I love Jon Stewart but I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

[dkf]

Yes, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were outrageously leveraged, but not everyone who is in trouble was.

AIG's problem and perhaps Citi's problem was credit default swaps.

But the problem for most institutions IS mortgages and the collapse of real estate prices. This is something that a lot of financial institutions have in common, whereas leverage wasn't a problem for most, nor are credit default swaps.

I felt bad for Cramer, because he has been crying for the uptick rule for ages. Also he has been railing against the leveraged bear funds.

I don't follow his investment decisions or anything, but I do like to hear his commentary on what he thinks is important. And he is a clown, but he isn't lying when he gives his opinion.

JMO.

[Syrinx]

1. I want to argue with you, but I'm not qualified

:D

I don't judge Jon's beef to be with Jim Cramer personally. He seems to think that CNBC, among others, is in cahoots with Wall Street, instead of impartially digging up and reporting the facts of the situation. And I think he's right.

[Sherman A1]

3. Agreed

I don't think that Stewart is questioning so much the issue of what got us to the mess as he is the reporting (or lack of reporting) by CNBC. If they claim to be experts which I believe they do, then why did they not dig into this deeper and do their job of informing the public?

[dkf]

8. Because most of it is rumor and nobody will go on record.

How is CNBC supposed to report that?

I do think it is the truth that people on the trading floors know a hell of a lot more than we do, because they spread gossip like wildfire. And I'm sure a lot of it is wrong too.

I'm not sure it would be good if things that are suspected but unprovable or unsupported are broadcast.

The NYT did something like this when they hinted at Vicky Iseman and her supposed relationship with John McCain. It was titillating but I'm thinking it was probably a bad idea to run with it.

[Syrinx]

17. are you kidding me?

CNBC would air one hour a day of live programming, if they didn't report rumors.

[dkf]

21. John Stewart wanted Cramer to go on CNBC and

report how some people use mechanisms to manipulate the market. Those are serious allegations and need to be backed up.

For the crazy mortgages, didn't we all know it was a mess?

How can you hear about option arms, interest only loans and teaser rates and not realize it was a disaster. And there were stories about people using their houses as piggy banks ages ago.

Was anyone truly unaware that these things were going on?

We all had pieces of that puzzle.

Except Credit Default Swaps. That came out of left field for me.

[Syrinx]

26. .

How can you hear about option arms, interest only loans and teaser rates and not realize it was a disaster. And there were stories about people using their houses as piggy banks ages ago.

Was anyone truly unaware that these things were going on?

You're damn straight!

People -- THE PEOPLE had no idea about that shit! It was CNBC and NBC and CBS that were supposed to inform us of all that shit. AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT!

That's the whole point!

[dkf]

28. OMG, they were plastered on commercials for ages!

Constantly, incessantly.

There were telemarketers calling day in and day out for people to refinance. My co-worker used to complain about it endlessly.

I think I first freaked out about this when I read about all the mortgages that were going to reset in about 2006 or so. I read about it in the New York Times and couldn't believe we were expecting $1 Trillion in resets.

I guess I had such a huge gut reaction on the stupidity of those types of loans that I don't get it if others needed for CNBC to explain it.

[Syrinx]

37. ordinary people didn't connect the infomercials to a Depression

But the news media should have.

[dkf]

42. I think only a few did.

We have been trained to think that we have better tools to contain risk nowadays. That was the big mistake.

[Dammit Ann]

29. YESSSS!!!!!!!

Thank you!

[dkf]

32. I'm thinking they must have done some pieces on this because

I knew all about it.

Are you sure they didn't?

[Dammit Ann]

33. Of course some one mentioned it but, as you know, for the most part it was a

Katy bar the door kind of movement, no one was saying anything that got through.

[Dammit Ann]

31. I truly hope you are sane because I am beginning to wonder...

HOW THE FUCK were normal, dumbed down Murkins supposed to get this "gut feeling" of yours (and MINE, for that matter) when all we were hearing was "You're stupid if you don't take advantage of this, EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT! Come in the water is fine!" kind of crap shouted from every rooftop? Jesus, do you even know how fucking LED the average American is? We expect our grocery store to show us where the fucking eggs are.

[dkf]

34. Well I guess I was reading quite a few stories like this...

Coming Soon: Mortgage Payment Resets
Monday, March 13, 2006 | 06:02 AM
in Economy | Real Estate | Retail

You may have missed this over the weekend: The Saturday WSJ reports that "More than $2 trillion of U.S. mortgage debt, or about a quarter of all mortgage loans outstanding, comes up for interest-rate resets in 2006 and 2007, estimates Moody's Economy.com, a research firm in West Chester, Pa."

