Poll: Stewart VS Cramer

[thiosk]

Stewart got to show clips.

Cramer didn't.

You try winning an argument under those conditions. It was not even a debate. A debate has a back and forth, point counterpoint if you will. Of course he got creamed. Stewart had a point to make, and in many ways, it is a valid point. But I feel it is unfair to demonize someone-- even though he asked cramer not to personalize it, it was quite personal-- without showing ANYTHING from the other point of view. Cramer did not get to play a clip where he was jumping up and down screaming for the heads of certain financial bankers, and especially, the heads of the federal reserve. All of the heads of everyone at the federal reserve, which is just as federal as federal express.

 

[i3ishop]

Stewart will be declared the winner, but he didn't win.

Everytime Cramer tried to defend himself, Stewart would say "I'm not talking about you" and then just lay into Cramer again.

I think you misunderstand what was truly going on here Stewart was debating Cramer, but at the same time it was as if the average joe that is every regular person who isn't an insider and in the back rooms where all the secret deals are happening was going toe to toe with the corporate tycoons and not only did he tell, no... not only did WE tell them off we did it in a way that really mattered that may sound a little silly but thats how it makes me feel

 

[McClaud]

It'll be interesting to see if this interview really changes anything. If CNBC will really stop running its "In Cramer We Trust" ads and if Jim Cramer will take any of the advice he seemed to accept from Jon Stewart.

Oh, and his so-called "response":

You can find the Cramer's responce on his own show Mad Money at the daily beast. It's on the video's on the right hand side.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/


What a prick.

This leads me to believe that he really doesn't give a shit about his viewers or Jon Stewart's (valid) opinion. It's too bad my parents, your parents, and the whole American population over 35 will most likely never see this interview...

That is a shame, but the story is posted on CNN and hopfeully other network (never looked), so hopefully more people will see it.
And his response was incredibly dickish

What's dickish is inviting on a guy who runs a show called _Mad Money_ and then acting all butthurt about how it's "not a game" when the show is about money that you can afford to risk, not your retirement stash, and everytime he tries to explain that, telling him "I'm not talking about you."

If he wasn't talking about Cramer, why was Cramer there? I think Cramer's response should have been to do his next show dressed up like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

Stewart got to show clips.

Cramer didn't.

Cramer did not get to play a clip where he was jumping up and down screaming for the heads of certain financial bankers, and especially, the heads of the federal reserve.

Or any of the parts where he tells people 'this is not advice for your retirement fund--this is advice for your Mad Money'. Or everytime Cramer tried to say "I'm different from the rest of the programming on CNBC" Stewart would say "I know and I'm not talking about you" and then just keep hammering away at him for stuff that's not a part of his show.

I love Stewart, but this was probably his lowest moment.

You have to understand how Cramer got started. Because CNBC labeled him as one of their, "Front men fighting for your financial future." In the beginning, Cramer embraced that. He embraced it even when he was basically recommending bad trades and bad financial practices. Other people on CNBC have followed Cramer's early lead into what I call the modern "shock jock financial show" of cable networks (this goes for some of the dunderheads at Bloomberg as well).

What's funny is that the four clips I saw that John brought to Cramer's attention are now the core points for Joe Kernan, Carl Quintanilla and Dylan Ratigan. They are the ones suggesting financial investments using your personal savings and retirement plans. Cramer's the one who suggested under-selling, selling short, buying junk bonds and pushing bad day trading in his show up to June of last year. He kept backing up all his CNBC partners' assertions that the market was fine and nothing bad was going to happen. He played up their bad advice by sounding positive about it, so even if he's not suggesting you invest your money on his picks, he's encouraging you to take the advice of the rest of the people at CNBC.

Cramer may be trying to make up for it now, and I think he managed to get that out. Stewart's main point was that Cramer led and then backed up this insane charge by CNBC, and his continued endorsement of the cable network is a testament to all the bad things that go on at CNBC. Cramer admitted to it like constantly throughout the program (the uncut one, anyway - there's an uncut interview out there on the Daily Show blog that goes way longer than the one aired).

