What do you think will happen with Jim Cramer on the Daily show?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Thump553
The sad thing is I think Cramer is one of the best things on CNBC. I'd never follow his stock picks (won't follow anyone's and that is not a focus of his show anyway) and Cramer's show has elements of Pee Wee's Playhouse (which can be a good thing), but Cramer at least occassionally pushes Wall Street reform and he seriously stresses his viewers do their own research in the fundamentals of a company. The rest of CNBC's staff is mainly stock pickers and they suck up nearly universally to corporate management.

Maybe this will push Cramer more into the effective reform camp, where he has been a lonely voice at CNBC.

i think i can agree with this in principle. As bad as cramer may have been, is is probably th best of the bunch there.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Is that really the best you can do? Big shocker, an IT guy plays video games now and then. I'm sure CNN will want in on that hot scoop.

So how's your career in installing video cards going? That must be lucrative.

You don't get it; making bad jokes about installing video cards for a living doesn't work when you're literally spending your life playing video games. Christ. :laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: HeXploiT

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
From watching the clips they show of Cramer on TDS, I wouldn't take advice from that guy on anything. He looks and behaves like a crackhead. If he told me that fire was hot, I'd have to stick my hand in to confirm it.

If he tells you the fire is hot tune in the next week and he'll tell you it's cold. That's how Jim Cramer works. Jim Cramer has successfully predicted all events in human history with 100% accuracy since 1900 including the sinking of the Titantic.
He also predicted the exact opposite of those events and the arrival of the Titantic at New York harbor in April of 1912.

As opposed to your predictions?


ooh other good quote:

Evan:
"It's going to be funny bumping this thread when the economy not only recovers, but begins to boom starting sometime in 2009. Seriously, laymen economists are annoying. "

Yes. You are.

pot/kettle

i would trust alchy 500x more than you.

It may have been unclear because it was a quote of a quote, but I was actually referring to Evan.

It's funny to hear someone who is clearly not a professional economist complain about laymen.

are you saying that evan or alchy is a layman?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

are you saying that evan or alchy is a layman?

Just me. Then again, old Boober would take Ron Paul's advice over Nobel Prize winning economists. No, seriously, he said so.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

are you saying that evan or alchy is a layman?

Just me. Then again, old Boober would take Ron Paul's advice over Nobel Prize winning economists. No, seriously, he said so.

so layman boober is complaining about other layman who are less of a layman than he is?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jjsole

He's correct in pointing out the dangerous derivative industry, but not at pointing the blame. That goes to the Sec as well as congress by being swayed by lobbyists that have successfully pushed for loosened restrictions and accountability.

Regulation and oversight is critical in the markets and on wallstreet, they are thieves with the goal of thieving as far as I'm concerned, many of them atleast. It attracts the worst of the worst, and also creates them from within.

I'd lke to repeat my previous comment:

There's blame to go around in varying degrees to many places, but the financial journalists have an especially heavy share in my view for not better exposing the risks.

You can only understand this in understanding the various elements.

On issues of societal institutions, I often look to analogies with criminal justice. If you want to understand how a wrongful conviction can happen, there are elements from the personal behaviors of the defense and prosecution attorneys and the judge, to the jury, to the courtroom rules, to the technology (DNA?), to the police competenece, resources, corruption, etc., to the legislature's competence and corruption in the law involved, to voters, to the effectiveness of the systemic oversight to catch problems, and so on.

In this case, I agree with you on the point you make, just as I agree with the blind guy who describes the elephant's trunk - but not if he says that's the whole elephant.

If you look too hard at any one part, nothing changes. You can complain all day about the lack of 'ethics' by the people in the market; they are responding to market rewards and won't change, as if they do, they get replaced. You can complain all day about the government, but if the election system rewards those who want bad policies and get their side elected, nothing's getting fixed there. If you just blame the voters, it's impractical for voters to get all that informed on complicated issues. It's just not gonna happen.

So you try to say what would help - and that's where I point multiple fingers, but a big one (not that one) at the financial journalism industry.

