18
   

the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer dust-up

 
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 07:47 am
NEW YORK " The feud between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer has been good for laughs " and ratings " but has also raised the serious question of whether the experts at TV's No. 1 financial news network should have seen the meltdown coming and warned the public.

Over the past two weeks, Stewart's "Daily Show" on Comedy Central has ridiculed CNBC personalities, including Cramer, the manic host of "Mad Money," by airing video clips of them making exuberantly bullish statements about the market and various investment banks shortly before they collapsed.

Stewart has charged that people at CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but didn't tell the public. He has accused CNBC anchors and pundits of abandoning their journalistic duties and acting like cheerleaders for the market.

"In a tremendous boom period, they covered the boom and people wanted to believe in the boom," said Andrew Leckey, a former CNBC anchor and now president of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University. "They didn't uncover the lies that were told to them. Nobody did. But they should be held to a higher responsibility."
"Stewart's a comedian and Cramer is a showman," said Robert Howell, professor at Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business. "If anybody takes seriously anything that (Cramer) says, they're stupid."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 18 • Views: 3,060 • Replies: 67
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 08:21 am
There is no doubt in my mind that they all wanted a piece of the pie so badly they didn't bother to consider the consequences.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 09:32 am
if you're going to blame Cramer for his mistakes, then you also need to blame the nations econmists for theirs.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 10:23 am
Sorry, but I do think that Cramer contributed and manipulated the market
quite a bit. Every time he down played a stock , the very next day, it went
down considerably. There were and are plenty of people who listen to him
and his suggestions. A salute for Jon Stewart!
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 10:49 am
Here you can see the full interview Stewart/Cramer - quite interesting
http://able2know.org/topic/130363-1#post-3598812
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 11:00 am
@CalamityJane,
I agree, but to say that he should have seen the economic collapse coming (him meaning CNBC) and then say that you can't blame the nation's economists for seeing this coming (most all economists didn't see this coming either) is dishonest.

I'm not saying you've said this. But I've been critized here for not trusting what the economists are saying about the economy today, because they weren't able to see this coming. They've lost all credibility in my eyes. People have defended the economist saying that nobody could have seen this coming. And now we have people giving cramer and CNBC a hard time, when they've given a pass to professional economists.

Does CNBC manuplate the DJIA? Yes. Should they have forseen the economic collapse? Yes. But if your willing to admit the latter question then you cannot forgive the professional economists.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 11:25 am
@dyslexia,
That interview was hardly "Comedy", Cramer has been disemboweled on Philly talk radio leading up to and following the interview. He really had nothing in his defense and STewart looked well prepared.

Those who rely on stock tipsters like Cramer, should remember that their ovrall sucess rate isnt any better than doing it by random number picking.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 11:56 am
The market oscillates between excessive optimism and excessive pessimism. of which The Efficient Market Hypothesis indicates fair value is expressed on average over time.

The latest positive / negative media hype is nothing more than the usual expressions of volatility, and contrary to popular beliefs, nobody has a crystal ball, not not even the Fed, with their presumptions of preemptiveness!
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 12:11 pm
Actually, I saw plenty of coverage on CNBC about the pending economic collapse, recession, and possibly coming depression.

There have been numerous interviews with economists such as Marc Faber, Peter Schiff, and Nouriel Roubibi. All warned of the credit and housing bubble, and what was to come.

Some of us paid attention. Many didn't.

And you STILL don't see these individuals on the likes of the evening news. Talk about shirking journalistic responsibilty.

They are still predicting a dire future, which may or may not be the case. But CNBC certainly has - and continues to -provide them a forum...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 12:25 pm
@maporsche,
Plenty of economists did see it coming and did write about it. For whatever U.S. media reason, they weren't the economists who got the coverage.

Not sexy enough? not funny enough? not enough sucking up to advertisers? they were out there - they were writing about it,and continue to write about the problems with the U.S. and world economy.

Not sure if I blame Cramer and similar writers, or if I blame the editors/managers who gave him/them the big coverage.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 01:00 pm
@ehBeth,
The problem though, as far as I see it, is that the current government is listening to the economists who got it wrong though.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 01:33 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche, as ehbeth said, there were plenty of economists (I remember the one from Princeton) who warned about the financial collapse, however, most
of them were not "players" in the political arena and mostly dismissed.

Bernarnke, Paulson, etc. all of them are a joke in my book, especially Paulson
who previously was laying in bed with the banks and probably contributed
to their demise. When he sold his stake at Goldman Sachs, he netted 200 mill. Dollars - tax deferred . Now they're looking for testimonial that there never was any conflict of interest on their behalf. Yeah, sure!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 01:43 pm
@maporsche,
The former government, and most of the buying public, listened to the wrong economists as well.

