Jon Stewart exposes Apple stock manipulation

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 155
    Sorry, I edited your post down because my posts are getting too big, so I'm trying to shorten things up.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    First of all, beelzebob, i don't think we're as far apart in our views as some might guess.



    I hope I didn't create the impression otherwise.



    Quote:

    I see Rush, and Cantor, and Cramer, and Dobbs, and maybe Bill Frist and Nancy Pelosi, too, in that first category. Let's hope Stewart is full of doubts, and stays in that second camp.



    I agree. I think we are on the same page here. I didn't used to put Stewart in that category, but after that interview, I do.



    Quote:

    You're using "swiftboated" to mean "surprised", it seems to me. I don't think that's the meaning of the term. And I'd bet anything Cramer knew that clip or something like it would be used.



    No, I'm using the term to mean "distortion", not surprise. I have described how I feel the video was distorted (that is, what Cramer is doing in the video, vs. what everyone thinks he is doing after seeing the Stewart interview) ad nauseum in my other posts, so I won't repeat it here.



    Quote:

    Several points: Whether or not Cramer knew it could be seen by others doesn't alter the objectionable content. Maybe it's worse because it was brazen and not furtive.



    But the content is only objectionable after Stewarts filter, not before. (See the big payoff at the end of this post.)



    Quote:

    Second, the argument that he wasn't teaching anyone how to rob people is reminiscent of the pleas people use to defend websites that instruct on bombmaking: "oh, it just tells what people already know," or, "those plans for building a nuclear bomb are from the public record". True, perhaps, but that in no way constitutes a defense.



    You're comparing Cramer describing what happens in the market to someone proliferating nukes. Are you really expecting an answer on that? If Cramer were proliferating nukes, I hope I don't need to say that I would have a very different opinion about him. And I know how you might respond - "But Cramer is giving people the knowledge to do just as much destruction as a nuke (at least financially, if not in actuality), so it's really the same thing." My answer to that is, no he isn't. This meltdown was not caused by hedge funds, or anything Cramer described. He's describing what happens, in very loose detail - people pick up a phone, spread a rumor, hope it moves a stock by a percent, or two if they are really lucky, make a fast buck. It happens all the time, and everyone already knows it happens, but we get mad at Cramer confirms this. Should he just shut his mouth and pretend it doesn't happen? Again, he's talking to a REPORTER, trying to inform the public about what happens. What's wrong with that? He's not sketching out a nuclear schematic in Farsi. He is describing what goes on, but not in anywhere near the detail needed to for someone who doesn't already know how to push markets around to be able to do so after watching the tape. Think about it - did watching that tape inform you who to call, or how to reach them, or, well, you see what I mean. You can't push stocks around now any more easily as a result of viewing that tape. And the big dogs already knew how to do it, including all of the missing details, long before that tape was made.



    Quote:

    "in the clip filmed for The Street, Cramer notes that this practice of 'fomenting the market' is 'actually blatantly illegal, but when you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment.'"



    Okay. Get ready for the payoff. I am so glad you brought that up, because you have identified a classic, irrefutable example of quoting out of context. I know that's usually the song of the guilty, but not this time:



    Watch the video from the beginning to 2:45:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfC0mE9eVb4



    Now, what vital phrase did the person you are quoting leave off, that belongs right at the end of that quote, and utterly and completely changes it's meaning?



    I don't want to give it away, I want you to see it for yourself. But I will point out that this is most certainly NOT an endorsement of the practice, but clearly answer to a question as to what Cramer thinks is going on in the market on that particular day. (That's why you have to watch from the beginning, because the question is right at the beginning.)



    To quote the holy Stewart: "Boom goes the dynamite!"



    Quote:

    I think that's endorsing the practice, and I think it's offensive, and I think it's dancing dangerously near the actionable boundaries of law and regulation. Just my opinion. I have not played a public prosecutor on TV.



