Stewart made all night is that what happened to our economy last year and is still happening was not a freak occurrence. It wasn't an unforeseeable storm. It was a process that many willingly participated in, even those who's job should be to out those broken process' to people who are not aware of what is going on. And when it finally boiled over, CNBC has painted it largely as a shocking and sudden occurrence, which it's not. It's a symptom of the entire institution in its current form.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:13 PM
Well, I didn't even say that he said that, but here's what he did say...



And Stewart goes on the make the point, which is one I echo, that this isn't about Cramer. He was just the guy who objected to the Daily Show pointing out his mistakes. It's about a financial news network which claims to bring the truth but has been largely complicit in the function of a broken system rife with problems that built up to such a degree that it spilled over into the rest of the economy.

The best point Stewart made all night is that what happened to our economy last year and is still happening was not a freak occurrence. It wasn't an unforeseeable storm. It was a process that many willingly participated in, even those who's job should be to out those broken process' to people who are not aware of what is going on. And when it finally boiled over, CNBC has painted it largely as a shocking and sudden occurrence, which it's not. It's a symptom of the entire institution in its current form.

hahahah

So because Cramer didn't get into a big debate there with Stewart you're assuming he knew what was going on? LOL. You realize that Cramer probably lost millions upon millions from this collapse, right?

You're just echoing what Stewart said. Try using your own brain. Stop speaking in generalities and get specific.

I love hearing all these people with absolutely no financial knowledge try to sound like they know what is going on.

And like I've been saying, if it was so predictable, why aren't we all sitting around burning through the millions we would have made by predicting the downfall? The reality is very few people predicted this would happen.

someone447
03-13-2009, 09:16 PM
When did Cramer admit that he knew the crisis was coming and didn't do anything about it?

Anyone who paid any attention to the markets knew a crisis was coming. Hell I predicted it about a year ago. Granted, I didn't know when it was going to happen, but I knew the housing bubble couldn't last. Economics isn't rocket science. This entire thing is much bigger than Cramer, as everyone has said. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, I don't have a problem with Cramer. I have a problem with CNBC, they are the ones who market Cramer as this financial/economic genius. They imply he is infallible, even if they don't come out and say it. They use a variation of "In God we Trust" to drum up ratings for his show, that is disingenuous. Cramer just responded to Stewarts attacks(which were completely justified.)

I have to stop talking about this tonight, otherwise I am going to get another infraction, because since I'm drunk I won't be able to stop it from getting political, I have enough problem with that when I'm sober.

someone447
03-13-2009, 09:18 PM
hahahah

So because Cramer didn't get into a big debate there with Stewart you're assuming he knew what was going on? LOL. You realize that Cramer probably lost millions upon millions from this collapse, right?

You're just echoing what Stewart said. Try using your own brain. Stop speaking in generalities and get specific.

I love hearing all these people with absolutely no financial knowledge try to sound like they know what is going on.

And like I've been saying, if it was so predictable, why aren't we all sitting around burning through the millions we would have made by predicting the downfall? The reality is very few people predicted this would happen.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the money to shortsell. I have barely had enough money to eat and get drunk for the last year, so thats why I didn't make a killing. The housing bubble was quite obvious. I have been hearing about the housing bubble bursting for about two years. No one is saying Cramer should have predicted the exact time of the burst, but to say BUY BUY BUY was ridiculous.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:19 PM
Anyone who paid any attention to the markets knew a crisis was coming. Hell I predicted it about a year ago. Granted, I didn't know when it was going to happen, but I knew the housing bubble couldn't last. Economics isn't rocket science. This entire thing is much bigger than Cramer, as everyone has said. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, I don't have a problem with Cramer. I have a problem with CNBC, they are the ones who market Cramer as this financial/economic genius. They imply he is infallible, even if they don't come out and say it. They use a variation of "In God we Trust" to drum up ratings for his show, that is disingenuous. Cramer just responded to Stewarts attacks(which were completely justified.)

