Anybody See:

[RkFast]

Well lets start with your statement that "the fact the WHITE HOUSE is going after Cramer".

 

Do tell, what White House rep or employee or anyone having anything to do with the White House has attacked Cramer?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/g...r_n_171605.html

 

 

Next......

[The Dean]

Anyone who based their investing on a television show got exactly what they deserved and to call Cramer out for it shows how easy it is to be a Monday morning quarterback. Why wasn't Stewart saying anything during the bull market?

 

 

It's not his job. He hosts a COMEDY new show on Comedy Central, and has never passed himself off as an expert in the market. Can you say the same for Cramer, and his CNBD cohorts? But, I understand that you don't watch TV, so I'll give you a pass, on that one.

 

Anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged. They aren't "the reason", and there is plenty of blame to go around (both Dems and Reps are at fault, too)...but, they are the most visible face of the media's involvement.

[drnykterstein]

I suppose saying "our friends at CNBC" in response to a direct question about the guy constitutes "going after him"?

Going after him would be if Gibbs brought up the name of Cramer on his own.

 

You idiots have such a hard on for demonizing people, now youre demonizing DEMOCRATS, which Cramer is.

 

This one irks me on so many levels. First off what the hell crap do I care about any democrats? !@#$ the democrats. I do not care what party anyone is in. Just because you republicans stick by Rush Limbaugh no matter how absolutely insane everything he says is? I like President Barack Obama and other choice people. I hate the party and I hate that political parties exist in the first place.

 

Second.. I find it laughable that you are giving anyone a hard time for demonizing anyone. Tell me you've not demonized Obama? Or at least, tell me republicans have not demonized him? They make up entirely untrue things about him being the arugula eating muslim terrorist socialist who is not a citizen. None of that is even close to true. If that is not demonizing, then I do not know what is.

 

I see the pot calling the kettle black is what I see.

[Chef Jim]

It's not his job. He hosts a COMEDY new show on Comedy Central, and has never passed himself off as an expert in the market. Can you say the same for Cramer, and his CNBD cohorts? But, I understand that you don't watch TV, so I'll give you a pass, on that one.

 

Anyone who thinks CNBC is innocent in the current economic debacle is deranged. They aren't "the reason", and there is plenty of blame to go around (both Dems and Reps are at fault, too)...but, they are the most visible face of the media's involvement.

 

Once again anyone buying individual stocks based on the rambling of a loud mouthed maniac gets what they deserve. Stewart may be a comedy show but Cramer is an entertainer. It's not the people making the recommendation that's to blame it's he people following that recommendation. How can you do what someone tell you to invest in who hasn't even seen your portfolio or your tax return. I put him in the same category as Suze Orman. But what do I know right. It's always someone elses fault with you isn't it.

[bartshan-83]

Once again anyone buying individual stocks based on the rambling of a loud mouthed maniac gets what they deserve. Stewart may be a comedy show but Cramer is an entertainer. It's not the people making the recommendation that's to blame it's he people following that recommendation. How can you do what someone tell you to invest in who hasn't even seen your portfolio or your tax return. I put him in the same category as Suze Orman. But what do I know right. It's always someone elses fault with you isn't it.

I agree with your overall point that the blame belongs with the lazy "investors" who thought a cable TV subscription was all that was required to properly invest their money. But as a guy who takes personal accountability as seriously as you do, I wouldn't think you'd have a problem with someone who makes a living holding himself out to be an expert in his field being taken to task for being wrong.

 

If the weatherman calls for sunny skies, of course I'm gonna be pissed when Hurricane Tammy blows the margarita out of my hand. Doesn't mean he owes me a new drink, but I'm still gonna curse him out when I get home.

[The Dean]

Once again anyone buying individual stocks based on the rambling of a loud mouthed maniac gets what they deserve. Stewart may be a comedy show but Cramer is an entertainer. It's not the people making the recommendation that's to blame it's he people following that recommendation. How can you do what someone tell you to invest in who hasn't even seen your portfolio or your tax return. I put him in the same category as Suze Orman. But what do I know right. It's always someone elses fault with you isn't it.