    I don't blame you for thinking that, given how he was misquoted. But you sound like a reasonable person, so I hope we can agree that Cramer was NOT endorsing the practice one bit, once you see the whole quote in context. He was role playing, as another poster has already said.
  • Reply 122 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GMHut View Post


    Ok, beelzebub. Here it is. Despite how you spin it, it looks for all the world like Cramer admitted to engaging in shady sh!t by his own account. I'll be honest, it's starting to sound like you might have engaged in similar things to what he warned against/bragged about/suggested others do. Why else would you be dancing such a complicated ridiculous jig trying to defend it? If not forgive me, my sincere apologies. If so, please note that you are in the minority by condoning such. Either way, please also note that anyone who engaged in "frothing the market" is ultimately reaping the final fruits of their labor along with us suckers supplying the dumb money.



    Ah ha - be careful or the same thugs who went after Cramer might come after me? Thanks for the warning. Please read my previous post.
  • Reply 123 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    All under the guise of "Reality is what you can get away with,''* moniker.



    * Robert Anton Wilson was correct.





    possibly one of the wiser observations made about this whole event.



    Interesting & funny to watch the Patrists get ired & angry & confused over Stewart's more Matrist-leaning observations.
  • Reply 124 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post




    Watch the video from the beginning to 2:45:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfC0mE9eVb4



    Now, what vital phrase did the person you are quoting leave off, that belongs right at the end of that quote, and utterly and completely changes it's meaning?







    I actually decided to watch the video _from the beginning_



    At 0:25 one gets to hear Cramer himself say (beginning at 0:25) "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund...create a level of activity which would drive the futures."



    Uhm, he uses the words "a lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund" then proceeds to explain his illegal practice of "create a level of activity which would drive the futures."





    He speaks about manipulating AAPL's stock in exactly the same terms.



    Words are ambiguous, rife with meaning, open to interpretation...but, come on! To argue that Cramer hasn't done what he admits to doing seems silly.
  • Reply 125 of 155
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,211member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by user_23 View Post


    possibly one of the wiser observations made about this whole event.



    Interesting & funny to watch the Patrists get ired & angry & confused over Stewart's more Matrist-leaning observations.



    Agreed. I expect your reference to an Ishtar Rising balance of power between Patriarchal and Matriarchal moving towards the better, Matriarchal, will go right over the heads of most.



    Joseph Campbell would be very pleased to see how such primal drive continues to be justified as rational, when it's the extreme opposite--speaking of folks who find such behavior as ethically respectable.



    When did the notion of Moderation die? In all aims its taken now to the extreme.
  • Reply 126 of 155
    user_23user_23 Posts: 46member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Agreed. I expect your reference to an Ishtar Rising balance of power between Patriarchal and Matriarchal moving towards the better, Matriarchal, will go right over the heads of most.



    Joseph Campbell would be very pleased to see how such primal drive continues to be justified as rational, when it's the extreme opposite--speaking of folks who find such behavior as ethically respectable.



    When did the notion of Moderation die? In all aims its taken now to the extreme.





    I believe we will experience so-called Moderation again once the current paradigm shift we (humans) are experiencing makes its "flip."



    As we move/flip (again) from Patriarchy (restriction) to Matriarchy (expansion), expect the forces of Restriction to fight harder & harder...expect the death throes to become ever-increasingly violent as that dinosaur of consciousness gasps its last, dying breaths.



    No room for moderation now, at this point...it just doesn't seem to be part of the human race's (sometimes?) regrettable formula of evolution.
  • Reply 127 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by user_23 View Post


    I actually decided to watch the video _from the beginning_



    At 0:25 one gets to hear Cramer himself say (beginning at 0:25) "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund...create a level of activity which would drive the futures."



    Uhm, he uses the words "a lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund" then proceeds to explain his illegal practice of "create a level of activity which would drive the futures."





    He speaks about manipulating AAPL's stock in exactly the same terms.



    Words are ambiguous, rife with meaning, open to interpretation...but, come on! To argue that Cramer hasn't done what he admits to doing seems silly.