I went to a seminar a couple of weeks ago where an investment guy was showing us articles and back page headers from Canada's financial pages from 18 - 26 months ago. Plenty of folks saying slow down/pay attention/don't overspend - they just weren't getting the coverage.

Are elected reps supposed to be smarter than the general public? I certainly don't expect them to be. I do however expect them to do what sensible people do - read past the front page. Regrettably, not enough people around the world did.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 01:44 pm
The problem was a deliberate effort to mislead. Why else would MSNBC ask their people to not cover the story?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/13/msnbc-dont-talk-cramer/?ref=fp7
Follow the links on the page ....
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:04 pm
@Gelisgesti,
The reader remarks are nice too. Here is one writing
Quote:
Now, might I suggest that he book Rush Limpdick, (m)Ann Coultergeist and Little Seanie Vanity for the same treatment. After that, there’s a long, long list of guests I would like to watch him eviscerate as well.


Gosh, I would love to see Stewart take on Limbaugh. I even would stay up
for that segment.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:17 pm
@ehBeth,
Nope.........so-called "economists" and their attendant pundits are no better at predicting a specific set of economic conditions than a monkey throwing darts. If "plenty of economists" truly do have the efficacy you claim, they could easily (and knowing human nature I assert would) make insane boatloads of money. This is hardly the case!

I can give predictions just as accurate as so-called "economists" and their attendant pundits!

1) Profits will continue to rise over time.
2) Inflation will stay moderate but the present trend to monetize debt is worrisome.
3) The equity markets will recover.
4) The high return expectations of the prior era equity markets has been supplanted with a more realistic outlook with closer consideration as to debt / equity ratio & relative profit margins.
5) The globalization and economic interdependency of the economic regions will continue.
6) The equity markets and the long end of fixed income will continue to be volatile and will oscillate between over-bought and over sold of which fair value will be respstive of The Efficient Market Hypothesis given sufficient time.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:26 pm
Lame-ass-new A2K forum prohibits longer-terms edits, the old A2K forum was massively superior:

6) The equity markets and the long-end of fixed income will continue to be volatile, and will oscillate between over-bought and over-sold of which fair value will be representative of The Efficient Market Hypothesis given sufficient time.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:37 pm
imo LARRY KUDLOW ( CNBC ) was and is the loudest commentator (screaming imo) asking the government to just "let business do what it does best : make lots of money " .
even when the economy started to tank last fall , he proclaimed that if only government would get of the way , there would be no problem with the economy : all would be just wonderful - and i don't believe he has changed his tune .

he now sees fit to blame it all on the new administration : just cut taxes and get out of the way of business :

http://kudlow.com/

Quote:
February 27, 2009
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More


By Larry Kudlow
" Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all " either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years... "


and from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kudlow

Quote:
Kudlow firmly denied that US would enter a recession (in 2007) or that the US was in recession (in early and mid 2008). In December, 2007 he wrote: "The recession debate is over. It's not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that's a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come".[6] In May, 2008 he wrote:"President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country" in his "R" is for "Right".


btw his "rapsheet" at the above link is quite interesting .

i call him SCHREIHALS in german ; the closess english would be LOUDMOUTH - but not nearly as descriptive .

btw someone who warned about "excesses" in business and commerce for decades was a canadian born farmboy - with scottish blood in his veins) :
J K GALBRAITH .
he worked for the roosevelt administration during the war years . he was a personal friend of JFK - who appointed him ambassador to india .
galbraith tried very hard to convince JFK that becoming entangled in vietnam would only end in a disaster ; unfortunately JFK chose to listen to others .
galbraith's book : AMBASSADOR TO INDIA is one of my favourite books since it gives a candid view of the JFK administration .
he bought the book for 99 cents (!) in 1979 when i flew of for six weeks of work and relaxation in texas . whenever i pick up the book , it reminds me of the good times mrs h and i had in "good ole texas" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:43 pm
@dyslexia,
Stewart's research staff at the Daily Show should be the envy of the media -- that clip of Jim Cramer advising investors to buy Bears Stearns was a classic example of foot-in-mouth disease.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 02:54 pm
Interesting enough to view.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/santelli-show/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
Recommend good HBO series? - Discussion by dlowan
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"? - Discussion by firefly
Larry King To Hang Up His Suspenders - Discussion by firefly
The Gates : Episode 1 - Discussion by Miller
 
  1. Forums
  2. » the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer dust-up
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 11:27:07