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe part of your job is to advise investors. So, if an investor loses money, on the basis of your recommendation, it doesn't reflect on you at all? What if they discover you've been lying to them, concealing some information, misrepresenting other info, etc? Are you still free of fault (after all, they should have done the research for themselves)?

 

People, and institutions, that hold themselves up to be expert, should be held to some standards, don't you think? Clearly CNBC, the Wall St Journal, Forbes, Investor's Weekly, etc, purport to be expert at dispensing market-related information and advice.

 

Now, I agree that shills like Orman and Cramer shouldn't be looked upon to provide reliable advice for any individual...but, so what? In a society that craves free speech, and the free exchange of information and ideas, it is important to expose those who use that freedom to mislead, con and otherwise take advantage to the general public. I have to applaud Stewart using his comedy pulpit to bash folks like this.

 

Of course, individuals have to accept responsibility for their purposeful actions...but, that doesn't mean others don't also share in the responsibility. Madoff is going to jail for lying and misleading his clients. Given your philosophy, maybe Bernie should say "it's not my fault if they followed my recommendation, and gave me their money. They should have done better research."

[HopsGuy]

Here's what I'd call an objective view on this whole thing: StreetInsider

[The Big Cat]

Once again anyone buying individual stocks based on the rambling of a loud mouthed maniac gets what they deserve. Stewart may be a comedy show but Cramer is an entertainer. It's not the people making the recommendation that's to blame it's he people following that recommendation. How can you do what someone tell you to invest in who hasn't even seen your portfolio or your tax return. I put him in the same category as Suze Orman. But what do I know right. It's always someone elses fault with you isn't it.

 

In the "interview" Stewart rails on CNBC's financial reporting on the whole. Cramer's response: "What do you want us to do? We interview these CEO's and lie to us." That's a WEAK response to jusitfy ANY journalists' reporting or lack there of.

 

Stewart foots MOST of the blame on CNBC, basically saying they're not who they SAY they are. And that's true.

 

However, for a company owned by a company owned by GE, what does Stewart really expect?

[blzrul]

People who rely on TV to tell them how to invest shouldn't be investing.

[The Dean]

People who rely on TV to tell them how to invest shouldn't be investing.

 

 

I have no problem with that basic sentiment. Of course, it isn't reality, so it doesn't sufficiently address the issues, at hand.

 

But, if people who rely on TV for their info shouldn't invest, should TV pundits, with an agenda and ties to the industry, be disseminating information disguised as "informed" and "objective"?

 

The elephant in the room, in this conversation, of course, is professional investors, with the ability to get quality information, who purport to be experts, got their ass kicked in the recent downturn, too. Looking at some of the investments that went bad, it would seem that if these experts had done their homework, they would have realized they were buying nothing of value.

 

I have no issue with personal responsibility, and buyer beware. I have a big problem with those who think sellers, and their marketers and defacto PR operatives. bear no responsibility for the information they disseminate, or their sales practices.

[drnykterstein]

Here's what I'd call an objective view on this whole thing: StreetInsider

 

mm... It was a whole article of them defending Cramer.. and then saying at the end "not that we want to defend Cramer"

[Kelly the Dog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/g...r_n_171605.html

 

 

Next......

The funny thing about that was that Gibbs was responding to a question about Cramer, from an NBC reporter.

[HopsGuy]

mm... It was a whole article of them defending Cramer.. and then saying at the end "not that we want to defend Cramer"

 

Really? Other than

 

But to blame the financial media for the crisis and attack with such a clear political motive is just rank.

 

I do not see another sentence 'defending Cramer'. To me it looks like some observations are made regarding Stewart's claims. The disclaimer that the end was for people who believe that the world is make up of the 'black and white'.

[blzrul]

I have no problem with that basic sentiment. Of course, it isn't reality, so it doesn't sufficiently address the issues, at hand.

