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.
I agree with all of this. I just have a quibble with that last part - while I agree that most people are troubled by it, it's because they don't understand that that is what day trading is. Day trading has nothing to do with fundamentals - it can't - the fundamentals don't change on a tick-by-tick basis. Day-trading is all about the bull-bear wars. Day-trading does not destroy people's 401k, unless they are daytrading in their 401k, in which case they are agreeing to play with the sharks. Nor does it cause the problems we are seeing today. That was the banks and overleverage, overly lax enforcement by the SEC, and who knows what else.
Anyway, what I was trying to get you to notice at the 1:35 mark is that Cramer switches from talking about his own hedge fund, to talking about what is happening today in the hedge fund world today. Basically, most if not everything after that point is talking about what the hedge funds are doing now, not what he did at his own hedge fund. You made (at least I think it was you) a good point about how, if Cramer says the only way to survive in the hedge fund world is to break the law, then doesn't that mean that he must have done so, since he obviously did survive at least for a while? At the 1:35 point, they talk about how the hedge fund world has changed because of how many more hedge funds there are now than when Cramer was doing it, so the rules of survival weren't the same in Cramer's day. (They don't say that last phrase, but it's a fair inference - again, if they knew that, years later, this video was going to be held up as exhibit A that they are crooks, I'm sure they would have been more articulate.) But, more importantly, Cramer never says you have to break the law to survive, only that hedge funds that are on the brink of going out of business are going to think it important to do so.
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
Well, the video has been taken down now, so I'm going to have to go on memory.
But the "these guys" he is referring to are the people who (in that case) are six days away from the quarter and are afraid of losing their business. He wasn't talking about himself there. More generally, he is answering the interviewer's question about some peculiar trades that were happening that day, and what he thinks is happening.
Quote:
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:
Knocking down a stock is perfectly legal, so long as you do it legally. Every time you sell a stock, you are knocking it down. Every time you buy a stock, you are pushing it up. That's what a market is.
Quote:
"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.
Again, he is answering the question about what he thinks the hedge funds are up to on that particular day. He is describing the scheme of fomenting. If he had said "*I* do it anyway", that would be different. He never says he did it himself. Maybe he did do it, but he doesn't say it.
Quote:
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.
Where does Cramer say "I used to do this" regarding anything *illegal*? Short selling, or just selling your own stocks, is not illegal. Anyone can do it, including the ordinary retail investor. Heck, you can buy ETF's that are scrutinized and blessed by the SEC that do nothing but short, and do so with double leverage, even on the financial sector, even now with the turmoil we are in. Yes, he is endorsing short-selling, at least when the market is stable. It is a necessary, and fair part of the marketplace. If you knew what it was, you wouldn't be so alarmed by it. All it is is borrowing a stock from a bull (that is, someone who thinks it is safe to hold) for a fee, and selling it, then buying it back later to give back to the bull. So the bull and bear are just taking opposite sides of the bet. One will win, one will lose. It's not that sinister.
Quote:
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.
No, he never says that he did anything illegal. He says fomenting is illegal. He never said *he* did it. Nor does he ever say you have to foment to be in the game. He says hedge funds that are about to go out of business would consider fomenting an important thing to do.
Quote:
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."
The more apt metaphor would be:
"hey when I was in the game, we used to do such-and-such a vitamin, which I would encourage you to do because it works and it's perfectly legal; today you can do all kinds of steroids and totally get away with it because the commissioner is an idiot, and if you don't do it, you will lose, so why play?"
I wanted to add something.... you say "if you aren't willing to use performance enhancers when your season is on the line, maybe you shouldn't be in the game." as descriptive of what Cramer is saying. Now, I actually don't have a problem with this. Think about it - if you are in a "game" where the loser goes broke, and the only rules of the game aren't being enforced, so the only way to win is to break the rules, isn't it right to say that you should stay out of the game if you aren't willing to break the rules? I don't see that as an endorsement, I see that as a statement of fact.
As much as I deplore some of the tactics used by hedge funds managers and the like, there is one person who is WAY more disgusting than a guy like Jim Cramer could ever be; Rick Santelli.
This guy has the balls to go on national TV and blame the housing mess squarely on the home owners!? I would love to see him up on his soap box in downtown Manhatten, or in the deep south somewhere and spew that kind of poison. My guess is that he wouldn't get too far down the road before someone or some people would kick the living shit out of him.