    Well, apparently you only watched the first 25 seconds or you would know that what you are saying is wrong. Cramer describes two kinds of trades - one that he explicitly describes as legal, and one that he calls blatantly illegal. He says he made the LEGAL trade back at his hedge fund, not the illegal one. He identifies the people who COULD be engaging in the illegal trade as simply "these guys". He clearly doesn't include himself in that group. Nor does he come right out and say that they are making the illegal trades, only that it will feel "important" for them to do so if their business is doing badly.



    As far as appl and rimm are concerned, as has already been pointed out, he was describing rumor mongering that could only be happening in that time frame (some time in 2006) - because, it would be awfully hard to spread rumors about the iphone in, say, 1997. But, his hedge fund closed several years before 2006. So, he could NOT be describing trades he made. Rather, he is describing trades that the hedge funds, particularly those that are desperate, could be trying. And, just to be clear, his audience is NOT those hedge funds - they already know all that stuff. His audience is anyone who cares to listen, and wants to be informed as to what the hedgies are up to, or anyone who just takes an interest in the stock market. He is NOT trying to tell the home gamer to do this - after all, the home gamer CAN'T, because they don't have the credibility to call a trading desk and start spreading rumors - they would be spotted instantly. This is about informing who ever cares to know about what is going on.



    The fact is, he is trying to give you information that I think you should really want to have. Why not give it a listen?
  • Reply 128 of 155
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by user_23 View Post


    I believe we will experience so-called Moderation again once the current paradigm shift we (humans) are experiencing makes its "flip."



    As we move/flip (again) from Patriarchy (restriction) to Matriarchy (expansion), expect the forces of Restriction to fight harder & harder...expect the death throes to become ever-increasingly violent as that dinosaur of consciousness gasps its last, dying breaths.



    No room for moderation now, at this point...it just doesn't seem to be part of the human race's (sometimes?) regrettable formula of evolution.



    An economic bubble is to be expected, they'll always come and go. The hard part is recognizing it's boundaries when you're inside of one. Humans operate on bubbles. Society, like the human body, is a self regulating system. A pendulum swings to one extreme until it can go no further. Then it changes directions and hits the limit going the other way, the middle and the points at each end where it starts to change direction being the closest thing to equilibrium in the cycle. Unfortunately of late, there have been too many giving the pendulum an extra shove to send it to whatever extreme makes them the most money in the short term. We've turned the pendulum into a competitive game of tether ball. I guess that's the nature of capitalism. Like it or not, we need the government and the media to do a better job at refereeing the game.
  • Reply 129 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    Well, apparently you only watched the first 25 seconds or you would know that what you are saying is wrong. Cramer describes two kinds of trades - one that he explicitly describes as legal, and one that he calls blatantly illegal. He says he made the LEGAL trade back at his hedge fund, not the illegal one. He identifies the people who COULD be engaging in the illegal trade as simply "these guys". He clearly doesn't include himself in that group. Nor does he come right out and say that they are making the illegal trades, only that it will feel "important" for them to do so if their business is doing badly.



    [...]



    The fact is, he is trying to give you information that I think you should really want to have. Why not give it a listen?



    I don't know Cramer or what he's done, but my impression from this thread is that he was in the hedge fund business for some time, and reasonably successful at it. Also, again just from skimming this thread, it appears that he at one point described some hedge fund tactics he characterized as "blatantly illegal" and furthermore implied that if you weren't engaged in such activity then maybe you shouldn't be in the business. The obvious inference (correct or not) is that he did engage in such activity... or alternatively that he wasn't a successful hedge fund manager. There are many ways that he could have presented the same information while making it clear that he wasn't involved in such activity, but based on the long thread here, he did not do so... which makes one wonder why. Poor communication skills? Guilty conscience?
  • Reply 130 of 155
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,234member
    At least Cramer had the balls to show up and take his medicine, that other guy from CNBC who blamed borrowers pussed out.
  • Reply 131 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irobot2004 View Post


    I don't know Cramer or what he's done, but my impression from this thread is that he was in the hedge fund business for some time, and reasonably successful at it. Also, again just from skimming this thread, it appears that he at one point described some hedge fund tactics he characterized as "blatantly illegal" and furthermore implied that if you weren't engaged in such activity then maybe you shouldn't be in the business. The obvious inference (correct or not) is that he did engage in such activity... or alternatively that he wasn't a successful hedge fund manager. There are many ways that he could have presented the same information while making it clear that he wasn't involved in such activity, but based on the long thread here, he did not do so... which makes one wonder why. Poor communication skills? Guilty conscience?



