I like both Cramer and Stewart, and know they are both blowhards at times... but that interview gave me some new-found respect for Stewart!
Cramer still engages in stock manipulation of Apple on Mad Money. The last incident I recall to put downward pressure was after the 2008Q1 Conference Call, where he indicated that Apple's guidance was a sign of impending doom for the company. Of course, Apple went on to beat their forecast by the usual margin but that didn't change Cramer's line.
Cramer isn't an investagative journalist. He also can't hide behind the label of "entertainer" as an excuse for his mis-information and redirection. Personally, I think there needs to be some significant re-regulation of Wall Street if you want to restore investor confidence.
At the same time, there is no such thing as "easy money." Over time, everything takes work and there is no quick payout. This goes doubly true for the stock market, and index funds are dangerous in this respect as a place to put 401k money for long-term investing. I have no idea what the alternative really is, though.
Ahh, the ad hominem attack - can't kill the message, so kill the messenger.
What exactly is your message? That Cramer didn't and never has manipulated the media and his viewers for self profit (or perhaps for the people paying him out)?
I mean seriously, your use of big words doesn't take away from the fact that you have your own silly agenda.
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
Though I agree that it is an absolutely stupid idea to think the government can just borrow & print the country out of debt, Jim Cramer gets no points in my book for saying "yeah it's illegal but it's what you gotta do". If there is anything the current economic crisis should have taught us it is that you can't toss aside ethics in business, they need to be the core of capitalism for a democracy to survive.
People want to avoid a complete economic collapse but problem is that we aren't preventing, just delaying it (with interest). Some day we gotta pay the piper, question is how much do we want to pay & at what cost to our children.
You're missing a lot. The complete interview [The Street.com Interview] was about how Hedge Funds work. Cramer admitted through the ignorance of the SEC and the loose language of the law it was deemed legal; and even if not, the SEC was too stupid to figure out the legality.
Yes I know. He talks about this on his show as well. He has been very critical of both the industry and the SEC for this.
Quote:
He further claimed on Stewart's interview to not doing so, then having to eat crow as the private interview became public knowledge.
.
To what private interview are you referring? If you mean the videos that Stewart showed during his interview, what evidence do you have that this was a private interview? The street.com is constantly doing these interviews and posting them on the web. There is simply no evidence (and no claim made during last night's show, contrary to your assertion) that this interview was only meant for a private audience.
What exactly is your message? That Cramer didn't and never has manipulated the media and his viewers for self profit (or perhaps for the people paying him out)?
No, just that you have no evidence of that he did. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. And as far as "manipulating his viewers" is concerned, remember, he had no viewers when he was at his hedge fund, and, once he got viewers, he was no longer trading. If he did manipulate his viewers, it was in to buying his books. But there is simply no evidence at all that he pumped up stocks on his show to profit from them himself. (But then, even that is not illegal so long as he discloses any relevant positions he may have. "Talking your own book" is perfectly legal.)
Quote:
I mean seriously, your use of big words doesn't take away from the fact that you have your own silly agenda.
Um... "big words"... wow. How old are you? What words are in there that you think are big? And what is my "silly agenda?"
But to answer your question, my "message" is that people are on a witch hunt now, stoked by Stewart, and unfortunately it seems that any witch will do. But Cramer isn't the one who caused this problem, not by a long shot. Even if he did engage in shenanigans at his hedge fund.
Stewart is right to say the CNBC could have done more, but frankly Cramer did a great deal to warn people about this disaster long before the market topped, so he, of all people, should not be the one Stewart is going after.
"You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."
"What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."
"A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"
Was a bit interesting to note that the Morning Joe, which attacked Stewart the other day, was completely mum on this interview... Stewart hit pretty hard and scored a direct hit, and too many who are in denial just can't take it.
But to answer your question, my "message" is that people are on a witch hunt now, stoked by Stewart, and unfortunately it seems that any witch will do. But Cramer isn't the one who caused this problem, not by a long shot. Even if he did engage in shenanigans at his hedge fund.