If anything, Cramer's reply tells me that he's utterly remorseless about how he's handled his career and who he endorses, even though he knows its wrong. And for that, even though I was slightly bored with this interview near the end, I still think Cramer got what was coming to him. Someone should have done this earlier in his career, so the idiot would have come to his senses somewhat sooner. Cramer may have changed his show due to the financial slump in the last five months, but leading up to that, he was part of the problem. His passive, reactive tactics are all really bulls**t, and his reply is pretty much, "Yadda yadda yadda, I gave bad advice in the past and didn't call out people who gave bad advice in the present, and still won't condemn the actions of bad investors ... well, except maybe the people who sell short the market. Yeah, I have a beef with them, yeah."

Pfffft.

EDIT:

And yeah, as someone pointed out, the reason Cramer was there is that John criticized the network as a whole, and Cramer took offense. Cramer wanted justice for CNBC. He took the Daily Show as a serious cable news program for some idiotic reason, so John invited him on to show him JUST HOW SERIOUS he can be. It's not my fault or John's fault that Cramer made the mistake of showing up - I find the morons on TV show up when John calls them out, and get what's coming to them.

 

[Raven_Letters]

What's dickish is inviting on a guy who runs a show called _Mad Money_ and then acting all butthurt about how it's "not a game" when the show is about money that you can afford to risk, not your retirement stash, and everytime he tries to explain that, telling him "I'm not talking about you."

Stewart invited him to defend himself, what would you suggest? NOT invite him and carry on slagging him? Stewart gave him the opportunity to defend himself, and what more Stewart made it damn clear before hand than his original criticism was at CNBC not merely Cramer, starting with Rick Santelli, .

Furthermore your talk about retirement stash is disingenuous because people who invested in AAA pensions and retirement plans thought they had placed their money in the safest possible investment. [http://www.crisisofcredit.com/]The speculators on the market however used this capital to play their games and the fact that CNBC never reported this little tidbit of information - thats what Stewart was calling them out on. He made that VERY clear.

If he wasn't talking about Cramer, why was Cramer there? I think Cramer's response should have been to do his next show dressed up like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.

umm.. because it was CRAMER [http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/jon-stewart-jim-cramer-fck-you] who brought up the subject in the first place? Stewart was attacking CNBC in general at the time, and included Cramer along with everyone else, but it was CRAMER that took it personally and set the whole thing off.

And the whole Cramer showing clips hammering the CEOs...whats that got to do with this? The point is that NO one at CNBC actually pointed out the fact that the companies were playing fast and loose with other people's money. Cramer could hammer the CEOs till he was blue in the face, but did you ever hear him actually criticize the way these companies handled their customers money? No.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

In response to why bad people show up on these shows, they generally believe themselves to be right.

Which is why it's so enjoyable to watch them systematically torn apart!

 

[McClaud]

What The Daily Show needs to do is go back to airing that warning about how the show is not real, none of the people are real journalists and that none of the arguments are really well thought out. They still run that at the beginning of the show on certain Internet replays and in other countries. They need to run it now so people like Jim Cramer, politicians, morning talk show hosts and people who are like the two boobs from Crossfire don't confuse it with a real news program and understand that it's a PARODY.

Then maybe John won't run rampant on their heads and cause these imagined feuds between Comedy Central and other serious (snicker) cable news networks.

 

[Raven_Letters]

Then when you invite Cramer on, restrict your topic to those parts of your original criticism aimed at Cramer. The parts of your original criticism aimed at Rick Santelli? Save those for when he comes on the show.

Why invite one guy on to criticize some other guy?

Sorry Stewart DID invite Rick Santelli but he refused. So Stewart continued with the intially prepared peice on CNBC, after THAT Cramer decided to get hot under the collar.

Yeah--and STEWART APOLOGIZED AND ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG! but then moves quickly to a clip from *seven weeks earlier* to find a place where Cramer recommended that stock outside of the context of Mad Money which is for you *mad money* coincidentally enough. Seven weeks! That's an eternity in stock investments. That's really low on Stewart's part to red herring his way out of being wrong. And it wasn't even a very tasty herring. It was a seven week old herring, all smelly and rotten.

Umm NO. He didnt move to a clip seven weeks earlier, he first move to clip a few days earlier wit Cramer talking about how happy he was with Bear being at 69. And Just so that Cramer didnt come out and so he wasnt *suggesting* people buy Bear (never mind the fact that he did in fact give his approval of bear) Stewart then pulled out the statement by Cramer from seven weeks earlier. Its not much of a red herring if Cramer was approving of Bear stocks approximately 5 to 6 days before it tanked, so your argument doesnt hold water.