    Just watch the video, the answer to your question is there. (Look around the 1:35 mark.) Here's a link:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfC0mE9eVb4
  • Reply 132 of 155
    macarenamacarena Posts: 360member
    I dont know if it is currently, but shouldnt manipulation for ideological reasons also be treated as illegal activity.



    Maybe you dont benefit monetarily directly from your stock manipulation - but bashing a company/stock also has other ramifications. I have seen enough "fud" around Apple, with incorrect information being put out shamelessly by a variety of players. Not just Cramer, even Gartner, RBC, and lot of other people are guilty of throwing fud around just to dampen the aura around Apple.



    Just because there is no direct activity in the stock, and no provable benefits from manipulating these stocks, these perpetrators are getting away scot free.



    After the dot com bust, analysts were asked to mention stock holdings and other potential conflict of interest in all their research reports. I wonder if people should be forced to disclose their ideological stance (if any) or any direct or indirect connection to the company/direct competition. This should make it at least a little bit more easier to deal with this fud. I still dont know how this will work with Gartner.



    One possible way to deal with this, is for the SEC to mandate that a standard questionnaire be added to all analyst reports. Something like:



    Does the analyst and/or the analysts firm benefit in any manner by any positive impact on the target company? Yes/No



    If Yes, please explain



    Does the analyst and/or the analysts firm benefit in any manner by any negative impact on the target company? Yes/No



    If Yes, please explain




    I dont know if this will take care of everything, but at least it will be a start.
  • Reply 133 of 155
    ttupperttupper Posts: 39member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    One possible way to deal with this, is for the SEC to mandate that a standard questionnaire be added to all analyst reports. Something like:



    Does the analyst and/or the analysts firm benefit in any manner by any positive impact on the target company? Yes/No



    If Yes, please explain



    Does the analyst and/or the analysts firm benefit in any manner by any negative impact on the target company? Yes/No



    If Yes, please explain




    I dont know if this will take care of everything, but at least it will be a start.



    This is essentially the same thing as suggesting that they have to disclose their positions, which they already have to do.



    Honestly, you really can't control what people say, beyond using civil courts to nail them for damages. People have a right to their opinions, even journalists. What you CAN do is control the mechanism that allows those opinions to become useful for purposes of making a lot of money.



    Me personal belief is that this all has a lot to do with the elimination of the uptick rule. I think what happened is these guys have observed that, in the face of negative press about a stock, there are always a certain percentage of investors that will run right out and dump the stock at the first whiff of trouble. Thus, by shorting a stock, throwing out some bad press, then buying when the stock had slid... they could make money on the downside and on the up, pretty much whenever they wanted to, to the degree of a few percentage points here or there, as Cramer said. That sort of thing has gone on for basically as long as shorting has existed, I think.



    The elimination of the uptick rule, though, changed the game in my opinion, because instead of having some innuendo or real market force driving stock price, you get instead a bunch of jumpers who see that the train is moving in a specific direction and they jump on after the fact. So instead of a just a little downward pressure on the stock, you get some unnatural force multiplication effect that just pummels the stock into oblivion. Witness the pummeling the financials have taken, with dips to 1 or 2 dollars from much higher, in many cases over just a few months. Yeah, those companies are really anemic... but the stock price in some instances hasn't reflected the value of the company at all.



