CNBC Analysis

The good stuff starts at the 3:00 mark:

This entry was posted in Goofy, Pop Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to CNBC Analysis

  1. Stephen says:

    Typical slight of hand, out-of-context drivel from Stewart. Perhaps Obama should bring him on as an economic adviser. In the mean time Cramer should sue him for libel.

  2. sister says:

    Hmmm… I think it was pretty much IN-context. Maybe Stephen is a bit uninformed and biased? Hmmm?????!!!

    There was not slight-of-hand… merely a chronologically ordered sequence of statements broadcasted by CNBC and then comparing and contrasting with the DJ to show the frailty and ineptitude of said network. This is no longer a bull market.. get over it. Move on. And last time I checked… You CAN’T sue someone for statements YOU made on television. Thanks for playing though Steve.

  3. sheila says:

    I agree with sister. Stewart is spot on! I cannot see how Cramer could sue for libel. In fact, Cramer appeared on the Today show following the Bear Stearns failure and apologized for his comments.

    Great clip. Thanks for posting:)

  4. dan says:

    Thanks Keith, I met to catch this broadcast last night but I got caught up in the Mavericks – Spurs game.

    What I like the most about Stewart and Colbert is that they keep track of promises made by politicians and prognostications made by pundits and experts and then they go back periodically and re-visit them. This gives the viewer an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of these media creatures and to decide if we want to continue believing in them. It’s an invaluable service to the public and a great way to stomp out hypocrisy.

  5. Hellen Bach says:

    Shame such wit and wisdom doesn’t make it into mainstream media, then the nation could better press for accountability thru true transparency.

    Someone should do a tally on all of Cramer’s market predictions and stock suggestions and see just what his guessing game amounts to, probably favors the sponsors of his show.

    Better yet Stephen, let’s see how Cramer would do in a panel discussion w/ Peter Lynch, Joel Greenblatt, James O’Shaughnessy, David Dreman, John Neff, and Warren Buffet.

  6. Stephen says:

    Another round of Coolaid for everyone!

    Is Cramer a hypocrite? Really? Why? Because he has objectively expressed sincere criticism of Obama policies?

    It’s no wonder why the extremist left walks in lockstep – clowns like Leibowitz (aka Stewart) are more than happy to shred a fellow liberal and Obama supporter like Cramer the moment any voice of concern is raised.

  7. Geeding says:

    LOL . . .

    I believe it’s spelled Kool-Aid.

  8. Stephen says:

    “Oh yeah!!”


  9. sister says:

    Who misspells KOOL-AID?! The only people I know who misspells Kool-Aid are home-schooled kids who lack the adequate exposure to society to have any concrete thought of their own that is NOT imposed/influenced by their family and at times, their church. Not all are like this but many are so locked in their self-imposed constraints that they lack the nondiscriminatory/dispassionate capacity for adaptation; which in turn makes them unable to just enjoy simple humor. But I digress…

    If you really and truly want to bring politics into the fray, that is really fine by me. Now, I am of course guessing that you are referring to the criticism of Obama’s stimulus plan and such. While Cramer himself admits that Obama was dealt a poor hand by the previous administration (and actually did criticize Bush fiscal policy), he does have a few issues with the stimulus plan. Never fear though, because Captain Over-speculator is here to save the day. Cramer is stating that he wants to give everyone a 4% set interest rate, a 15,000 dollar tax credit, and equity to the banks on the homes so that once the value does go up they can recoup some losses. That sounds like a perfectly good idea, but there is just one small problem. He is claiming that the Obama administration is simply selling the same old Democrat pork. If you look at his plan that would offer everyone, including the literal deadbeats, fair access to said plan; it sounds that he might be taking a slightly more liberal view on things. Now since you seem to have your own issues with Obama policies, since you jumped on that without anyone else mentioning Obama, I would suggest you re-evaluate your approach. I do not understand why you seem to have so much contempt for Jon Stewart. He is a man that has openly admitted that he is the host of a COMEDY show. He has openly said that the lead in for his show is “puppets making crank calls”. If you want to take the show seriously, then by all means you have the right to do so; but you can not simply pick and choose when you find things funny simply because of your political beliefs. Try to gain some humility and just admit that they made some bad calls and catered to a certain audience on CNBC.

