Stewart Vs Cramer on Daily Show, march 12.

[Hammerskjold]

Pretty good interview on thursday night.

On my scorecard at least, I give the 'Brawl Street: Buy Low Sell DIE' match to Stewart.

K.O. moments of the night for me, was when Stewart said to Cramer something like, '...I get that you want to make finance entertaining...but this is not a f***ing game.'

Cramer seemed to be playing a mix of 90% pity me, mea culpa mode, 10% passive agressive counter attack. Hmm, counter attack seemed too strong a word actually, maybe counter whining at times.

I just don't buy what Cramer was trying to sell at first, the cratering economy is a once in a lifetime tsunami etc, and Stewart IMO, systematically cleaned his clock on that one. At one moment I wasn't sure if Stewart was naively asking which side CNBC is on (the answer is kinda obvious, I used to watch MSNBC money programs mostly for the laughs, but you can figure out easily who the target audience is, and it ain't 'main street') or was Stewart raising a point but couching it in a question.

But to me that pales in comparison to Cramer's counter point of 'they lied to me...some CEOs have lied to me...' I don't know which one is more sad, Cramer trying to play a wounded doe eyed innocent who got fleeced by some mean lying CEOs. Or the slim possibility that he really was that gullible.

Near the end it was almost painful to watch, Cramer's face at times almost looked liked he was asking for a mercy kill.

Then I remembered what Cramer's show and other 'Money Programs' was like when I had access to the MSNBC channel. :P Aw hell, I mostly watched it for the Money Honeys anyway.:wub:

[kandrathe]

Pretty good interview on thursday night.

On my scorecard at least, I give the 'Brawl Street: Buy Low Sell DIE' match to Stewart.

K.O. moments of the night for me, was when Stewart said to Cramer something like, '...I get that you want to make finance entertaining...but this is not a f***ing game.'

Cramer seemed to be playing a mix of 90% pity me, mea culpa mode, 10% passive agressive counter attack. Hmm, counter attack seemed too strong a word actually, maybe counter whining at times.

I just don't buy what Cramer was trying to sell at first, the cratering economy is a once in a lifetime tsunami etc, and Stewart IMO, systematically cleaned his clock on that one. At one moment I wasn't sure if Stewart was naively asking which side CNBC is on (the answer is kinda obvious, I used to watch MSNBC money programs mostly for the laughs, but you can figure out easily who the target audience is, and it ain't 'main street') or was Stewart raising a point but couching it in a question.

But to me that pales in comparison to Cramer's counter point of 'they lied to me...some CEOs have lied to me...' I don't know which one is more sad, Cramer trying to play a wounded doe eyed innocent who got fleeced by some mean lying CEOs. Or the slim possibility that he really was that gullible.

Near the end it was almost painful to watch, Cramer's face at times almost looked liked he was asking for a mercy kill.

Then I remembered what Cramer's show and other 'Money Programs' was like when I had access to the MSNBC channel. :P Aw hell, I mostly watched it for the Money Honeys anyway.:wub:

When I used to play the market, and kept my ear to the ground it became obvious that you should do the opposite of what they recommended on the TV shows. After anyone recommended a stock I would always calculate its asset/debt and income/debt ratios, and mostly the recommendations were over valued already. As you might expect they were always reporting on things in the past. Like, it would have been good to have bought this stock 2 months ago... This resulted in maybe a small up tick followed by a massive profit taking. I eventually started earning money when I would just analyze companies for value, and stability then invest in the unknowns that had upside potential. A good strategy is to try to predict what will happen in the future, then choose the companies who are in the best position to make that happen. For example, we know that wind energy will be a much more important component in the US electrical supply. Who makes and maintains wind turbines, power lines, etc? The investor can be blind sided by corporate fraud, which is why 10-K and 10-Q reports are required and are now signed by the CEO and CFO. You can still get blind sided, but at least the CEO and CFO are held culpable now.

[Ashock]

Pretty good interview on thursday night.

On my scorecard at least, I give the 'Brawl Street: Buy Low Sell DIE' match to Stewart.