I have to stop talking about this tonight, otherwise I am going to get another infraction, because since I'm drunk I won't be able to stop it from getting political, I have enough problem with that when I'm sober.

Right...everybody knew it was coming that's why everybody kept their money in the market...

I can sit here and say that market is eventually going to recover. That's an easy statement to make and one that will almost undoubtedly come true. However, what's important is WHEN, HOW, WHY, and HOW MUCH? I can guarantee you didn't know the answer to answer of those questions before the crash.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:21 PM
Unfortunately, I didn't have the money to shortsell. I have barely had enough money to eat and get drunk for the last year, so thats why I didn't make a killing. The housing bubble was quite obvious. I have been hearing about the housing bubble bursting for about two years. No one is saying Cramer should have predicted the exact time of the burst, but to say BUY BUY BUY was ridiculous.

If the only problem was the housing bubble it would barely have been a blip on the radar. The problem is much deeper than homes being overvalued.

How is saying buy in a bull market ridiculous? That's what everybody was saying. That's why the market was going up! People were buying, and not many were selling.

I kind of feel like I'm spinning my wheels here because it's clear that not many in this thread have even a rudimentary understanding of how markets work.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 09:27 PM
And like I've been saying, if it was so predictable, why aren't we all sitting around burning through the millions we would have made by predicting the downfall? The reality is very few people predicted this would happen.

No. The reality is that nobody knew exactly when it was going to happen, but plenty of people realized the risk of what was going on and the implicit shitstorm that would ensue when it did collapse.

Stop going on about how people don't understand how "the markets" work and either explain what you mean or shut up.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:28 PM
No. The reality is that nobody knew exactly when it was going to happen, but plenty of people realized the risk of what was going on and the implicit shitstorm that would ensue when it did collapse.

Stop going on about how people don't understand how "the markets" work and either explain what you mean or shut up.

So what risk did you see 2 years ago? What were you worried was going to happen?

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 09:32 PM
So what risk did you see 2 years ago? What were you worried was going to happen?

2 years ago I was a freshman in college. I wasn't a financial expert. And yet, even then, the idea that our economy was run on most imaginary money with no support system should that flow of unreal money stop was dismaying.

If I realized that when I was 18, then some guy who's job it is to learn the intricacies of the market could. And some person who's job it is to try and create proper legislation for the market could. And someone who's supposed to report on the market every day of their work week could.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:34 PM
2 years ago I was a freshman in college. I wasn't a financial expert. And yet, even then, the idea that our economy was run on most imaginary money with no support system should that flow of unreal money stop was dismaying.

If I realized that when I was 18, then some guy who's job it is to learn the intricacies of the market could. And some person who's job it is to try and create proper legislation for the market could. And someone who's supposed to report on the market every day of their work week could.

Imaginary money? What is that?

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 09:36 PM
this thread needs to ******* die. ******* now.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 09:37 PM
Honestly I've lost track of all the things that have been said in this thread about Cramer, but what about the fact that he was trusting CEO's and CFO's at their words instead of actually looking clearly at the numbers?

What the **** would have happened in 2001 if Cramer had listened to Ken Lay instead of looking into the dealings of Enron for instance? Cramer was/is being too lackadaisical and trusting for being a supposed expert on the financial market. Jon Stewart does more successful research than him and he's a ******* comedian.

Brent
03-13-2009, 09:37 PM
this thread needs to ******* die. ******* now.
The easiest way is a pokemon raid. I was able to start one a couple days ago on a 635 thread, you should be able to if you know the right posters.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 09:37 PM
Imaginary money? What is that?

The passing of credit that's counted as wealth but not as money that is likely to be cashed for tangible money.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:39 PM
Honestly I've lost track of all the things that have been said in this thread about Cramer, but what about the fact that he was trusting CEO's and CFO's at their words instead of actually looking clearly at the numbers?

What the **** would have happened in 2001 if Cramer had listened to Ken Lay instead of looking into the dealings of Enron for instance? Cramer was/is being too lackadaisical and trusting for being a supposed expert on the financial market. Jon Stewart does more successful research than him and he's a ******* comedian.

hahahaha

What research has Jon Stewart EVER done on any financial topic? That is beyond laughable.

