Cramer v. Stewart

How can cultural elitists like ourselves put TV in the Culture category? Well, where the hell else is it going to fit?
white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby white_rabbit » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:21 pm

I hear Jim Cramer played hockey in college.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:31 pm

Renee Gabel wrote:He's discussing hedge fund management....what's your point? You think he invented this?


My point is that he talks about basically lying to the SEC. My point is that he is as slimy as the rest of them, yet he has a program where he touts this. It's crap like this that helped get us in an economic mess. Just because they all do this or because "this is the way the system works" doesn't mean it's right. I have no problem with people making money. I would have no problem with making lots of money. I just choose to use ethics when I do it.

Renee Gabel
Forum Addict
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:25 am
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Renee Gabel » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:34 pm

white_rabbit wrote:I hear Jim Cramer played hockey in college.


At Harvard? Wow magna cum laude too.

Stuart has his work cut out for him tonight. I hear he wasn't much of a college man.

Renee Gabel
Forum Addict
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:25 am
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Renee Gabel » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:37 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Renee Gabel wrote:He's discussing hedge fund management....what's your point? You think he invented this?


My point is that he talks about basically lying to the SEC. My point is that he is as slimy as the rest of them, yet he has a program where he touts this. It's crap like this that helped get us in an economic mess. Just because they all do this or because "this is the way the system works" doesn't mean it's right. I have no problem with people making money. I would have no problem with making lots of money. I just choose to use ethics when I do it.


You must not have seen his show. He has never recommended shorting any stock on Mad Money. He is an ex-hedgefund manager. Emphasis on ex.

What is unethical about shorting a stock?

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:32 pm

Renee Gabel wrote:You must not have seen his show. He has never recommended shorting any stock on Mad Money. He is an ex-hedgefund manager. Emphasis on ex.


It's about his ethics. Ex or not this is his philosophy. I'm not saying this is any different than a lot of people out there giving advice. It's that he's a very manipulative person. As he said in the program:

about 2:14 into the segment.

"You can't create yourself an impression the stock is down, but you do it anyway cause the SEC doesn't understand it"

"that's the only sense that is illegal"

"it's just fiction and fiction and fiction"

about 6:05

"hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that can push it down, then leak it to the press, then get it on CNBC, that's also very important..."

Yes, I'm cherry picking just like Jon Stewart, but if you watch the whole thing, it's actually much worse. I've givin a link so anyone can watch and see what I "cherry pick"

Enough said. He is part of the pox on the financial system. In my opinion it is an f'ed up system that obviously failed with this exact type of philosophy.

It's not about the people who made bad investments. It's the people who made bad investments based on his(and other's) philosophy of investing.

donges
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1543
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:03 pm
Location: between the lines...
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby donges » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:43 pm

Renee Gabel wrote:Stuart has his work cut out for him tonight. I hear he wasn't much of a college man.


Actually, it was no contest at all. Stuart rained all over Cramer's parade.
Although why you insist on referring to him by his given middle name is beyond me.

Shipley
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:13 am
Location: college park, md
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Shipley » Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:09 pm

"Stuart" is the new "Hussein"

since they failed to turn us against Obama by invoking the name of an unpopular world leader, he's trying to turn us against the host of the Daily Show by invoking the name of the fat kid from Beavis and Butthead.

Image

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:55 am

That was a brutal ass whoopin'. Kramer seems to be pretty apologetic about his whole existence. Would be awesome to see him change his show into more of a watchdog than a cheerleader or at the very least equal parts of the two.

rrnate
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3674
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:33 pm
Location: Madison's Corporate Underbelly
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby rrnate » Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:26 am

fisticuffs wrote:That was a brutal ass whoopin'. Kramer seems to be pretty apologetic about his whole existence. Would be awesome to see him change his show into more of a watchdog than a cheerleader or at the very least equal parts of the two.


Yeah, no kidding. Kramer was completely tail-between-legs the entire time. Say what you will about Jon Stewart - the man is pretty damn articulate.

peapod888
Senior Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby peapod888 » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:37 am

I honestly thought Cramer was going to cry last night. A few times. I watched that entire interview with my jaw dropped. It was amazing. JS is not to be fucked with. I especially loved how it was like watching the two of them alone--Stewart was almost blocking off the audience with his body at points, he was so intensely concentrating on Cramer and really looking him in the face, calling him out on all these matters that it's obvious he really truly cares about and is angry about. I felt everything Stewart articulated was honest and from his heart, and I think Cramer felt nothing but shame because he actually realized JS was not fucking around. Yes, this turned into kind of a fun/silly battle royale of sorts...but ultimately, the issues are not silly or foolish, and last night kind of really put it into perspective. It was an excellent 30 minutes of TV. Did anyone watch the longer version interview? Is it worth it?

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby jjoyce » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:58 am

If making money on stocks, hedging or otherwise, in the '90s means you're an expert on the market, fine. Lots of people made a lot of money picking stocks during that time.

But make no mistake: When NBC puts Jim Cramer on at the top of the first hour of Today in his dress-up clothes speaking in serious tones, they're passing him off as an expert, not an entertainer.

If it took a comedian to expose him as a fraud, I'm fine with that. Seems to me that Stewart did the work Lauer should have been doing, but was likely warned by the suits not to do, which is ask the guy some questions.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby jjoyce » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:03 pm

Stewart, of course, makes the point way better than I could when he says that they're both selling snake oil, but Comedy Central is clearly labeled as such, whereas CNBC tries to pass itself off as news.

I mean, even ESPN retains the 'E'.

Kenneth Burns
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3089
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 3:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Kenneth Burns » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:06 pm

Stewart's "It's not a fucking game" line is memorable, but actually? If you invest retirement money in the stock market, you're making a bet, which is to say, you're playing a game. It's true that prudent investors have less and less of their portfolio in the stock market the older they get, but:

1) Many investors aren't prudent.

2) If you're a younger investor, below age 40 or so, and you followed the frequently dispensed advice to invest up to 80% or 90% of your portfolio in stocks or stock funds, there's a good chance you've been wiped out. You're basically starting over. So what good was the advice? A bull market that lasted a generation and change suggested that stocks were a good bet. They weren't.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7041
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby Marvell » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:14 pm

jjoyce wrote:If it took a comedian to expose him as a fraud, I'm fine with that. Seems to me that Stewart did the work Lauer should have been doing, but was likely warned by the suits not to do, which is ask the guy some questions.



Or that, in a different context (and with equally dire results), Tim Russert should have done.

Glenn Grenwald nails this.

Journalism - you journalists should look into it.

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Cramer v. Stewart

Postby O.J. » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:25 pm

Renee Gabel wrote: You are helping me make my point that idiots will be idiots and will always try to blame someone else for it. Cramer didn't make anyone buy a stock. Blaming him for being an idiot is douchebaggery.


Please show me where I blamed Jim Cramer for anything. I don't know why you're flying off the hanlde by correctly labeling him as a stock picker; I don't use the term pejoratively.

A google search for "stock picker" reveals this:


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... ock+picker

If you look at related searches at the bottom, 3 out of the 8 pertain to Jim Cramer. That should serve as some indication.

The most basic, simple definition of a stock picker is one who thinks s/he can beat the overall market, and thus invests in individual stocks instead of broad-based mutual or index funds.


Return to “TV”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests