Movies and TV Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer - Page 6

**KcMizzou** · 03-11-2009, 06:15 PM

**Baby Lee** · 03-15-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic

Way to parrot what the right wing talking heads have been saying. Do you have any original thoughts of your own on the subject?

Way to completely eviscerate his argument by musing that some people may have said the same thing elsewhere.

"Objects having mass exert a gravitational force proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to the distance between it and the object it is exerting its force upon."

Blisteringly unoriginal. Not in the least untrue.

**Baby Lee** · 03-15-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefless

Lot of great points in this thread. A couple of prefaces. I am a huge fan of Jon Stewart. I am a TOTAL layman when it comes to the economy. So be nice...

I thought Cramer came off as well as he could in the unedited version of the interview. I really think he deserves kudos for sacking up and facing Stewart and the angry public face to face. Whether you agree with his politics/agenda or not Stewart is a formidable foe. American's want someone to blame and Cramer (perhaps unwittingly) has put his face right in the middle of it.

I think stewart's point is an entertainment show about money is a dangerous dangerous thing. Seems he was calling for them to be held to a much higher standard, to be more like investigative reporters. They do possess the knowledge, experience and access to really dig deep into financial matters.

Cramer's point is that if he did that he would no longer have an audience.

Does a financial show (even one intended more as entertainment) have a greater responsibility to investigate deeper into it's content than a satirical show? Yes. But, really, this is hardly the problem with the economy. The economy is in the toilet because the checks and balances in place to safeguard it went terribly awry. Something is broken there and it has little to do with the average Joe's investments based on anything they gleened incorrectly from financial shows. We have to figure out how SO MANY shady, economy killing deals were able to move through the financial systems without red flags being raised and safeguard against them in the future. Someone HAD to know this would happen eventually...

So in the end, I think Stewart is right but really barking up the wrong tree. Average Joe's were going to lose their shirts regardless of anything CNBC recommended.

The center of the issue is that Jon is just a hipper, funnier, Andy Rooney. Andy has made his bones off being disgruntled at ****ling [edit: Guess I'll go with 'mildly distracting" because someone decided that n!gg is inapproprriate even in the instance of n!ggling] aspects of culture and responding with nothing more constructive that "did you ever notice? . . "

Jon has all sorts of observations on how other people are doing things wrong, Begala and Carlson don't debate the right way, Cramer doesn't talk about finances the right way, Jimmy Dean puts too many chocolate chips in their pancake on a stick. But he's got nothing to offer beyond "you're doing it wrong and you're a dick."

Silock · 03-15-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefless

They do possess the knowledge, experience and access to really dig deep into financial matters.

There are laws against them possessing any more knowledge than the average person. Just because someone works on Wall Street or on CNBC doesn't (or shouldn't, if no one is breaking the law) give them the right to more information about stocks and business than anyone else has access to.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-15-2009, 12:48 PM

I don't know how much more clear Stewart could have been in his excoriation of "Crossfire".

He didn't say they were debating wrong, he said that they weren't debating at all, and that they didn't have an honest exchange of ideas or a civilized discourse because everything turned into yelling talking points and not analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of their relative positions.

Moreover, due to the emptiness of these constructed "debates" politicians could use a forum like Crossfire to disseminate more talking points without having to answer an honest question due to the dissolution of true Q&A and give and take, which is why he said they were tools of the pols, because people need a forum like Crossfire to "hold people's feet to the fire" and Crossfire was just theater.

Chiefless · 03-15-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

There are laws against them possessing any more knowledge than the average person. Just because someone works on Wall Street or on CNBC doesn't (or shouldn't, if no one is breaking the law) give them the right to more information about stocks and business than anyone else has access to.

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

**BigRedChief** · 03-15-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefless

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

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.

Chiefless · 03-15-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

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.

Boris The Great · 03-15-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic

Way to parrot what the right wing talking heads have been saying. Do you have any original thoughts of your own on the subject?

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

Boris The Great · 03-15-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

BS. They were in bed with these wall streeters and were told by the CEO that this is gospel and reported that as gospel to the public. No questioning the motives of the CEO? fact checking? telling the public this info comes from the CEO, take it with a grain of salt? Did CNBC ever pause and think maybe, just maybe the CEOs were talking to them only because they were interested in seeing their stock price go up and were feeding you BS?

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.

Silock · 03-16-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefless

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

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.

PunkinDrublic · 03-18-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris The Great

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

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.

Swanman · 03-18-2009, 10:20 AM

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.

Silock · 03-18-2009, 06:06 PM

Cycling in and out of sectors = win

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

RedDread · 03-18-2009, 10:42 PM

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

"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.

Silock · 03-19-2009, 12:22 AM

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.

03-11-2009, 06:15 PM
KcMizzou Supporter Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Parkville MO Casino cash: $10005170	Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09 Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things With Demetri Martin Political Humor Economic Crisis
Posts: 54,695

03-15-2009, 12:48 PM	#79
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7129572	I don't know how much more clear Stewart could have been in his excoriation of "Crossfire". He didn't say they were debating wrong, he said that they weren't debating at all, and that they didn't have an honest exchange of ideas or a civilized discourse because everything turned into yelling talking points and not analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of their relative positions. Moreover, due to the emptiness of these constructed "debates" politicians could use a forum like Crossfire to disseminate more talking points without having to answer an honest question due to the dissolution of true Q&A and give and take, which is why he said they were tools of the pols, because people need a forum like Crossfire to "hold people's feet to the fire" and Crossfire was just theater. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083

03-18-2009, 10:20 AM	#87
Swanman It's a league game, Dude Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Itasca, IL Casino cash: $9967354	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.
Posts: 4,719

03-18-2009, 06:06 PM	#88
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	Cycling in and out of sectors = win Not many people have the time and inclination to do that, though.
Posts: 19,908

03-18-2009, 10:42 PM	#89
RedDread Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Back in KC Casino cash: $10007771	Do any of you know the original quote from Rick Santelli that Jon Stewart played that set all this off? "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. __________________
Posts: 4,167

03-19-2009, 12:22 AM	#90
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	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.
Posts: 19,908