Let's repeat that number: Over the next 20 months, more than two trillion dollars worth of adjustable rate mortgages will reset at higher interest rates.

Now, I don't want to be accused of being a perma-bear or anything like that, but I am having a hard time trying to figure out exactly how anyone can spin this into a positive: Dark matter? Credit Surplus? Real Estate Boom?

I'm at a loss for words spin.

Perhaps a chart may help: Not only do we have a significant mortgage debt reset acomin', but a huge chunk of it is subprime. That means the debtor's are those least able to handle the monthly increase. Nice.
>

Reset__20060310175409WSJ "Millions of Americans who stretched themselves financially to buy homes face a painful adjustment -- some could even lose their houses -- as monthly payments on adjustable-rate mortgages are reset higher.

In the hot housing market of recent years, many households took advantage of "affordability" mortgage loans -- heavily promoted by lenders -- that hold down payments for an initial period. Now the initial periods are coming to an end on many of these loans, leaving borrowers to face resets of their interest rates that can cause monthly payments to shoot up between 10% and 50% . . .

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/03/coming_soon_mor.html

ources:
Millions Are Facing Monthly Squeeze On House Payments
Many Adjustable-Rate Loans, Popular in Recent Years, Will Soon Be Reset Higher
JAMES R. HAGERTY
WSJ, March 11, 2006; Page A1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114204536747195612.html

Do Homeowners Know Their House Values and Mortgage Terms?
January 2006
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200603/index.html

NEW STUDY INVESTIGATES MORTGAGE PAYMENT RESET
First American Real Estate Solutions, Feb 14, 2006
http://www.firstamres.com/pdf/02-14-06RES-ResetStudy-FINAL.pdf

[Dammit Ann]

36. I was reading that also, as were a few of the "enlightened class" but the spin

that stuck and HAD STUCK for years was too dense to penetrate. How does on obscure article from two years ago justify a decade of financial malfeasances?

[dkf]

45. Would people that are "too dense" have been helped by program after program on CNBC.

Maybe they wouldn't be dense if they watched Susie Orman all the time.

You are asking for CNBC to so dominate popular culture that whatever they say will penetrate to the masses who could care less about the stock market.

[Dammit Ann]

47. Your logic outweighs your argument. I agree with you on some points but...

You are throwing me obscure thoughts and articles that most people never see (or would have accsess to). I am eluding to THE CULTURE of non thrift and excess that became a mantra through the action and inaction of OUR FUCKING GOVERNMENT. (and media, to a certain extent.) We can't make excuses for people anymore, even ourselves, the piper must be paid.

[dkf]

53. The point is I could throw you a ton more.

And if people don't care to hear this stuff it simply goes over their heads.

If you google "mortgage resets 2006" you will find that a lot of people reported this stuff. But it simply didn't penetrate the American psyche. Americans can't deal with obvious problems until it hits them in the face.

Look at global warming! Look at the budget deficit! Look at Iraq!

You can give the majority obvious clues and they still won't get it until the shit hits the fan. I rest my case.

[Dammit Ann]

57. Then our case rests in the same place, I know this and yet the idea that Americans

are uninformed does not seem to a priority of the MSM. We are changing that, thank god, yet we defend people who are calling the fire department after the HOUSE HAS BURNED TO THE GROUND! Jon is doing a yeoman's work and should be revered, he's been doing it for years.

[Dammit Ann]

50. Oh, and I didn't call Americans dense, that, I reserved for the media spin fog.

Americans are not dense, just, sadly, UNINFORMED. Thanks to bullshit manipulator's like Jim "I'm just doing this for fun" fucking CRAMER!!!!

[dkf]

59. I'd say Republicans do more misinforming than Jim Cramer.

That is the real problem, that the media has to present both sides of the issue and the typical American will take the easy out because they want to, not because it makes any sense.

Magical thinking.

[Dammit Ann]

66. Misinforming, thank you for the correction, you are right.

Subtle, but right, I admire that.

Of course the republican's are more misinforming than Cramer, that is their job. I heard that he is a democrat, and voted for Obama. Could this be the beginning of his "change"? I hope so. His contriteness did seem genuine, I'd love to believe... and I have to thank you for the free-willing discussion that led me to that feeling. Cheers and goodnight.

[dkf]

40. Apparently Nouriel Roubini appeared on CNBC in 2006.

to discuss the real estate market.Desperate Realtors... Desperate Retailers... Desperate Housewives...
PrintShare
Delicious Digg Facebook reddit Technorati
Nouriel Roubini | Nov 6, 2006

I was this morning on CNBC's Squawk Box facing off the president of the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The NAR is becoming so "desperate" that is now wasting $40 million in an advertising (call it spin) campaign - the first ever in its history - that is titled with the Orwellian slogan "It is a Great Time to Buy or Sell a Home" (sic!).

