Sure people in power don't want to answer hard questions. So they pick someone to give them softballs. Been done that way forever and it won't change. But, you want to call yourself a journalist behave like one.

You want to be an entertainer, act like one? Then call yourself one.

Interestingly enuf, The same can be said for both Cramer AND Stewart. Stewart set that interview up as tho he were a journalist and Cramer insists he is an entertainer. The lines got blurred in that interview somewhat.

My whole point is this is a non issue if the economy doesn't collapse. I could give two squirts about a TV personality and his bad stock picks. I want some form of justice for those responsible for the collapse of the economy. I'm pretty sure some questionable practices were taking place for years that lead to this. Whatever those practices were they need to get them reined in and punish people for stealing the public's money.

I'm ranting now about things I only half-way understand, but it seems to me that these problems can be traced back to actual PEOPLE doing bad things. Please, by all means respectfully correct me if I'm wrong.

As much as I like to watch Jon Stewart bat around mice, CNBC is likely not guilty of anything more than incompetence.

ROFL

Do you have any rebuttal to what I said? No? Didnt think so.

What are you talking about? Where did I say none of those things happened? When did I say CNBC didnt do anything wrong?

I said there are a lot of valid points to be made against CNBC. And I said if Stewart really cared about any of it, he wouldnt have been completely silent on the issue until some CNBC names started questioning Obama.

Try reading, then responding. In that order. It may help.

No, you can't get that meeting, but it has to be done in public, and not behind closed doors.

Companies' financial reports are available via quick google searches, or if you're like me, via a link on my etrade account.

Stewart has been ripping on Cramer way before Cramer started criticizing Obama. Here you go Boris the parrot.

From the March 17, 2008, edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

STEWART: It went from $60 a share to $2 a share in a few days. I mean, let me see if I can break this down for you. Let's say you had $60, and then after a night out, you had enough only for subway fare home. Now take away the night out. But, of course, obviously, someone like me, someone like you, we're not going to see this kind of disaster coming. That's what these financial shows are for. Right, there, Jim Cramer, last Tuesday?

CRAMER [video clip]: Peter writes, "Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?" No, no, no.

STEWART: Well, that could mean anything. Perhaps we should give Mr. Cramer a chance to explain the subtlety of his position.

CRAMER [video clip]: No, no, no. Bear Stearns is fine. Do not take your money out. This is -- look, if there's one takeaway other than a plus 400 [inaudible] -- Bear Stearns is not in trouble. I mean, if anything, they are more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear. That's just being silly. Don't be silly.

STEWART: I love the way Jim Cramer breaks down really complex financial issues into ones that are wrong. By the way, you may want to join Jim Cramer on his new show, No Matter How Good I Am At This Over The Next 10 Years, I Will Never Make Up The Amount Of Money I Blew For People Last Tuesday. Don't take your money out of Bear Stearns, it's only going to be worthless.

If there is one thing I've learned in my studies and life experience (I'm a chartered financial analyst now), it's that unless you want to have a little fun and gamble with your money a little bit, it just doesn't pay to buy individual stocks. Over time, a huge percentage, like over 90%, of returns come not from stock selection, but from asset allocation. For example, how much you allocate to large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. makes a ton more difference than what stocks you pick.

Another interesting stat is that a large percentage of mutual funds that are not index funds underperform the index they are benchmarked to (S&P 500, Russell 2000, FTSE, etc.) over the long term. Some may outperform over short periods, but if you are keeping money in for the long-term, your better bet is Index funds a lot of the time.

Cycling in and out of sectors = win

Not many people have the time and inclination to do that, though.

Do any of you know the original quote from Rick Santelli that Jon Stewart played that set all this off?

<on the floor of Wall St.> "How many of you want to pay your neighbor's mortgage?" (Scattered Boos)

The amount of hypocrisy it takes to make a statement like that after the government took taxpayer money to bail many of these folks out. Had they not stepped in, many people on that floor would have been ruined. Save me and it's alright, eff everyone else.