K.O. moments of the night for me, was when Stewart said to Cramer something like, '...I get that you want to make finance entertaining...but this is not a f***ing game.'

Cramer seemed to be playing a mix of 90% pity me, mea culpa mode, 10% passive agressive counter attack. Hmm, counter attack seemed too strong a word actually, maybe counter whining at times.

I just don't buy what Cramer was trying to sell at first, the cratering economy is a once in a lifetime tsunami etc, and Stewart IMO, systematically cleaned his clock on that one. At one moment I wasn't sure if Stewart was naively asking which side CNBC is on (the answer is kinda obvious, I used to watch MSNBC money programs mostly for the laughs, but you can figure out easily who the target audience is, and it ain't 'main street') or was Stewart raising a point but couching it in a question.

But to me that pales in comparison to Cramer's counter point of 'they lied to me...some CEOs have lied to me...' I don't know which one is more sad, Cramer trying to play a wounded doe eyed innocent who got fleeced by some mean lying CEOs. Or the slim possibility that he really was that gullible.

Near the end it was almost painful to watch, Cramer's face at times almost looked liked he was asking for a mercy kill.

Then I remembered what Cramer's show and other 'Money Programs' was like when I had access to the MSNBC channel. :P Aw hell, I mostly watched it for the Money Honeys anyway.:wub:

In my first career, I worked for Prudential Securities and PaineWebber for a combined total of 10 years and let me tell you something.... When the market is fine, there are numerous ways of making money. There are various ways of outperforming the market. Many people can appear to be financial geniuses. Cramer, Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch etc etc etc. Everyone has their winning strategies, and the better money managers really can make a difference. BTW, Cramer has always annoyed me, and he is more a showman than an analyst. That's not my point however.

Here's what most people do not understand. When the market is bad, nobody knows #$%&. Nobody.

[DeeBye]

Cramer told me to sell Stark Industries, because they are a weapons manufacturer that no longer manufacturers weapons.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Cramer told me to sell Stark Industries, because they are a weapons manufacturer that no longer manufacturers weapons.

My first name is Tony, and I work at a weapons company (one that does manfuacture weapons). Maybe I can build myself a powered armor suit. I've got a roll of aluminum foil in the drawer. Well, a partial one.

[Frag]

Saw the episode a moment ago and my first impression is that Stewart must have been a journalism professor at some point. Second impression is that Cramer was truly nervous. The waver voice, his eyes averting, the nervous tick of his neck to the left. It seemed obvious to my wife & I that Cramer is not a man, despite his antics and high drama on TV, used to or comfortable with confrontation. The body language was so damning that even if he would have come back at Stewart with some good retorts he still would have lost the PR war. You're absolutely right, Hammerskjold, Cramer did the mea culpa thing a bit too much, and that combined with the body language reminded us of a 'tween' being scolded.

Some of the zingers Stewart had are still giving me pause,

~FragB)

[Jester]

Cramer's big insult in the leadup to the interview was that Jon Stewart was a "comedian".

Well, Lear's fool was just a fool, but that didn't make any difference in the end.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Saw the episode a moment ago and my first impression is that Stewart must have been a journalism professor at some point. Second impression is that Cramer was truly nervous. The waver voice, his eyes averting, the nervous tick of his neck to the left. It seemed obvious to my wife & I that Cramer is not a man, despite his antics and high drama on TV, used to or comfortable with confrontation. The body language was so damning that even if he would have come back at Stewart with some good retorts he still would have lost the PR war. You're absolutely right, Hammerskjold, Cramer did the mea culpa thing a bit too much, and that combined with the body language reminded us of a 'tween' being scolded.

Some of the zingers Stewart had are still giving me pause,

~FragB)

While I don't disagree with you at all. I do have to say that Cramer is somewhat like that all the time. The waver in the voice especially. But you could see it in the clips that were run on the show and I've seen him in other things as well, even his own show. He just has a bit of natural "I'm scared" look and feel to him.