More realistically, as David Rosenberg (the sober chief US economist for Merrill Lynch) has titled one of his most recent studies of the US housing market we are now at the "D" level for the housing market where "D...is for Desperation" as he put it. Realtors and home builders must be reall desperate to waste $40m in an double-speak orwellian campaign of spin, lies and non-sense. The reality is the "It is A Lousy Time to Buy or Sell a Home". It is a lousy time to buy as prices are falling - at an annualized rate of 10% for new homes - and they will be falling another 20 to 30% in the next two-three years as the glut of housing and the bust in the housing market unravels: which fool would buy a home now when a 20% down-payment and the entire equity in such down-payment will be altogether wiped out by a fall in home prices in the next few years? Anyone buying today at the still stratospheric prices will destroy his/her home equity in short order. Since buyers are not fools - in spite of the NAR spin - they are sharply reducing home purchases unless they get huge discounts. It is also a lousy time to sell as there is a massive glut of housing - both new homes and existing homes - on sales and demand is now well below a glut that is becoming worse as the completion of high housing starts at the beginning of the year will be soon dumped in the markets. Thus, expect more "ghost towns", the expression used by SF Fed president Janet Yellen. The sellers are becoming so desperate that they are now relying on Divine Providence to help them sell their homes: as reported in dozens of press items, sales of statues of St. Joseph are skyrocketing; it is has been a long-time popular belief that burying a statue of St. Joseph in the basement of your home helps you sell your home when housing is in trouble. Those statues sales skyrocketed in the housing bust of the early 1990s and they are going through the roof again today.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/155898/desperate_realtors_desperate_retailers_desperate_housewives

It makes sense that CNBC presented all this stuff on mortgages. They will often do both sides of an issue with competing views.

[Dammit Ann]

44. True and yet, realtors cannot write up a mortgage, so...

I am back to my original point of who was watching the store?
I'm pretty sure that realtors are SALESMEN. What are lenders, pray tell?

[dkf]

46. Did you watch "house of cards?" (on CNBC by coincidence)

They had some pizza delivery dude turned mortgage brokerage owner on. Mortgage brokers don't need licenses, they have no fiduciary responsibility to the people they lend to. This crew didn't even need a degree.

[Dammit Ann]

48. EXACTLY.

Who do we bring on Stewart to skewer for that oversight?
Can we dig up Reagan?

[dkf]

56. I'd like to see licensing for loan officers/mortgage brokers.

So that is a government issue. Again lax regulation. When you have such a diverse population and no standards as to hiring and with no future accountability the situation is ripe for abuse.

[Dammit Ann]

52. And, as I have already referred to, my sister-in-law was seduced into this business

by LENDERS! She was that (bless her heart) dumb Murkin that actually THOUGHT SHE WAS HELPING PEOPLE and told that it was all legal and good for the economy. Now, she is in bankruptcy and carries a load of guilt and debt that I cannot personally fathom. BUT, I keep coming back to, WHO TOLD HER THAT IS WAS POSSIBLE AND LEGAL AND ETHICAL? HER FUCKING LENDERS!!!!!!

[dkf]

58. But if you were telling her what is up for ages, why didn't she get it?

Its because she didn't want to believe it.

Do you think if Jim Cramer had a piece on every day talking about the problem with mortgages or derivatives or banking that she would have closed up shop early on? What could Jim Cramer have done to change this outcome?

[Dammit Ann]

63. It's NOT ABOUT JIM. It's about the free for all that he so rollickingly represents...

EVERYDAY. ON THE TV. It's the fact that they are making money in the short term while most of us are losing everything they told us was possible in the long term. Don't get me wrong, I felt for Cramer, I saw him squirm, he actually feels, I get it. BUT, we have been corn holed and manipulated into this crisis by conscience, breathing people, the whole barrel is rotten. There is no apple and to defend a cretin like Jim, as rich and humble as he may be is OFFENSIVE to me. We are the new page and in order to turn it we must have very little sympathy for the forces that drove us to this cliff. BTW, I have read many of your posts and enjoy and agree with you. Just not tonight.

[dkf]

67. I'm usually the contrarian at this place lately anyway. lol.

I just think that there are real culprits we should be pissed at. That slime ball heading the London Derivatives office at AIG who created trading losses of $500 billion, John Thain for sneaking and lying about bonuses at Merrill Lynch, Phil Gramm for exempting derivatives from regulation, whoever wrote the 2005 bankruptcy bill, Alan Greenspan who over inflated our economy for years, Andrew Cuomo who didn't reel in predatory lending when he was head of HUD, the rating agencies for their conflict of interest in creating and charging for CDOs, Chris Cox for lax oversight at the SEC and for removing the uptick rule, I could go on and on and on.