Jim Cramer would have gotten off with just the clip on Monday's show being played but he had to cry and whine all over NBC's family of networks about it. NBC played it up for all it was worth and they ended up throwing Cramer to the wolves in the end.

I'm pretty sure Rick Santelli didn't get bailed out, nor did many of the traders on the Chicago floor.

Also, Cramer took a lot of flack over the Bear Stearns thing, yet gets no credit for saving people tons of money by telling them to get out of the market when it was at 12,000 and about to tank.

FWIW, Cramer took this like a man. After the fueled coverage all over the networks to go on Stewarts show and hone up to this shows what kind of a man he really is. IMO, that took brass balls.

Holy Shit! Farrell is capable of sustaining genuine comedy for longer than a minute at a time!

"You're welcome, America" = Good.

LOL, don't stop him, he's on a roll.

Jon Stewart...a comedian, only when he's about to get his a$$ handed to him in a real discussion, and a faux pundit on his show. He's a legend in his own mind.

Since most of the brain dead is believing his BS, he's funny at the moment. Cramer's right, however, any sane person who has any kind of actual savings and isnt living off the government understands that. Unfortunatley for Cramer and the rest of us who actually pull our weight, we're in the minority.

WOW. I was really late with this. Just caught the episode. Damn

It was great though, he really nailed him. Cramer was practically in tears.

He went on there to argue with him, he got nailed and didn't know how to handle it at first. He didn't have any other option at that point but to concede--and that's exactly what he did.

he "owned up to it" when cornered with VERY damaging footage

I'm not sure if I missed something in the discussion here(I'm not catchin up 7 pages), but huh? It sounds to me like Cramer's been ripping off the common stockholder(those "pulling their weight") And teaching money-grubbing market manipulators to do the same.

If Cramer's strategies didn't work for the common investor, why would he still be on the air after all these years?

If you believe Stewart he's a cog in the CNBC machine.. I do 100% believe he had his own agenda with at least SOME of the advice he gave out. When stocks drop because of people like him, some common investors sell. They incur a loss, which ultimately he recoups.

Seriously, he tells people what stocks to buy and sell. A lot of people listen to him. I don't know how anyone who listened to the advice he gave when he thought it wouldn't be made public could trust him with that kind of responsibility in this economy. It's ludicrous. Guy's a manipulator out for #1.

And you call me a parrot? Do you even try to think for yourself?

What you posted is Stewart making a joke about Cramer being wrong. It has nothing to do with the issues he raised in their interview, like CNBC being complicit for the actions of crooked companies or things like that. It was nothing more than LOL LOOK HOW WRONG CRAMER WAS, LETS LAUGH AT THE STOCK GUY.

And now its supposed to be proof that Stewart cared about this CNBC thing all along?

uhhh because everyone was making money during the fake bubble of the last 10 years?:)

Is this true? Verifiable? I don't know if I can believe it, maybe he invests more money under a false identity:hmmm:

He gets to have it both ways, he's an intelligent outsider with a good opinion(and good writers)

That's a huge assumption about the Obama connection. CNBC had as much to do with the timing of it as Stewart and I don't mean by bringing up Obama.

yup

16-17minutes in tell me he's not holding back tears

im so pissed i was late on this

Why would he have his own agenda if he doesn't personally own stocks? That makes no sense.

He's been around far longer than 10 years.

I didn't know that. Are you sure?

Yes, it's true.

I suppose you could go sift through his trash if you're really desperate.

You think he doesn't get enough money from CNBC and his book sales? Or that he doesn't ALREADY have more than enough money from his days on Wall Street and managing a hedge fund?

And if that's true, then you go back to Stewart's argument that Cramer is just a part of CNBC's plan. Who's to say the people at the top of that food chain didn't manipulate the markets through him? If you had a ton of the money on the markets, the knowledge to exploit them, and him at your disposal could you help yourself? The clip where he recommends manipulating the markets is all I need to hear to know anyone associated with him shouldn't be automatically trusted.

Because it's not the common investors that were manipulating the market. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that the pithy amounts that people like you and I invest are enough to make the mega-moves in the market that were occurring in Sept-Oct? Influence, perhaps. Actually move to that extent? **** no.

And GE wasn't doing so hot through all of this, either. So it's not as if CNBC was making money for its parent company.

I'm not saying we were manipulating them, I'm saying we were being manipulated.

He was given the power to affect a small but significant amount of people and when they bought and sold stocks. He had the knowledge to exploit that. By creating a perception that a stock was about to tank, he would raise the likelihood that it would. At least a small dip. Maybe someone wanted it undervalued so they could buy it at a cheaper price. Any # of reasons.

I'm just blaming him for blowing the bubble bigger while skimming I suppose

"A small but significant amount of people." What does that even mean? You really think that the major players on Wall Street with all the power and cash REALLY need Cramer to do grunt work for them? I think it's pretty obvious that they don't.

As much as people like to hate on Cramer, he was calling the failing bank stocks months before the shit hit the fan. Yet, he gets no credit for that. Or for saving people money by telling them to get their money out before the stock market REALLY tanked.

With respect, I know that you're angry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to Cramer. Sure, the guy makes mistakes. Name any person in the world that doesn't. But it's ultimately up to the individual investor to do their own homework when investing on their own or with a broker (who will also make gigantic mistakes). There is a lot of anger about this floating around, but I think it's being incredibly unfairly directed at Cramer.

And the biggest problem with this is the loss caused by the imperfect information he's spreading. Let's say your stock has been down 5 points, he says DUMP, you dump, it recovers. Why did it recover? Was it ever really bad? Maybe you just got swindled for the margin. It's possible

What about Bear Stearns?

Anyway my money is mostly in mutual funds and bonds so this really doesn't affect me, just loved the interview.

DISCLAIMER: I don't know that much about the markets, let alone Cramer. I'm kinda taking the Jon Stewart perspective.

All it means is the collective of everyone watching his show. He has influence over some people, and their decisions all put together MIGHT make a difference.

Maybe, but it's not even close to enough to manipulate the stock market. There's just not enough power there.

Cramer doesn't dump stocks because the prices go down. Cramer says sell when the fundamentals are bad, which is a difference. He routinely recommends stocks that are down. And he still sells the stock himself after he puts out a sell recommendation, but he waits one week, the same as when he recommends buying (which has both pros and cons).

Again, though, he doesn't own personal stocks, so where is the motive?

He got it wrong. Big whoop. LOTS of people did. Not just Cramer.

I'm not trying to insult you here, but it really shows. IMO, if you're going to do as much bashing about something as you are, you should probably do some homework on it. It doesn't bother me at all if you come to a different conclusion than me, but you could at least educate yourself about it before you do.

Then why does Cramer claim to do it and recommend doing it when speaking "not on tv"

I don't know what you mean. Can you clarify?

Did you watch when Cramer went on his show? Those clips Stewart kept calling up

"you can create a story or a negative perception" something like that, I'd have to watch it again

then he defends himself saying no i wouldn't do that, i was trying to expose what they do, mentioned trading futures

next clip, "noone will tell you you can do this but me, its legal because the (some abreviation) doesn't know about it but i wouldn't say it on tv

Where's the proof that he's doing that? All I see is speculation with no inherent motivation or hard evidence to back it up.

ok, ok, I didn't know he didn't own stocks, or his "rules"

He presents information handed down to him, do you trust that that information is unbiased?

He doesn't present information "handed down" to him. The information is out there for ANYONE to see. It has to be by law.

And if you take anyone "at their word" about anything involving your own money, you're playing with fire. You HAVE to do your own research, and that's one thing Cramer hammers on constantly, even on the stocks he recommends. He wants people to make their own decisions and do their own research.

