Stewart Vs Cramer on Daily Show, march 12.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The funds managers just watched the dow nearly halve in value; they may be very, very good, but they just did very, very badly. Nearly every major player was holding dynamite, and anyone who told them so was either ignored, or just drowned out.

Neither true nor good logic. And simplistic to boot.

Not true since the majority of the economy did not buy bad paper. Indeed the majority of the economy does not buy any paper at all, they manufacture, provide services, generate raw materials, grow food, fight fires, teach schools, etc., ad nauseum. The part of the economy that was shuffling paper around was primarily the banking sector. Since the rest of the economy relies on the banking sector to furnish the liquidity that keeps everything flowing, when the banking sector tanked, it tanked everything. Poor logic since blaming everyone for the problem is like blaming the passengers on the bus for a crash caused by driver error. The passengers may depend on the driver to get them to their destination, but it is not their responsibility to monitor the driver.

Simplistic because the balance between a laissez faire economy and complete state control is not a binary issue. There is a broad spectrum of needed and unneeded regulations (look at India). A slight relaxation of a strong state control can generate a robust economy (China). A system can run well under one set of controls (or none) and then go amok (US stocks '29 and finances -- most recently last fall). Sometimes the indicators of impending disaster are there but not seen (the dot com bubble) sometimes they are ignored. As often as not, there are honest differences of opinion. And, often, the disaster has many contributing factors, some of which (two unnecessary wars, a moron in the White House, and poor understanding of globalization by all levels of the American people) are, strictly speaking, outside of 'economy'.

The mess we're in now is as much the fault of 'bad vibes' as it is of 'bad paper'. A mattress is not the equivalent of a bank, but if many believe it is then that is where the money will be instead of funding an economy.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The mess we're in now is as much the fault of 'bad vibes' as it is of 'bad paper'. A mattress is not the equivalent of a bank, but if many believe it is then that is where the money will be instead of funding an economy.

I would also add one additional thought to what you said. One sudden change in the rules, or the supply or demand of a commodity by a government, the world banking sector, or by a large portion of the worlds populations can cause every stock to change value simultaneously. You may have investments that are in decline so you move to a currency position (ah,but which one that isn't also in decline?) before you decide where to invest. If it looks like all stock, or bond investment options are money losers, then you need to move into something that will appreciate in value (e.g. precious metals). In times of uncertainty, sometimes the best bet it to move your asset into the most stable currency available and wait out the storm. That is what I think the smart people are doing now.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That is what I think the smart people are doing now.

It looks like people are doing all sorts of things. Buying cheap houses and renting them out at cost (or even a slight loss) with the intention of flipping them for a profit later. Looking for bargain stocks that are solid companies or have good products but are grossly undervalued because of the market. The key parameter is time. As Ashock pointed out, anyone trying to make a living on the market right now is probably screwed. But, for people that have money to invest, time for those investments to grow (and the economy to recover), a willingness to diversify, and the ability to do research, now is a bargain shopper's paradise.

As for 'smart people', we can see what they are doing now, but we'll have to wait till later to see if they are truly smart.;)

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

Even the TV professionals get burned (Cramer on Bear Stearns), Geraldo (weekly), or dead (Steve Irwin vs Sting Ray) on occasion. I think Jon Stewart is doing the comedians version of the WWF. All showmanship, good entertainment, with everyone walking away richer and good friends.

I'm wondering if we saw the same episode. I'm wondering if we're even seing the same show here. You did watch the episode right?

The whole tiff didnt start with Cramer, it was originally with Rick Santelli's ahem, loud musings. For some reason, Cramer thought it was all about him. At one point of the episode, Stewart even said this isn't really about Cramer's sideshow antics, or his stock picks at CNBC.

And 'walking away richer and good friends?' Do you have any evidence of that? I'm just curious here. I know Stewart is most likely doing way better financially than me. But I really have a hard time believing off camera, Stewart and someone like say... Tucker Carlson are lighting each other's cigar with 100$ bills and back-slapping each other.

