Perhaps we should let Joe Tiller and Rich Rodriguez know about this intrusion on the snake-oil market.
and... i like them? I think I like them.
Perhaps we should let Joe Tiller and Rich Rodriguez know about this intrusion on the snake-oil market.
Expecting RR to hover up from behind the desk during that interview with the hat on and a jar of the oil! LOL, my first thought was RR and Tiller too.
I'm glad someone else caught this. I went from "Wow, Jon Stewart being serious is kind of scary," to giggling and imagining RichRod in his wizard hat.
On another note, Jon Stewart went nutrageous. The F-Bombs of Seriousness tell the story.
Jon (quite politely)kicked Cramer butt.
I was amazed at what a poor job Cramer did of defending himself. He got eviscerated last night.
When John Stewart wants to attack someone...yikes.
was really awkward. I felt bad for Cramer, but was happy to see Stewart acknowledge that he didn't deserve to be the face of all of this, even though he deserved to get called out on his own track record.
those "roll 212" clips were devastating.
Cramer came off really quite sympathetically, possibly because he responded to everything with "You're right, I suck", and possibly because J-Stew tore him a new one with the vitriol. The mom story at the end was the fucking dagger.
The "roll clip" things were absolutely devastating. Nailed.
Yeah - Stewart destroyed him with those clips. Cramer knew he couldn't reconcile the "Hey, I'm trying to save you from short-sellers" lip service he was giving with the "Fuck 'em, short sell!" clips.
simply lampoon Cramer on his complicity of the Bear-Stearn debacle...last night could have been a *woodshed* moment.
I really thought Jon went easy on him.
If you think he didn't give Cramer loads of shit for the Bear-Stearns call, you missed 70% of the interview.
back & forth from bball games. When I get a chance to this weekend I will watch it in its entirety.
Somehow I don't believe Cramer did himself any justice by going into the belly of Jon Stewart.
...was going on every NBC show earlier in the week and deriding Stewart as a comedian and a variety show hack. He was basically daring Stewart to take the subject seriously. So Stewart did.
You mess with the bull, etc, etc.
Although I like him and his show, where did his lecturing and holier than thou attitude come from? Although he clearly wiped the floor with Cramer (not surprisingly, since he is one of the quickest wits I've ever seen, and clearly very intelligent) who is he to tell Cramer that he shouldn't go for laughs on his show because "this is serious shit?" This from a man who makes fun of politics for a living--isn't that serious shit too? Please. And as for Cramer making bad calls on stocks? Every single manager makes terrible calls every year, they just aren't on TV--the key is if the majority of your calls are correct, then you make money for your clients. And if Stewart acknowledged that Cramer isn't the face of CNBC, why did he continue holding Cramer's feet to the fire?
Did you listen?
What about the ad for Cramer's show, that urges you to put all your faith in him, implies that his shows is "just a joke" on the level the daily show is? Stewart isn't giving people advice on what to do with their financial well-being, so he can fuck around as much as he wants.
But you don't see a difference between Stewart making jokes about Bush and Cramer telling people to invest in Bear Stearns, then turning around to a more "insider" show, and laughing about how they're leveraged 30:1? You don't see a difference?
than you acknowledge, IMO. Stewart gives us "advice" every day about how to perceive politics and politicians, and endorses (not specifically, but for anyone who watches, you know where he and the show stand) certain policies and politicians, which in the end are more important to our lives than the status of our 401k's. I do agree that Stewart positions his show as more comedic, except when he doesn't, like last night.
And I don't defend your example, in fact I don't really defend Cramer, other than to say that he makes stock market calls for a living, by nature many of those calls will be wrong, thus costing people who blindly believe them money. That's why we have disclaimers and common sense.
AND THEY END UP INFLUENCING THE SHOW HE PRODUCES?!??!
Come on. This isn't even close to the same thing. Jon made the point that they both do the same thing (entertain), but one works for a financial news network that was totally complicit in the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. It's a very clear point and it's all about honesty and full disclosure. The whole idea is that we shouldn't have to lecture a financial news network about ethics and what its job rightly is. Except we do and now thousands of people are going out of work because of it. This is the cost of the death of journalism and that's why somebody had to be the face of this and that's why somebody had to get mad. There's something seriously wrong with our institutions.
Man, I could go on and on. Not your best work.