    I think these big money guys got wind of that secondary effect - the effect of having a bunch of Johny come lately types piling on to beat on an already declining security... and realized that they could exploit that tendency to make a lot of money shorting a stock, working some bad news into the press, then riding the stock down and back up again, selling at the peak and shorting on the trip down, then buying in the trough. And the thing is, the more big money types that realized it, the worse it got and the more common it became... until it started to distort the market. That is my OPINION, let's be clear on that.



    Restoring the uptick rule, I am convinced, would restore some order and reduce a lot of this volatility. That's way more important, I think, than trying to control people's opinions.
  • Reply 134 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irobot2004 View Post


    I don't know Cramer or what he's done, but my impression from this thread is that he was in the hedge fund business for some time, and reasonably successful at it. Also, again just from skimming this thread, it appears that he at one point described some hedge fund tactics he characterized as "blatantly illegal" and furthermore implied that if you weren't engaged in such activity then maybe you shouldn't be in the business. The obvious inference (correct or not) is that he did engage in such activity... or alternatively that he wasn't a successful hedge fund manager. There are many ways that he could have presented the same information while making it clear that he wasn't involved in such activity, but based on the long thread here, he did not do so... which makes one wonder why. Poor communication skills? Guilty conscience?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    Just watch the video, the answer to your question is there. (Look around the 1:35 mark.) Here's a link:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfC0mE9eVb4



    Well I watched the first ~6 mins of it, some of it multiple times, and I have to say it doesn't really help. If he was trying to clearly convey the sense that he had done nothing illegal, it did not come across in that interview (at least not to me). He described some activity which was legal (which he admitted to doing) and some activity which was illegal... which he neither admitted nor denied doing. However, he seemed to imply that it was pretty safe to do since the SEC didn't even understand it as something illegal. He then followed that by describing activity which if not illegal... well I think most folks would find troubling, and implied strongly that he had engaged in those activities.
  • Reply 135 of 155
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beelzebob View Post


    Okay. Get ready for the payoff. I am so glad you brought that up, because you have identified a classic, irrefutable example of quoting out of context. I know that's usually the song of the guilty, but not this time:



    Watch the video from the beginning to 2:45:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfC0mE9eVb4



    Now, what vital phrase did the person you are quoting leave off, that belongs right at the end of that quote, and utterly and completely changes it's meaning?



    You mean the blow off CYA comment that it's "blatantly illegal"? Or "if I were one of these guys"? He was one of these guys and he's talking in the context of knocking RIM back because it was the current key stock. Presumably he did it to whatever was the key stock then given his earlier comment:



    "you can't foment...but you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it, that's the only sense I would say that it is illegal"



    So much for any contention he really thinks fomenting is wrong.



    Quote:

    I don't want to give it away, I want you to see it for yourself. But I will point out that this is most certainly NOT an endorsement of the practice, but clearly answer to a question as to what Cramer thinks is going on in the market on that particular day. (That's why you have to watch from the beginning, because the question is right at the beginning.)



    You mean where he goes "what I used to do was...I could get a stock like RIM down...these are all the things you must do on a day like today and if you're not doing it maybe you should be in the business"



    That is an endorsement. I used to do this, if you aren't doing this you shouldn't be in the game.



    Quote:

    I don't blame you for thinking that, given how he was misquoted. But you sound like a reasonable person, so I hope we can agree that Cramer was NOT endorsing the practice one bit, once you see the whole quote in context. He was role playing, as another poster has already said.



    In the whole context he was describing what he used to do, saying it was illegal but only because the SEC are idiots, and if you aren't doing on a day like that day, you were a wimp that didn't belong in the game. That doesn't take ANY editing to see.



