|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Mar 13, 2009 15:29:26 GMT -5
New York media person bashing New York media person, getting the New York and DC media all excited. Wake me when something of substance happens. Here's something of substance: they're changing the liquor laws in Utah. Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of SLC, approves[/u]; now he can get a "real" drink instead of having to pour his scotch and his "sidecar" into one glass.* Yipee! * go to linked article, ctl+F search "scotch" for direct quote |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Mar 13, 2009 16:06:40 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 13, 2009 18:19:04 GMT -5
I actually came away from that interview with some real respect for Cramer. He came on the show when his colleague didn't have the balls to show up, he admitted that he and CNBC made mistakes, and he stuck with it until the end. It was also tough for him because Stewart was criticizing him for a lot of things outside of his control. Stewart wasn't on an anti-Cramer rant, he was on an anti-CNBC rant, and Cramer was in the unfortunate position of being the representative of CNBC that was there.
I think this episode had a lot in common with Stewart's Crossfire appearance. When Stewart went on Crossfire his point wasn't just that Crossfire sucks, it was that Crossfire could be great if they actually discussed issues seriously instead of shouting at each other like partisan hacks. Similarly, his beef with CNBC wasn't just that they were doing harm, it's that they were failing to do good when they had the power to do it.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 13, 2009 21:01:31 GMT -5
I think Stewart should be hired as an assistant coach...he is an expert on everything. Don't believe me...just ask him, I'm sure he'd tell you.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,143
|
Post by RBHoya on Mar 13, 2009 21:25:20 GMT -5
We all have this base psychological need to force everything that happens in the world into a normal, discernible and somewhat explanatory story arch. We need things to have a definitive beginning, middle and end. We need there to be a protagonist who's flesh and blood (and all the better if he/she can be attractive and well-spoken). We need there to be an antagonist (and all the better if he/she is unattractive, threatening and/or different). Making these giant, complex issues like the current financial downturn into a story, like primetime TV or major motion pictures, is a natural reaction and one that helps individuals avoid the idea that maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of sh*t going on in the world that's completely random, completely uncontrollable and yet can and will impact us in the very real and often very negative ways. Jon Stewart was able to make Jim Cramer the antagonist for 10 minutes. That helps with the healing. It helps people laugh a bit or vent a bit. People in Wichita and Columbus can ball up the fist and shake it at their TV, knowing that in some small way a wrong has been righted by The Daily Show. There is value in this. However, it doesn't change the reality that this wasn't Jim Cramer's fault anymore than it was CNBC's fault (anymore than it was the Bush Admins fault, Congress, the Fed government, state and local governments, financial institutions, the financial media, idiots buying too much house, greedy commission-based loan officers, and so). IMO. Fantastic post. Haven't really followed this story, but that's totally true. That, and the fact that no politician or anybody in the media ever lays any blame on the average american. Always somebody else's fault, never any blame for "main street". This obviously because "main street" are the people you need voting for you if you want to win an election, the people you need watching you if you want ratings enough to stay on tv, etc. Politics and media are always biased like that. Not that I'm a big fan of the dbags at CNBC or anything, but they're just a convenient scapegoat for people. Bush administration too. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on Mar 15, 2009 9:54:05 GMT -5
I've never liked Cramer. I have always gotten a kick out of Stewart, although lately I am finding him as annoying as Cramer. I don't know what it is, I guess now that guys like Stewart and Bill Maher don't have Bush as fodder, they need to find their next schtick and "wall street" is it. Seems a bit contrived to me.
Anyway, both Cramer and Stewart are entertainers who have television shows that they use to disseminate their views. In Stewart's case, it is his political and social opinions; in Cramer's case, it is his opinions on the financial markets and individual stocks. Most viewers realize that this is what they are getting when they watch either of these shows. Those who don't, well, you can't force someone to be intelligent, I guess.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Mar 15, 2009 10:40:32 GMT -5
The reactions to this boggle my mind. Jim Cramer's ego couldn't take being made fun of for 20 seconds in a montage directed at the CNBC network as a whole, he cried like a spoiled baby about it on everything from Morning Joe to Martha Stewart, and in an act of idiotic hubris he went on The Daily Show to defend himself, and he's some sort of martyr? And Stewart is some sort of villain?
Jon Stewart directly asked some tough questions, which is what we should be doing as a society, rather than shaking our fist and crying "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?" and wasting energy on stupid non-issues. Some people here might not like the messenger, but this really wasn't a red/blue - conservative/liberal issue - everyone lost money on the stock market, and it doesn't matter if you were a Republican or not - if you had money with Maddoff, you lost it.
I'm not sure how many people here actually watched it, because the whole half-hour was centered around the question "What is the role of the financial media?" rather than fingering Jim Cramer. Jim Cramer was the guy who was trying to scapegoat people ("we need to prosecute people", etc) during this segment.