Yeah, and Cramer's show is NOT ABOUT RETIREMENT FUNDS! Have you ever seen the show? He tells people to do things like buy stocks based on companies being granted patents. The focus of the show is on money you can afford to play with--that's why it's called Mad Money!

Now, as for your other point, I see you one flash presentation, and raise you a google docs presentation:

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

Yes, of course CNBC never reported on this. You know who else didn't? NBC. Or CBS. Or ABC. No one was reporting on this. So everyone is to blame. Where the hell was The Daily Show in the middle of the bubble? This isn't like the meltdown of LTCM where it was all behind the scenes and you had to be clued into the industry to even know there was a problem. This was real estate and everyone in the country knew about the bubble.

This is irrelevant on a number of issues, firstly:

1. Stewart had NOT singled out Cramer until Cramer decided to call him out on it. Stewart was criticizing a network THAT CLAIMED FINANCIAL EXPERTISE, and was critical of the mortgage plan by the white house; and yet not only failed to actually report on the goings on off these companies, but also cheered them on! Then when things went belly up, the likes of Rick Santelli began to attack Home owners who may loose their homes through no fault of their own and pensioners who have lost their savings.

2. The Whole Business of the other Networks reporting it - I am sorry did NBC , CBS or the others actually have someone rant on TV about "loser" home owners? No. Did they put out such statements as "IN Cramer We Trust?" No. Did they claim to be the standard Bearers of Financial News and advise on TV? No.

3. So this everyone to blame business is a nice way of saying no one is to blame, and CNBC can go back to doing business as usual.

4. And why the hell has the Daily Show have to report on these matters? Its a 30 minute Comedy Show! If the News media takes its ques from a comedy show then we are all in serious trouble.. Trying to blame the Daily show for not reporting on the meltdown is like trying to blame the fire brigade for the fire started by a chimpanzee with a flame thrower.

So you know what? If Stewart wants to blame the news for this, he should blame himself. He could have been the one to break this. Was he unaware there was a housing bubble in this country? No--no one was.

So if the BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFUL networks in the US couldnt spot this, Stewart should have? Wow. You sure have a strange way at looking at it.

So it's pretty shitty to single out a guy who does a show about playing around in the stock market just because he's on a financial news channel when the whole news media screwed the pooch and just let this all happen without reporting on it. I mean, why didn't it occur to people like Stewart that maybe there's a reason why in the middle of a war costing a ridiculous amount of money every day that we're in a boom time? How much sense did that make?

Firstly he DIDNT single out Cramer, you know that and I know that, so stop trying to make it look like he did. Cramer became the face of it since he attacked Stewart directly, so Stewart reciprocated in kind. As for the rest of your statements read above. as for the whole war thing: YES Stewart HAD reported it, way back he had called on Jospeh Stiglitz's remark on the costs of the war, (The whole three trillion dollar figure) and had called out the then Bush White house about it, I fail to see what more a 30miniute comedy show could have done.

It's pretty easy to act like the Tribune of the People once the danger has kicked their asses and we're doing a post-mortem on what went wrong. Where the hell was he when this was happening, when he could have done something about it before it went all wrong? I know he runs a comedy show, but look at where you and I got the scoop on this--a flash presentation and a stick figure slideshow.

If I recall correctly The Daily Show began the "Whole Clusterfuck to the Poor house" segments well in the mid to early part of 2008, as the crisis was just beginning. So your wrong about him not raising the alarm. He did what he could with the information he had, and within the constraints of his time and resources. The flip side si also true..why didnt CNBC report on it? The supposed Leader in Financial news? Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The whole presentation bit and Flash bit wasnt even available until after the sub-prime crisis was well embedded into the financial system, so this is very much a man of straw argument.

Sorry but, Stewart is just as much to blame as Cramer in all this--maybe even more, because he's supposed to be looking out for this kind of thing, or at least he suggested it was when he went off on how 'this isn't a game'.

Umm..did Stewart claim Financial Expertise? No. Did he go about dispensing advise on Stocks? No. Did he put the blame on the pesnioners and homeowners like Santelli. No. Stop trying to blame Stewart for what CNBC and the rest of the networks failed to do.

I have no need for Stewart to destroy a guy who runs a show about playing around in the stock market now that we can't do anything about it. That's just vengeance. When I needed him was back when this process was gathering steam, not before it crashed. So I don't really care about The Daily Show becoming the Nuremberg of the Credit Crisis. It should have been the Churchill of the whole thing, sounding the alarm bells when we had a chance to stop it. It fucked up, and it's shitty of Stewart to profit from creating scapegoats when he was asleep at the wheel himself for so long.