Stewart is right to say the CNBC could have done more, but frankly Cramer did a great deal to warn people about this disaster long before the market topped, so he, of all people, should not be the one Stewart is going after.
I understand that you obviously like Cramer, but even Stewart said it was "unfortunate" that Cramer had to become the face of this. The face. Meaning, he represents thousands of others like him in the finacial industry that are misguiding the masses.
I agree that after any disaster people automatically start pointing fingers and blaming people randomly.. but it's not random to see there are tons of Cramers "kind" out there who know exactly how the market works, but succumb to their own greed rather than their ethical responsibility.
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
And whatever allegiance you have to Cramer, doesn't take away from the fact that he said all those things and now appears to be neck deep in such a scandal. Sure, maybe he's suddenly unfairly representing a whole crew of greedy swine, but by putting himself in the public eye so dominantly and allowing himself to fall from grace so stupidly by mouthing off, he deserves to be that face.
"What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances. A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"
Um, yeah. Anyone who listens to this guy for financial advice deserves what they get.
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
Yay, starting to sound like a witch hunt, I'll get the marshmallows, wieners and match, you get the rope, stakes and gasoline.
Have you seen his show? It's a bit like Carrot Top doing finance with all the props he uses, though I actually like the guy.
It should be clear that he's an entertainer, but some reason, it doesn't sink into people.
Sometimes I wonder if his some of his advice or statements are designed to spook the herd, because some of the statements did seem pretty irresponsible such that it could have caused a panic, and it did precede a drop in the market, though causality can be hard to nail in these circumstances.
It should be clear that he's an entertainer, but some reason, it doesn't sink into people.
Probably the same people that don't realize that The Colbert Report is satirical comedy.
Quote:
Sometimes I wonder if his some of his advice or statements are designed to spook the herd, because some of the statements did seem pretty irresponsible such that it could have caused a panic, and it did precede a drop in the market, though causality can be hard to nail in these circumstances.
He is certainly trying to entertain but I do think that if you tell people to buy or sell a stock that you should wholeheartedly believe the advice you are giving. From what I've seen I think he is s decent guy that wouldn't purposely mislead his viewers, but we have to have a villan in such matters and he did make a lot of mistakes. Are they worse than other financial advisor mistakes? I don't know.
Probably the same people that don't realize that The Colbert Report is satirical comedy.
He is certainly trying to entertain but I do think that if you tell people to buy or sell a stock that you should wholeheartedly believe the advice you are giving. From what I've seen I think he is s decent guy that wouldn't purposely mislead his viewers, but we have to have a villan in such matters and he did make a lot of mistakes. Are they worse than other financial advisor mistakes? I don't know.
I don't think it was about misleading, that's harder to ferret out if he had intent, and I'm not assuming he had such intent. What I'm thinking about is making some of his recommendations in a enthusiastic enough of a manner that might have frightened people into a panic. People not inoculated to his antics might cause an overreaction, and some people overreacting can hurt everyone else too.
People not inoculated to his antics might cause an overreaction, and some people overreacting can hurt everyone else too.
I don't expect him to change his visual and audible antics, but I would like to see him curb his speculation somewhat and include a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the show. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't expect him to change his visual and audible antics, but I would like to see him curb his speculation somewhat and include a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the show. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't think it is too much to ask, but I think his recommendations are more dangerous when he's a guest on shows whose audiences aren't so familiar with him.
I understand that you obviously like Cramer, but even Stewart said it was "unfortunate" that Cramer had to become the face of this.
But it was Stewart that chose to make Cramer the face of this. There were plenty of other people at CNBC that would have been far more apropos. Well, at least two that I can think of. Cramer is one of the "good ones". He DID warn people about this financial meltdown before it happened, and took a lot of heat for doing so. He DID tell people to get out when the dow was above 10000. He did tell people that any money they'll need for the next 5 years should not be in the stock market.
Quote:
I agree that after any disaster people automatically start pointing fingers and blaming people randomly.. but it's not random to see there are tons of Cramers "kind" out there who know exactly how the market works, but succumb to their own greed rather than their ethical responsibility.
Geez... here come the "kind" arguments... where's my pitchfork!
Quote:
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
It may very well happen, but I seriously doubt that Cramer does it. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, lets hear it.
Quote:
And whatever allegiance you have to Cramer, doesn't take away from the fact that he said all those things and now appears to be neck deep in such a scandal. Sure, maybe he's suddenly unfairly representing a whole crew of greedy swine, but by putting himself in the public eye so dominantly and allowing himself to fall from grace so stupidly by mouthing off, he deserves to be that face.
Spoken like someone who has never watched him and is just accepting Stewart's word at face value, despite the fact that Stewart is a self-professed snake-oil salesman.
Comments
Cramer still engages in stock manipulation of Apple on Mad Money. The last incident I recall to put downward pressure was after the 2008Q1 Conference Call, where he indicated that Apple's guidance was a sign of impending doom for the company. Of course, Apple went on to beat their forecast by the usual margin but that didn't change Cramer's line.
Cramer isn't an investagative journalist. He also can't hide behind the label of "entertainer" as an excuse for his mis-information and redirection. Personally, I think there needs to be some significant re-regulation of Wall Street if you want to restore investor confidence.
At the same time, there is no such thing as "easy money." Over time, everything takes work and there is no quick payout. This goes doubly true for the stock market, and index funds are dangerous in this respect as a place to put 401k money for long-term investing. I have no idea what the alternative really is, though.
Not the brightest tool in the shed, are we "beelzebob".
Ahh, the ad hominem attack - can't kill the message, so kill the messenger.
Yeah, why don't we just make it real simple? Stewart is an A_hole and you are real smart.
You are pretty much on target with that quote. Especially the part about Stewart.
Ahh, the ad hominem attack - can't kill the message, so kill the messenger.
What exactly is your message? That Cramer didn't and never has manipulated the media and his viewers for self profit (or perhaps for the people paying him out)?
I mean seriously, your use of big words doesn't take away from the fact that you have your own silly agenda.
Anybody who relies upon Jim Cramer for financial advice gets what they have coming to them. Still, Jon Stewart walks away virtually unscathed for little more than an ad hominem attack by digging up past areas that he disagrees with Cramer over rather than address the REAL reason that Cramer's name has been in the news as of late, and that is his criticism of Obama's financial plans (if you can call them that). Chris Mathews of MSNBC "Hardball" fame was ridiculed for saying that he experienced "tingles up his leg" when listening to an Obama speech. Well, anyone who has watched The Daily Show knows that Steward just about has full-blown orgasms whenever he talks about (or has as guests on his show) Obama, Democrats, or liberals. It would be funny to invite Stewart to a roast where they could turn the tables on him for a change, showing lots of video clips of Democratic / liberal gaffes, statements of corrupted politicians, etc., each stamped with a date that they happened and a corresponding edition of The Daily Show making no mention of them. Somehow I doubt that Stewart would laugh and take it all in stride.
Though I agree that it is an absolutely stupid idea to think the government can just borrow & print the country out of debt, Jim Cramer gets no points in my book for saying "yeah it's illegal but it's what you gotta do". If there is anything the current economic crisis should have taught us it is that you can't toss aside ethics in business, they need to be the core of capitalism for a democracy to survive.
People want to avoid a complete economic collapse but problem is that we aren't preventing, just delaying it (with interest). Some day we gotta pay the piper, question is how much do we want to pay & at what cost to our children.
You're missing a lot. The complete interview [The Street.com Interview] was about how Hedge Funds work. Cramer admitted through the ignorance of the SEC and the loose language of the law it was deemed legal; and even if not, the SEC was too stupid to figure out the legality.