The question I came away from this was: what makes CNBC any different from an infomercial?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Mar 15, 2009 12:10:22 GMT -5
The question I came away from this was: what makes CNBC any different from an infomercial? It isnt. They are both businesses. Their aim is to make money. And there is nothing wrong with this. They, CNBC nor Cramer, are some Ministry of Truth. They have no obligation to run around wall street exposing injustice. They are a source of information, geared primarily at financial professionals (at least in the beginning). They dont have some mandate from a higher body to find truth and justice. To ask them to be muckrakers is ridiculous. They are a business, period. They did there job, which is to gain viewers to sell advertising. To expect anything more is just presumptuous. And Ill say it again- neither CNBC NOR CRAMER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY. Stewart is Editeded that Cramer is looking for scapgoat, but that is EXACTLY what stewart is doing. Cramer didnt invest anyones money. He didnt decide that Fanny Mae should be buying billions of dollars in Mortgage Backed Securities. He didnt decide that AIG should start insuring all these ridiculous naked short sells. He had nothing to do with what is the real failure of the economy. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Mar 15, 2009 13:13:43 GMT -5
It isnt. They are both businesses. Their aim is to make money. And there is nothing wrong with this. There very much is something wrong with that. One is labeled a paid advertisement, the other is labeled journalism, but when a Merrill Lynch CEO goes on Maria Bartiromo and lies his head off with no one checking what he is saying, there's something wrong with that because CNBC is complicit in the lie. Your claims that Stewart is looking for a scapegoat are all straw men - Stewart very clearly makes the point that Cramer is not at fault for those things. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 15, 2009 13:36:04 GMT -5
Your claims that Stewart is looking for a scapegoat are all straw men - Stewart very clearly makes the point that Cramer is not at fault for those things. If you read into the interview and the context of it, then you're right. But a lot of people just saw the interview without the surrounding context, and from that I think you could get the idea that Stewart was on an anti-Cramer crusade, not an anti-CNBC crusade. As far as the 'CNBC is just trying to make money, so it's fine' argument, I have to disagree. CNBC sells itself as that "Ministry of Truth" on financial matters. They don't tell viewers "we're a mouthpiece for the financial industry." They tell viewers that they (the viewer) will know it all when it comes to the market if they watch CNBC. The whole 'In Cramer we Trust' thing showed that pretty well. By telling viewers that they will know everything that's going on by watching CNBC, the network gives itself the obligation to tell the bad news along with the good news. CNBC has to change either the way it promotes itself or its content. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 15, 2009 20:06:52 GMT -5
People are kind of missing the point.
Stewart isn't the guy who should be asking the tough questions. It's embarassing for CNBC as an organization that claims to be a NEWS organization and offering sound financial advice that they effectively are not and do not.
When the investigative reporting involves them asking CEOs if their companies are going under and taking them at their word, I mean, c'mon.
Stewart is supposed to be funny. The show is. CNBC is supposed to be offering sound financial information and advice. They didn't. Which is why I sometimes watch the daily show and never watch CNBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Mar 16, 2009 0:17:20 GMT -5
I think the ultimate fault is with the market itself. In all seriousness, I'm a somewhat bright person. And it's not like I've done extensive research on how the market was working in the build up to the collapse, but still...I've heard enough and read enough that if I'm still as confused as I am about what was going on, then there is something wrong. Money, and assets, and risk, and mortgages are all getting swapped, and loaned, and traded, and bought, and....Really, at what point do we need to start building things, opening some factories, and relying on industry rather than resting our economy on a confusing shuffle of papers?
Admittedly, the financial world is well beyond my understanding, but it just seems like there was a lot going on that got a lot of people rich, but not for very intelligible reasons.
