Poll: Stewart VS Cramer

[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!!