All that being said I still think your analysis was spot on. I had watched the whole week building up to it (a day or so late on each show since I have no cable/satellite T.V. and just watch it on Hulu) but didn't get to the see the interview till yesterday either. Cramer was worse that usual, even when you factor in his base state which makes him already looked nervous and scared.

Of course as Jon said, all week long, Cramer was just the face of it, he was not happy with the network as a whole and he is in some ways pining for the old days of broadcast news and the very early days of CNN when the news wasn't about ratings but about news and reporters and anchors did a better job of hiding their personal bias. Jon has been on that horse his whole career and it's often the angle he attacks news agencies with. We want to trust you, so give us a reason to and don't abuse us too much and we will be your sheep, it's not that hard. He often questions his "real" interview guests in a similar manner.

I've thought at times that I wish he were in "real" news but rapidly realized he couldn't do it and it would just eat him up too. I'll take him doing his fake news, and fighting his small causes in his own way. Yes, his goal is to entertain but he knows his platform has more power than that, and I feel he tries to use it about as much as he can with out abusing it. He'll stand up when he feels he needs to and that makes him all the more enjoyable to watch for me.

[kandrathe]

Cramer's big insult in the leadup to the interview was that Jon Stewart was a "comedian".

Well, Lear's fool was just a fool, but that didn't make any difference in the end.

I think it is a big mistake to treat anything on the TV as much more than entertainment.

In that regard, Stewart vs Kramer is a cock fight for our amusement.

[Jester]

I think it is a big mistake to treat anything on the TV as much more than entertainment.

In that regard, Stewart vs Kramer is a cock fight for our amusement.

I'm not sure that's fair. Jon Stewart has a point here, and it's more important than just comedy for us to laugh at. The media hype created by the business networks' bloviation has actual consequences for the market, and they deserve some of the blame for what's happened. They're supposed to be acting as the public's source of information, and instead, they're acting as free advertising for the business elite.

In a world where everyone was appropriately skeptical, their role would be trivial. People like Cramer get up on TV, do their song and dance (in his case, literally) and nobody pays any attention. But in our world, this all has market implications. When the speculative chickens come home to roost, it hurts the real economy.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure that's fair.

I think you are actually agreeing with kandrathe here. He stated, "I think it is a big mistake to treat anything on the TV as much more than entertainment." You say, "In a world where everyone was appropriately skeptical, their role would be trivial." Seems to me that the two are pretty well equivalent. In a world of skeptics, people would treat TV as entertainment, and the role of pundits (of all stripes) would be trivial.

It seems to me that kandrathe approached the issue from the problem side, you from the solution side.

My only original comment is that I get four educational channels, a couple of c-span channels, Discovery, and The History Channel. Throw in the occasional abs and buns workout infomercial :w00t:and TV is not *all* bad.

--Pete

[sojourn]

No TV for me here.. I tend to get by with my daily feed on the net..
I even download tv episodes on torrents instead of watching it on the tv!
Maybe I should grab one of those tuners..

[kandrathe]

But in our world, this all has market implications. When the speculative chickens come home to roost, it hurts the real economy.

I don't think that is true. Any serious investor would do their homework and not rely on some TV entertainer to make your decisions on serious life matters. If you do blindly follow TV advice, then you deserve to get burned. 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.

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. Sometimes they do that by being friendly and provide interesting color commentary, and sometimes they do that by play fighting with each other. In the end, they laugh, and go back and count their money. My experience has been that the TV is not a very good window on the world.

[Jester]

I don't think that is true. Any serious investor would do their homework and not rely on some TV entertainer to make your decisions on serious life matters. If you do blindly follow TV advice, then you deserve to get burned. 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.

If "any serious investor" wasn't following the herd along with the rest of the nodding heads, then the world is experiencing a dire shortage of serious investors. The market got burned every bit as badly as any TV pundit. The argument that they deserved it probably has merit; the argument that they were too smart to buy in to the bunk they were selling on TV (and not just TV) surely does not, looking at the state of things.