What "numbers" are you referring to? I'm assuming financial statements released by Enron, right? You know, the financial statements that were audited and looked good from the outside...

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 09:39 PM
The easiest way is a pokemon raid. I was able to start one a couple days ago on a 635 thread, you should be able to if you know the right posters.

naw man, i don't got da connexions.

hook me up brah?

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 09:39 PM
this thread needs to ******* die. ******* now.

You're a very intelligent human being, you can contribute to the insanity of this thread.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:40 PM
The passing of credit that's counted as wealth but not as money that is likely to be cashed for tangible money.

So basically the basis of the financial system in America for over a century? You realize these terms like "leverage", "mortgage", "loan", etc. are not new, right?

Boston
03-13-2009, 09:41 PM
hahahaha

What research has Jon Stewart EVER done on any financial topic? That is beyond laughable.

What "numbers" are you referring to? I'm assuming financial statements released by Enron, right? You know, the financial statements that were audited and looked good from the outside...

http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/images/psyduck.gif

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 09:42 PM
You're a very intelligent human being, you can contribute to the insanity of this thread.

MONEY

and

MARKETS

and

******* LIQUIDITY AND ALL THAT ******* ****

http://pokedream.com/fans/fanart/charizard.png

Charizard says "BURN THAT ****!"

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 09:42 PM
hahahaha

What research has Jon Stewart EVER done on any financial topic? That is beyond laughable.

What "numbers" are you referring to? I'm assuming financial statements released by Enron, right? You know, the financial statements that were audited and looked good from the outside...

THATS NOT WHAT IM SAYING. I'm just saying that his general research staff does a more thorough job of researching his topic than Cramer which is just ridiculous considering their respective jobs.

And I was just using a catastrophic example off the top of my head since Cramer said he was listening to CEO's for their company's financial situation last night.

Brent
03-13-2009, 09:43 PM
http://www.ugo.com/games/super-smash-bros-characters/images/Mewtwo.jpg

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:45 PM
THATS NOT WHAT IM SAYING. I'm just saying that his general research staff does a more thorough job of researching his topic than Cramer which is just ridiculous considering their respective jobs.

And I was just using a catastrophic example off the top of my head since Cramer said he was listening to CEO's for their company's financial situation last night.

???

Stewart does have not "researchers". He has writers that write jokes.

Cramer and his staff analyze stocks and decide if they are good investments or not. Millions of other people do this as well. Only a very small contingent of people profited from this catastrophic market meltdown.

I would say it is a lot easier to consistently get laughs on the Daily Show than it is to pick good stocks.

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 09:48 PM
You want money? MEOWTH ******* THROWS MONEY AT YOUR ASS

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/powell/58/meowthpics/meowth.gif

Need some ************* LIQUIDITY? Blastoise will get you all liquid up in this *****!

http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/12045/images/blastoise.gif

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 09:49 PM
So basically the basis of the financial system in America for over a century? You realize these terms like "leverage", "mortgage", "loan", etc. are not new, right?

Well, it's been less than a century since we went off the gold standard,so...

But yes. If we were to base a financial system off of this, one would think that someone would have keep in mind a plan for when that flow of credit stopped, instead of just hoping it wouldn't.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 09:49 PM
???

Stewart does have not "researchers". He has writers that write jokes.

Cramer and his staff analyze stocks and decide if they are good investments or not. Millions of other people do this as well. Only a very small contingent of people profited from this catastrophic market meltdown.

I would say it is a lot easier to consistently get laughs on the Daily Show than it is to pick good stocks.

I know that Cramer has his own research staff and so forth just like Stewart does, but why exactly does he turn around and give advice that seems inexplicable at the time to millions of other investors? The fact that he said he listened to a CEO at face value for the financial state of his company just pisses me off considering how untrustworthy CEO's are.