[/quote]

He did. He had. No one listened. Now it becomes a convenient matter for some people to develop selective amnesia and forget about the whole thing, and then go on TV rant about the evils of big government spending, the "coming of socialism" and the attempt to save those "loser" homeowners. Why dont you take it up with Rick Santelli? It was HE that Stewart wanted on the show, and refused to appear, and now your trying to accuse Stewart of bad faith? Wow.

 

[Good morning blues]

Stewart will be declared the winner, but he didn't win.

Everytime Cramer tried to defend himself, Stewart would say "I'm not talking about you" and then just lay into Cramer again.

If Cramer isn't there to talk about Cramer, what's he there for? Stewart could have just as well put a peacock in that chair because all he wanted to talk about was CNBC. Cramer's show is about picking stocks, not giving people wholesale investment advice. Cramer doesn't want to deal with this kind of stuff: his show is called _Mad Money_, i.e., money you can go 'mad' with. Investments you can afford to lose. He's into stuff like helping you identify the company who makes all the generic brands of cereal so you can buy their stock in a bad economy as people reducing spending.

It was...well, I think the interview made Stewart look dumb, and I think that confused Cramer. He had to be going "I'm the guy who helps people play with Mad Money in the stock market finding nice investments--why am I answering for institutional collapse and the decimation of retirement funds?"

Also, it was kinda strange that Stewart made that comment about how his show is comedy and Cramer's is not. The Daily Show...Stewart I feel has contributed a *lot* to changing the political landscape. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report are in some ways the liberal version--and I say this as a liberal--of talk radio in terms of what talk radio means to conservatives.

I feel Stewart did a real disservice in skewering Cramer like that. _Mad Money_ is entertainment, but it's also very educational. What the hell is wrong with a show with crazy sound effects and a nutjob talking about the stock market? I know I learned a lot about the stock market from watching it over the years.

I love John Stewart, and loved when he demolished Tucker Carlson because that guy was a prick and it was in the middle of the neo-con hegemony in the media. This time around though? Blaming a guy who runs a show about what to do with your spare money for the loss of essential wealth?

I love 'em, but this time, Stewart just came across as tacky.

Do you really think that people who have extra money to be playing the stock market with are getting their investment advice from "Mad Money?" People with that much money are rich as balls, and if they don't have professional agents doing their investing for them, they are themselves exactly that kind of expert and are operating based on their own expertise. People who get their investment advice from a television show are not people who have extra money to be dicking around in the stock market with.

Just because the show tells people that it's for people with spare money to be throwing around doesn't mean that it isn't exactly how people use it, and it doesn't mean that Cramer and CNBC isn't completely aware that it's how people use it. That would be like the Q-Tip people putting shavings of steel in the tips of their sticks because you're not supposed to use them to clean your ears.

 

[JakePwnsAtLife]

I'd go with Stewart...he just ran circles around that guy.

 

[Raven_Letters]

So again--why use the piece prepared for Santelli on Cramer?

Umm..because he didnt? the piece was about CNBC is GENERAL not Cramer in particular. Stewart didnt air the piece AFTER Cramer atacked him it was BEFORE this whole thing even began.

A clip from a show called MAD MONEY that is about what to do with money you want to gamble with in the stock market. I don't remember one bit of Stewart's scolding of Cramer that had to do with calling him to task for the loss of any 'mad money'.

Umm.. YES. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164178&title=Broken-Arrow]

So like I said, Stewart made Cramer a scapegoat for people like Santelli. Real classy.

Whats really classy is trying to make Stewart look like a bad guy when Santelli goes on TV and rants about looser homeowners, and when Stewart calls him out on it, he chooses not to appear on his show. Then Stewart runs a piece on CNBC and Cramer decides to become thier champion.

So what are you saying here? That NO ONE should criticize Santelli and CNBC? Nice. The point is that Stewart has had the guts to call them out on their crap and you defend them and attack him? Beautiful.

Only financial news networks can report on the economy?

Other networks dont make claims of godhood for their presenters and being the experts in finance.

No, it's a way of saying no one is to be singled out for blame. And that if you work in news, just because you weren't at a financial news network doesn't mean you get free pass.