    On an entirely different note; I find it wrong and disrespectful of you to call Jon Stewart by his given name, rather than the name of his choosing. While normally I would not have a problem with you simply calling him by his name, but the fact that you put “(aka Stewart)” in there the way that you did bothered me. Do I detect a slight bit of anti-semitism? I can only guess that because that is what it seems like. I am by no means looking for that in your statements, but if the shoe fits.

    I suggest you take your views and comments elsewhere, as I have no more time to deal with you, and frankly don’t care to back up my arguments with supporting facts because you can look them up yourself; they are as they are.

    Good day to you Sir.

  10. Stephen says:

    You got me sister…. I’m an anti-Semitic Jew hater…. Your detective skills are brilliant…. Ridiculous. I made mention of his name because I believe that his switch from his genuine Jewish name to a last name of Scottish or English origin is indicative of his deceptive, twofaced nature. In your rush to imply that I’m anti Semitic did you stop to question why Stewart chooses to hide his heritage by altering his name? It seems funny that you’d suspect me Jew hating while not giving consideration as to why someone would hide his heritage with a name change.

    As for “Kool-Aid”… you got me. I misspelled it. Enjoy your gloating. I don’t drink Kook-Aid and I didn’t when I was growing up. I appreciate that you were readily available to make the correction for me – it’s good to know that I can count on a regular Kool-Aid drinker to point out my mistake. Feel free to let me know when you need help understanding any of the big words that are actually relevant to the issue at hand.

    In order for something to actually be considered humorous when at the expense of someone else (in this case Cramer), there should be some sort of basis in reality. Stewart’s “joke” implied that Cramer recommended Bear Stearns the week before it collapsed. He didn’t. In fact, Cramer said that he thought that Bear Stearns could be worthless as soon as the following week. So Stewart’s audience (primarily made up of mind numbed drones) have a laugh at the alleged stupidity of Cramer’s prediction although it was spot on.

    Dan said “What I like the most about Stewart and Colbert is that they keep track of promises made by politicians and prognostications made by pundits and experts and then they go back periodically and re-visit them. This gives the viewer an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of these media creatures and to decide if we want to continue believing in them. It’s an invaluable service to the public and a great way to stomp out hypocrisy.”

    That’s cool when that’s what they do. And I agree that it’s funny. But that’s not what Stewart did in this case. He made a guy look like a clown for making a prediction that he didn’t make and in so doing so assaulted his livelihood. You clearly bought it as truth and drew the conclusion that it demonstrated the “ineptitude” of those involved. Stewart intentionally misrepresented Cramer’s professional opinion. That’s not comedy. It’s slander.

    Since you seem to be so eager to speculate about my upbringing, you might be interested to know that my political views differ radically from those of my parents and my sibling. Can you say the same? I don’t share my pastor’s political views or the views of anyone that I’m aware of in my congregation. In fact, I cannot name a single soul on this planet that is a perfect match to the political views that I hold. Even if you had been correct about my background, it wouldn’t have any relevance to what I had said before. In philosophy it’s called the genetic fallacy – you can look *that* up for yourself.

  11. Geeding says:

    I’m not condoning any of the negativity on these comments, and everyone is certainly entitled to his or her political beliefs. After all, I’ve often stated in this blog that clashing opinions is the sound of democracy. But to say that Jon Start changed his name because of deception and a two face nature is exaggerated. It’s well known that many celebrities change their names to help their career, not because of some evil manipulative plot to sway public political opinions. This link provides 12 actors that have changed their names for various reasons, some to honor family, some to make their name more memorable, and I don’t fault any of them for doing so. Most interesting on this list for me was finding out that Chuck Norris’ real name is Carlos Ray Norris.

  12. Warren says:

    Re: Chuck Norris, he probably changed it because Carlos was too “ethnic” for mainstream America.

    Re: Cramer & Stewart, Jon Stewart addressed the issue this evening.

    Re: Kool Aid. It’s awful stuff, let’s not ever discuss this product again.

Comments are closed.