I don't blame Cramer totally for the bad advice he gives on his show because it's bound to happen, but it happens way too damn frequently. I enjoy the guy because he's a very entertaining human being but right now he's on an ugly run as the economy worsens.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 09:51 PM
I'm not even sure why you guys are keeping on the subject of Cramer. This isn't about Cramer. This thing, in regards to the Daily Show, was about journalistic responsibility. Something which, by the way, applies much less to Cramer than a lot of other people on CNBC.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 09:53 PM
I'm not even sure why you guys are keeping on the subject of Cramer. This isn't about Cramer. This thing, in regards to the Daily Show, was about journalistic responsibility. Something which, by the way, applies much less to Cramer than a lot of other people on CNBC.

I do agree completely with this but Cramer was the only one to openly apologize in part with it so he is being the temporary scapegoat for CNBC's incredible failures over the last couple of years. I do feel sorry for him, but fighting back was a mistake.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:54 PM
Well, it's been less than a century since we went off the gold standard,so...

But yes. If we were to base a financial system off of this, one would think that someone would have keep in mind a plan for when that flow of credit stopped, instead of just hoping it wouldn't.

Gold standard has nothing to do with this topic. That is a monetary policy issue that really has no bearing on lending or credit as it relates to the current financial crisis. If the devaluing of US currency was a major issue, then you might have a point.

So you're basically saying that the financial system has been on a crash course for years now and Cramer should have had the foresight to see it because we use credit and the possibility that credit doesn't get repaid exists? Come on man...why even have a strong opinion on something like this when it's clear you don't know much about the economy.

Crickett
03-13-2009, 09:56 PM
So what risk did you see 2 years ago? What were you worried was going to happen?

There was a ton of risk that nobody saw, thats the problem. Nobody looked at companies leveraged 35:1 and thought, you know, this seems like a risk. Nobody looked at the number of triple A mortgages and thought "you know this seems a lot". Nobody looked closely at the derivatives that less than a half dozen people in the world fully understood and asked "wtf is this?" Any more than people looked at the figures of the people on the internet expansion rate in the late 90's and thought it was a bit unsustainable.

People thought through diversification that they had eliminated risk. They didn't.

As for Jon Stewart, he certainly did enough research to have a counter for pretty much every defense Cramer tried to put out there. You can say thats laughable, but its the same kind of laughable as oil dropping what, 60%? 70% in 15 months?

You call it laughable, but the more you write, the less it seems like you actually saw the interview. Or know what you're talking about yourself.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 09:58 PM
I know that Cramer has his own research staff and so forth just like Stewart does, but why exactly does he turn around and give advice that seems inexplicable at the time to millions of other investors? The fact that he said he listened to a CEO at face value for the financial state of his company just pisses me off considering how untrustworthy CEO's are.

I don't blame Cramer totally for the bad advice he gives on his show because it's bound to happen, but it happens way too damn frequently. I enjoy the guy because he's a very entertaining human being but right now he's on an ugly run as the economy worsens.

He gave that advice because that was his OPINION on the market. You will always find people on both sides of the fence.

Take the Super Bowl 2 years ago between the Patriots and Giants. Most people had the Patriots. It seemed like the obvious pick. It seemed like a sure thing. Yet, the Giants prevailed and millions of "experts" looked like idiots. It's the same with this crisis. Not many saw it coming.

I mean, it's easy for you to all say NOW you saw it coming. I wonder what you would be saying if we were still in a bull market? It's still going to come...eventually? Hindsight is 20/20.

Brent
03-13-2009, 09:58 PM
Nobody looked at the number of triple A mortgages and thought "you know this seems a lot".
AIG owned the company that gave them a AAA rating!

Crickett
03-13-2009, 10:02 PM
He gave that advice because that was his OPINION on the market. You will always find people on both sides of the fence.

Take the Super Bowl 2 years ago between the Patriots and Giants. Most people had the Patriots. It seemed like the obvious pick. It seemed like a sure thing. Yet, the Giants prevailed and millions of "experts" looked like idiots. It's the same with this crisis. Not many saw it coming.

