Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Jim Cramer gets Pounded by John Stewart on the Daily Show
- This topic has 590 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM #366465March 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM #365915
SanDiegoDave
ParticipantSomeone earlier got it right: The Stewart/Cramer dustup is 100% about Obama and not in the least bit about the economy.
Stewart has his head so far up Obama’s ass that he will gladly throw any fellow devoted Democrat (like Cramer) under the bus for daring to level a modicum of scrutiny over anything the Prez does.
The best analysis I read about what has become of Stewart and The Daily Show was a commenter on Megan McArdle’s article on this topic at The Atlantic:
(I agree with this. And no, I’m not a Republican)
…I’ve watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning—all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, “Where more people get their news…than they probably should.” He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn’t agree with. Off script, he’s nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the “oh, I’m just a silly comedian” routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama’s Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did….). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was “a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race.” It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He’s a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He’s a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he’s just making fun of things and nothing more. And he’s a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of “just a comedian” and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
March 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM #366204ParticipantSomeone earlier got it right: The Stewart/Cramer dustup is 100% about Obama and not in the least bit about the economy.
Stewart has his head so far up Obama’s ass that he will gladly throw any fellow devoted Democrat (like Cramer) under the bus for daring to level a modicum of scrutiny over anything the Prez does.
The best analysis I read about what has become of Stewart and The Daily Show was a commenter on Megan McArdle’s article on this topic at The Atlantic:
(I agree with this. And no, I’m not a Republican)
…I’ve watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning—all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, “Where more people get their news…than they probably should.” He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn’t agree with. Off script, he’s nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the “oh, I’m just a silly comedian” routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama’s Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did….). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was “a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race.” It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He’s a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He’s a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he’s just making fun of things and nothing more. And he’s a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of “just a comedian” and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
March 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM #366367ParticipantSomeone earlier got it right: The Stewart/Cramer dustup is 100% about Obama and not in the least bit about the economy.
Stewart has his head so far up Obama’s ass that he will gladly throw any fellow devoted Democrat (like Cramer) under the bus for daring to level a modicum of scrutiny over anything the Prez does.
The best analysis I read about what has become of Stewart and The Daily Show was a commenter on Megan McArdle’s article on this topic at The Atlantic:
(I agree with this. And no, I’m not a Republican)
…I’ve watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning—all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, “Where more people get their news…than they probably should.” He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn’t agree with. Off script, he’s nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the “oh, I’m just a silly comedian” routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama’s Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did….). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was “a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race.” It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He’s a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He’s a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he’s just making fun of things and nothing more. And he’s a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of “just a comedian” and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
March 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM #366403ParticipantSomeone earlier got it right: The Stewart/Cramer dustup is 100% about Obama and not in the least bit about the economy.
Stewart has his head so far up Obama’s ass that he will gladly throw any fellow devoted Democrat (like Cramer) under the bus for daring to level a modicum of scrutiny over anything the Prez does.
The best analysis I read about what has become of Stewart and The Daily Show was a commenter on Megan McArdle’s article on this topic at The Atlantic:
(I agree with this. And no, I’m not a Republican)
…I’ve watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning—all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, “Where more people get their news…than they probably should.” He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn’t agree with. Off script, he’s nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the “oh, I’m just a silly comedian” routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama’s Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did….). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was “a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race.” It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He’s a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He’s a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he’s just making fun of things and nothing more. And he’s a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of “just a comedian” and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
March 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM #366516ParticipantSomeone earlier got it right: The Stewart/Cramer dustup is 100% about Obama and not in the least bit about the economy.
Stewart has his head so far up Obama’s ass that he will gladly throw any fellow devoted Democrat (like Cramer) under the bus for daring to level a modicum of scrutiny over anything the Prez does.
The best analysis I read about what has become of Stewart and The Daily Show was a commenter on Megan McArdle’s article on this topic at The Atlantic:
(I agree with this. And no, I’m not a Republican)
…I’ve watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning—all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, “Where more people get their news…than they probably should.” He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn’t agree with. Off script, he’s nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the “oh, I’m just a silly comedian” routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama’s Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did….). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was “a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race.” It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He’s a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He’s a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he’s just making fun of things and nothing more. And he’s a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of “just a comedian” and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
(emphasis mine)
March 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM #365965ltokuda
ParticipantAn individual’s experiences greatly influence how he views things. Reactions to the Cramer interview are great examples of that. With that in mind, here’s a summary of my experience and my views on the subject.