We need to not only 'fix it', which may not be that hard for a while, but to look at how to prevent the same problem from happening again when the economiy is better.

You're not wrong to point out the role of officials like Paulson - but by the time you have the chairman of Goldman Sachs, who was fighting for the deregulation you say was such a key part of the problem just before his appointment as Treasury secretary, in an administration that's all about 'let the industries do what they want', what do you expect? You are in a bad situation already at that point.

If you elect better people, that helps change the culture, helps regulate better. If you have good financial journalism, that helps create the demaand for better offiicials and better policies. If you have responsible companies identify problems and support fixing them to prevent competitors from bad practices, that can help.

Stewart identified one important element. You discussed another. Why attack him for being *wrong* on blame, instead of just saying that there are additional areas for it too?

I totally agree with you and others who make a point of saying there are multiple causes, and the ones you list are completely relevant. I'm simply responding to the Stewart vs. Cramer battle. Personally I have never seen much indepth journalism from Cnbc from anyone other than David Faber, who has broken many stories. Even Faber tho is simply very connected and gets tipped off and he investigates the tips.

That said, the woes of all the factors here are far too big for Cnbc to handle imo. They'd have to trash too much of the same industry that has helped build their marketing show. Stewart seems to take offense that wall street trades like its a game....but it always has been to wall street, and Cnbc has always been its game show.

Also, sure Cnbc failed to detect the mounting risks and industry deceptiveness (but again, they were never someone to count on for investigating much), and the WSJ and NYT like I mentioned, but also Barrons, who has some of the best investigative market journalism in the industry imo.

Barrons imo caused the collapse of the .com bubble in 2000 after they wrote in march '00 about 25 .com companies that would run out of money by the end of the year. That was the beginning of the end to that bubble. They missed this one tho.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The biggest problem I have with what CNBC does is the same problem I have with most major media outlets. They sensationalize *everything* all in the name of making news "entertaining." There is a frankly frightening lack of actual journalism.

Welcome to capitalism, but yes its annoying. Does Cnbc sensationalize the market...why, YES THEY DO! :Q:Q:Q If they didn't help build interest in the markets, they wouldn't have a show that can sell advertising to make money. Does that make them responsible for the industry's shortcomings?...uhm, no.


Frankly I'm still pissed O'Reily gets away with calling his show 'fair and balanced'.

(if he does that is...)

It isn't entirely the medias fault. If people didn't tune in to watch this shit, they would be forced to develop some alternative programming. It doesn't have to be that way, in fact for a long time it wasn't, but now that we have a culture of "want it now, and cheap" this is what we get.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

And for the rumor game in wall street...what would you propose to silence everyone?

Those who hold themselves out to offer professional advice and/or to operate financial intitutions should be held to ethical standards of performance. Amongst other things, they should never have a conflict of interests between their clients' income and their own, and they should never be allowed to manipulate the markets with false rumors and duplicitous actions.

These people are in positions of public trust. The current collapse is all the evidence necessary to know what happens when they betray that trust.

Changing the system won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight, but the quick answer to your question is, yes. The liars and manipulators should be silenced. Solitary confinement would be an appropriate method for what they've done to our economy.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

And for the rumor game in wall street...what would you propose to silence everyone?

Those who hold themselves out to offer professional advice and/or to operate financial intitutions should be held to ethical standards of performance. Amongst other things, they should never have a conflict of interests between their clients' income and their own, and they should never be allowed to manipulate the markets with false rumors and duplicitous actions.

These people are in positions of public trust. The current collapse is all the evidence necessary to know what happens when they betray that trust.

Changing the system won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight, but the quick answer to your question is, yes. The liars and manipulators should be silenced. Solitary confinement would be an appropriate method for what they've done to our economy.

So you're blaming a damaged economy on rumors?...

Suppose you want to silence people's rumors, you're going to have to silence people voicing opinions, since that's often where rumors start. And when you silence wall street rumors, will you also seek to silence all other rumors that can affect industries and businesses?