I for one was so infuriated by his idiotic statements that if I could have, I would've gone through the TV and kick that douchebag's teeth in myself.
People like him are a waste of skin and should be treated as such. I'm not one who has lost their home, but I have friends who were laid off, and could not find employment, burnt through their savings and eventually had to give up their home. Good honest, hard working people should not have to listen to assholes like Santelli. They feel bad enough as it is, and to have some assclown like him pile it on, well, all I can say is that I hope you get what's coming to you Santelli!
Arianna Huffington (of Huffington Post fame) wrote a piece today about John King's rather lame weekend interview with Darth Vader (aka, Cheney). She imagined how Jon Stewart would have handled it. Kind of interesting.
The media (yep, CNN too, in a very big way), could learn a lot from Jon.
Santelli said today that the AIG bonus issue is no big deal.
Is Santelli out of his mind? AGI bonuses are no big deal?
So, let me get this straight.
1. AIG receives $40 Billion in TARP money from us, the tax payers.
2. AIG might be getting another $30 Billion in TARP money.
3. AIG gives bonuses to execs and possibly others.
4. Santelli finds it to be no big deal that execs got free money from the tax payers.
Ok, hold on a minute. The fact that we, the tax payers had to bail out a company who made STUPID choices for one is nuts. But I can let it slide a bit, not happy about it, but can understand to a point that if all institutions failed, we would "probably" be in a worse situation; maybe. But for some butt monkey to decide "hey, I think bonuses are in order", should be crimial. Someone needs to drag those pricks who use our money to further enrich themselves out by their hair, and put out on the street to let the public deal with them, after all, it is our money that they are playing with.
I'm sorry if I seem a little too "vigilantee" for some, but when a guy like Bernie Madoff gets to wait in his multi-million dollars home while his case is being tried, well, I guess I can't help but to feel a little cynical. OOOOOOHHH, He's under "house arrest", big woop. The damn prick should be in prison getting butt raped by his new boyfriend for what he did to people.
If you check out Santelli's bio on CNBC you will see:
Quote:
A veteran trader and financial executive, Santelli has provided live reports on the markets in print and on local and national radio and television. He joined CNBC from the Institutional Financial Futures and Options at Sanwa Futures, L.L.C. There, he was a vice president handling institutional trading and hedge accounts for a variety of futures related products.
Prior to that, Santelli worked as vice president of Institutional Futures and Options at Rand Financial Services, Inc., served as managing director at the Derivative Products Group of Geldermann, Inc., and was Vice President in charge of Interest Rate Futures and Options at the Chicago Board of Trade for Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Santelli began his career in 1979 as a trader and order filler at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a variety of markets including gold, lumber, CD's, T-bills, foreign currencies and livestock.
One can begin to imagine why Santelli is looking down on the working man, he was one of the scumbag douchebag's (hey that rhimes) that probably got huge bonuses for playing pin the tail on the donkey with the money that honest people gave him and trusted him with. What a douche.
Quote:
Arianna Huffington (of Huffington Post fame) wrote a piece today about John King's rather lame weekend interview with Darth Vader (aka, Cheney). She imagined how Jon Stewart would have handled it. Kind of interesting.
The media (yep, CNN too, in a very big way), could learn a lot from Jon.
And Cheney, HA, I think that man is as close to Satan as you can get. His names says it all, DICK Cheney. CNN as well as other so called "news" outlets are, as someone said, just people relating press releases. They don't investigate, they don't put someone in the hot seat. Hell, most of the time the person being interviewed is given the list of questions that are going to be asked so they can prepare an answer. It's no wonder that I would rather watch monkeys throw feces at each other.
I'm not sure if the AIG bonuses were paid before the TARP money was issued or not, but if it was before, sorry for getting my list in disorder. If in fact AIG paid bonuses before the TARP money the list should have looked like this:
1. AIG was hemoraging money left and right.
2. Executives knew they were in financial trouble.
3. Execs paid out bonuses knowing that the company was hemoraging.
4. AIG requests TARP money.
5. Execs piss in the face of the public in general.
6. Go home, sit int heir million dollar homes, stoke themselves and laugh at us all.
That's what the list should look like if I was wrong in my previous assesment. Sorry for the mix up.