Believe me I have rage enough, but I'm going to direct it those I see as directly responsible.

And I just think that Jon Stewart is too smart to have amalgamated it all wrong like that. I think he's playing it for the entertainment value.

[Dammit Ann]

70. you should do it then, please...

write it all down in a narrative we can digest and I guarantee it will be read or seen. I have stopped what I used to do, short, angry, easily digested movies meant to make people think. Script it, I'll make it. Maybe, together, we can put a exclamation point on this entire debacle. Concise and hard-hitting. Why the fuck not? I admit that I don't know all, especially about finance, I rely on my intuition and documentation seems to be the key.

[dave29]

84. so very wrong

he frequently mentioned how sad it was that Cramer had become the "face" of this. Jon consistently pointed out he was going after financial reporters neglecting their duty to report news rather than act as stenographers for corporate CEO's. Just as we watched Colbert skewer the media right in front of America's "CEO." And when you get down to it... they fell down on the job. This was Stewart's point, plain and simple. It wasn't about placing blame on Cramer. "This song isn't about you," he said. It was about a failure of monumental proportions to protect people -- ALL people, regardless of whether or not they had a bad mortgage (remember this has effected EVERYONE on some level), in order to preserve their own status quo.

[treestar]

109. In a court they need to be backed up but not in the MSM!

The MSM makes a career out of speculating serious charges! Except when it comes to Republicans.

[Dammit Ann]

73. love this.

[Syrinx]

13. exactly

Thank you for your reason. :)

[dkf]

24. Yes this is true.

But that is like holding Jon Stewart accountable for Southpark.

Cramer doesn't do investigative journalism. He's entertainment and I would caution people to take his recommendations with a grain of salt.

[Raineyb]

94. Cramer is the one who made it personal

It didn't start out about Cramer it was about the entire network. Cramer made it about him so it's not really fair to skewer Jon Stewart for skewering Cramer after Cramer made it about him. Had Cramer STFU it probably wouldn't have gotten as big and it certainly wouldn't have become a referendum about Cramer.

Regards

[sybylla]

88. Right - but in a way Cramer has to make a choice

Be a tool or do the right thing.

Cramer chose tool. And, rightly, Jon dressed him down for it.

[sandnsea]

2. Citi CDS

Yes, it is the problem. Jon Stewart knew exactly what he was talking about and the ones who continue to blame mortgages are the ones who aren't telling you the truth.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Citi-shares-record-slump-credit/story.aspx?guid=%7BCBD75AB7-DE8D-4B01-BA17-C34DA4901487%7D

[dkf]

5. But the underlying problem that permeates all financial institutions

are bad mortgages!

There are credit unions falling. That isn't because of derivates or overleveraging. That is plain ole real estate bubble!

The main problem is that housing was too expensive and they gave mortgage loans based on these outrageous values. Its still too expensive where I live. I refuse to pay $360,000 for a 700 square foot one bedroom apartment.

[Dammit Ann]

6. and whose fault could that possibly be?

We have been sold a lie and now we are forced to live that lie.

[sandnsea]

7. Not exactly

The problem is that they bundled the mortgages into securities and then leveraged those securities into insanity. The only thing a few bad mortgages did was make people LOOK at the security package and realize they were way way way over-valued and that the companies trading in those securities consequently owed way more money than they could ever pay.

It's like somebody owes you a dollar for a candy bar and then you run around and pretend you own $1.00 worth of stock in Hershey, and you make loans on it and do all kinds of things that have absolutely nothing to do with that candy bar. I could eat that candy bar, or make you a new candy bar, and it doesn't fix all the loans and speculation and insurance schemes you've done on the side.

[Dammit Ann]

9. Bingo!

[dkf]

10. No no no.

The problem is nobody wants to buy these securities because there were such lax standards, outright fraud, and unsustainable loans that you simply don't know what is in the black box of mortgages you are buying.

Why would you buy a bond like that? Bonds are supposed to be SAFER, not riskier than other asset classes.

There were too many fly by night institutions and shady individuals approving these loans. They tainted the whole asset class.

[sandnsea]

14. No, they lied about the black box

Check out the ratings companies articles. They were in cahoots too. It wouldn't matter if everybody paid their mortgage tomorrow - they STILL pushed the value of the securities way beyond what they were ever worth. They LIED.

[Dammit Ann]

16. "Asset class" Are you kidding me?

