wolverine1987

March 13th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^

that goes to my point that anyone who is paid to give their opinion on something like the stock market, where even the very best analyst hopes for a record of being right on 7 out of 10 stocks, will always have the chance of being very wrong, And you have to know that and be careful going in. Having said that, the first call is way more financially impactful (assuming you followed both).

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18167

Jay

March 13th, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^

That may very well be so. I don't watch Stewart on a regular basis to know when his criticism of Cramer started. That doesn't change the fact that there is a politically motivated agenda behind what Stewart is doing, imho. Again, I despise both of these walking bags of shit , so, you will have to excuse me if I don't believe that Stewart's motivations are pure in all of this.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 578

I_Heart_A2

March 13th, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^

Stewart doesn't make fun of politics for a living... he uses comedy as the only vehicle that genuinely has a chance of driving into the hearts of a generation that has become completely resistant to media messaging. He skewers topics that deserve skewering and then skewers the rest of the main-stream media for not having skewered what obviously deserved to be skewered. I acknowledge that his show being "comedy" gives him the ability to retreat and say, "I was just kidding, i'm a comedian." That's fine in my book, though, because were he to take the approach of a journalist he would become another talking head in the mix. His "comedy" show gives him leverage and he knows how important that position is and he's using it to great effect. Isn't it nice that the base assumption Stewart is making is that you're SMART, not that you will slurp up anything he gives you. I love his format... he tees up the ball, then smacks it hard every time. That said... Cramer is not the face of the whole problem Jon was addressing, and perhaps an attack THAT well coordinated should have been aimed at at a general rather than a peon.

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 57

mad magician

March 13th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^

This was Stewart and the Daily Show at its best-- providing an actual public service by having a long memory with the 24 hour noise networks and then calling them out on their frequent hypocrisies, panderings, errors, and overall fuckery. Someday in history classes when they are discussing our financial meltdown, clips from Cramer's show will be played to illustrate just how foolish we all were.

Joined: 11/18/2008

MGoPoints: 636

cpt20

March 13th, 2009 at 4:29 PM ^

The only reason Stewart went after Cramer is because Cramer was getting mad at the President. Stewart is a huge liberal. It was still pretty seeing those clips on TV. He really got Cramer.

Joined: 11/02/2008

MGoPoints: 377

ShockFX

March 13th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^

Jim Cramer has 100x the money Jon Stewart does. It's also likely by non-SEC approved methods. Therefore, publicly saying he just made bad calls is much better for him than trying to defend himself. His show is entertainment, anyone that trades from it (used to be able to trade AGAINST him, not anymore now that everyone knows) deserves to lose the money.

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 4073

chitownblue (not verified)

March 14th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^

Strawman. This almost completely disregards anything Stewart actually said. Stewart's accusation wasn't "Jim Cramer makes bad stock calls, people followed him, and now they lost money." He actually went to lengths to say that WASN'T his point. Stewart's POINT was that Cramer (and CNBC as a whole) brought the CEO's of Merryl Lynch, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers on, frequently knowing that these institutions were houses of cards (IE, Bear was leveraged 35:1), NEVER ASKED THEM ABOUT THEIR DEBT LEVELS, and allowed them to parrot what the network KNEW was bullshit (Bear's CEO: "I can't envision us having another write-down" 2 days before they went down) without even a peep from the network's "financial expert" to refute, or even probe it. They were mouthpieces for bald-faced lies, and now they have the balls to go on air, and say things like "Wall Street shouldn't have to finance the LOSERS' mortgages!" when they were either: a) just as ignorant as people who took loans they couldn't afford b) were fully aware of what was happening, and didn't say a word Neither of those points to their credibility as a network. FURTHER, you have these people on TV championing the market as a quality investment for the future (you can invest your 401K and earn 15%-25% a year) as a carrot to get "stupid money" into the market, and, five minutes later, speaking to a more niche, hard-core audience about how to foment a short-selling spree to make a buck off of the destruction of the 401K plans you're enticing into the market on television. Blaming the victim, as you seem to want to do, is patently offensive, because the victim, in this case, is everyone with a 401K, a mortgage, or a pension plan - or, like 90% of the work force - it's me, it's my parents, and it's probably most of us.