And then, you have networks. Cramer knows that his show would have tanked in 10 minutes if he sat down and tried to actually explain what was going on with the market. No one in the world would have watched that. Stewart knows it too. But what I think Stewart was appropriately calling out was that Cramer and NCBC in general pretended that none of the confusing, complicated, RISKY stuff was even going on. And it fooled people into an irrational comfort with a market that they didn't understand even a fraction of.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 16, 2009 10:09:47 GMT -5
New York media person bashing New York media person, getting the New York and DC media all excited. Wake me when something of substance happens. Here's something of substance: they're changing the liquor laws in Utah. Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of SLC, approves[/u]; now he can get a "real" drink instead of having to pour his scotch and his "sidecar" into one glass.* Yipee! * go to linked article, ctl+F search "scotch" for direct quote[/quote] Yes, it is a HUGE deal that they changed the liquor laws to bring Utah into at least the 20th century. Still, no full-strength bear on tap though - only near beer. Guess the LDS church would only bend over so far. |
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Mar 16, 2009 10:44:08 GMT -5
I think the ultimate fault is with the market itself.....Really, at what point do we need to start building things, Well, we built a boatload of houses. And that's sorta the problem. One of Stewart's main gripes seems to be that banks were overleveraged in a way that's out of line with common sense. And yes, in hindsight, it looks absurd that Bear Stearns had 30 to 1 leverage. But let's look back at the environment that caused this to happen. Interest rates for all of 2002 and 2003 were below 2% and they stayed below 4% until the end of 2005. Inflation rates in 2002 and 2003 were above 2% and were mostly above 3% in 2004 and 2005. In other words, there was almost no cost to borrowing money and if you found something that would pay you just 3% to 6% per year (muni bonds, for example) you were well-served to lever beyond all reasonable expectations. Of course, investment banks figured this out and quickly drove down the prices of relatively safe investments likes munis to the point where they were no longer attractive buys for money that was effectively free. So, in chasing profits (and here's where Stewart was spot on in his critique of short-term profits), the banks went up the risk ladder with their borrowed money, which sewed the seeds for the current disaster. It's hard to blame someone for levering up initially, though, given how cheap money was. The point of no return was when people decided that they would use levered money to start buying risky assets. This isn't necessarily unethical -- it's stupid -- but stupid things happen from time to time in a free market in the pursuit of profits and -- lo and behold -- they produce benefits about as often as they produce failures. And even when they produce failures, we sometimes get benefits. (For example, look at all of the money that poured willy-nilly into the Internet in the 1990s. That worked out very badly for many investors, but made discussion boards like this possible very quicly. Wait, maybe that wasn't worth it.  ) (For another example, look at all of the money that's been dumped into alternative energy that looks like it's been wasted. Perhaps we'll end up with a solution out of all of that.) Where does Cramer fall in all of this? Well, he's an easy target, and he made the critical mistake of telling folks that some financial companies were going to come out of this just fine. Those financials have no resulted in PLOC -- permanent loss of capital -- so he can't even fall back on the claim that long-term, folks will be solvent (as I can since I told folks Chipotle was a good buy back on this board -- although that's staged a rally this week and will be a good long-term hold). Further, he was a stand-in for Rick Santelli who Stewart -- rightfully -- was angry at for calling homeowners who leveraged up with cheap money losers. Glass house, right? Banks did the same thing. Cheap money is a siren song, and the common denominator underlying all of this. That's why Alan Greenspan is being VERY VERY quiet right now. After a very egotistical decade, it's appearing that he was extremely mortal. What irked me about the Stewart piece, however, is the implication that 1)long-term investing doesn't work 2)banks are profiting at the expense of individual shareholders and 3)there's some sort of manipulative current underlying the financial markets that perpetuates fraud and causes people like Jon Stewart's mom (a bizarre reference, by the way, the poster above who noted that her asset allocation strategy must have been completely inane in order for her to get wiped out was absolutely right) to get hosed. First, long-term investing is the only way to protect yourself from corporate malfeasance. Over time stock prices migrate to asset values plus return on invested capital. While a guy like Dennis Koz can ruin Tyco for a few years (and create opportunities for long-term investors), long-term investors continue to do just fine there. Second, the money that the banks annihilated has cost shareholders money, but when you buy a stock, you're buying it from another shareholder. Companies aren't constantly issuing shares. People often misunderstand that. As an investor you need to keep tabs on your company to make sure it's not doing things you're uncomfortable with. You're a part-owner of the company. Demand to be treated as such (with transparent and thorough communicatiors) and act like such (by keeping up to date). Finally, yes, there is manipulation in the market, but again, it's arbitraged out over time. Further, active market participants make the market efficient. Manipulation exposes fraud (see someone like David Einhorn and his book about Allied Capital) as much as it perpetuates it (the rumor-mongering Cramer is refering is quickly responded true...he was just trying to create short-term pressures in order fill or get out of positions). Again, the long-term investor, if he/she is comfortable with the company he/she owns she never be bothered by those day to day movements in stock prices. Is Cramer an idiot? Yes. Was Stewart funny in pointing this out? Absolutely. Should he be fomenting a misguided populist attack on the stock market? No. Tim |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 16, 2009 11:25:22 GMT -5