Emphasis on the ass. My sister-in-law once owned one of these "mortgage factories" and I told her straight out in 1999 that she was insane if she believed all this crap and banks (lenders) would spend thousands to take her on vacation and sell her snake oil. She was trying to do the right thing and was constantly being sold a lie, people are fucking people, you listen to who is paying your bills. BTW, our relationship is in turmoil, as is her life, she can't even look at me now. This does not please me.

[Bonobo]

71. I am starting to think your understanding is shallow or you are being duplicitous.

You overestimate the average homeowner's role in this and grossly underestimate the role played by the slicing and dicing of the mortgages and selling them as investments.

As Stewart said, a financial problem that was basically linear was turned into one of geometric proportions.

[dkf]

72. There has been securitization of mortgages for quite some time.

What is new was the loosening of standards, which made it important to turn sub prime mortgages into AAA rated debt through CDOs and even prime mortgages didn't have 20% down. That is what makes today's black box of mortgages spooky. So mortgages created in certain years during which this loosening occurred are the ones investors don't want to touch. I think its 2006 and 2007 vintage. This is also the time of the greatest bubbles when some appraisers became complicit in the real estate scam by inflating values.

Another reason investors don't want to touch these securities is that the pools have been slice and diced so that no one is sure exactly who owns the mortgage anymore. That makes it harder to foreclose on because you need proof of ownership for legal action.

[prostock69]

68. AND people took out insurance policies against the mortgage backed

securities in hopes they would fail! Which is a big reason why AIG is in trouble. they had to pay billions to people who "won" when the securities failed. How can you place bets against someone else's investment? The whole system needs overhauled and strict rules in place. The stock market was created for companies could raise capital in order to operate and expand. It's now turned into something that is indescribable.

[dkf]

69. Yes.

I just read where some are making an arbitrage play by buying the bond and the credit default swap. Then they hope the bond defaults because they will be made whole by the CDS.

This puts them on the opposite side of where a bond holder would normally be, which is someone who wants a company to stay in business.

Now as a bond holder they want the company to FAIL. So what incentive is there to give concessions and help the company out?

Derivatives distort things by making people not care about things they should care about. Its a morale hazard.

[trekbiker]

18. Wall st and thier derivatives

caused the housing bubble in the first place. 100's of billions of funds made available by the derivatives market flooded into housing and crazy stuff like 125% financing, liar loans, subprime lending, zero down, etc., went wild. Wall st fueled the housing bubble and did not care. greed gone wild. Everyone had a part to play, the speculators, the subprime borrowers, the appraisers, the media, banks, builders... but at the root of it all is wall street and thier toadies in govt, SEC, Greenspan, COx all of em. I dont think it was a conspiracy, more like a bunch of greedy bastards that created a monster (CDS, CDO, ABS, etc) most of them didnt understand and couldnt control. The people that should have been controlling it (OUR GOVT) were bought and paid for or just plain incompetent

[Dammit Ann]

19. Hear, hear!

Thank you.

[dkf]

30. Plain vanilla securitization of mortgages has existed since

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started up. Indeed that was the purpose they were created for with Fannie Mae being created in 1938.

The CDO crap started because of the rating agencies. It was their stamp of approval which turned subprime mortgages into Triple AAA rated debt. And they CHARGED for design of these things too. Disgusting!

[CreekDog]

38. and whose fault are bad mortgages?

bad underwriting? perhaps lack of underwriting?

when i bought my house, i had to compete with people who could pay any price because any bank would loan them any amount of money.

i had to overpay to live where i live.

financial institutions made lots of administrative and servicing fees putting these loans through with nobody controlling the credit.

as a mortgage payer I AM NOT GOING TO BE BLAMED for that.

[dkf]

60. Lack of honesty on the part of lenders and lendees.

Also a lack of a sense of skepticism. People have lost their ability to figure out the old adage "if its too good to be true".

[Dammit Ann]

65. Who gave them that impression?

"Shop, we got everything under control" Georgie BOY or his minions in finance, business and the idea that America is inherently powerful and immune to, I don't know, tyranny and insanity. This shit is no joke and there are many to blame, BUT I would suggest that the richest people in this country are the last to be contrite. Why should they tell us the truth?

[beachmom]

98. Wall Street WANTED you to buy a 700 square foot condo for $360K

so it could feed their fast money making schemes that were leveraged 33 to 1. Had there not been such a hunger for those mortgages, then there wouldn't have been pressure put on mortgage lenders to keep lowering their standards.

[MattBaggins]

110. How about bringing back home economics in schools

The real classes; not baking classes. Teach about balancing checkbooks, how credit works, add on interest, amortization and saving for things.