Stewart's original point wasn't that Cramer made bad calls on stocks. This whole thing really started after Rick Santelli went on his tirade against the president's plan to bail out over-leveraged mortgage holders, in which he called them "losers." Stewart pointed out that CNBC's various personalities consistently made similar bad judgments with regards to their analysis of the performance of various companies and stocks prior to the financial meltdown, and that to criticize mrtgage holders for doing the same thing was simply absurd. Stewart's original point was the CNBC had done a crappy job.
Cramer was really the only person who responded, and it back a Cramer versus Stewart thing. Why did Stewart continue to hold Cramer's feet to the fire? Because Cramer went out of his way to go on the NBC family of networks to call Stewart a know-nothing comedian, when in fact Stewart's criticism of both CNBC and Cramer was both appropriate and correct.
Stewart's point in last night's crushing of Cramer was that Cramer is clearly a great financial mind, and that not only did Cramer really know what was going on with all these banks and their exotic investment schemes, he was participating (the reason for playing all those 2006 clips). Given that knowledge, for Cramer to continually talk up these financial institutions while they were leveraged 30 times over as if there was no risk at all, and act as if there was no way to predict what ended up happening, was bullshit.
I still disagree that CNBC or Cramer somehow "knew" that things would blow up, yet did nothing but cheerlead. That system of leverage worked (in terms of making people, even middle class people, money for many years. They "knew" in the same way that Barney Frank "knew" that the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would help to take down the housing market. I don't believe Frank and Dodd, in their complete failure to regulate those entities and their leverage (despite repeated warnings) were anything but mistaken and wrong, just as Cramer and CNBC were mistaken and wrong. I don't vilify either side. There were very few people anywhere that predicted this collapse.
Again, I really think the only reason that Stewart went after CNBC was because Santelli chose to crap on those mortgage holders at the bottom of the total pole (some, admittedly, were speculators who were acting irresponsibly). Cramer, by accident, became the face of CNBC.
Santelli is the biggest asshole in this whole thing, and he wimped out of his appearance on the Daily Show. Imagine what Stewart would have done to him. God would that have been awesome.
you were getting your daily briefing with a *twist?* Telling folks that Bearn-Stearns is *safe* days before the floor underneath them collapses isn't FUNNY the least bit...
I give Cramer some credit for going on the show and letting Stewart do what he did. Could you imagine what would happen if Stewart would have done that type of interview with Bush, Chaney, or any other politician for that matter.
I think Stewart is pretty deferential with politicians. He saves most of his venom for media types. All of the times in the past that I've seen him really take someone down, they've been talking heads (Tucker Carlson and Wolf Blitzer come to mind.)
I agree. I was actually in the studio when he had Huckabee on, and he was quite deferential considering some of the inconsistencies in Huckabee's logic as well as the general crowd reaction (audible booing that was muffled during the replay).
Cramer put himself in a position (after going on various *NBC shows to respond to Stewart's comments) where he had to meet Stewart face-to-face, and I suspect that Stewart would have gone on Cramer's show if it would have made sense (like he did with Carlson and O'Reilly).
Both of these guys are tools. Stewart hasn't been funny for awhile now. Cramer is a clown. I find it interesting that Stewart chose this week to call Cramer out, seeing as though Cramer wrote an article a week or so ago wherein he was rather critical of some of Obama's forthcoming spending & policy proposals. I don't think it was just coincidence. Where was Stewart months ago with his outrage?
you're a fucking idiot.
IMO, agree with him or not. But if you think that Stewart isn't ideologically motivated in his own POV and who he decides to take on, either with humor or seriously, then it's you that is challenged.
is that Stewart (a Democrat) challenged Cramer (a Democrat) and ripped him to shreds on national television over something almost completely unrelated, because Cramer criticized Obama (a Democrat), even though Stewart also criticized Obama on the exact same topic twice this week?
My main point was that I didn't think his comment deserved an idiot blast from you. Stewart clearly disagrees with Cramer, and clearly has an ideological position himself, which doesn't take it beyond all doubt that he took off after CNBC because of that. But, do I agree that it was only because of anti-Obama statements? No.
Don't cry, baorao. Your link has nothing to do with what I was referencing there, ace. Here is Cramer's article from last week:
Stewart decides to take Cramer on right after this article was printed. Where the fuck was he before it was printed?
Try to understand what I was talking about next time before getting your panties in a bunch there, chief.
the clip. Its Stewart critcizing Obama for... wait for it... the $410 billion spending bill!