How about the patron that doesn't like his local pizza joint and says his pizza tastes like it was imported from china, and a rumor starts in town that the pizza joint imports its pizza dough from china? Jail time?

Again, rumors didn't damage this economy by any stretch. If you want wall street to clean up their bread crumbs after dinner, fine, but I'd rather see them get their house in order, and the only way to do that is thru oversight and transparency of their business practices, and not by relying on tv stations to clean up an industry.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

So you're blaming a damaged economy on rumors?...

No, I'm blaming it on those in government who failed to protect the public interest in their duties of public oversight and the ethically challenged turds in positions of financial influence who took advantage of that lack of oversight and control. They worked hand in glove, the robber barons buying the the favors of those in government charged with protecting us. In some cases they were same people working both sides of the game through the revolving door.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Is that really the best you can do? Big shocker, an IT guy plays video games now and then. I'm sure CNN will want in on that hot scoop.

So how's your career in installing video cards going? That must be lucrative.

You don't get it; making bad jokes about installing video cards for a living doesn't work when you're literally spending your life playing video games. Christ. :laugh:

So did you take your LinkedIn profile because you're embarrassed of being such a loser with no discernible talent? And no, sucking off LegendKiller doesn't count as talent. Any two dollar whore can do that. Just ask miketheidiot.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

So did you take your LinkedIn profile because you're embarrassed of being such a loser with no discernible talent?

I just didn't want an e-stalker kiddo. Where's your LinkedIn profile btw? Haha, hypocrite. You'd get demolished on a point-by-point comparison of our resumes, too bad you'll puss out of any details.

And no, sucking off LegendKiller doesn't count as talent. Any two dollar whore can do that. Just ask miketheidiot.

You are a Rock Band enthusiast, I can't match that lack of talent.

edit: Christ, you're even stalking these guys in your sig. At least you're buried far enough away in a shithole not to make any difference in physical reality.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

So you're blaming a damaged economy on rumors?...

No, I'm blaming it on those in government who failed to protect the public interest in their duties of public oversight and the ethically challenged turds in positions of financial influence who took advantage of that lack of oversight and control. They worked hand in glove, the robber barons buying the the favors of those in government charged with protecting us. In some cases they were same people working both sides of the game through the revolving door.

I'm definitely with you there.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

So you're blaming a damaged economy on rumors?...

No, I'm blaming it on those in government who failed to protect the public interest in their duties of public oversight and the ethically challenged turds in positions of financial influence who took advantage of that lack of oversight and control. They worked hand in glove, the robber barons buying the the favors of those in government charged with protecting us. In some cases they were same people working both sides of the game through the revolving door.

I'm definitely with you there.

We can't go on meeting like this. People will talk.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jjsole

So you're blaming a damaged economy on rumors?...

No, I'm blaming it on those in government who failed to protect the public interest in their duties of public oversight and the ethically challenged turds in positions of financial influence who took advantage of that lack of oversight and control. They worked hand in glove, the robber barons buying the the favors of those in government charged with protecting us. In some cases they were same people working both sides of the game through the revolving door.

I'm definitely with you there.

We can't go on meeting like this. People will talk.

I never said I liked rumors, just that they are hard to stop.

 

[Steeplerot]

Another Stewart classic rofl
He roasted him harder then the bowtie dork a few years ago.

 

[alchemize]

WTF was the stupid statement at the end about his 75 year old mother and long term investing????

If his 75 year old mother was allocated as she should be, in bonds, t-bills, CD's and very little stock she'd be just fine.

 

[Bitek]

IMO, Stewart was goading Cramer to be more like him ultimately. Steward freely admits he's not a financial genius, and neither are most people. His point to Cramer was that Cramer was a person in the know, he understands the back dealing and what is really going on at these banks, but he and the whole network didn't expose any of that, they sat on the side like cheerleaders helping dupe all the poor saps that have their retirement and savings in the market and trying to figure out what to do with it. The choice he is putting to them, are they going to be critical financial reporters (which are sorely lacking) or are they just going to behave as corporate propagandists and arms of the marketing dept? They are in a position to call them on their bullshit as they really understand when the bullshit is coming.