As opposed to a comedy show that actually does call it as it sees it? Nice. What yoru saying is a comedy show should be held to the same standards of the news networks or vice versa. *whistles*

Really? Because I found The Daily Show to be instrumental in allowing the rest of the news media to start criticizing the Bush administration.

I mean, Jon Stewart is the guy who fired the shot heard 'round the world against the neo-con pundits when he demolished Tucker Carlson. He's very influential with certain demographics, notably the demographic that went crazy for Obama. I love what Stewart has done for politics in this country, which is why I hate what he did with Cramer--it's so beneath him.

I am sorry, did Stewart make any claims to being a serious journalist? did he force people to listen to him? Did he make any claims of being anything but a gladfly, a fly in the ointment? No. Stop attributing to Stewart what he never claimed he was. As for what he did to Cramer, he DID NOTHING to Cramer what Cramer didnt do to himself. What you prefer it if NO ONE spoke about Cramers bad calls, his CLEAR attempts at defrauding the market with his hedgefunds? nice, so basically business as usual for you. Next thing you will be saying no one should have prosecuted Bernie Madoff.

Here is how I look at it: Thomas Nast was just a cartoonist, but he was pretty instrumental in bringing down Tammany Hall, so don't tell me that just because you make people laugh with what you produce doesn't you can't create change in the real world with it too.

So then Stewart attacking CNBC should be ok with you, and Cramer deciding to foot in it should also be ok with you. But no it isnt, so long as Stewart didnt actually single out anyone its fine, but the moment he actually say this company is responsible for this, or this person is responsible for this, you get upset? What you actually want then is Stewart to be silent and not speak up when he smells a rat - namely Santelli.

Exactly. That's a shitty thing to do. Just because someone attacks you, you make them the face of something like this. I expect a little more than Sarah Palin-type behavior out of someone like Jon Stewart.

So..turn the other cheek? Nice. The Gospel for Stewart but Machiavelli for CNBC and its Cohorts. Essentially your saying that No one has the right to call out the people who run things and that we should all keeps are head down and be thankful for what we have. Its ok for Santelli for going on TV and calling homeowners "loosers' but its not ok for Stewart to do so? Well done.

THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT! WHEN THE CRISIS WAS JUST BEGINNING--YEARS AFTER THE BOOM HAD STARTED!

umm..what the hell? You want Stewart to predict what the elite of the business world and the economists could not? What you think Stewart is some Nostradamus? Jesus. Why arent you screaming your head off about those guys who ran things made tons of money and didnt see it coming?

No he didn't--everyone had this information that didn't have their head up their ass back *long* before '08. The price of real estate was through the roof back in '06. I see no indication Stewart asked why and followed that trail and couldn't get any farther.

Yes the price was going through the roof, so what? Did anyone predict when it would drop down? If I said to you that "You know what? the real estate is going to crash tommorow" and it didnt, what will you say if I said "Err, no I meant one year from now, no 2 years!" those that had concerns about it were sidelined and at the time no one would have listened anyway, and your blaming Stewart for not reporting on things even the "experts" had no clue about? Well done.

I never said CNBC was blameless. What I'm saying is that CNBC shouldn't be made a scapegoat when all our news media failed us. Blaming CNBC more for this is like blaming FOX News more for the stories about WMDs in Iraq--we know CNBC/FOX news are biased, so there should be more blame for the supposedly more reliable news media that missed this.

WTH? Stewart Didnt say a word about CNBC until they had Rick Santelli rant about looser homeowners something you conveniently forget. He wasnt scapegoating anyone! His beef with Santelli extended to CNBC because of their claims to *financial expertise* so stop trying to make it look that Stewart had an agenda even before Santelli went on TV.

He did when he brought Cramer on and made that statement about how this isn't a game. Stewart can't have it both ways.

Well actually you cant have it both ways. Did Stewart say he was an expert? NO. He said that he was angry that Cramer manipulated the stock market to make money in his hedge funds, something you conveniently forget, all the while Cramer was claiming innocence about his activities and going on. THATS what Stewart called him about on. Cramer Admits he did Manipulated the market to his own benefit and was ambiguous in his legality at best. And btw having someone else on your show doesnt automatically make you an expert, and Stewart never claimed to be one. So please.

Fuck yeah! It's not bad faith to want to call one guy out for what he did, and then when you get another guy on the show use him as a scapegoat for the guy you wanted but couldn't get?
You're seriously trying to tell me that using a person as a scapegoat isn't bad faith?