[Dammit Ann]

4. Jim Cramer is just "collateral damage" in an ongoing conflict.

Yes, he did not not single-handedly create this mess but he sure as hell is gonna pay for it.




Some people think he deserves it. I may be one of those.

[dkf]

11. Jim Cramer is super rich.

He does CNBC for fun.

[jannyk]

22. Hmmm....Super Rich???.....

Did he get that way by manipulating the markets and practicing the 'Pump and Dump' techniques he was shown teaching the young guy in the clips? By selling Apple 'short' after trash talking the i-phone? Cramer is a self absorbed sleaze.

As for his 'honesty', he denied that he did the above, until Stewart ran the clips of him shooting off his mouth and sticking both feet in.

Stewart was dead on - it was all a game - they were the 'Players' and we were the sacrificial 'Pawms'.

[dkf]

49. Cramer was a very successful hedge fund manager.

Apparently he saw the light and left that life.

Its funny how people like Rahm Emanuel, John Edwards, and Chelsea Clinton can work for hedged funds and get a free pass.

And the i-phone was pretty recent. He wasn't running a hedged fund at that time. He has a charitable trust which he needs to disclose and disclaim if he holds that security.

[Dammit Ann]

54. Free pass? Laughable.

These three in general, are in a place where they get nothing but a "free pass".
And they are not in the fucking media.

[Dammit Ann]

23. Lovely.

Are ya'll, shall I say, "intimate"? You seem to be awfully upset with his pantsing on the T.V.
Just sayin'...
Not that there's anything wrong with that. My best friend is gay and rich and awesome and liberal and cool. I'm pretty sure that he
even realizes the bullshit that has been going on FOR A DECADE is nonsense. And he applauds it's exposure. Why don't you?

[dkf]

55. I applaud its exposure but I don't get why Jim Cramer has to be the

whipping boy.

Its unfair.

Jon Stewart couldn't get the real perps on his show so he takes it out on Cramer.

[Dammit Ann]

27. Wow. Again, this sentence more than any disturbs me.

How is this not more in the prosecuting of the case? FUN? WHOSE FUCKING FUN? HIS OWN? OR ALL OF HIS CRONIES? Jesus, my fingers are tired of typing replies to this shit. What world are you living in? SERIOUSLY.

[dkf]

61. He is like your sister in law. He thinks he is helping the world.

And I'm sure it strokes his ego too.

[opihimoimoi]

12. And yet the focus came down to one guy...the one who falls on a sword

and is required to visit the DALY SHOW.....he had to go and be the collective Bad Guy......

he is the Offering....the Sacrificial Goat.....

[dkf]

15. Yup.

Cramer had less to do with it than most. Maybe he does overhype the market, but blaming the collapse of the financial system and all shenanigans on him is pretty ridiculous.

And his thing really isn't investigative journalism. That would go to other guys.

It looked to me like he took the criticism to heart though.

Ironically he is the hardest on the bad guys in the financial world. He does have a wall of shame after all.

[Enthusiast]

20. Investigative journalism?

What is that?

[dkf]

25. Seriously!!

Its so freaking rare nowadays. I think its hilarious that Jon Stewart expects Cramer to do it of all people.

Probably the best truth teller is Meredith Whitney. She will lay it straight.

[Enthusiast]

43. I wrote CNN to

tell Lou Dobbs that rather than obey his corporate masters he should look to John Stewart as an example of good journalism. I suggest we write all these 'pretend' TV journalists. Get 'er done!

[dkf]

62. The only "expose" he does is immigration.

I am soooo tired of that.

[sledgehammer]

80. Jon Stewart's original tirade...

...was not against Cramer, but all of CNBC. And he chided them on their lack of investigative journalism and holding execs responsible, yet publicizing the infamous Santelli rant as if Santelli hit the nail on the head by blaming borrowers.

Now, Cramer was the only one to get all personal and decided to fire back. And then you had the back-and-forth till Cramer realized he was now in a fix and need to go on the show to bring an end to the fuss. And an end he did bring, but it was a loss for him and CNBC, and a big win for JS and the general public.

Also, Cramer had absolutely no defense. He had ample time to prepare, and all he could say is that he's trying to do a better job. You'd expect him to have something to hit back with. Whether to defend himself or his channel. But he didn't. I actually wanted him to say something useful at least, just for the discussion to go on, but nada!

Stewart/Colbert 2016!

[JTFrog]

41. Cramer's ego made it about Cramer. He took offense and singled himself out. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

35. We'll have to agree to disagree strongly on this one. n/t

[JTFrog]

39. After seeing tapes 210-212-216, etc., You couldn't PAY me to have sympathy for that cocksucker. n/t

[PretzelWarrior]

51. you've got a real hardon for Cramer, don't you?