Joined: 12/12/2017

MGoPoints: 0

ShockFX

March 14th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^

Cramer didn't destroy Bear Stearns, Lehman, or any of those. He's complicit in pumping them up without doing any due diligence, or just being a corrupt idiot. As I said, he's in hedge funds pockets. Just look at the evidence that his preset picks trade up before he reveals them on the show. So no, the victims aren't everyone. The victims are the people that watch the show, trust this guy because he's on TV and they take his recommendations. I find it 100x more offensive that you think Jim Cramer is somehow responsible for CDOs, CLOs, MBS, CDS, and all the other leveraged, AAA rated piece of shit investments that were sold (I know CDS isn't an invesment in the sense of the others, it's speculative insurance). The victims are self inflicted idiots that took on more debt than they could afford, got that $750k house on a 5/1 ARM that's Libor + 4, or the interest only mortgage, ran up $50k in home equity loans for vacations or entertainment systems, or bought $70k SUVs to keep up with the Joneses. Those people can go fellate their assholes with a tire iron. Jim Cramer, while a morally bankrupt asshole, has not influenced this wealth obliteration anymore than my shares of SRS or SKF do.

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 4073

Blue2000

March 14th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^

The victims are self inflicted idiots that took on more debt than they could afford, got that $750k house on a 5/1 ARM that's Libor + 4, or the interest only mortgage, ran up $50k in home equity loans for vacations or entertainment systems, or bought $70k SUVs to keep up with the Joneses. The problem, of course, is that these people aren't the only victims. The victims are also persons who didn't buy more house then they could afford, who saved responsibly and did their best to plan for retirement, and who then lost their jobs as a result of the worst financial crisis this country has seen in decades. Those victims probably didn't even watch CNBC or rely upon Cramer's advice. They worked hard and perhaps naively assumed they were going to be rewarded for it. Just wondering - should those people fellate their assholes with a tire iron as well? Probably not, but Rick Santelli shouted at the top of his lungs that these people were "losers." That is what set Stewart off, and rightfully so. Cramer ended up taking the brunt of Stewart's considerable wrath only because Cramer was stupid enough to criticize Stewart's criticisms.

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 7901

chitownblue (not verified)

March 14th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^

Again, you clearly didn't watch Stewart's shows leading up to the interview, or the interview itself, which makes me wonder why you have an opinion on it. Cramer is a single piece in Stewart's larger complaint. Cramer talks stocks, so I understand that he isn't responsible for the destruction of the mortgage bond market. However, he (and, again, that network as a whole) pimped the companies that bought, sold, and rated those bonds as worthwhile investments while those bonds were eating the companies whole from within. Further, WHILE THEY PIMPED THEM, CNBC television personalities explained to niche audiences, how to hasten their destruction. If you can't see the problem in CNBC, which is the most visible "business news" entity around, pimping one thing while encouraging it's destruction on the side, and can't understand why this deserves some sort of anger or outrage, I'm flabbergasted. The victims are self inflicted idiots that took on more debt than they could afford, got that $750k house on a 5/1 ARM that's Libor + 4, or the interest only mortgage, ran up $50k in home equity loans for vacations or entertainment systems, or bought $70k SUVs to keep up with the Joneses. Those people can go fellate their assholes with a tire iron. Really? My 401K lost 45% of it's value. My parents got laid off while their retirement accounts lost nearly half their value - about 2 years before their retirement (and they don't even have mortgage payments anymore). I can afford my mortgage payments, but the sizeable down-payment I put into my condo is essentially shot, as the home's value got destroyed. If you think I'm unique, or an idiot, I suppose that's your right. Or MAYBE, just MAYBE, you can step off the "I'm smarter than all these idiots" soapbox, and gain the perspective that this problem extends far, far, far beyond the people who took loans they couldn't afford. Secondly, this dangerously toes the line of blaming the borrowers for the destruction of the banks - banks who gave them loans without, in the case of Countrywide mortgage, things as simple as a fucking credit check.

Joined: 12/12/2017

MGoPoints: 0

ShockFX

March 14th, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^

"Really? My 401K lost 45% of it's value. My parents got laid off while their retirement accounts lost nearly half their value - about 2 years before their retirement (and they don't even have mortgage payments anymore). I can afford my mortgage payments, but the sizeable down-payment I put into my condo is essentially shot, as the home's value got destroyed." Same here, except I rent my place and my mom still has her job. Also, I'm not addressing Stewart's entire claim, just the Cramer part. While the banks are guilty of not actually doing credit checks, which is shocking, the banks are paying by going under. I could go apply for a $650k loan for a house I don't need, but just because the bank would be dumb enough to give it to me doesn't mean that I'm no longer responsible for my own choice. Yeah, innocent people got hurt. This happens, it's not really a surprise. I think CNBC should be shut down, the market NOT treated like a game, and hedge funds abolished/regulated as they are a dangerous version the movie Rat Race, where people with unreal money essentially are betting on the lives of the less fortunate. Yeah, pension funds got hurt too, but if you want to talk about how they failed at due diligence and how the greedy choices of a few managers screwed the people they represented, we can take that offline.

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 4073