WTH? Did you EVEN SEE THE PREVIOUS EPISODES IN ORDER? Stewart had not attacked Cramer! It was Cramer that got flustered when Stewart called out CNBC. Talk about chutzpah! You want that Stewart not only not call out Santelli, but you then say that he should not defend himself from Cramer's attacks!

 

[Lord_Panzer]

Everywhere Cheeze goes, my head begins to hurt. You're right most of the time, but that may just be because after reading your novel(s) I've completely forgotten my original stand-point.

Cramer did the best he could given the fact that Jon set up a firing squad for him. For that he has my respect, it takes a lot to even attempt to go toe-to-toe to Stewart. All in all, though, I've gotta go with Jon.

 

[Fenring]

I'm in Part 2, and well, did he just call shenanigans?

 

[FragKrag]

Um, the debate was not about winning, more like Stewart pointing out what he thought about the situation. He wasn't attacking Jim Cramer, he was attacking CNBC and the financial programs. It just happened that Jim Cramer was the only one who responded to his first criticisms, and thus became the posterboy.

Cramer did extremely well. He didn't come off as belligerent or as an asshole, which many people would have. He didn't attack Stewart or Comedy Central (which many others from CNBC would have), he simply published a column as a response.

However, respect to both for managing it as well as they did. I was already a fan of both, but now, moreso!

 

[JWAN]

Cramer was just doing his job and hes an economist, everyone makes mistakes and he has the right to say what he wants on his show. He gives advice and it says before and after his show that its JUST advice. No one needs to follow him and I actually find his just as irritating as Stewart in many ways. And in the same boat as that is Rose O'Donnel and Al Sharpton. Pretty much any political figure on TV these days.

YELL REALLY LOUD AND IT MUST BE TRUE!!1!!

I think what pissed of Stewart was that Cramer does not agree with Obama's plans, I got to say hese not the only investor/economist, just watch the stock market and look at the ratings.

I'm not blaming Stewart, its his job to be a satire attack dog for his political affiliates. I would still trust Cramer over a political tool, (if those were my only two choices) instead I will trust my business/economics degrees.

All things considered, I think the reaction was overdone and it attacked someones opinion in a country that is about freedom of speech, it was borderline harassment.

 

[JWAN]

Stewart will be declared the winner, but he didn't win.

Everytime Cramer tried to defend himself, Stewart would say "I'm not talking about you" and then just lay into Cramer again.

If Cramer isn't there to talk about Cramer, what's he there for? Stewart could have just as well put a peacock in that chair because all he wanted to talk about was CNBC. Cramer's show is about picking stocks, not giving people wholesale investment advice. Cramer doesn't want to deal with this kind of stuff: his show is called _Mad Money_, i.e., money you can go 'mad' with. Investments you can afford to lose. He's into stuff like helping you identify the company who makes all the generic brands of cereal so you can buy their stock in a bad economy as people reducing spending.

It was...well, I think the interview made Stewart look dumb, and I think that confused Cramer. He had to be going "I'm the guy who helps people play with Mad Money in the stock market finding nice investments--why am I answering for institutional collapse and the decimation of retirement funds?"

Also, it was kinda strange that Stewart made that comment about how his show is comedy and Cramer's is not. The Daily Show...Stewart I feel has contributed a *lot* to changing the political landscape. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report are in some ways the liberal version--and I say this as a liberal--of talk radio in terms of what talk radio means to conservatives.

I feel Stewart did a real disservice in skewering Cramer like that. _Mad Money_ is entertainment, but it's also very educational. What the hell is wrong with a show with crazy sound effects and a nutjob talking about the stock market? I know I learned a lot about the stock market from watching it over the years.

I love John Stewart, and loved when he demolished Tucker Carlson because that guy was a prick and it was in the middle of the neo-con hegemony in the media. This time around though? Blaming a guy who runs a show about what to do with your spare money for the loss of essential wealth?

I love 'em, but this time, Stewart just came across as tacky.

Do you really think that people who have extra money to be playing the stock market with are getting their investment advice from "Mad Money?" People with that much money are rich as balls, and if they don't have professional agents doing their investing for them, they are themselves exactly that kind of expert and are operating based on their own expertise. People who get their investment advice from a television show are not people who have extra money to be dicking around in the stock market with.