I've hated Cramer since the Cramer/Kudlow show. His mad money show is an embarrassment. I refuse to watch it and even if I'm at the gym and it's on in the locker room I'll switch it. It is just horrible.

Jim has a nice whiney "mea culpa" act he puts on for Jon...but Jon wasn't buying. The same disconnect between goofy sound effects guy and cold blooded money maker is the disconnect when I see his shambling self trying to seem all nicey.

I loved how he kept trying to make it about him and JON kept bringing it back to the larger picture--how DARE CNBC try to go all populist on us after Wall Street got their payday from the bailout just because homeowners might also get bailed out.

I want to see that shitbag who did his rant show up on the Daily Show. He won't. Ya wanna know why? THey're all a bunch of pussies.

[dkf]

64. I just don't like scapegoating.

I think holding Cramer responsible for CNBC or the financial mess we are in is funny.

Hell why didn't Jon Stewart do an expose on mortgages? I'd say he has more clout with potential victims than Cramer does.

And if he does a good job of making us laugh, all the other networks will show clips.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

75. Cramer injected himself into it. Stewart repeatedly said that it wasn't about Cramer.

But Cramer decided to defend all of CNBC.

[WyLoochka]

86. Guess you didn't watch the

clips you are expounding upon at such length. Stewart said over and over again it was not just "about Cramer."

So you can stop being so oddly defensive of him.

[Teaser]

74. good thing it's JYO

[SemiCharmedQuark]

76. For Cramer to sit there and say "But the CEOs *TOLD* me it was going to be all right" prevents

me from having sympathy for him. I *almost* felt sorry for him. But he brought it on himself. Stewart said over and over and over again that it wasn't about Cramer.

[jberryhill]

87. If "the CEO's told me" and Cramer tells his audience....

Then, while I admit I only took one semester of securities law, but something seems amiss there.

[Uzybone]

77. This thread is awesome

great back and forth in t.

Jon Stewart is an American treasure IMO. Cramer came and groveled and got his just deserts, but it was never all about Cramer. Its about our phony media. Amazing that it takes a fake news show to show us how fake our "real" news is.

[Lethe]

78. Jim Cramer has a show on a low ratings cable network - how bout asking these same questions

to the Wall Street Journal, and all the serious journalists covering economic news who stuck their head in the sand

is Cramer an enabling douche? probably, but his influence is insignificant

[themaguffin]

104. they all watch cnbc

[JSK]

79. I don't care

At least he's drawn attention to the fact that these guys on TV are just entertainers trying to make money for their corporate fascist masters. Cramer said himself that he's trying to make his show "entertaining."

Stewart did the same thing with "Crossfire." Pointing out that it was NOT news. Maybe people will start to realize that this crap on TV is not to be taken as gospel as it has been.

[annabanana]

81. It may not have been "news".. but it got that crapfest off the air.. . n/t

[Occam Bandage]

82. I don't feel bad for Cramer. He injected himself repeatedly into this.

It was never about him; it was about the blithely credulous news media that acted as if all was fine even as we were going over the cliff, and then turned around and scorned people who had bought into their hype and got burned as a result. Cramer took it personally, and ended up getting scorched.

[sledgehammer]

83. Link to unedited interview...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-interview-outtake

(parts 2 and 3 are linked in the right-hand scroll-down menu)

[marshall]

85. Jon Stewart is an entertainer

Making sense is serendipitous--the main point of what he does is to make people laugh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. Saw him described in a thread here as "The New Edward R. Murrow". "Today's Journalist".

Funny how people forget that the man has absolutely no journalism training whatsoever.

He's a God because he trashes people we hate. Let him give the * administration a pass for something though, and he'll go from Hero to Zero in about thirty seconds, or however long it takes someone to log on to inform the rest of us that he's now carrying water for criminals.

[Jennicut]

93. He is more of a journalist then the journalists because he calls people out

when they screw up, something the media has not done. But he has never claimed to be anything other then a comedian who comments about the news. he does not report, he illuminates the light on the utter ridiculousness of politicians and the MSM when they act like idiots.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. You're calling him a journalist because you like what he says. He's a comedian.

Only someone who has lost all objectivity would call a comedian a journalist because he hits all the right notes.

"And that's the way it is..."

[uponit7771]

100. He's the only one with enough nuts TODAY to call it like it T.I.izzz, that's Murrow enough for me...

[Jennicut]

107. That is what is sad. He covers more news then the MSM does.

He is not a journalist but they need to do their jobs.