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. Sometimes they do that by being friendly and provide interesting color commentary, and sometimes they do that by play fighting with each other. In the end, they laugh, and go back and count their money. My experience has been that the TV is not a very good window on the world.

Al Franken is no longer in the pundit class, having advanced up the ranks to US Senator.

-Jester

[Frag]

Al Franken is no longer in the pundit class, having advanced up the ranks to US Senator.

-Jester

As a daily listener to Minnnesota Public Radio, I take umbrage to such assertions! Minnesota still does not have a second senator, as the three judge panel (that presided over the election contest) is in deliberations and will likely be there for some time.

Oy Vey,
~Frag:lol:

[Jester]

As a daily listener to Minnnesota Public Radio, I take umbrage to such assertions! Minnesota still does not have a second senator, as the three judge panel (that presided over the election contest) is in deliberations and will likely be there for some time.

Fair enough, this one isn't quite over yet. However, it's looking pretty good for Franken. He's been certified, and unless Coleman can pull one heck of a rabbit out of his hat, this contest is pretty much over.

-Jester

[Frag]

Fair enough, this one isn't quite over yet. However, it's looking pretty good for Franken. He's been certified, and unless Coleman can pull one heck of a rabbit out of his hat, this contest is pretty much over.

-Jester

No he has not been certified!

We conclude that neither state nor federal law requires issuance of a certificate of election before the election contest is completed," the Supreme Court wrote in a unanimous opinion Friday.

Minnesota state law expressly prohibits the issuance of a Elections Certificate until the election is concluded, and as long as a recount or election contest is under way, the election is still going on according to law.

But my, oh my, has he tried to get his hands on that certificate! If he was seated ahead of the contest being finalized, even if he then lost the election contest it would thenbe nearly impossible to unseat him as the Senate has <forgot the legal term> complete control over it's membership.

~FragB)

Edit: Seems the twincities.com site I was linking to doesn't like such things, so this is a different site (one down on my google search) that covered the story. Sorry about that.

[Jester]

No he has not been certified! "We conclude that neither state nor federal law requires issuance of a certificate of election before the election contest is completed," the Supreme Court wrote in a unanimous opinion Friday.

Minnesota state law expressly prohibits the issuance of a Elections Certificate until the election is concluded, and as long as a recount or election contest is under way, the election is still going on according to law.

But my, oh my, has he tried to get his hands on that certificate! If he was seated ahead of the contest being finalized, even if he then lost the election contest it would thenbe nearly impossible to unseat him as the Senate has <forgot the legal term> complete control over it's membership.

Yikes, correct you are. Last I had heard, the certification was going ahead, but obviously not.

We shall see, then. I can't use your link, though. Not sure why.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If "any serious investor" wasn't following the herd along with the rest of the nodding heads, then the world is experiencing a dire shortage of serious investors. The market got burned every bit as badly as any TV pundit. The argument that they deserved it probably has merit; the argument that they were too smart to buy in to the bunk they were selling on TV (and not just TV) surely does not, looking at the state of things.

Serious investors can get burned by false reports and outright deception or fraud from companies (officers). Baring that, publicly traded companies need to publish their quarterly results which along with economic trends is the basis for taking the risk of investing in a company. Not CNBC, or their pundits. There are some "sheep" who might buy or sell stocks based on emotion, but it usually results in something akin to surgery based on emotion. Bloody awful (e.g. tech stock bubble burst of 2000). When companies defraud and deceive (and often when they don't) they are sued by their stockholders.

Most movement in stocks are the cause of mutual funds shifting positions. The funds decisions are made by people who are very very good, and even they can make bad choices at times.

[Jester]

Most movement in stocks are the cause of mutual funds shifting positions. The funds decisions are made by people who are very very good, and even they can make bad choices at times.

Sure, but when the zeitgeist, from the business schools through the banks to Jim Cramer and co. to guys-who-read-the-WSJ are all selling each other the same snake oil, the problem is that nobody is holding a critical mirror up to the whole mess. It becomes an echo chamber.

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.

-Jester