Just because the show tells people that it's for people with spare money to be throwing around doesn't mean that it isn't exactly how people use it, and it doesn't mean that Cramer and CNBC isn't completely aware that it's how people use it. That would be like the Q-Tip people putting shavings of steel in the tips of their sticks because you're not supposed to use them to clean your ears.

you only play the stock market with extra money (extra meaning usually pretty small amounts), if you put the money you need into the stock market you'll find yourself in a fucking soup kitchen more often than not.
If you put in a HUGE sum of money that you NEED that's called being reckless.

I rarely play the stocks and I do a week or so of research before I'm willing to try something, and that's with a small amount of money ($550.00 approx)In the mid 90's I did well enough with Norwegin Manure that I pulled out 3k from a $250.00 original investment. I pulled the 3k out and put into a high yield savings account. That's how you play the stocks. I am nor was I "wealthy" I just saved up for a bit, got some advice and went for it.

 

[sonidraw]

Cramer didn't stand a chance to begin with, to be honest, so I'm voting for Stewart.

Moving on... I think it's important to remember that Stewart doesn't care about Cramer as an individual. He was targeting all of CNBC. Cramer just happened to be the only one to respond. In a way, Cramer invited this attack. The rest of CNBC made the good choice in terms of self-preservation by ignoring Stewart. Anyone who has the bad sense to respond to Stewart's negative criticism is pretty much doomed to fail.

Edit: I would also like to add that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean you can say whatever you want without criticism or negative responses. There is no such thing as freedom without consequences and repercussions. If you want to say something, be prepared to get hurt for it. Every one on TV knows this already. They can be held accountable for every word that comes out of their mouth.

 

[Raven_Letters]

That's from a year ago--that's not the show this thread is about.

Oh ho! Now suddenly you talk about time frames? It was you that said Stewart never called him out on Cramer's calls and no that I show you otherwise, you try and say its got nothing to do with the topic at hand!

Your like a defense attorney at a murder trial, who says "Your honor I demand Proof that my client killed the victim!" Where upon the Prosecution provides the weapon, the fingerprints all the forensic evidence and witnesses who swear they saw the defendant kill the victim, at which point you shout "Mistrial! they are trying to change the subject!"

He made a pretty serious claim to being some sort of Tribune for the People in that episode I saw...just like when he went on that pundit show and demolished Tucker Carlson. Which I loved because he was right for doing it then. This time, though, he's wrong. And that makes me a sad panda.

THAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I read your links and I suspect (though I maybe wrong) what you did not like was Stewart challenging the structure and logic of Wallstreet. Unless you can actually provide me an iota of proof that Stewart has made claims that he champions "the people" I suggest you move along and stop trying to attribute things to him. Its a telling point that for you Stewart calling out tucker Carlson is OK, but Stewart calling out CNBC and exposing Cramer in his fraudulent dealing with the hedge funds is not.

No, that's exactly what I want. Just don't invite Cramer on and attack him as if he's Santelli.

Why? You saw the video I presume, you saw Cramer talking about Manipulating the market to benefit his hedge funds, why shouldnt Stewart call him out on that? What is this, one set of rules for one person and another set for someone else?

Once again, THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT! Anyone could have predicted this--this was all a joke. We know real estate booms are followed by real estate busts. Using the assets inflated by a boom as collateral for leverage is no more complex than explaining musical chairs--eventually the music stops. And using leverage is like inviting even more people into the game.

This begs the question as to how Stewart is responsible for it, by either omission or commission to report on something he knew very little about at the time and no one else saw coming, unless your making the claim that Stewart was in on it and kept quiet. The point here is CNBC went around saying that it both KNEW the goings on in the Market before the Crisis, then pleads innocence after the crash. You cant have it both ways. Either you temper your advise with some serious caveats or else stop cheerleading the companies and defending them when after the shits hits the fan.

From what I've read, this is literally the exact same thing as in the 80s: some smart people figured out that certain investments weren't as risky as they actually were because credit scores screw people who are very reliable but don't have a credit history. The Quants on Wall Street figured this out, and then the Big Swinging Dicks ignored that the Quants were saying SOME people were less risky than their credit ratings indicate, and pretended like EVERYONE was less risky.

Yes, so whats that got to do with Stewart and CNBC? Stewart began his attack on CNBC after Santelli started to rant, he began his attack on Cramer after Cramer attacked him. I dont see why its ok for the Santelli to attack "looser" homeowners and Cramer to attack Stewart but not Stewart to call them out? Nice.