 

But, if people who rely on TV for their info shouldn't invest, should TV pundits, with an agenda and ties to the industry, be disseminating information disguised as "informed" and "objective"?

 

The elephant in the room, in this conversation, of course, is professional investors, with the ability to get quality information, who purport to be experts, got their ass kicked in the recent downturn, too. Looking at some of the investments that went bad, it would seem that if these experts had done their homework, they would have realized they were buying nothing of value.

 

I have no issue with personal responsibility, and buyer beware. I have a big problem with those who think sellers, and their marketers and defacto PR operatives. bear no responsibility for the information they disseminate, or their sales practices.

Well, if they are experts in their field and they are sincere but make mistakes...c'est la vie. It's still up to the individual to do their due diligence before they decide to believe anything that anyone tells them.

[The Big Cat]

Well, if they are experts in their field and they are sincere but make mistakes...c'est la vie. It's still up to the individual to do their due diligence before they decide to believe anything that anyone tells them.

 

I agree, we should do away with journalists all together.

[Chef Jim]

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe part of your job is to advise investors. So, if an investor loses money, on the basis of your recommendation, it doesn't reflect on you at all? What if they discover you've been lying to them, concealing some information, misrepresenting other info, etc? Are you still free of fault (after all, they should have done the research for themselves)?

 

People, and institutions, that hold themselves up to be expert, should be held to some standards, don't you think? Clearly CNBC, the Wall St Journal, Forbes, Investor's Weekly, etc, purport to be expert at dispensing market-related information and advice.

 

Now, I agree that shills like Orman and Cramer shouldn't be looked upon to provide reliable advice for any individual...but, so what? In a society that craves free speech, and the free exchange of information and ideas, it is important to expose those who use that freedom to mislead, con and otherwise take advantage to the general public. I have to applaud Stewart using his comedy pulpit to bash folks like this.

 

Of course, individuals have to accept responsibility for their purposeful actions...but, that doesn't mean others don't also share in the responsibility. Madoff is going to jail for lying and misleading his clients. Given your philosophy, maybe Bernie should say "it's not my fault if they followed my recommendation, and gave me their money. They should have done better research."

 

I cannot and do not make recommendation blindly to people like Cramer does. My recommendations are based on weeks of tallking to them and reviewing their situations. Looking at their current assets and tax returns. Finding out what they are trying to accomplish. Talking with their other trusted advisers. I don't make a recommendation after a 30 second phone call that goes like this "hey chef jim, what do you think about microsoft?"

 

I build relationships with people, I come highly recommended from other people they know. So they know that my recommendations is made for one reason and one reason only, to improve their situation. When you mention CNBC, the WSJ, Forbes, IBD as being in the business of giving advice you're wrong. They're in the business of giving information...big difference. And if you can't tell that difference that's not my fault. Ask Suze if she's even licensed to give advice. She's not. I don't imagine Cramer is either. I am. And because of that there are certain standards that I have to live up to.

 

Madoff is going to jail for lying, cheating and misrepresenting, which he should. Is it his fault? Yes. The people who invested with him, is it their fault too? Yes. Is it the advisor's fault who told their clients to invest in him? Yes. Did I recommend any of my clients invest with him? Nope. His returns were impossible to achieve and I'm a firm believer in if it's too good to be true, it is.

 

So, should Cramer be punished for giving information? Nope. You're an idiot if you call a TV talk so for investing advice when he doesn't even ask the simple question of "what's this money for?" Buyer beware.

[Chef Jim]

Well, if they are experts in their field and they are sincere but make mistakes...c'est la vie. It's still up to the individual to do their due diligence before they decide to believe anything that anyone tells them.

 

Stop saying shiit that I agree with.

[The Big Cat]

I cannot and do not make recommendation blindly to people like Cramer does. My recommendations are based on weeks of tallking to them and reviewing their situations. Looking at their current assets and tax returns. Finding out what they are trying to accomplish. Talking with their other trusted advisers. I don't make a recommendation after a 30 second phone call that goes like this "hey chef jim, what do you think about microsoft?"