I think the only reason Jon Stewart had Cramer on his show was because he was afraid to debate PushyGuyFanClub.  |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Mar 16, 2009 12:16:05 GMT -5
The question I came away from this was: what makes CNBC any different from an infomercial? It isnt. They are both businesses. Their aim is to make money. And there is nothing wrong with this. They, CNBC nor Cramer, are some Ministry of Truth. They have no obligation to run around wall street exposing injustice. They are a source of information, geared primarily at financial professionals (at least in the beginning). They dont have some mandate from a higher body to find truth and justice. To ask them to be muckrakers is ridiculous. They are a business, period. They did there job, which is to gain viewers to sell advertising. To expect anything more is just presumptuous. And Ill say it again- neither CNBC NOR CRAMER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY. Stewart is Editeded that Cramer is looking for scapgoat, but that is EXACTLY what stewart is doing. Cramer didnt invest anyones money. He didnt decide that Fanny Mae should be buying billions of dollars in Mortgage Backed Securities. He didnt decide that AIG should start insuring all these ridiculous naked short sells. He had nothing to do with what is the real failure of the economy. And here I though journalism was a profession not a business...of course they said the same thing about the law and medicine, and we all see where that has gone. At least historically, and philosophically, there has been a distinction between a journalist and a hawker. One was beholden to ethical obligations that went beyond the sale of product. However, while I do doubt whether that has ever really been the case; I am certain that it is not the case today. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Mar 16, 2009 12:45:48 GMT -5
Is Cramer an idiot? Yes. Was Stewart funny in pointing this out? Absolutely. Should he be fomenting a misguided populist attack on the stock market? No. Except that there was no "populist attack on the stock market" in the interview. There was no mention of CEO bonuses, there was no mention of windfall profit taxes, etc etc - the target was squarely "role of the financial media" and whether they serve the long-term investor or the short term trader. No one can watch Mad Money and think that's a great source of information on where to put your retirement funds. Stewart went out of his way to point out that his friends on Wall Street are bright guys and work hard and are being unfairly Editeded by the situation as well. Say what you will about long term investing, but it doesn't help people in their 60's, 70's, and 80's who need that money and may not get it back within their lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Mar 16, 2009 12:56:18 GMT -5
Except that there was no "populist attack on the stock market" in the interview. Say what you will about long term investing, but it doesn't help people in their 60's, 70's, and 80's who need that money and may not get it back within their lifetimes. There was this exchange at the end: Jon Stewart: My mother is 75. And she bought into the idea that long-term investing is the way to go. And guess what? Jim Cramer: It didn't work. And then Jon Stewart did some weird noise and thumbs up hand motion to agree after railing against how investment bankers are stealing from his 401(k). There is a simple rule of thumb in portfolio management. Own the same percentage of bonds as your age. If you're 70, you should be 70% in bonds. And the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX) is exactly at the same price it was in 2006 and yielding nearly 5%. If you were 70% in that, the recent 50% decline in the stock market has barely affected you. Further, you should never have money in equities that you "need" within the next five years. There are two facts of life investing: Market downturns happen and CNBC will always be bullish. Protect yourself. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 16, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -5
Is Cramer an idiot? Yes. Was Stewart funny in pointing this out? Absolutely. Should he be fomenting a misguided populist attack on the stock market? No. Except that there was no "populist attack on the stock market" in the interview. There was no mention of CEO bonuses, there was no mention of windfall profit taxes, etc etc - the target was squarely "role of the financial media" and whether they serve the long-term investor or the short term trader. No one can watch Mad Money and think that's a great source of information on where to put your retirement funds. Stewart went out of his way to point out that his friends on Wall Street are bright guys and work hard and are being unfairly Editeded by the situation as well. Say what you will about long term investing, but it doesn't help people in their 60's, 70's, and 80's who need that money and may not get it back within their lifetimes. So what do you propose? Have the government issue checks for what they lost? As commented just below - if you're big into stocks at that age, and you took a big hit over the last year, that's your own fault. |
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Mar 16, 2009 13:13:26 GMT -5
There was this exchange at the end: Jon Stewart: My mother is 75. And she bought into the idea that long-term investing is the way to go. And guess what? Jim Cramer: It didn't work. And then Jon Stewart did some weird noise and thumbs up hand motion to agree after railing against how investment bankers are stealing from his 401(k). There is a simple rule of thumb in portfolio management. Own the same percentage of bonds as your age. If you're 70, you should be 70% in bonds. And the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX) is exactly at the same price it was in 2006 and yielding nearly 5%. If you were 70% in that, the recent 50% decline in the stock market has barely affected you. Further, you should never have money in equities that you "need" within the next five years. There are two facts of life investing: Market downturns happen and CNBC will always be bullish. Protect yourself. Thank you! For every sob story I've heard about somebody that lost their life savings with Madoff (or just on the market in general), I'm dying for somebody to ask some basic questions about diversification and asset allocation. There is a risk premium in equities that should not be ignored, and you should never have all your eggs in one basket. |
|
) (For another example, look at all of the money that's been dumped into alternative energy that looks like it's been wasted. Perhaps we'll end up with a solution out of all of that.)