I mean, it's easy for you to all say NOW you saw it coming. I wonder what you would be saying if we were still in a bull market? It's still going to come...eventually? Hindsight is 20/20.

Instead of going through the whole "It's not a ****in game" vs. a comparison to an actual game, I'm just going to reference a quote from the movie Pentagon Wars.

Major General Partridge: You know, in baseball, a guy that hits .400 is considered pretty damned great.
Congressman #1: In baseball, the losing team isn't killed by their opponents

iowatreat54
03-13-2009, 10:04 PM
Why do you keep comparing football to the economy?

It's not that people are complaining about his opinion/advice being wrong, it's that a media source like CNBC touting Cramer as a financial god and giving the public the impression that he is always right. Sure, people may be dumb to believe it, but it is blatant misrepresentation. That is the whole point of Stewart's aggression.

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 10:04 PM
http://guidesarchive.ign.com/guides/11879/images/chansey.gif

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:05 PM
There was a ton of risk that nobody saw, thats the problem. Nobody looked at companies leveraged 35:1 and thought, you know, this seems like a risk. Nobody looked at the number of triple A mortgages and thought "you know this seems a lot". Nobody looked closely at the derivatives that less than a half dozen people in the world fully understood and asked "wtf is this?" Any more than people looked at the figures of the people on the internet expansion rate in the late 90's and thought it was a bit unsustainable.

People thought through diversification that they had eliminated risk. They didn't.

As for Jon Stewart, he certainly did enough research to have a counter for pretty much every defense Cramer tried to put out there. You can say thats laughable, but its the same kind of laughable as oil dropping what, 60%? 70% in 15 months?

You call it laughable, but the more you write, the less it seems like you actually saw the interview. Or know what you're talking about yourself.

Leverage is an interesting thing because it doesn't mean much when you take it out of context and say things like 35:1. Those are just buzzwords. 35:1 could be an acceptable amount of leverage. It could be low, or it could be high, it depends on the situation.

AAA mortgages are the best kind of mortgages. I think the term you are looking for is "subprime mortgages". A fair amount of people did see the problem with subprime mortgages, but I don't think they really foresaw the ripple effect on the economy they would have.

I think your point on derivatives is a valid one. I think that's the true, core problem with the financial system. It's evolved to a point where a single person can't even understand a single company (see Citigroup), let alone the entire economy. Hence, it is difficult to understand the system as a whole and predict what impact certain things will have on it.

I watched the interview live. It wasn't a debate. It was Stewart blasting Cramer and Cramer taking it. He probably made the right decision because he certainly is not going to get any sympathy from the public so why bother? It's like a CEO trying to defend his bonus in this climate. People don't care what you have to say, they're going to rip you anyway.

Brent
03-13-2009, 10:06 PM
I watched the interview live. It wasn't a debate. It was Stewart blasting Cramer and Cramer taking it. He probably made the right decision because he certainly is not going to get any sympathy from the public so why bother? It's like a CEO trying to defend his bonus in this climate. People don't care what you have to say, they're going to rip you anyway.
The whole thing, without editing, is on the CC website.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Instead of going through the whole "It's not a ****in game" vs. a comparison to an actual game, I'm just going to reference a quote from the movie Pentagon Wars.

So what's your point? People shouldn't give financial advice because they might be wrong?

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 10:07 PM
So you're basically saying that the financial system has been on a crash course for years now and Cramer should have had the foresight to see it because we use credit and the possibility that credit doesn't get repaid exists? Come on man...why even have a strong opinion on something like this when it's clear you don't know much about the economy.

I didn't say that at all. I said that Cramer was complicit in enticing people to trade without fully disclosing what they were getting themselves into. It is a necessary act to fund the financial market, but just because it has to happen doesn't exempt someone from doing it responsibly.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 10:07 PM
So what's your point? People shouldn't give financial advice because they might be wrong?

No. That people who were wrong shouldn't complain when someone points it out that they were wrong.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:08 PM
Why do you keep comparing football to the economy?