I worked at a tech company during the internet bubble and experienced the boom and bust. During the boom time, when our stock was high, representatives from large investment banks would visit our company. Most times they would try to sell themselves as experts on managing our money. Other times, the would pitch hedge funds to us. These hedge funds were “exclusive” deals (e.g. $500k minimum investment) and they promised ungodly returns.
If you remember the boom times, you’d see experts on TV picking stocks and setting price targets that didn’t make any sense. Experts would say that P/E’s don’t matter any more … “Burn rate” was more important than profit … Etc. Even Alan Greenspan took back his “irrational exuberance” comment and suggested that we were operating in a new economy.
I didn’t know anything about the stock market back then. But after the bubble went bust, I realized that virtually all of the “experts” in my world were incorrect. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the guys from the investment banks were just “used car salesmen”. They really didn’t know much at all. They just wanted to make a profit and sell you whatever crap they had. The “experts” on TV were just carnival barkers. Their purpose is to draw the public in … “Trust us with your future” … “Trust us with your 401k”.
There are guys on wall street that really do know what they are doing. The problem is that they want you to buy what they’re selling and sell what they’re buying. They’re the sharks and the general public is nothing but chum.
I came to this revelation over many years. But just recently, I read this article and realized that my conclusions were very old news:
The article was written by Michael Lewis (author of “Liar’s Poker”). It talks about his wall street work experience in the late 80’s and the sheer corruption in the system. Its a great article. You should definitely read it.
The Stewart vs. Cramer tussle really started with Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJYNn6C2nA
Santelli goes off about Obamas plan to bail out some home owners. Granted, nobody likes to reward bad behavior with a bail out. However, the home owner bale out has to be put into perspective. The TARP bailout of wall street cost $750 billion. AIG’s bailout was $100+ billion. The CEO of Bear Stearns personally walked away with over $60 million of taxpayer bail out money. $60 million for one guy. So Obama proposes a $75 billion dollar bailout package for millions of home owners and that’s what sets Santelli off?
In Santelli’s CNBC rant, he rails against the “losers” that bought homes that they couldn’t afford. These people made stupid decisions and they should suffer the consequences. All very true.
The Daily Show responded by broadening the issue to “Why did so many people make stupid decisions?” Is it possible that CNBC (the financial news network) encourages people to make stupid financial decisions? CNBC bills itself as the place to go to for financial news. It sells itself as a place you can turn to. But what if its nothing more than a stage for the carnival barkers of wall street?
Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.
March 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM #366254ParticipantAn individual’s experiences greatly influence how he views things. Reactions to the Cramer interview are great examples of that. With that in mind, here’s a summary of my experience and my views on the subject.
I worked at a tech company during the internet bubble and experienced the boom and bust. During the boom time, when our stock was high, representatives from large investment banks would visit our company. Most times they would try to sell themselves as experts on managing our money. Other times, the would pitch hedge funds to us. These hedge funds were “exclusive” deals (e.g. $500k minimum investment) and they promised ungodly returns.
If you remember the boom times, you’d see experts on TV picking stocks and setting price targets that didn’t make any sense. Experts would say that P/E’s don’t matter any more … “Burn rate” was more important than profit … Etc. Even Alan Greenspan took back his “irrational exuberance” comment and suggested that we were operating in a new economy.
I didn’t know anything about the stock market back then. But after the bubble went bust, I realized that virtually all of the “experts” in my world were incorrect. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the guys from the investment banks were just “used car salesmen”. They really didn’t know much at all. They just wanted to make a profit and sell you whatever crap they had. The “experts” on TV were just carnival barkers. Their purpose is to draw the public in … “Trust us with your future” … “Trust us with your 401k”.
There are guys on wall street that really do know what they are doing. The problem is that they want you to buy what they’re selling and sell what they’re buying. They’re the sharks and the general public is nothing but chum.
I came to this revelation over many years. But just recently, I read this article and realized that my conclusions were very old news:
The article was written by Michael Lewis (author of “Liar’s Poker”). It talks about his wall street work experience in the late 80’s and the sheer corruption in the system. Its a great article. You should definitely read it.
The Stewart vs. Cramer tussle really started with Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJYNn6C2nA
Santelli goes off about Obamas plan to bail out some home owners. Granted, nobody likes to reward bad behavior with a bail out. However, the home owner bale out has to be put into perspective. The TARP bailout of wall street cost $750 billion. AIG’s bailout was $100+ billion. The CEO of Bear Stearns personally walked away with over $60 million of taxpayer bail out money. $60 million for one guy. So Obama proposes a $75 billion dollar bailout package for millions of home owners and that’s what sets Santelli off?