This is in fact the same case I would make about Coulter, Franken, or any other "pundit". They are there to make some money, promote a book, and keep themselves in the spotlight.

There's one important difference here IMO. Stewart and Colbert never hides the fact that they play fake journalist and hyper-pundit (in the case of Colbert). The biggest joke of all being with that admission alone, they seem to have more honesty than most of the current media puppets and stooges.

My experience has been that the TV is not a very good window on the world.

TV does produce a lot of dross, but so does a lot of other media. It didn't create a masterpiece like say, Demolition Man. But here's some IMO, some good shows that may give people pause before dismissing all TV as the idiot box.

- Mad Men
- The Wire
- South Park (IMO, season 3 upwards is when they really started to sharpen and shine.)
- The Simpsons Halloween and Christmas Specials
- Battlestar Galactica (the new one)

edited to fix quote tags.

[kandrathe]

I'm wondering if we saw the same episode. I'm wondering if we're even seeing the same show here. You did watch the episode right?

Yes, and I went back and watched the context of all the little clips as well.

The whole tiff didnt start with Cramer, it was originally with Rick Santelli's ahem, loud musings. For some reason, Cramer thought it was all about him. At one point of the episode, Stewart even said this isn't really about Cramer's sideshow antics, or his stock picks at CNBC.

Rick is one entertaining opinionated guy.

And 'walking away richer and good friends?' Do you have any evidence of that? I'm just curious here.

The evidence is clear to see in "The Daily Show's" ratings. "The episode received a large amount of media hype and became Comedy Central's second most-viewed episode of The Daily Show trailing only the 2009 Inauguration Day episode. It had 2.3 million total viewers and the next day The Daily Show website saw its highest day of traffic up to that point in the year." -- Wikipedia. CNBC's "Mad Money" is as close to comedy as a financial news network is going to get, and one of their highest rated shows. During the squabble there is evidence that the college crowd tuned in to CNBC more just to see the hullabaloo. This mock feud has been good for both networks, according to numbers I saw at http://tvbythenumbers.com

I know Stewart is most likely doing way better financially than me. But I really have a hard time believing off camera, Stewart and someone like say... Tucker Carlson are lighting each other's cigar with 100$ bills and back-slapping each other.

In that case, I think Tucker holds a grudge. But, Jon was right, and the show was soon canceled because it was everything that Jon said it was. Jon Stewart has many "unlikely" friends.

There's one important difference here IMO. Stewart and Colbert never hides the fact that they play fake journalist and hyper-pundit (in the case of Colbert). The biggest joke of all being with that admission alone, they seem to have more honesty than most of the current media puppets and stooges.

Well, true. But, in the spirit of Roy Rogers or Samuel Clemens, it is political satire which still has an underlaying theme and message.

It didn't create a masterpiece like say, Demolition Man.

I would never make that claim, however, it is on my "guilty pleasures" list because of the performances other than Stallone's. It was formulaic, and the lead role required a macho "one liner" spewing muscle headed muscle bound hero.

Mad Men, The Wire, South Park, The Simpsons Halloween and Christmas Specials, Battlestar Galactica

I haven't seen these. I'm tired of sifting through 100's of channels filled with crap to find a few pearls only to be victim to the whims of the producers scheduling and advertisers product placements. So now, if I hear about some good, I rent the DVD's or get it streamed on demand.

Edit: It was interesting to note on tvbythenumbers.com that "WWE Raw" was week by week one of the highest watched shows. What is better than raw muscle, sex and violence all wrapped up in one format? So, when I compare the fake drama of "Stewart vs Cramer" to the WWE, you can see what we are dealing with. Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but TV (to me) is all about the psychology of how to strap you to a chair to distract you while implanting suggestions on where you should spend your money.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I haven't seen these. I'm tired of sifting through 100's of channels filled with crap to find a few pearls only to be victim to the whims of the producers scheduling and advertisers product placements.