The gov't has rules that prevent the backroom dealings that were so prevalent in the 80s and 90s. All info is out there for anyone to see, not just Wall Street pros.

The information is out there, and he puts his spin on it. I'm glad you don't trust the spin.

Name anyone that doesn't put his spin on it.

I mean, it's not like Jon Stewart would EVER put spin on what Cramer or anyone else says.

Despite the spin, Cramer's picks are generally solid and good investment strategies. I don't agree with all of them, but he picks financially sound companies to recommend and it's hard to go wrong with them.

Did you watch the interview?

How do you explain what he said? That that's all in his past?

Yes, and Stewart constantly interrupted Cramer and wouldn't let him get any points in. Plus, the clips were taken out of context. But that's what the Daily Show does.

Cramer sure acted like he got caught with his pants down. Judging his tone he needed to change his tighty whities

I think if you'll re-view the show, Stewart was doing an indictment more of CNBC than Jim Cramer. Yeah, Cramer was visibly upset. But IMO, it's because he cares what happens to his viewers' money. Without the viewers, he wouldn't have a show.

But Cramer is bearing the brunt of Stewart's fury. Even Stewart said it was unfortunate.

The clips where Cramer is talking about how hedge funds can screw over investors and manipulate the market is out of context. He wasn't talking about what HE did, but how it is hypothetically done. He tries to expose those guys and their practices on every single show he does. But he's just one guy. And obviously, people in that studio and people like you don't WATCH his show, and don't actually know what he says, yet think they can draw some kind of definitive conclusion about the guy based on one interview and a few cherry-picked clips.

EDIT: I find it incredibly ironic that Stewart and his defenders here are going on endlessly about the network not doing their due diligence, yet are doing the EXACT same thing when it comes to actually watching and listening to what Cramer says.

That's what I was looking for

I am now better informed

this is my due diligence, this is a great way to learn about things

just post on here and have someone else explain it to me

I thought I understood it better than I apparently do, but oh well
thanks

I guess I won't bother again til I learn.

But, should you take what anyone says here at face value? I would say the answer is a resounding "No."

I guess I realize you know more about it than I do.

I still wouldn't trust Jim Cramer

and you can't convince me this is true: "He wasn't talking about what HE did, but how it is hypothetically done. He tries to expose those guys and their practices on every single show he does."

Maybe that's what he does now, but that tape was encouraging the practice.

Why do you continue to argue when it's abundantly clear to everyone that you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about?

excuse me for believing and probably misinterpreting jon stewart
i never claimed to know about the markets
why do you bring this up when i already admitted that?
f off

Someone want to tell me what Stewart meant when he said "you're in bed with 'em"?
That CNBC caused the bubble to grow?

if he was legit and all this information is public, wouldn't he have known bear stearns was leveraged 30 to 1 and a terrible investment? but he said buy 5 days prior to the tank? I believe in the interview he admitted he had friends at Bear Stearns... Is that not a conflict of interest? Was he not passing misinformation in an attempt to prop up the business with investors' money?

Stewart seems to think CNBC is not to be trusted, that's the line of thinking the statement you quoted was following.

by the way I was trying to think of outside the box things Cramer could've been doing, maybe some of them were a little ridiculous, whatever

I think I would need to see the entire clip. He DID say "I", but I think he was using the royal "I". He started to explain himself before Stewart cut him off.

He was laughing about it, blatantly encouraging and teaching others to do it because, as he explained, they hadn't caught on yet.

Simple question: Do you even know what those clips were FROM or why Cramer was in them?

No, I'm guessing you're going to tell me they were made to show what goes on.

That's just not what it sounded like to me. If someone makes a book about bomb-making, but labels it how bombs are made and how to defuse them, it could still be used for harm, no?

Can we drop the arrogance?

"Royal I" LMAO please watch the footage

Can one of the geniuses fill me in? As I've made it abundantly clear I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about 4321