So many Cramer defenders who obviously don't watch The Daily Show regularly. This all started out when the CNBC talking head called people who had gotten into bad mortgages 'losers' and the first TDS piece was about how often CNBC had been witless tools of the businesses that failed themselves. Cramer was just presented as one of many examples.
HE is the one who 'rebutted' and dug himself a big deep hole in the process. He is the one that took the topic from 'Who you calling a loser?!' to an examination of how the industry has a backdoor culture where the big money is made and uses everyone who invests real money in the market for their own gains regardless of the effect it has on these 'losers'.
Jon Stewart's righteous indignation at this practice and calling Cramer on his advocacy of it was entirely Cramer's fault.
So many Cramer defenders who obviously don't watch The Daily Show regularly. This all started out when the CNBC talking head called people who had gotten into bad mortgages 'losers' and the first TDS piece was about how often CNBC had been witless tools of the businesses that failed themselves. Cramer was just presented as one of many examples.
HE is the one who 'rebutted' and dug himself a big deep hole in the process. He is the one that took the topic from 'Who you calling a loser?!' to an examination of how the industry has a backdoor culture where the big money is made and uses everyone who invests real money in the market for their own gains regardless of the effect it has on these 'losers'.
Jon Stewart's righteous indignation at this practice and calling Cramer on his advocacy of it was entirely Cramer's fault.
Thanks for the history lesson that we all already know.
The fact that you interpreted that way just proves my point. Stewart wasn't interested in exposing the truth, he was just trying to "win". I could just as easily say "So many Cramer detractors who obviously don't watch Cramer's shows regularly." If you did, you would know what the source of that video is (a TV show Cramer does for the web called Wall Street Confidential, which is all about exposing what goes on in the markets), and you would know that the Cramer on this tape is the same Cramer on every other tape - the Cramer that has been trying to shine a light on the hedge fund world ever since he left it in 2001. Cramer is the one exposing this stuff, not Stewart.
Thanks for the history lesson that we all already know.
a TV show Cramer does for the web called Wall Street Confidential, which is all about exposing what goes on in the markets)
Ha! Funny a TV Show on the web. Cute.
What does that have to do with real television networks like CNBC, the network under discussion on the segment itself? And explaining how to do it and stating that you will probably get away with it is a very interesting light to shine. I'm sure it helped alert the FTC to the abuses.
Again, Cramer ended up in a situation of his own creation.
What does that have to do with real television networks like CNBC, the network under discussion on the segment itself? And explaining how to do it and stating that you will probably get away with it is a very interesting light to shine. I'm sure it helped alert the FTC to the abuses.
Again, Cramer ended up in a situation of his own creation.
So, he should have been smart enough not to try to beat Stewart at his own game in his own arena. Yeah, no argument there. Santelli played that one right.
As to your implication that Cramer doesn't talk about that stuff outside of Wall Street Confidential, well, if you watched his show, you'd know that is not the case. He talks about it in his books and on all of his shows (yes, including on CNBC.)
Ok, Beelzebob, I admit I didn't see Cramer's show, I'm not sufficiently interested in doing so, albeit your good retorts. I'll also admit that you may even be "right" about Cramer having not said anything about home owners (how'd I love someone linking an youtube clip on Cramer making a clear statement on that issue). I also share your disgust towards anyone trying to scapegoat like that.
I still don't understand your hatred towards Jon (self professed "snake oil"? Really, and not inside a joke? I happen to view Jon as a person with some integrity. Please show me wrong) and I still don't understand how you think Cramer is somehow innocent of his naiveté at selling stories to his CNBC viewers even knowing that most of them are stories to manipulate stocks. And even considering that Cramer's shots were "decontextualized", I can't imagine how better the story would be if contextualized.
Cramer didn't call for a change in the system, he simply told how to win the game. As if it was simply a game like Tetris. Now sorry if I cringe to that kind of amorality that one finds to be present in all the market ecosystem, and which I think is part of the problem on itself. Without any kind of morals except that you have to be a predator to win it, how could the system not collapse??
In a last defence of Jon, he did point out, "this song ain't about you". He was calling out the system. And the failure of CNBC reporting the real misdeeds done, while scapegoating ridiculously.
I'd encourage anyone in the hedge fund in doin' it, because it's legal, fast way to make money and very satisfying. BTW, no one else in the world would admit it, but I don't care.