TiVo was my downfall. Used to be, I'd turn on the TV, channel surf, find nothing interesting and be on my way. Occasionally I'd stumble onto something worthwhile, but first commercial break I'd go off and start doing something interesting. By the time I got back, the show would be over.

Then my good friend and father of my goddaughters sabotaged me one Christmas and gave me a TiVo with lifetime membership. Knowing my attitude to TV, he even installed it and initialized the account. Plus he picked a few shows to record.

Since then, my TV viewing has increased manifold. I've gained 50 unneeded pounds. My endurance is down to zero. Neurons are daily dieing at an amazing rate. My thought processes are getting less and less rational. I'm a junk addict.

In the 'misery loves company' mode, I highly recommend TiVo to all.;)

--Pete

[Kevin]

Since then, my TV viewing has increased manifold. I've gained 50 unneeded pounds. My endurance is down to zero. Neurons are daily dieing at an amazing rate. My thought processes are getting less and less rational. I'm a junk addict.

In the 'misery loves company' mode, I highly recommend TiVo to all.;)

--Pete

To continue the tangent, what shows do you watch on your TiVo?

[--Pete]

Hi,

To continue the tangent, what shows do you watch on your TiVo?

Hmm? I've got to show you mine first, eh?

OK. No specific order:

All flavors of Law & Order
Criminal Minds
Without a Trace
Boston Legal
NCIS
House
Numb3rs
Heroes
Chuck
Jeopardy
Good Eats
Las Vegas
Wheel of Fortune (but only the intro to check out Vana's dress:))
Leverage
Mythbusters

That's it for my season passes. I'll check the History channel about once a week and grab anything there I think I'll like. I check out the educational channels for series or classes (found a good intro to law class for paralegals and a great art history class there). Those I have to program by time and duration. I'll grab the occasional broadcast (e.g., Obama's address to the nation).

Playing around with a few news broadcasts (AC 360 is in the lead) to see if I can find somewhere that has a high news to crap ratio. Jury is still out on that one.

For the last three, four years I haven't been able to see much, so mostly I enjoy shows that are 'radio with pictures'. The more I actually have to watch, the less comfortable it has been.

Like I said, I'm a junk junky;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

NCIS, Mythbusters

I like those. I also started watching "Burn Notice", which is sort of a Mission Impossible meets Bay Watch kind of thing with guns, intrigue and hot bodies. I caught last seasons "True Blood" on "HBO series", and then I decided to try Alan Ball's earlier series "Six Feet Under" which was great in the beginning, but then after season one it kept getting worse(heavier on the soap opera drama, less wry dark humor) each week so I stopped after season two when it was obvious that all the main characters were flawed and headed for a train wreck.

I'll check the History channel about once a week and grab anything there I think I'll like. I check out the educational channels for series or classes (found a good intro to law class for paralegals and a great art history class there).

Ditto.

[Hammerskjold]

The evidence is clear to see in "The Daily Show's" ratings.

Uh, yes? The intro of the episode even explicitly says something like '...in an attempt to drive up ratings so Comedy Central can raise it's advertising rate!'. If your claim is by getting higher ratings the show (or any show) can get more money and Stewart & Co. can get a higher salary, well yeah. That's how the game usually works.

Your original assertion however, makes it sound as if it's all a conspiracy, and Stewart is rubbing his hands in glee after the show, all monocled in his diamond encrusted tuxedo. I just don't see that description fitting him, granted that's only based on what little I know about the man personally. Maybe he does have a diamond tuxedo.

However, I do see your original claim fitting better for someone like, Rupert Murdoch. Now that's a man who knows how to game and play all sides. Considering under the Fox Network, he owns both Fox News and the myriad of shows that viewers can complain about, usually to Fox News. Give him a really puffball lap cat, and we can have a real life Bond villain right there.