In Santelli’s CNBC rant, he rails against the “losers” that bought homes that they couldn’t afford. These people made stupid decisions and they should suffer the consequences. All very true.
The Daily Show responded by broadening the issue to “Why did so many people make stupid decisions?” Is it possible that CNBC (the financial news network) encourages people to make stupid financial decisions? CNBC bills itself as the place to go to for financial news. It sells itself as a place you can turn to. But what if its nothing more than a stage for the carnival barkers of wall street?
Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.
March 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM #366417ParticipantAn individual’s experiences greatly influence how he views things. Reactions to the Cramer interview are great examples of that. With that in mind, here’s a summary of my experience and my views on the subject.
I worked at a tech company during the internet bubble and experienced the boom and bust. During the boom time, when our stock was high, representatives from large investment banks would visit our company. Most times they would try to sell themselves as experts on managing our money. Other times, the would pitch hedge funds to us. These hedge funds were “exclusive” deals (e.g. $500k minimum investment) and they promised ungodly returns.
If you remember the boom times, you’d see experts on TV picking stocks and setting price targets that didn’t make any sense. Experts would say that P/E’s don’t matter any more … “Burn rate” was more important than profit … Etc. Even Alan Greenspan took back his “irrational exuberance” comment and suggested that we were operating in a new economy.
I didn’t know anything about the stock market back then. But after the bubble went bust, I realized that virtually all of the “experts” in my world were incorrect. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the guys from the investment banks were just “used car salesmen”. They really didn’t know much at all. They just wanted to make a profit and sell you whatever crap they had. The “experts” on TV were just carnival barkers. Their purpose is to draw the public in … “Trust us with your future” … “Trust us with your 401k”.
There are guys on wall street that really do know what they are doing. The problem is that they want you to buy what they’re selling and sell what they’re buying. They’re the sharks and the general public is nothing but chum.
I came to this revelation over many years. But just recently, I read this article and realized that my conclusions were very old news:
The article was written by Michael Lewis (author of “Liar’s Poker”). It talks about his wall street work experience in the late 80’s and the sheer corruption in the system. Its a great article. You should definitely read it.
The Stewart vs. Cramer tussle really started with Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJYNn6C2nA
Santelli goes off about Obamas plan to bail out some home owners. Granted, nobody likes to reward bad behavior with a bail out. However, the home owner bale out has to be put into perspective. The TARP bailout of wall street cost $750 billion. AIG’s bailout was $100+ billion. The CEO of Bear Stearns personally walked away with over $60 million of taxpayer bail out money. $60 million for one guy. So Obama proposes a $75 billion dollar bailout package for millions of home owners and that’s what sets Santelli off?
In Santelli’s CNBC rant, he rails against the “losers” that bought homes that they couldn’t afford. These people made stupid decisions and they should suffer the consequences. All very true.
The Daily Show responded by broadening the issue to “Why did so many people make stupid decisions?” Is it possible that CNBC (the financial news network) encourages people to make stupid financial decisions? CNBC bills itself as the place to go to for financial news. It sells itself as a place you can turn to. But what if its nothing more than a stage for the carnival barkers of wall street?
Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.
March 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM #366453ParticipantAn individual’s experiences greatly influence how he views things. Reactions to the Cramer interview are great examples of that. With that in mind, here’s a summary of my experience and my views on the subject.
I worked at a tech company during the internet bubble and experienced the boom and bust. During the boom time, when our stock was high, representatives from large investment banks would visit our company. Most times they would try to sell themselves as experts on managing our money. Other times, the would pitch hedge funds to us. These hedge funds were “exclusive” deals (e.g. $500k minimum investment) and they promised ungodly returns.
If you remember the boom times, you’d see experts on TV picking stocks and setting price targets that didn’t make any sense. Experts would say that P/E’s don’t matter any more … “Burn rate” was more important than profit … Etc. Even Alan Greenspan took back his “irrational exuberance” comment and suggested that we were operating in a new economy.
I didn’t know anything about the stock market back then. But after the bubble went bust, I realized that virtually all of the “experts” in my world were incorrect. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the guys from the investment banks were just “used car salesmen”. They really didn’t know much at all. They just wanted to make a profit and sell you whatever crap they had. The “experts” on TV were just carnival barkers. Their purpose is to draw the public in … “Trust us with your future” … “Trust us with your 401k”.
There are guys on wall street that really do know what they are doing. The problem is that they want you to buy what they’re selling and sell what they’re buying. They’re the sharks and the general public is nothing but chum.
I came to this revelation over many years. But just recently, I read this article and realized that my conclusions were very old news:
The article was written by Michael Lewis (author of “Liar’s Poker”). It talks about his wall street work experience in the late 80’s and the sheer corruption in the system. Its a great article. You should definitely read it.
The Stewart vs. Cramer tussle really started with Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJYNn6C2nA
Santelli goes off about Obamas plan to bail out some home owners. Granted, nobody likes to reward bad behavior with a bail out. However, the home owner bale out has to be put into perspective. The TARP bailout of wall street cost $750 billion. AIG’s bailout was $100+ billion. The CEO of Bear Stearns personally walked away with over $60 million of taxpayer bail out money. $60 million for one guy. So Obama proposes a $75 billion dollar bailout package for millions of home owners and that’s what sets Santelli off?
In Santelli’s CNBC rant, he rails against the “losers” that bought homes that they couldn’t afford. These people made stupid decisions and they should suffer the consequences. All very true.
The Daily Show responded by broadening the issue to “Why did so many people make stupid decisions?” Is it possible that CNBC (the financial news network) encourages people to make stupid financial decisions? CNBC bills itself as the place to go to for financial news. It sells itself as a place you can turn to. But what if its nothing more than a stage for the carnival barkers of wall street?
Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.
March 14, 2009 at 3:11 PM #366565ParticipantAn individual’s experiences greatly influence how he views things. Reactions to the Cramer interview are great examples of that. With that in mind, here’s a summary of my experience and my views on the subject.
I worked at a tech company during the internet bubble and experienced the boom and bust. During the boom time, when our stock was high, representatives from large investment banks would visit our company. Most times they would try to sell themselves as experts on managing our money. Other times, the would pitch hedge funds to us. These hedge funds were “exclusive” deals (e.g. $500k minimum investment) and they promised ungodly returns.
If you remember the boom times, you’d see experts on TV picking stocks and setting price targets that didn’t make any sense. Experts would say that P/E’s don’t matter any more … “Burn rate” was more important than profit … Etc. Even Alan Greenspan took back his “irrational exuberance” comment and suggested that we were operating in a new economy.
I didn’t know anything about the stock market back then. But after the bubble went bust, I realized that virtually all of the “experts” in my world were incorrect. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the guys from the investment banks were just “used car salesmen”. They really didn’t know much at all. They just wanted to make a profit and sell you whatever crap they had. The “experts” on TV were just carnival barkers. Their purpose is to draw the public in … “Trust us with your future” … “Trust us with your 401k”.
There are guys on wall street that really do know what they are doing. The problem is that they want you to buy what they’re selling and sell what they’re buying. They’re the sharks and the general public is nothing but chum.
I came to this revelation over many years. But just recently, I read this article and realized that my conclusions were very old news:
The article was written by Michael Lewis (author of “Liar’s Poker”). It talks about his wall street work experience in the late 80’s and the sheer corruption in the system. Its a great article. You should definitely read it.
The Stewart vs. Cramer tussle really started with Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRJYNn6C2nA
Santelli goes off about Obamas plan to bail out some home owners. Granted, nobody likes to reward bad behavior with a bail out. However, the home owner bale out has to be put into perspective. The TARP bailout of wall street cost $750 billion. AIG’s bailout was $100+ billion. The CEO of Bear Stearns personally walked away with over $60 million of taxpayer bail out money. $60 million for one guy. So Obama proposes a $75 billion dollar bailout package for millions of home owners and that’s what sets Santelli off?
In Santelli’s CNBC rant, he rails against the “losers” that bought homes that they couldn’t afford. These people made stupid decisions and they should suffer the consequences. All very true.
The Daily Show responded by broadening the issue to “Why did so many people make stupid decisions?” Is it possible that CNBC (the financial news network) encourages people to make stupid financial decisions? CNBC bills itself as the place to go to for financial news. It sells itself as a place you can turn to. But what if its nothing more than a stage for the carnival barkers of wall street?
Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.
March 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM #365975danthedart
Participant[quote=ltokuda]Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.[/quote]
I understand that a lot of people have been conned and you are really upset about these “used car salesmen.” It’s understandable really. I’m upset too.
Cramer and his cohorts at CNBC has lost a lot of money in stocks too. Yes they were used car salesmen, and they were wrong, but they bought their own melons. They’re like the realtors all over the country that sold people overpriced homes. I’m not angry at the realtors, because they bought into it too. A lot of realtors are upside down in their own homes.
Most of the population bought into all of it INCLUDING Cramer. Cramer even said numerous times to sell. Stewart doesn’t give him ANY credit for that. Why not? Cramer makes buy and sell predictions all the time. Cramer even said to take out all the money you need in the next 5 years. Did Stewart give him credit for that? Nope. Cramer was wrong, but he was not trying to dupe anybody.