---
How's that for a moral guy! Incredible.
Now, my purpose isn't to bash someone I don't even know. But what creeps me is that this is something that was epistemic. And to defend someone that had pleasure doin so, I'm sorry I don't understand. Even if that someone was useful in exposing the very stuff he had so pleasure doin.
One of the traders at Merrill Lynch, suggesting he was frightened by the uproar, supposedly asked if the company would pay for private security to protect him.
Comments
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.
I agree with all of this. I just have a quibble with that last part - while I agree that most people are troubled by it, it's because they don't understand that that is what day trading is. Day trading has nothing to do with fundamentals - it can't - the fundamentals don't change on a tick-by-tick basis. Day-trading is all about the bull-bear wars. Day-trading does not destroy people's 401k, unless they are daytrading in their 401k, in which case they are agreeing to play with the sharks. Nor does it cause the problems we are seeing today. That was the banks and overleverage, overly lax enforcement by the SEC, and who knows what else.
Anyway, what I was trying to get you to notice at the 1:35 mark is that Cramer switches from talking about his own hedge fund, to talking about what is happening today in the hedge fund world today. Basically, most if not everything after that point is talking about what the hedge funds are doing now, not what he did at his own hedge fund. You made (at least I think it was you) a good point about how, if Cramer says the only way to survive in the hedge fund world is to break the law, then doesn't that mean that he must have done so, since he obviously did survive at least for a while? At the 1:35 point, they talk about how the hedge fund world has changed because of how many more hedge funds there are now than when Cramer was doing it, so the rules of survival weren't the same in Cramer's day. (They don't say that last phrase, but it's a fair inference - again, if they knew that, years later, this video was going to be held up as exhibit A that they are crooks, I'm sure they would have been more articulate.) But, more importantly, Cramer never says you have to break the law to survive, only that hedge funds that are on the brink of going out of business are going to think it important to do so.
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
Well, the video has been taken down now, so I'm going to have to go on memory.
But the "these guys" he is referring to are the people who (in that case) are six days away from the quarter and are afraid of losing their business. He wasn't talking about himself there. More generally, he is answering the interviewer's question about some peculiar trades that were happening that day, and what he thinks is happening.
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:
Knocking down a stock is perfectly legal, so long as you do it legally. Every time you sell a stock, you are knocking it down. Every time you buy a stock, you are pushing it up. That's what a market is.
"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.
Again, he is answering the question about what he thinks the hedge funds are up to on that particular day. He is describing the scheme of fomenting. If he had said "*I* do it anyway", that would be different. He never says he did it himself. Maybe he did do it, but he doesn't say it.
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.
Where does Cramer say "I used to do this" regarding anything *illegal*? Short selling, or just selling your own stocks, is not illegal. Anyone can do it, including the ordinary retail investor. Heck, you can buy ETF's that are scrutinized and blessed by the SEC that do nothing but short, and do so with double leverage, even on the financial sector, even now with the turmoil we are in. Yes, he is endorsing short-selling, at least when the market is stable. It is a necessary, and fair part of the marketplace. If you knew what it was, you wouldn't be so alarmed by it. All it is is borrowing a stock from a bull (that is, someone who thinks it is safe to hold) for a fee, and selling it, then buying it back later to give back to the bull. So the bull and bear are just taking opposite sides of the bet. One will win, one will lose. It's not that sinister.
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.
No, he never says that he did anything illegal. He says fomenting is illegal. He never said *he* did it. Nor does he ever say you have to foment to be in the game. He says hedge funds that are about to go out of business would consider fomenting an important thing to do.
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."
The more apt metaphor would be:
"hey when I was in the game, we used to do such-and-such a vitamin, which I would encourage you to do because it works and it's perfectly legal; today you can do all kinds of steroids and totally get away with it because the commissioner is an idiot, and if you don't do it, you will lose, so why play?"
I wanted to add something.... you say "if you aren't willing to use performance enhancers when your season is on the line, maybe you shouldn't be in the game." as descriptive of what Cramer is saying. Now, I actually don't have a problem with this. Think about it - if you are in a "game" where the loser goes broke, and the only rules of the game aren't being enforced, so the only way to win is to break the rules, isn't it right to say that you should stay out of the game if you aren't willing to break the rules? I don't see that as an endorsement, I see that as a statement of fact.