It's not that people are complaining about his opinion/advice being wrong, it's that a media source like CNBC touting Cramer as a financial god and giving the public the impression that he is always right. Sure, people may be dumb to believe it, but it is blatant misrepresentation. That is the whole point of Stewart's aggression.

I don't get where you people are getting the impression that CNBC says Cramer is always right. That is simply idiotic. The stock market is legalized gambling. This is common knowledge. Cramer has been wrong a million times before and he even comments on his past prediction that went wrong on his show!

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:09 PM
I didn't say that at all. I said that Cramer was complicit in enticing people to trade without fully disclosing what they were getting themselves into. It is a necessary act to fund the financial market, but just because it has to happen doesn't exempt someone from doing it responsibly.

Huh? What did Cramer fail to disclose people were getting themselves into?

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 10:12 PM
What are all the modzorz doing right now? This is textbook lock. must be weed

Brent
03-13-2009, 10:13 PM
What are all the modzorz doing right now? This is textbook lock. must be weed
Me and several of the late night types have talk about this. There are no mods who are part of the late night NFLDC crowd. So, threads often that should be locked last until morning.

iowatreat54
03-13-2009, 10:14 PM
I don't get where you people are getting the impression that CNBC says Cramer is always right. That is simply idiotic. The stock market is legalized gambling. This is common knowledge. Cramer has been wrong a million times before and he even comments on his past prediction that went wrong on his show!

They do not explicitly say that, and I didn't even say that. They say things like "In Cramer we trust" which compares him to a being a financial god and always advertise that he is the best. They do not say "He is 100% right," but they present the impression that he is and use that impression on the public. Yes, the general public is stupid and a bunch of sheep that follow the next big thing, but that is the problem Stewart exposes. Rather than actually caring about presenting the best information and taking responsibility for what they present, CNBC is cares more about attracting viewers and spewing off any information that will do so regardless of content. Like Stewart says, journalism and the reporting media should have a responsibility to be more objective and responsible than care about ratings, viewers, and the rest of all that.

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 10:14 PM
oh sweet

ANARCHY

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT I LOVE IT

Paranoidmoonduck
03-13-2009, 10:14 PM
Huh? What did Cramer fail to disclose people were getting themselves into?

Stop talking about Cramer. This isn't about Cramer.

I'm talking about a institutionalized approach of reporting on the market that isn't honest.

Brodeur
03-13-2009, 10:15 PM
What are all the modzorz doing right now? This is textbook lock. must be weed

It's not a complete political or religious debate so not really.

The Unseen
03-13-2009, 10:17 PM
It's not a complete political or religious debate so not really.

Yeah, therein lies the rub. It's not strictly political, but the financial situation is pretty much the #1 issue in American politics today.

I KNOW IT ALL
03-13-2009, 10:17 PM
They do not explicitly say that, and I didn't even say that. They say things like "In Cramer we trust" which compares him to a being a financial god and always advertise that he is the best. They do not say "He is 100% right," but they present the impression that he is and use that impression on the public. Yes, the general public is stupid and a bunch of sheep that follow the next big thing, but that is the problem Stewart exposes. Rather than actually caring about presenting the best information and taking responsibility for what they present, CNBC is cares more about attracting viewers and spewing off any information that will do so regardless of content. Like Stewart says, journalism and the reporting media should have a responsibility to be more objective and responsible than care about ratings, viewers, and the rest of all that.

Journalism does not have that responsibility and hasn't for years. It is a business. It is driven by capitalism. This is how virtually all media operates.

Should CNBC start Cramer's show by saying how he's a mediocre financial analyst? Come on... It's like when you buy a mutual fund. Do you think the fund managers are telling you how they underperformed the S&P 500 the past 10 years or are they telling you about how great they are? When you go to buy that Ferrari, are they telling you about how expensive it is to upkeep it or are they telling you how fast it can go?

iowatreat54
03-13-2009, 10:17 PM
Yeah, therein lies the rub. It's not strictly political, but the financial situation is pretty much the #1 issue in American politics today.

Wrong.

One word: ManBearPig.