I'm tired of sifting through 100's of channels filled with crap to find a few pearls only to be victim to the whims of the producers scheduling and advertisers product placements. So now, if I hear about some good, I rent the DVD's or get it streamed on demand.

I think we should differentiate between the shows and their creator, versus the people who are in charge of scheduling and advertising here. The idiots who say, consign a good show to timeslot hell to die a slow death, are rarely if ever the creators. FWIW, DVDs, web streaming and TIVO are threatening these 2 legged lampreys, and I for one hope the sooner the axe falls for these idiotic parasites, the better.

Edit: It was interesting to note on tvbythenumbers.com that "WWE Raw" was week by week one of the highest watched shows. What is better than raw muscle, sex and violence all wrapped up in one format? So, when I compare the fake drama of "Stewart vs Cramer" to the WWE, you can see what we are dealing with.

Look, Stewart vs Cramer was not Nixon vs Frost. But the kernel of the episode, was not a showdown between the two. To reduce it down to 'oh it's just fake drama like WWE', is to overlook what the episode was really about. Besides, Cramer's pythons would not qualify him in Wrassling anyway, though he'd make a great manager archetype. Stewart probably couldn't cut it either, in or out of the ring. Now Colbert on the other hand...

[kandrathe]

Uh, yes? The intro of the episode even explicitly says something like '...in an attempt to drive up ratings so Comedy Central can raise it's advertising rate!'. If your claim is by getting higher ratings the show (or any show) can get more money and Stewart & Co. can get a higher salary, well yeah. That's how the game usually works.

Your original assertion however, makes it sound as if it's all a conspiracy, and Stewart is rubbing his hands in glee after the show, all monocled in his diamond encrusted tuxedo. I just don't see that description fitting him, granted that's only based on what little I know about the man personally. Maybe he does have a diamond tuxedo.

If I made $14 million a year, I'd at least have a tuxedo. Yes, I was assuming you understood how the game is played, and it is probable that Jon's contract as executive producer is tied to ratings and number of viewers. It would only be a conspiracy if CNBC and Viacom, Stewart's people and Cramer's people got together and calculated the risk/reward ratios.

However, I do see your original claim fitting better for someone like, Rupert Murdoch. Now that's a man who knows how to game and play all sides. Considering under the Fox Network, he owns both Fox News and the myriad of shows that viewers can complain about, usually to Fox News. Give him a really puffball lap cat, and we can have a real life Bond villain right there.

Whatever does it for you. Personally, I feel most fortune 500 CEO's would make good Bond villains, but then, I'm a cynics cynic.

I think we should differentiate between the shows and their creator, versus the people who are in charge of scheduling and advertising here. The idiots who say, consign a good show to timeslot hell to die a slow death, are rarely if ever the creators. FWIW, DVDs, web streaming and TIVO are threatening these 2 legged lampreys, and I for one hope the sooner the axe falls for these idiotic parasites, the better.

I agree. I was general and lumped the blood suckers in with the people who occasionally beat the system and get to produce something artistic.

Look, Stewart vs Cramer was not Nixon vs Frost. But the kernel of the episode, was not a showdown between the two. To reduce it down to 'oh it's just fake drama like WWE', is to overlook what the episode was really about. Besides, Cramer's pythons would not qualify him in Wrassling anyway, though he'd make a great manager archetype. Stewart probably couldn't cut it either, in or out of the ring. Now Colbert on the other hand...

Again, I'm a cynic, so I see most TV talk shows (Daily Show, Crossfire, Mad Money) as just cerebral"Wrasslin". They all seek to entertain with fake drama. Journalism and truth is dead, and to feign anger at Cramer for being an entertaining fool is... "Wrassling" to me. You even adopted subconciously the metaphor in your original post, "K.O. moments of the night for me..." I'm agreeing with your metaphor and calling it real.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Personally, I feel most fortune 500 CEO's would make good Bond villains, but then, I'm a cynics cynic.

Naw. Bond villains are smart and cool. Fortune 500 CEOs are, by and large, neither. They need better writers, and (in at least one case) better hairdressers.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

If I made $14 million a year, I'd at least have a tuxedo.