    It's no different than saying "hey when I was in the game, we used to score this kind of steroid, it's only illegal because the commissioner is an idiot, and if you aren't willing to use performance enhancers when your season is on the line, maybe you shouldn't be in the game."
  • Reply 136 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by coffeetime View Post


    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.



    dude i'm sorry but you sound like you work at fox news. we all know stewart is left leaning, but to suggest that stewart has a hard-on for obama is just simply untrue. there's a huge concept that you're missing here.



    the daily show is a comedy show first, and a politcal show last. my guess would be you've watched the daily show a couple times, but haven't realllly watched it. stewart disagrees more with republicans than democrats but he is very respectful to anyone, as long as he believes they behave in ethical manors. i'm guessing you didn't even watch the daily show, where stewart made fun of obama for sounded a lot like bush during his inauguration, when he was talking about protecting our country and fighting terrorism.



    if all you do is watch news coverage about other news shows, than you're always going to get a skewed perspective. i suggest you start watching the daily show again, if you want to know what's really going on their show. if the republicans seem more targeted than democrats, it's probably just because republicans as a whole are drawing more attention to themselves.



    obama doesn't get as much heat as bush for two reasons. he's not a moron, and more importantly he just hasn't been in office long enough to see how his policy affects us. the daily show goes after people who are affecting this country in a negative way, and if the things obama is doing now end up going in that direction.... then place your bets because i'd put money down that the daily show will be cracking jokes about it.



    remember... comedy show first, polical show last.
  • Reply 137 of 155
    Jon Stewart clearly handed Jim Cramer his head and has finally drummed up a proper level of skepticism toward Cramer and the financial reporting world. It was sad how Cramer incessantly whined about being lied to, but real journalists get lied to all the time. The difference between fake journalists (like almost everyone on CNBC) and real ones is the ability and desire to find out whether CEO statements are true or false.



    As an Apple long, Cramer admitted to me what I have suspected for years. There are analysts who purposely spread lies about Apple to drive the stock price one way or the other. It is illegal and it is wrong and I hope that someone is finally looking into it. The real news about Apple is interesting enough to cause appropriate interest in the stock -- we don't need any help from a bunch of crooks.
  • Reply 138 of 155
    ttupperttupper Posts: 39member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    It's no different than saying "hey when I was in the game, we used to score this kind of steroid, it's only illegal because the commissioner is an idiot, and if you aren't willing to use performance enhancers when your season is on the line, maybe you shouldn't be in the game."



    Great analogy - I think you made the reality of what Cramer said perfectly clear; he certainly appeared to be endorsing an illegal and blatantly unethical practice.
  • Reply 139 of 155
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    I honestly don't understand the kind of people that continue to defend Cramer. I've read all that Belzeboob (sorry if I misspelt) has said, but to no avail. His reasoning is all sound when he states that Cramer never specifically says that he has done any wrong doing, and that his shenannigans are great public service, because, hey, at least we know what's going on, right?, but then he makes a total non sequitur which is because he's done nothing illegal, hence he should not be morally convicted.



    Whaaat?!?



    And blaming Jon Stewart for pointing out... that the CNBC reporters are lousy reporters?



    Whaaat?!?



    I mean, if Cramer's defense is that he's been lied to by the CEO of such and such companies, he's guilty of charge of naiveté at best, and should be blamed as being a bad reporter. Which it is what Jon pointed out, actually. Worse, Cramer did say those "nasty" things in 2006 in an obscure interview that is on youtube, yet, he continues to feed those insane "news" that he knows that most of them are just falsehoods, and never reports on the "true story" which are these machninations behind the curtain.



    Cramer acts like the wizard of OZ, while pretending to be a reporter. Jon acts like a reporter while practicing an entertaining show. And people still cling on to the ad hom on Jon?!?



    Has the world gone mad? Are so many people so easily brainwashed?



    And Jon even mentioned by passing that Cramer blamed home owners for this financial crisis. And this is a fact, this is a meme that spread like hell in the internets. I simply can't believe the sheer number of folks that bought into this idea as if it had any value whatsoever.



    Nevermind the sheer irresponsibility of the banking institutions! Nevermind that these institutions that played casino on the american economy are being bailed out! It's the people that can't pay their houses that should be burnt at the stakes!!



    ....
  • Reply 140 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    I honestly don't understand the kind of people that continue to defend Cramer. I've read all that Belzeboob (sorry if I misspelt) has said, but to no avail. His reasoning is all sound when he states that Cramer never specifically says that he has done any wrong doing, and that his shenannigans are great public service, because, hey, at least we know what's going on, right?, but then he makes a total non sequitur which is because he's done nothing illegal, hence he should not be morally convicted.



    Nope, never said that. If Cramer has committed a "moral" crime, of course he should be "morally" convicted, but if you don't even understand what he is talking about, how can you possibly judge what constitutes a moral crime? If you think you can explain what his moral crime is, by all means, please do. Day trading is not a crime, moral or otherwise.



    Anyway, if I read you right, you agree Cramer did not break the law, or at least has not admitted to it, and there is no compelling evidence of it, right? That's my principle point here.



    And I don't say that Cramer's "shenangans" are a great public service, whatever that means, but his exposing of the inside of the hedge fund world IS a great public service. He ends that video with words to the effect "This show is an intra-day show (meaning a show about the intra-day markets) and you need to know what I know is going on." It's not an accident that he is exposing this stuff - it's his chosen profession. It's how he makes his money now that he has left that world.



    As to whether or not he should be morally convicted, I don't think that people who don't understand what he is talking about in that video really have any right or ability to judge it. Judging from the responses here, most people seem to think that short selling is illegal and wrong. It is neither. However, WHEN THE SYSTEM IS IN PERIL, short selling exacerbates the problem and needs to be reined in. That's why the SEC (or the fed or whoever) put a temporary ban on short selling last year of financial stocks, but that ban has been lifted. Simply put, short selling did not cause this problem. Cramer and CNBC did not cause this problem. In fact, Cramer has been screaming about this problem on air since at least as far back as august of 2007. But, it's not his fault if you weren't listening.





    Quote:

    Whaaat?!?



    And blaming Jon Stewart for pointing out... that the CNBC reporters are lousy reporters?



    That's a matter of opinion, not fact, but Cramer is NOT a reporter, his a commentator.



    Quote:

    Whaaat?!?



    I mean, if Cramer's defense is that he's been lied to by the CEO of such and such companies, he's guilty of charge of naiveté at best, and should be blamed as being a bad reporter. Which it is what Jon pointed out, actually. Worse, Cramer did say those "nasty" things in 2006 in an obscure interview that is on youtube, yet, he continues to feed those insane "news" that he knows that most of them are just falsehoods, and never reports on the "true story" which are these machninations behind the curtain.



    You obviously don't watch Cramer. He does so all the time. Corporate malfeasance is a regular topic on his show, but he can't catch all the bad guys, nor is that his job. Just today he has called out the current head of AIG, not just for the recent news about bonuses, but on some other issue which is very technical and obscure, but which Cramer says is a far bigger problem, creating far greater cost to the taxpayer. He is a good guy, doing good work, and all you know about him is Stewart's distortion. If you consider yourself to be a reasonable person, you should at least consider a source other than Stewart, a self-professed snake-oil salesman, before you draw any conclusions.



    Quote:

    Cramer acts like the wizard of OZ, while pretending to be a reporter. Jon acts like a reporter while practicing an entertaining show. And people still cling on to the ad hom on Jon?!?



    Has the world gone mad? Are so many people so easily brainwashed?



    I could ask the same thing, but I won't, because I try to get at facts, not name-calling.



    Quote:

    And Jon even mentioned by passing that Cramer blamed home owners for this financial crisis.



    Jon did not say this, did he? I have never heard Cramer make that claim. I think you are confusing Cramer with Rick Santelli here. I am NOT defending Santelli. I, like everyone, was disgusted with what Santelli said.



    Quote:

    And this is a fact, this is a meme that spread like hell in the internets. I simply can't believe the sheer number of folks that bought into this idea as if it had any value whatsoever.



    Nevermind the sheer irresponsibility of the banking institutions! Nevermind that these institutions that played casino on the american economy are being bailed out! It's the people that can't pay their houses that should be burnt at the stakes!!



    ....



    Wow - Cramer never said any of that. And *I* am the one who is brainwashed? Seriously, take a deep breath and try to approach this rationally, or not at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.