Just tell me why he would be mad at Cramer for disagreeing with the spending bill, when he is making fun of Obama for going back on his word regarding earmarks and spending?
and yes, I read your link, the gist of which is "you think money should spent/managed like this" and "I think it should be spent/managed like this", ergo spending.
Read Cramer's article. Earmarks aren't what he is talking about. This is a much broader criticism by Cramer about Obama's policies than just a spending bill. Again, why the fuck wasn't Stewart calling Cramer out months ago when the credit crisis hit? Why now? Cramer was the same clown giving bad advice back then that he is now. There is a political agenda behind what Stewart is doing. Both of these self serving idiots can go fuck themselves for all I care.
Jay, again, you clearly don't know what happned.
Stewart called out RICK SANTELLI, after the "Do you want to finance the loser's mortgages?" comment, in which he implied that the general public and can't be trusted to make financial decisions, while the "elite" of CNBC aren't that stupid. As a retort, Stewart showed a legnthy clip of roughly 12 CNBC personalities being blatantly wrong during this crisis. One of these 12 was Cramer. Cramer then went on every NBC program and called Steward an idiot comic. THAT is why Cramer vs. Stewart happened - Stewart was refuting Santelli, and Cramer responded.
since Santelli and Cramer apparently hate each other.
See Blue2000's post
now. I totally glossed over this part the first time through:
Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, "They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight."
Had I caught that before I would have just ignored you completely.
I don't listen to Captain OxyContin, but, nice try.
Again, why the fuck wasn't Stewart calling Cramer out months ago when the credit crisis hit? Why now?
There should really be a requirement that you read everything that's already been posted before you write anything. This has been explained already by multiple people on this thread.
It isn't that Cramer was giving bad advice, it is that the network he is on claims to be the "people to turn to on finance" when in reality they are really on the side of big business rather than actually reporting the info they know would be best for the layman to make their financial decisions on. THAT was what Stewart was getting at. Hell, you can't give good advice when the plane is crashing into the mountain, that is not the issue here. the issue is that Cramer is not so much a reporter as he is a talking head who tells the people what the CEO's tel l him to and he knows it is bullshit and says nothing.
You're correct, he's not a reporter, so therefore to castigate him for not getting to the "truth" or passing on CEO's words is misguided. He tries to be entertaining and give advice on making money. Sometimes he's right, other times he's not. In fact, if you've watched his show you would know that his whole point is to tell people how to make money by understanding what Hedge Fund managers and big market movers do. He admits errors and freely admits that he has done things of which he's not proud.
As for CNBC, I would like a network orientated to the layman also, but they (or any network) have no obligation to be either for or against "big business". they have a free market point of view and claim nothing else. By the way, "Big Business" is comprised of tons of people, most of whom do good work and benefit the country.
A) I never said big business was bad.
B) To say that your network is "the place to turn to for financial advice" (as Cramers network does) and then hold back that advice at the wishes of CEO guests is as Stewart said "disingenuous at best and criminal at worst."
Cramer runs his show for the layman (obvious with his bull dolls and antics) but then withholds information at the determent of the layman. That was the issue and that is why Stewart roasted his ass.
A- point granted.
B-where did he admit, or has been proved to hold back information? Rather, didn;t he simply get it wrong?
Again, you're ignoring the accusation that CNBC allowed the CEO of Bear Stearn on his show and allowed him to spout off about the health of the company, and led Cramer to pimp them, when CNBC, and Cramer, knew they were leveraged 35:1. That's patently dishonest. The role of a reporter is to get to truth, not to parrott company lines.
He is not one, and never pretended to be, he gives his opinion for a living, and like anyone who does, he is going to be wrong for one reason or another.
And with regard to leverage, Bear Stearns, was levered that highly. So was every investment bank on Wall Street at that time. And Bank, and Insurance company. That situation had existed for a few years, so there was no "truth" to get at. Those companies made money hand over fist for years, built upon the strength of the housing bubble, which like all bubbles, collapsed. That fact would not have been surprising to most investors. Cramer's mistake was not recognizing how precarious Bear's financial position in them was once the housing market turned, because he relied upon the CEO's word. Like most stock analysts, you do research, but ultimately you rely on the companies word as to their health, or you do not. He did and was wrong. But that is not a scandal or criminal, IMO.