Basically I think he is making the same criticism of CNBC as was made of the larger media to the run up to the Iraq War. All the major news organizations cheerleaded the war propaganda coming from the WH, and very few challenged it as they were more worried about their access. In the end they were just as instrumental to the start of the war as Bush himself was. When Cramer is questioned on this he responds "how do you do that? How do you go back and say "Paulson just lied his ass of to me?"" The point Stewart is trying to make is: If not you then, who? We have (supposedly) the SEC looking out for investors, but don't journalists have a role to go after these guys as well and call them on their bullshit?

The Daily Show is so popular and influential as they are willing to call people on their bullshit, and they still get access. Stewart flames McCain for months and he still goes on his show. He does pull back a bit in person, but his fake news comedy show asks more probing and skeptical questions than the real media often does. Stewart has the balls to call out people, and conversely gets better access and influence as a result. More news organizations should be like his and be less afraid to ask hard questions and lose the comfy chair in the WH press conferences and instead trade it more viewer attention which will force the powerful people to come to them to access to their viewers. Basically, CNBC and the whole news media in general are cowards and have the power structure backwards, much to the ruin of the country.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Bitek

The Daily Show is so popular and influential as they are willing to call people on their bullshit, and they still get access.

Seriously?? they get attention because a key demographic that virtually every candidate running wants to tap into but never succeeds...they get the interviews one would think impossible because (and I am only assuming here) of the above and that no one takes the show seriously...it is a joke fake news show with a liberal bias..big whoop.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Bitek

The Daily Show is so popular and influential as they are willing to call people on their bullshit, and they still get access.

Seriously?? they get attention because a key demographic that virtually every candidate running wants to tap into but never succeeds...they get the interviews one would think impossible because (and I am only assuming here) of the above and that no one takes the show seriously...it is a joke fake news show with a liberal bias..big whoop.

Yes you are assuming a lot and clearly don't get it. Like liberal Stewart or not, his fake news comedy show has tremendous social and political influence. Thru humor and irony, he makes commentary and analysis far more biting than most professional newscasters.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Bitek
IMO, Stewart was goading Cramer to be more like him ultimately. Steward freely admits he's not a financial genius, and neither are most people. His point to Cramer was that Cramer was a person in the know, he understands the back dealing and what is really going on at these banks, but he and the whole network didn't expose any of that, they sat on the side like cheerleaders helping dupe all the poor saps that have their retirement and savings in the market and trying to figure out what to do with it. The choice he is putting to them, are they going to be critical financial reporters (which are sorely lacking) or are they just going to behave as corporate propagandists and arms of the marketing dept? They are in a position to call them on their bullshit as they really understand when the bullshit is coming.

Basically I think he is making the same criticism of CNBC as was made of the larger media to the run up to the Iraq War. All the major news organizations cheerleaded the war propaganda coming from the WH, and very few challenged it as they were more worried about their access. In the end they were just as instrumental to the start of the war as Bush himself was. When Cramer is questioned on this he responds "how do you do that? How do you go back and say "Paulson just lied his ass of to me?"" The point Stewart is trying to make is: If not you then, who? We have (supposedly) the SEC looking out for investors, but don't journalists have a role to go after these guys as well and call them on their bullshit?

The Daily Show is so popular and influential as they are willing to call people on their bullshit, and they still get access. Stewart flames McCain for months and he still goes on his show. He does pull back a bit in person, but his fake news comedy show asks more probing and skeptical questions than the real media often does. Stewart has the balls to call out people, and conversely gets better access and influence as a result. More news organizations should be like his and be less afraid to ask hard questions and lose the comfy chair in the WH press conferences and instead trade it more viewer attention which will force the powerful people to come to them to access to their viewers. Basically, CNBC and the whole news media in general are cowards and have the power structure backwards, much to the ruin of the country.