I have been:

The Community Reinvestment Act is the child of a welfare queen and Willie Horton: a bogeyman made up by conservatives to keep us from knowing what's actually going on by giving us a fictional explanation of our problems that will push us towards their ideology.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.90158.1409788

In other words, The Smartest Guys In the Room were MORONS. The problem is, we'd given them all our money.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.87367.1318633

repeated at:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.90362?page=2#1406768

Basically, the people with all the money screwed up big time, and they're taking the economy down with them. Don't you just love the free market?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.90362.1406670

Well thats nice, I am glad we agree in principal on some of the *tactical* reasons for this crisis, but I dont think I agree with you on logic of the market, you bring up Hayek, and I dont intend to pursue a tangent given that Hayek's philosophy (himself influenced by Karl Popper) influenced Milton Friedman and his economic Philosophy which in my opinion is a major reason why we are in this mess, but thats another story.

 

[Raven_Letters]

First of all, you'd be a jackass even if I had said that: this thread is about the current feud, so that's the time frame one should assume.

Ahh I see. I should read your mind and realize that you only mean "between time x and y" even though you never stated anything of the sort, and clearly state to provide a single example.

Second, I did not say "Stewart never called him out on Cramer's calls." I said "I don't remember one bit of Stewart's scolding of Cramer that had to do with calling him to task for the loss of any 'mad money'." I made specific reference to ONE episode of The Daily Show--you know, the one that is the topic of this thread--that is NOT the episode you linked to.
Bigger jackass

So see above, if you were going to be THAT specific you should have said so you didnt, so I did.

Me: THAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

You: THAT'S WHY I'M GIVING IT!

Certainly made it look like your stating some deep fact that no one picked up on. You kept going on about Stewart being the "Tribune of the people" without actually backing up your claims.

*basically a shoal of red herring*

Yes..and that's either your perspective and your sensibilities. Which you conveniently don't bother to answer.

I read your links and I suspect (though I maybe wrong) what you did not like was Stewart challenging the structure and logic of Wallstreet.

Wait, you think I'm some sort of fiscal conservative?

I've been on this board almost three years. I have been called a LOT of things during that space of time. That is the *first* time anyone has ever called me that. This is the first time anyone has even called me something on the right side of the conservative/liberal line when it comes to fiscal matters.

Did I actually SAY you were a Fiscal Conservative? In fact I actually Said :

"Well thats nice, I am glad we agree in principal on some of the *tactical* reasons for this crisis,..." What I meant was your analysis of the situation is principally based on to quote:

Fair Trade not Free Trade--it's that simple. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and bringing a free market economy into the 21st century is doing exactly that. The Thousand Years Are Over--the countries that manage their economies aren't a bunch of fuck-ups like Soviet Russia and Red China and Castro's Cuba. These days it's people like Putin who figured out a loophole in Russian law that allows him to be president for life, and that you don't fight the West by blockading East Berlin, you use the natural resources under your control to scare everyone, threating to cut off fuel every winter.

It's people who realized that while you don't *plan* your economy because they Friedrich Hayek was right--any sort of collectivist business model is inferior to one with individual actors because a collectivist organization will never manage information as efficiently--that doesn't mean you can't use the government to open up new markets for your individual actors, or that you can't occasionally tell your individual actors what to do when you've got a larger political goal you want to accomplish.

It's time to wake up and realize the Liberal Western Democracies need something like NATO, but for fighting the economic war that we're already in. Other countries already have one--it's called OPEC. Africa is this century's Spain, and we don't even have an Abraham Lincoln Brigade put together.

As far as I can understand your post, what you want is a protectionist, economic-nationalist state with a government that actually uses the country's economic advantages to leverage other nations into opening their markets for you. What I think you have failed to point out is that this has more or less been the principal policy of the United States, albiet to varying degrees for much of the past 50 years..exept that the US uses the IMF and the World Bank to be the can opener to force less developed countries to open their markets and submit themselves to the mercy of the market which they cannot be prepared for; for reasons to many to explain here.

Now I may be wrong. I admit that but as far as I can tell this is your bread and butter so to speak.

You should get a badge for this.

Can I get one in a nice sky blue?

P.S
Calling people insults i.e "Jackass" means that essentially your starting to loose the debate, I think that's more or less a given like Goodwin's law.

P.P.S

Have to head for class now, but dont worry! I will return!!