If he's not a reporter, why does he do interviews? Why does he repeatedly talk about researching he's done by talking to industry experts and corporate officers? I'm sorry, but if he walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, he's probably a duck.
to be even-handed and ultimately to look for the truth. Cramer has a show about making money investing in stocks, which by it's nature involves deciding on a stock's future prospects, by research and yes, interviewing company officers. He does interviews with CEO's on his show that are aimed at deciding whether or not he thinks a company's stock is worth buying. That's it. I used to watch his show, and he never once pretended to be objective, and he was pretty honest when he would mention a stock that he missed on (and of course wasn't shy about trumpeting his good calls, of which there were several). IMO, it's misguided to expect an opinion show about investing to be held to the standard that we would a new program. Of course, I don't know any news programs either that predicted this problem.
And in my opinion, when someone (or some company) puts themselves out there as financial experts that you should trust with their money, they take on the responsibility to present all of the relevant information in as balanced a way as is possible. It's fine to espouse a viewpoint (e.g. buy, sell, etc.), but it's not fine to say "Buy buy buy!!!" without saying "but before you do you should know..."
Even if you don't consider Cramer a reporter (which I do to a certain extent - the guy is and has been a journalist and often straddles the Commentator/Reporter line on TV and print), CNBC as a whole ABSOLUTELY does put themselves out there as the end-all-be-all of the market gurus.
In doing so, they're taking on that responsibility. It's not quite a fiduciary duty, but it's not all that far off either.
but if you do, you should have noticed that he says over and over again "do your homework". He has often said not to do what he says without doing your own research. And if you hold a stock, to do at least an hour a week of research making sure you're still comfortable with it's prospects. He went on the Today show a few months ago, when the Dow was at 10,000 (its at 7,000 now) and said publicly that you should take all money out of the market that you will need within the next five years. If people listened, they would have saved a ton. You would be correct if in recommending a stock, he knowingly held back information that he knew would torpedo that stock, but there is no evidence of that. As I said to Chitown, simply knowing Bear was leveraged was not inside knowledge--everyone on the street knew that, and many companies in that same position were (at that time) really profitable.
I've seen the show, but I'm not a regular viewer. And all of what you're saying there is fine and totally understandable, but I think we're all talking past each other a bit.
No one is going after Cramer specifically for being wrong about Bear or any other one thing, and no one is saying that he doesn't tell people to be cautious at all. Of course, Cramer didn't know this was going to happen, but he's admitted to being wrong about that and other things. That's fine and good for him.
The problem with that is that Stewart's critique is not about being right or wrong. Stewart was saying "look, even when you're right, you're still feeding an industry that was built on lies and ponzi schemes", and also that Cramer knew that it was built on those lies all along as evidenced by the clips he kept throwing up. In those clips, he admitted that hedge fund managers routinely mislead the public, and what's more they routinely shirk regulations designed to prevent them from undertaking those manipulations.
Now, you can believe that Cramer had the best intentions and that those clips were more innocent than they appeared, and that's fine for you. I'm not buying it. Whether that's because I'm not as steeped in the knowledge of the inner workings of the market as you may be or just because of my general distrust of banks and corporations, I don't know. But the overarching point that Stewart was making is that the Cramers and Santellis and CNBCs of the world had a responsibility to dig deeper and present the LARGER investment picture, including the schemes and lies and puffery inherent in the market and that they failed in that responsibility. If you disagree with that point, cool. I do not.
if you believe that the industry is "built on lies and ponzi schemes" and that "the lies inherent in the market". We'll certainly depart there. I believe that industry, like every other one, has bad characters in it, but that in the main it has good people with good intentions, just like every other industry.
But in any case, I appreciate your arguments, and and also appreciate your ability to debate strongly without getting personal or insulting, which unfortunately is rare on the interwebs.
Fair enough, and likewise.
And perhaps "inherent in the market" is too strong a term. Maybe "inherent in the factors leading to the recent crash" would have been a better description. Not sure if that changes the equation for you, but I want to be clear that it's not the entire market or system that I'm objecting to.
when the Dow was at 10,000 (its at 7,000 now) and said publicly that you should take all money out of the market that you will need within the next five years. If people listened, they would have saved a ton.
Assuming they didn't double down on Bear Sterns when he advised that. I mean if a fireman sets my house on fire, I'm not going to thank him for being on the scene to put it out.