But does he have a diamond encrusted one, is the real question. At 14 mil a year, a regular tux can probably be used as a lobster bib.

You even adopted subconciously the metaphor in your original post, "K.O. moments of the night for me..." I'm agreeing with your metaphor and calling it real.

Subconciously? Let's leave the Freud analysis to uh, Freud I guess. I consciously used K.O., because I happen to think the subtitle of the episode was pretty punlicious, eg: Brawl Street..etc.

While there was adversarial aspects to the episode, I'll repeat this again for the last time. That's not the most important point of the episode, and it became increasingly clear near the end. Jon's 'feigned anger' was not all directed at Cramer's antics or his stock picks.

When Stewart said something like, 'When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work, that we're workers. ' He probably wasn't talking about a commie idea of heaven. My impression is he's talking about the almost hustler\compulsive gambling mentality that enabled some the high finance captains to think in short term profits, at all costs. That's what resonated with me when Jon said, '...this is not a f**king game'.

Journalism is dead? Depends on how you define that I guess. Cronkite and Murrow style journalism simply won't fly nowadays. Murrow is long dead, and not all journo talking heads look at Cronkite as a model to emulate. The Truth? Well without it becoming a big philosophical wank on 'what is truth'.

In a marketplace full of hawkers proclaiming they have the Truth, unvarnished and with a capital T. I'd pay more attention to the people who shouts,'snake oil! Get your snake oil here! We got snake oil!'.

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
Naw. Bond villains are smart and cool. Fortune 500 CEOs are, by and large, neither. They need better writers, and (in at least one case) better hairdressers.

--Pete

/weird NYorkian accent

Mr. Bond.

Yer Fired.

-insert improbable Bondian escape thanks to ludicrous but entertaining gadget action scene

GET HIM! GET HIM!
He has my plans for the Global Casino Golf resorts!1111

- jump cut and extreme close up shot of the beautiful bombshell in the employ of the villain, Mr. Crump, who has fallen in love with Bond. Facial expression should be one of concern for her newfound love, and conflicting loyalty to her employer, mr. Crump.

-pan down to awesome cleavage. Hold for 5 sec. Consult with test audience here for longer or shorter duration of shot.

- action shot of bond parachuting down into (car model to be announced, see producers memo) cue theme music. Insert one liner here, something to do with real estate value or something.

[--Pete]

Hi,

/weird NYorkian accent

Mr. Bond.

Yer Fired.

-insert improbable Bondian escape thanks to ludicrous but entertaining gadget action scene

GET HIM! GET HIM!
He has my plans for the Global Casino Golf resorts!1111

- jump cut and extreme close up shot of the beautiful bombshell in the employ of the villain, Mr. Crump, who has fallen in love with Bond. Facial expression should be one of concern for her newfound love, and conflicting loyalty to her employer, mr. Crump.

-pan down to awesome cleavage. Hold for 5 sec. Consult with test audience here for longer or shorter duration of shot.

- action shot of bond parachuting down into (car model to be announced, see producers memo) cue theme music. Insert one liner here, something to do with real estate value or something.

Now THAT's what I'm talking about!

Suggestion for one liner just before parachuting: "I guess it's another down market."

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

Suggestion for one liner just before parachuting: "I guess it's another down market."

==Pete

^
|
|
|

Pure. Win.

[kandrathe]

... When Stewart said something like, 'When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work, that we're workers. ' He probably wasn't talking about a commie idea of heaven. My impression is he's talking about the almost hustler\compulsive gambling mentality that enabled some the high finance captains to think in short term profits, at all costs. That's what resonated with me when Jon said, '...this is not a f**king game'.

... In a marketplace full of hawkers proclaiming they have the Truth, unvarnished and with a capital T. I'd pay more attention to the people who shouts,'snake oil! Get your snake oil here! We got snake oil!'.