Yes I know. He talks about this on his show as well. He has been very critical of both the industry and the SEC for this.
He further claimed on Stewart's interview to not doing so, then having to eat crow as the private interview became public knowledge.
.
To what private interview are you referring? If you mean the videos that Stewart showed during his interview, what evidence do you have that this was a private interview? The street.com is constantly doing these interviews and posting them on the web. There is simply no evidence (and no claim made during last night's show, contrary to your assertion) that this interview was only meant for a private audience.
What exactly is your message? That Cramer didn't and never has manipulated the media and his viewers for self profit (or perhaps for the people paying him out)?
No, just that you have no evidence of that he did. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. And as far as "manipulating his viewers" is concerned, remember, he had no viewers when he was at his hedge fund, and, once he got viewers, he was no longer trading. If he did manipulate his viewers, it was in to buying his books. But there is simply no evidence at all that he pumped up stocks on his show to profit from them himself. (But then, even that is not illegal so long as he discloses any relevant positions he may have. "Talking your own book" is perfectly legal.)
I mean seriously, your use of big words doesn't take away from the fact that you have your own silly agenda.
Um... "big words"... wow. How old are you? What words are in there that you think are big? And what is my "silly agenda?"
But to answer your question, my "message" is that people are on a witch hunt now, stoked by Stewart, and unfortunately it seems that any witch will do. But Cramer isn't the one who caused this problem, not by a long shot. Even if he did engage in shenanigans at his hedge fund.
Stewart is right to say the CNBC could have done more, but frankly Cramer did a great deal to warn people about this disaster long before the market topped, so he, of all people, should not be the one Stewart is going after.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_173824.html
Cramer, in his own words:
"You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."
"What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."
"A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"
Was a bit interesting to note that the Morning Joe, which attacked Stewart the other day, was completely mum on this interview... Stewart hit pretty hard and scored a direct hit, and too many who are in denial just can't take it.
But to answer your question, my "message" is that people are on a witch hunt now, stoked by Stewart, and unfortunately it seems that any witch will do. But Cramer isn't the one who caused this problem, not by a long shot. Even if he did engage in shenanigans at his hedge fund.
Stewart is right to say the CNBC could have done more, but frankly Cramer did a great deal to warn people about this disaster long before the market topped, so he, of all people, should not be the one Stewart is going after.
I understand that you obviously like Cramer, but even Stewart said it was "unfortunate" that Cramer had to become the face of this. The face. Meaning, he represents thousands of others like him in the finacial industry that are misguiding the masses.
I agree that after any disaster people automatically start pointing fingers and blaming people randomly.. but it's not random to see there are tons of Cramers "kind" out there who know exactly how the market works, but succumb to their own greed rather than their ethical responsibility.
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
And whatever allegiance you have to Cramer, doesn't take away from the fact that he said all those things and now appears to be neck deep in such a scandal. Sure, maybe he's suddenly unfairly representing a whole crew of greedy swine, but by putting himself in the public eye so dominantly and allowing himself to fall from grace so stupidly by mouthing off, he deserves to be that face.
.... I'd like to see them discuss this like adults, not children....
That's the second time you've said the same thing.
What exactly was childish about the discussion?
"What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances. A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"
Um, yeah. Anyone who listens to this guy for financial advice deserves what they get.
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
Yay, starting to sound like a witch hunt, I'll get the marshmallows, wieners and match, you get the rope, stakes and gasoline.
Um, yeah. Anyone who listens to this guy for financial advice deserves what they get.
Have you seen his show? It's a bit like Carrot Top doing finance with all the props he uses, though I actually like the guy.
Have you seen his show? It's a bit like Carrot Top doing finance with all the props he uses, though I actually like the guy.
It should be clear that he's an entertainer, but some reason, it doesn't sink into people.
Sometimes I wonder if his some of his advice or statements are designed to spook the herd, because some of the statements did seem pretty irresponsible such that it could have caused a panic, and it did precede a drop in the market, though causality can be hard to nail in these circumstances.
It should be clear that he's an entertainer, but some reason, it doesn't sink into people.
Probably the same people that don't realize that The Colbert Report is satirical comedy.
Sometimes I wonder if his some of his advice or statements are designed to spook the herd, because some of the statements did seem pretty irresponsible such that it could have caused a panic, and it did precede a drop in the market, though causality can be hard to nail in these circumstances.
He is certainly trying to entertain but I do think that if you tell people to buy or sell a stock that you should wholeheartedly believe the advice you are giving. From what I've seen I think he is s decent guy that wouldn't purposely mislead his viewers, but we have to have a villan in such matters and he did make a lot of mistakes. Are they worse than other financial advisor mistakes? I don't know.
Probably the same people that don't realize that The Colbert Report is satirical comedy.
He is certainly trying to entertain but I do think that if you tell people to buy or sell a stock that you should wholeheartedly believe the advice you are giving. From what I've seen I think he is s decent guy that wouldn't purposely mislead his viewers, but we have to have a villan in such matters and he did make a lot of mistakes. Are they worse than other financial advisor mistakes? I don't know.
I don't think it was about misleading, that's harder to ferret out if he had intent, and I'm not assuming he had such intent. What I'm thinking about is making some of his recommendations in a enthusiastic enough of a manner that might have frightened people into a panic. People not inoculated to his antics might cause an overreaction, and some people overreacting can hurt everyone else too.
Does anyone else find it peculiar, even disingenuous, the way Prince McLean/Daniel Eran Dilger links to his own articles on roughlydrafted?
Do I have a problem with one of the best reporters on Apple and industry technology linking to his site?
I don't have a problem with it, but have you ever considered writing something useful?
People not inoculated to his antics might cause an overreaction, and some people overreacting can hurt everyone else too.
I don't expect him to change his visual and audible antics, but I would like to see him curb his speculation somewhat and include a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the show. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't expect him to change his visual and audible antics, but I would like to see him curb his speculation somewhat and include a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the show. Is that too much to ask for?
I don't think it is too much to ask, but I think his recommendations are more dangerous when he's a guest on shows whose audiences aren't so familiar with him.
I understand that you obviously like Cramer, but even Stewart said it was "unfortunate" that Cramer had to become the face of this.
But it was Stewart that chose to make Cramer the face of this. There were plenty of other people at CNBC that would have been far more apropos. Well, at least two that I can think of. Cramer is one of the "good ones". He DID warn people about this financial meltdown before it happened, and took a lot of heat for doing so. He DID tell people to get out when the dow was above 10000. He did tell people that any money they'll need for the next 5 years should not be in the stock market.
I agree that after any disaster people automatically start pointing fingers and blaming people randomly.. but it's not random to see there are tons of Cramers "kind" out there who know exactly how the market works, but succumb to their own greed rather than their ethical responsibility.
Geez... here come the "kind" arguments... where's my pitchfork!
And whether or not he stopped trading as you say, he's been in the industry for decades, meaning he made some substantial friends in high places. You're telling me (especially after he so eloquently outed his own sketchy behaviour) that he wouldn't accept some cash to stir up some market fear? Fear that plays with the stock prices, that make certain individuals in the industry (who are in the know of future products or announcements which will then sky rocket their stock price) lots and lots of money?
You know it happens.
It may very well happen, but I seriously doubt that Cramer does it. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, lets hear it.
And whatever allegiance you have to Cramer, doesn't take away from the fact that he said all those things and now appears to be neck deep in such a scandal. Sure, maybe he's suddenly unfairly representing a whole crew of greedy swine, but by putting himself in the public eye so dominantly and allowing himself to fall from grace so stupidly by mouthing off, he deserves to be that face.
Spoken like someone who has never watched him and is just accepting Stewart's word at face value, despite the fact that Stewart is a self-professed snake-oil salesman.