If Stewart wants to go after Santelli, and Santelli doesn’t want to come on the air, it’s irresponsible to provoke an attack against the entire network and against hosts that have nothing to do with Santelli.
It’s understandable that you are upset. I feel for you and others who have lost a lot of money in the stock market. Let’s just punish the real people who need to be punished. Let’s punish the true criminals.
March 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM #366263Participant[quote=ltokuda]Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.[/quote]
I understand that a lot of people have been conned and you are really upset about these “used car salesmen.” It’s understandable really. I’m upset too.
Cramer and his cohorts at CNBC has lost a lot of money in stocks too. Yes they were used car salesmen, and they were wrong, but they bought their own melons. They’re like the realtors all over the country that sold people overpriced homes. I’m not angry at the realtors, because they bought into it too. A lot of realtors are upside down in their own homes.
Most of the population bought into all of it INCLUDING Cramer. Cramer even said numerous times to sell. Stewart doesn’t give him ANY credit for that. Why not? Cramer makes buy and sell predictions all the time. Cramer even said to take out all the money you need in the next 5 years. Did Stewart give him credit for that? Nope. Cramer was wrong, but he was not trying to dupe anybody.
If Stewart wants to go after Santelli, and Santelli doesn’t want to come on the air, it’s irresponsible to provoke an attack against the entire network and against hosts that have nothing to do with Santelli.
It’s understandable that you are upset. I feel for you and others who have lost a lot of money in the stock market. Let’s just punish the real people who need to be punished. Let’s punish the true criminals.
March 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM #366427Participant[quote=ltokuda]Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.[/quote]
I understand that a lot of people have been conned and you are really upset about these “used car salesmen.” It’s understandable really. I’m upset too.
Cramer and his cohorts at CNBC has lost a lot of money in stocks too. Yes they were used car salesmen, and they were wrong, but they bought their own melons. They’re like the realtors all over the country that sold people overpriced homes. I’m not angry at the realtors, because they bought into it too. A lot of realtors are upside down in their own homes.
Most of the population bought into all of it INCLUDING Cramer. Cramer even said numerous times to sell. Stewart doesn’t give him ANY credit for that. Why not? Cramer makes buy and sell predictions all the time. Cramer even said to take out all the money you need in the next 5 years. Did Stewart give him credit for that? Nope. Cramer was wrong, but he was not trying to dupe anybody.
If Stewart wants to go after Santelli, and Santelli doesn’t want to come on the air, it’s irresponsible to provoke an attack against the entire network and against hosts that have nothing to do with Santelli.
It’s understandable that you are upset. I feel for you and others who have lost a lot of money in the stock market. Let’s just punish the real people who need to be punished. Let’s punish the true criminals.
March 14, 2009 at 3:25 PM #366463Participant[quote=ltokuda]Behind wall street’s exterior is a huge con game: Gain people’s confidence and use their money to create short term profit at the expense of long term risk. Guys like Cramer and many of the other “experts” you see on TV know that its a con game. In fact they’re an important part of keeping the con going. And when it all blows up, they do their best to act surprised: “It had a one in a million chance of happening” … “This is a once in lifetime event”, etc. But as Michael Lewis points out, this con game has been going on for a very long time. A lot of people know about it. The only question is “Why isn’t it public knowledge?”.[/quote]
I understand that a lot of people have been conned and you are really upset about these “used car salesmen.” It’s understandable really. I’m upset too.
Cramer and his cohorts at CNBC has lost a lot of money in stocks too. Yes they were used car salesmen, and they were wrong, but they bought their own melons. They’re like the realtors all over the country that sold people overpriced homes. I’m not angry at the realtors, because they bought into it too. A lot of realtors are upside down in their own homes.
Most of the population bought into all of it INCLUDING Cramer. Cramer even said numerous times to sell. Stewart doesn’t give him ANY credit for that. Why not? Cramer makes buy and sell predictions all the time. Cramer even said to take out all the money you need in the next 5 years. Did Stewart give him credit for that? Nope. Cramer was wrong, but he was not trying to dupe anybody.
If Stewart wants to go after Santelli, and Santelli doesn’t want to come on the air, it’s irresponsible to provoke an attack against the entire network and against hosts that have nothing to do with Santelli.
It’s understandable that you are upset. I feel for you and others who have lost a lot of money in the stock market. Let’s just punish the real people who need to be punished. Let’s punish the true criminals.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.