Your two statements above summarize the crux of what I'm saying. Cramer is not to blame for selling snake oil, nor is CNBC. Wealth is (usually) the precious collected sweat of labor, and if you want it only to remain inviolate you sew it into your mattress. If you only ever want it to increase, you buy very safe AAA municipal bonds or other low yield long term products with guaranteed payouts. When 1% per annum ROI is not enough and if you want to take risks with your money, then you play the stock market, and that includes many of those safe looking mutual funds. When you start tuning into CNBC for ideas on how to safely take risks, then you are a fool twice over. First for thinking CNBC has your answer, and secondly for believing you will be the smart one who makes the risky safe choice. Jon Stewart mistake is the same one you appear to be making, in that entertaining TV shows offer some insight into reality. People who work on Wall Street might watch CNBC for it's entertainment value, but from my experience, any news on CNBC is old news or wrong news. Buyer beware, and in the fine print they make no claims or warranties.

My problem with Wall Street is that their focus is quarterly, rather than on decades. They suffer the double flaws of myopia and tunnel vision. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . if you want it only to remain inviolate you sew it into your mattress.

Yeah, and if you're lucky, you'll only lose the 1.5 to 3 percent of recent years' inflation. Go back to the Ford and Carter years, and you could lose money in a mattress almost as fast as in commodities.

If you only ever want it to increase, you buy very safe AAA municipal bonds or other low yield long term products with guaranteed payouts. When 1% per annum ROI is not enough and if you want to take risks with your money, then you play the stock market, and that includes many of those safe looking mutual funds.

You make it sound as if you should decide how to invest, then put all your money there. Not a bad idea if, like me over most of my life, you didn't much care. In retrospect, if a person really gives a damn, he should figure out a pyramid suitable for his age and condition, and then play that peak for whatever it is worth. As they say in Vegas, you can't win if you don't play.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

When you start tuning into CNBC for ideas on how to safely take risks, then you are a fool twice over. First for thinking CNBC has your answer, and secondly for believing you will be the smart one who makes the risky safe choice. Jon Stewart mistake is the same one you appear to be making, in that entertaining TV shows offer some insight into reality.

Since you seem to be stuck on arguing that Stewart is blaming everything on Cramer \ CNBC, we'll just leave it here since there's nothing new to be said on this angle.

And no, I didn't lose any stock because I followed what Cramer\CNBC said. It's impossible, since I don't own any stock. (Though that Stark Enterprise tip sounds hot.) And contrary to your belief, I watched Cramer and the Money Honeys for the entertainment value, and I don't work on Wall Street. I got friends and relatives who worked in the financial industry, but that's about it.

Is it that strange to you that some people can watch CNBC\money programs for entertainment, without looking for stock tips or be in the industry? And I doubt I even have to explain about the Money Honeys. The Ramones even sang a song about Maria Bartiromo. Last I looked, they didn't work on Wall Street either.

I also watched 'DogFight' on the History Channel, are you going to ask me why I do if I'm not in the Air Force?

But whatever, we're in danger of becoming this cartoon.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

My problem with Wall Street is that their focus is quarterly, rather than on decades. They suffer the double flaws of myopia and tunnel vision. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.

Yes, it's been one of my dislikes for quite a while. I'm not sure if we've even hit the nadir yet. In all seriousness, I hope if that comes it will happen sooner than later, because the longer it goes on the nastier it can potentially be. Gallows humour: In these kinds of times, job security seems to be a security job.

[kandrathe]

Yes, it's been one of my dislikes for quite a while. I'm not sure if we've even hit the nadir yet. In all seriousness, I hope if that comes it will happen sooner than later, because the longer it goes on the nastier it can potentially be. Gallows humour: In these kinds of times, job security seems to be a security job.

Silver Lining:The price of metals has dropped dramatically now that industry has come to a crashing halt. My sculptures are costing much less to cast these days. I wonder how some long term investors, like Mr. Buffet, are doing in these times.