[PA Democrat]

101. The Edward R. Murrow comparison came from James Fallows,

national correspondent for The Atlantic and former editor of US News and World Report. Mr. Fallows does happen to know a little bit about journalism. He taught at UC Berkeley's graduate school of journalism and has received a number of awards for his writing over the years.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/

[johnaries]

111. If you'll notice, it is journalists praising him for his journalism.

Whether he has had any "training" or not, he definitely has the experience. And as a trainer I can tell you that experience beats training every single time.

[DevonRex]

89. Cramer is an asshole who's talking trash about Obama and the dems. WTF are you

doing making excuses for him?

[dionysus]

91. methinks OP likes to play in the stock market

:hi:

[dionysus]

90. let me guess, you dabble in short selling...

:rofl:

[dkf]

106. Nope.

FAIL.

I'm kind of pissed that Jon Stewart is misinforming people about the main cause of the problems we are now in.

Now a bunch of doofuses think our main problem ISN'T mortgages and that this avenue of thought is simply an attack on the little guy.

How the hell are we supposed to fix this problem if we can't get people to understand what the concerns are?

[ShortnFiery]

95. There's one or two in every crowd - seemingly starving for attention.

:eyes:

[beachmom]

97. Why do you think so many bad mortgages were made?

To satisfy the hunger for CBO's that were leveraged to the hilt. I mean, seriously, even if you want to blame it in part on the housing market and mortgages, the system fail doesn't happen WITHOUT the highly leveraged CBO's and CDS's.

[dkf]

113. What is a CBO?

Do you mean CDO? I didn't think there was leveraging within the CDO iself. Just that whoever bought them were leveraged which wouldn't be attributed to the CDO itself.

[uponit7771]

99. Just looked at the vids, he doesnt have to be specific he DOES know people are getting hurt...

[Life Long Dem]

102. You won't see me asking Cramer whether I should sell or buy!

Honestly? Forget it. :crazy:

[zulchzulu]

103. Stewart was SPOT ON with the Cramer/CNBC behavioral tendencies...

...and Stewart had their deception and games, let alone their fear-mongering, down to where they needed to be called out.

Cramer's antics screaming that Obama was a socialist as well as the rest of the mool-yaks at CNBC needed to be addressed. Stewart swung hard and kicked ass.

[jeanpalmer]

105. He should have shown the clip

where Cramer recommended Citigroup at $8. Currently at $1.50.

There's a reason why Cramer is touting stocks and is no longer running a hedge fund. He is strictly entertainment and doesn't understand the workings of the market.

The system itself became overleveraged. Over time, too much debt built up. There was a final orgy of leverage though that became the tipping point for the debt to collapse upon itself. The hedge funds and investment banks operating at 50 to 1 leverage were disasters waiting to happen. Mortgages are a form of leverage and with no down payment represented 100% leverage. Banks lent hedge funds a lot of their funds. When oil collapsed, it was well known that a lot of the fall in price was due to banks' recalling their loans to hedge funds, which then had to sell their oil positions. Likewise, as the yen became stronger, speculators who had borrowed money in Japan at 1% in what was called the carry trade had to sell stocks to pay off their Japanese loans, as they were losing money on the dollars/stocks/commodities they had bought with the Yen. There was extreme leverage everywhere. Credit default swaps were a form of leverage to the extent issuing entities didn't have the funds to pay them off. JP Morgan wrote $70 trillion worth. What's its capital base? There's at least 700 to 1 leverage there.

I've concluded that credit/debt in inherently destructive, and unless it is strictly controlled it will spiral out of control, as it has, and will collapse on itself. The problem is, credit is the life blood of the capitalist free-market system. Restrict credit and the economy functions at a much lower level. A level that is politically unacceptable. That's why politicians deficit spend. But once you go down that credit path, you're sowing the seeds of your own destruction.

[dkf]

112. Any recommendation you show now looks pathetic.

The stock market is down 50% after all.

I'm sure many people were calling "buys" on stocks that are pretty much bankrupt now.

And you are right that there was overleveraging because the entire world economy created too much available credit to lend too fast.

Which goes to our Federal Reserve and the Central Banks of all the other countries.

This is so much bigger than CNBC and financial reporting.

[treestar]

108. The average American doesn't really understand it

Stewart was sort of channeling the average American.

But the media would have the job of trying to get information through to the people. That's what they don't choose to do. They'd rather try to control us than educate us to let us think for ourselves.

It is equivalent to a recent experience I had - a couple of us in the choir were curious about something in a musical notation - the director condescendingly just told us he was right and not to worry about it. The media acts sort of like that director - we just want to tell you what to think, not explain anything to you.

Of course many of the public give in to that and aren't willing to think. They are generally called "Republicans."