This guy has the balls to go on national TV and blame the housing mess squarely on the home owners!? I would love to see him up on his soap box in downtown Manhatten, or in the deep south somewhere and spew that kind of poison. My guess is that he wouldn't get too far down the road before someone or some people would kick the living shit out of him.
I for one was so infuriated by his idiotic statements that if I could have, I would've gone through the TV and kick that douchebag's teeth in myself.
People like him are a waste of skin and should be treated as such. I'm not one who has lost their home, but I have friends who were laid off, and could not find employment, burnt through their savings and eventually had to give up their home. Good honest, hard working people should not have to listen to assholes like Santelli. They feel bad enough as it is, and to have some assclown like him pile it on, well, all I can say is that I hope you get what's coming to you Santelli!
Hahahahahahahaha
The media (yep, CNN too, in a very big way), could learn a lot from Jon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann..._b_175503.html
Santelli said today that the AIG bonus issue is no big deal.
Is Santelli out of his mind? AGI bonuses are no big deal?
So, let me get this straight.
1. AIG receives $40 Billion in TARP money from us, the tax payers.
2. AIG might be getting another $30 Billion in TARP money.
3. AIG gives bonuses to execs and possibly others.
4. Santelli finds it to be no big deal that execs got free money from the tax payers.
Ok, hold on a minute. The fact that we, the tax payers had to bail out a company who made STUPID choices for one is nuts. But I can let it slide a bit, not happy about it, but can understand to a point that if all institutions failed, we would "probably" be in a worse situation; maybe. But for some butt monkey to decide "hey, I think bonuses are in order", should be crimial. Someone needs to drag those pricks who use our money to further enrich themselves out by their hair, and put out on the street to let the public deal with them, after all, it is our money that they are playing with.
I'm sorry if I seem a little too "vigilantee" for some, but when a guy like Bernie Madoff gets to wait in his multi-million dollars home while his case is being tried, well, I guess I can't help but to feel a little cynical. OOOOOOHHH, He's under "house arrest", big woop. The damn prick should be in prison getting butt raped by his new boyfriend for what he did to people.
If you check out Santelli's bio on CNBC you will see:
A veteran trader and financial executive, Santelli has provided live reports on the markets in print and on local and national radio and television. He joined CNBC from the Institutional Financial Futures and Options at Sanwa Futures, L.L.C. There, he was a vice president handling institutional trading and hedge accounts for a variety of futures related products.
Prior to that, Santelli worked as vice president of Institutional Futures and Options at Rand Financial Services, Inc., served as managing director at the Derivative Products Group of Geldermann, Inc., and was Vice President in charge of Interest Rate Futures and Options at the Chicago Board of Trade for Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Santelli began his career in 1979 as a trader and order filler at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a variety of markets including gold, lumber, CD's, T-bills, foreign currencies and livestock.
One can begin to imagine why Santelli is looking down on the working man, he was one of the scumbag douchebag's (hey that rhimes) that probably got huge bonuses for playing pin the tail on the donkey with the money that honest people gave him and trusted him with. What a douche.
Arianna Huffington (of Huffington Post fame) wrote a piece today about John King's rather lame weekend interview with Darth Vader (aka, Cheney). She imagined how Jon Stewart would have handled it. Kind of interesting.
The media (yep, CNN too, in a very big way), could learn a lot from Jon.
And Cheney, HA, I think that man is as close to Satan as you can get. His names says it all, DICK Cheney. CNN as well as other so called "news" outlets are, as someone said, just people relating press releases. They don't investigate, they don't put someone in the hot seat. Hell, most of the time the person being interviewed is given the list of questions that are going to be asked so they can prepare an answer. It's no wonder that I would rather watch monkeys throw feces at each other.
1. AIG was hemoraging money left and right.
2. Executives knew they were in financial trouble.
3. Execs paid out bonuses knowing that the company was hemoraging.
4. AIG requests TARP money.
5. Execs piss in the face of the public in general.
6. Go home, sit int heir million dollar homes, stoke themselves and laugh at us all.
That's what the list should look like if I was wrong in my previous assesment. Sorry for the mix up.
HE is the one who 'rebutted' and dug himself a big deep hole in the process. He is the one that took the topic from 'Who you calling a loser?!' to an examination of how the industry has a backdoor culture where the big money is made and uses everyone who invests real money in the market for their own gains regardless of the effect it has on these 'losers'.
Jon Stewart's righteous indignation at this practice and calling Cramer on his advocacy of it was entirely Cramer's fault.
So many Cramer defenders who obviously don't watch The Daily Show regularly. This all started out when the CNBC talking head called people who had gotten into bad mortgages 'losers' and the first TDS piece was about how often CNBC had been witless tools of the businesses that failed themselves. Cramer was just presented as one of many examples.
HE is the one who 'rebutted' and dug himself a big deep hole in the process. He is the one that took the topic from 'Who you calling a loser?!' to an examination of how the industry has a backdoor culture where the big money is made and uses everyone who invests real money in the market for their own gains regardless of the effect it has on these 'losers'.
Jon Stewart's righteous indignation at this practice and calling Cramer on his advocacy of it was entirely Cramer's fault.
Thanks for the history lesson that we all already know.
The fact that you interpreted that way just proves my point. Stewart wasn't interested in exposing the truth, he was just trying to "win". I could just as easily say "So many Cramer detractors who obviously don't watch Cramer's shows regularly." If you did, you would know what the source of that video is (a TV show Cramer does for the web called Wall Street Confidential, which is all about exposing what goes on in the markets), and you would know that the Cramer on this tape is the same Cramer on every other tape - the Cramer that has been trying to shine a light on the hedge fund world ever since he left it in 2001. Cramer is the one exposing this stuff, not Stewart.
Thanks for the history lesson that we all already know.
a TV show Cramer does for the web called Wall Street Confidential, which is all about exposing what goes on in the markets)
Ha! Funny a TV Show on the web. Cute.
What does that have to do with real television networks like CNBC, the network under discussion on the segment itself? And explaining how to do it and stating that you will probably get away with it is a very interesting light to shine. I'm sure it helped alert the FTC to the abuses.
Again, Cramer ended up in a situation of his own creation.
Ha! Funny a TV Show on the web. Cute.
What does that have to do with real television networks like CNBC, the network under discussion on the segment itself? And explaining how to do it and stating that you will probably get away with it is a very interesting light to shine. I'm sure it helped alert the FTC to the abuses.
Again, Cramer ended up in a situation of his own creation.
So, he should have been smart enough not to try to beat Stewart at his own game in his own arena. Yeah, no argument there. Santelli played that one right.
As to your implication that Cramer doesn't talk about that stuff outside of Wall Street Confidential, well, if you watched his show, you'd know that is not the case. He talks about it in his books and on all of his shows (yes, including on CNBC.)
I still don't understand your hatred towards Jon (self professed "snake oil"? Really, and not inside a joke? I happen to view Jon as a person with some integrity. Please show me wrong) and I still don't understand how you think Cramer is somehow innocent of his naiveté at selling stories to his CNBC viewers even knowing that most of them are stories to manipulate stocks. And even considering that Cramer's shots were "decontextualized", I can't imagine how better the story would be if contextualized.
Cramer didn't call for a change in the system, he simply told how to win the game. As if it was simply a game like Tetris. Now sorry if I cringe to that kind of amorality that one finds to be present in all the market ecosystem, and which I think is part of the problem on itself. Without any kind of morals except that you have to be a predator to win it, how could the system not collapse??
In a last defence of Jon, he did point out, "this song ain't about you". He was calling out the system. And the failure of CNBC reporting the real misdeeds done, while scapegoating ridiculously.
Also, missing from the thread was the first part, the intro of the interview. Here it is:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...m-cramer-pt.-1
Here Jon clearly makes the distinction from Cramer to CNBC. He said in the very beggining:
----
This was not directed to you per se, I just wanted to let you know that.
Cramer saying,
---
I'd encourage anyone in the hedge fund in doin' it, because it's legal, fast way to make money and very satisfying. BTW, no one else in the world would admit it, but I don't care.
---
How's that for a moral guy! Incredible.
Now, my purpose isn't to bash someone I don't even know. But what creeps me is that this is something that was epistemic. And to defend someone that had pleasure doin so, I'm sorry I don't understand. Even if that someone was useful in exposing the very stuff he had so pleasure doin.
One of the traders at Merrill Lynch, suggesting he was frightened by the uproar, supposedly asked if the company would pay for private security to protect him.
What a joke.