Pretty much. I think DS viewers test more informed not because the DS is so informative, but because it isn't as filled with BS as the 24 hour "News" channels are. The DS stimulates critical thinking, 24 hour "News" stifles it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What Stewart was ripping him for was not just that CNBC failed to expose these shell games, but that they were complicit in them. THAT is the problem.

I thought Cramer clearly stated regret for not knowing more about what was really going on. What do people want from cnbc? If they knew of major shell games sure it would have been irresponsible to not report about it, but they have broken many corruption stories, and were scammed by madoff and stafford like nearly everyone else. The ones that are responsible for turning a blind eye is the SEC.

Again, he was only partially ripping them for being bad journalists. His point was that CNBC DID know better, and did nothing about it.

I'm not sure that CNBC knew better.

Alan Greenspan assumed that the wisdom and self interest of the the big players in the derivative market would prevent catastrophe, and he fought against regulation of the derivative market because of that belief. He just could not see the melt-down coming, and now admits that his assumptions were wrong.

If that's true of someone as knowledgable as Greenspan, why would we think CNBC and its analysts knew any better?

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think the root cause was the widespread, irrational belief that the party could go on and on and on. For some reason, the human mind just cannot let go of the fantasy that there's a magic formula for making money out of nothing. So we continue to bounce from bubble to bubble.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Bitek
IMO, Stewart was goading Cramer to be more like him ultimately. Steward freely admits he's not a financial genius, and neither are most people. His point to Cramer was that Cramer was a person in the know, he understands the back dealing and what is really going on at these banks, but he and the whole network didn't expose any of that, they sat on the side like cheerleaders helping dupe all the poor saps that have their retirement and savings in the market and trying to figure out what to do with it. The choice he is putting to them, are they going to be critical financial reporters (which are sorely lacking) or are they just going to behave as corporate propagandists and arms of the marketing dept? They are in a position to call them on their bullshit as they really understand when the bullshit is coming.

Basically I think he is making the same criticism of CNBC as was made of the larger media to the run up to the Iraq War. All the major news organizations cheerleaded the war propaganda coming from the WH, and very few challenged it as they were more worried about their access. In the end they were just as instrumental to the start of the war as Bush himself was. When Cramer is questioned on this he responds "how do you do that? How do you go back and say "Paulson just lied his ass of to me?"" The point Stewart is trying to make is: If not you then, who? We have (supposedly) the SEC looking out for investors, but don't journalists have a role to go after these guys as well and call them on their bullshit?

The Daily Show is so popular and influential as they are willing to call people on their bullshit, and they still get access. Stewart flames McCain for months and he still goes on his show. He does pull back a bit in person, but his fake news comedy show asks more probing and skeptical questions than the real media often does. Stewart has the balls to call out people, and conversely gets better access and influence as a result. More news organizations should be like his and be less afraid to ask hard questions and lose the comfy chair in the WH press conferences and instead trade it more viewer attention which will force the powerful people to come to them to access to their viewers. Basically, CNBC and the whole news media in general are cowards and have the power structure backwards, much to the ruin of the country.

Pretty much. I think DS viewers test more informed not because the DS is so informative, but because it isn't as filled with BS as the 24 hour "News" channels are. The DS stimulates critical thinking, 24 hour "News" stifles it.

In an interview, I don't remember with who, Jon Stewart basically said that they assume that their viewers get their news somewhere else.

 

[Pliablemoose]

CNBC wouldn't be on the air if people weren't stupid enough to believe their shit, when I'm invested in something short term, the minute it hits the talking heads on CNBC (actually within 24-48 hours) I sell it.

Cramer has long been known to be a source of entertainment rather than investment advice.

I think it's funny as hell, one guy who provides investment advice that's really entertainment VS another that's politics disguised as entertainment.

The other thing is that the financial meltdown seems to happen just shy of every 100 years, screaming at CNBC for not picking up on an 80 year cycle is just stupid.

Ooohhh, which of the talking heads will win?

 

[BarneyFife]

CNBC is a joke. Its not different than watching Fox News blow the GOP at every chance. CNBC is there to be a mouthpiece for all the financial crooks. I'm glad wall street was finally exposed to be a scam.