 

I build relationships with people, I come highly recommended from other people they know. So they know that my recommendations is made for one reason and one reason only, to improve their situation. When you mention CNBC, the WSJ, Forbes, IBD as being in the business of giving advice you're wrong. They're in the business of giving information...big difference. And if you can't tell that difference that's not my fault. Ask Suze if she's even licensed to give advice. She's not. I don't imagine Cramer is either. I am. And because of that there are certain standards that I have to live up to.

 

Madoff is going to jail for lying, cheating and misrepresenting, which he should. Is it his fault? Yes. The people who invested with him, is it their fault too? Yes. Is it the advisor's fault who told their clients to invest in him? Yes. Did I recommend any of my clients invest with him? Nope. His returns were impossible to achieve and I'm a firm believer in if it's too good to be true, it is.

 

So, should Cramer be punished for giving information? Nope. You're an idiot if you call a TV talk so for investing advice when he doesn't even ask the simple question of "what's this money for?" Buyer beware.

 

Well then what's the point in Forbes, WSJ, CNBC disseminating this information? Whose purpose are they serving?

[The Dean]

I cannot and do not make recommendation blindly to people like Cramer does. My recommendations are based on weeks of tallking to them and reviewing their situations. Looking at their current assets and tax returns. Finding out what they are trying to accomplish. Talking with their other trusted advisers. I don't make a recommendation after a 30 second phone call that goes like this "hey chef jim, what do you think about microsoft?"

 

I build relationships with people, I come highly recommended from other people they know. So they know that my recommendations is made for one reason and one reason only, to improve their situation. When you mention CNBC, the WSJ, Forbes, IBD as being in the business of giving advice you're wrong. They're in the business of giving information...big difference. And if you can't tell that difference that's not my fault. Ask Suze if she's even licensed to give advice. She's not. I don't imagine Cramer is either. I am. And because of that there are certain standards that I have to live up to.

 

Madoff is going to jail for lying, cheating and misrepresenting, which he should. Is it his fault? Yes. The people who invested with him, is it their fault too? Yes. Is it the advisor's fault who told their clients to invest in him? Yes. Did I recommend any of my clients invest with him? Nope. His returns were impossible to achieve and I'm a firm believer in if it's too good to be true, it is.

 

So, should Cramer be punished for giving information? Nope. You're an idiot if you call a TV talk so for investing advice when he doesn't even ask the simple question of "what's this money for?" Buyer beware.

 

 

Let's start by making one thing clear: I know the difference between what Cramer does and what Madoff did. The difference is why Madoff is going to jail, and Cramer is getting B word-slapped by Jon Stewart. Both are deserving of what they got, in this case. I am not suggesting CNBC be jailed, but exposed and criticized.

 

And, I hate to get pissy with you, but you are very out of touch, if you really think CNBC (for example) isn't in the business of giving advice. I know the difference between info and advice. Saying "you should BUY" is not giving information, it is clearly giving advice...to buy. That is a regular feature of CNBC, and also some other financial media.

 

While I agree individuals have to take responsibility, I don't see how you can simply give a pass to those who market themselves as experts. There's room for a lot of blame, and responsibility, here.

[blzrul]

I agree, we should do away with journalists all together.

A journalist should just report the news without adding an opinion. That's what the news is supposed to be. Although in PRACTICE it is a joke, the "we report, you decide" slogan is what news should be. People should get the facts and make their own decisions.

 

Someone who is making a recommendation or rendering an opinion is fallible ... and people should consider that.

 

Even the ads for investment firms and financial advisors clearly state that there is risk involved and it's up to the individual to assess that risk and make an informed decision.

 

I deplore snake oil salesmen, and I will agree that the media outlets who position some of these people as "experts" are somewhat irresponsible. But I still think that individuals need to do their homework and if they don't it's their own fault.

 

I am not really disagreeing with you...these guys are just one piece of a whole lotta people and process that screwed up and hurt a lot of people.