Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

[Ben Willaert]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-03-12-jim-cramer-appears-on-jon-stewart-show-daily-show_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
Does Jon Stewart have a point that media outlets like CNBC (Jim Cramer) should be chastised for concentrating more on entertainment and ratings then giving accurate and reliable reporting on the stock market?

With the growth of the internet came the invitation for anyone to trade on the stock market. Now there seems to be a problem that people are relying on entertainment television to “research” their stock decisions. Amateur stock speculation is a contributing factor to our current crisis. Should there be a licensing requirement for making trades on the stock market to limit those amateur whims?

[Dan Conner]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-03-12-jim-cramer-appears-on-jon-stewart-show-daily-show_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular
Does Jon Stewart have a point that media outlets like CNBC (Jim Cramer) should be chastised for concentrating more on entertainment and ratings then giving accurate and reliable reporting on the stock market?

With the growth of the internet came the invitation for anyone to trade on the stock market. Now there seems to be a problem that people are relying on entertainment television to “research” their stock decisions. Amateur stock speculation is a contributing factor to our current crisis. Should there be a licensing requirement for making trades on the stock market to limit those amateur whims?


You better believe he has a point! They advertise themselves as wise financial experts giving sage advice, not entertainers worried about ratings. The whole network holds itself out as the references to used by the public for investment. Much of that turns out to be bunk! Lot's of wrong advice and even some crooked advice (fomenting). Amateur investment was of a very tiny contributing factor to our crisis. It was the highly professional and experienced traders that got us into the trouble.

Don't worry there is going to be a whole mess of new, tighter regulations to more closely control Wall Street and investors. They abused the freedom they had.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I loved what John Stewart said to Jim Cramer! I was actually in shock - he let Cramer have it. But if you are going to tout your expertise, you better be able to stand or fall by it... In my view, Stewart called Cramer out for being a sell out. The almighty buck and the ego trip were just too much for Mr. Mad Money to resist. It is about time we hold these "Financial Wizards" to some sort of moral code! Honesty and integrity for all! Isn't that the first chapter in the book of wisdom?

[Bob Jentges]

I have little interest in the outcome of a food fight between two liberal entertainers, just like I would have little interest in the outcome of a food fight between two conservative entertainers.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Two liberal entertainers? I wasn't aware that Jim Cramer was a liberal entertainer... Am I missing something?

[Ben Willaert]

Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart were/are both supporters of Obama. Cramer even stated during the interview on the Daily Show that he voted for Obama.

[Bob Jentges]

Two liberal entertainers? I wasn't aware that Jim Cramer was a liberal entertainer... Am I missing something?

The way I read the first two posts on this thread, plus mine of yesterday, they seem to form a consensus (3 out of 4 people who have posted) that Cramer is probably closer to an entertainer than a serious financial planner. I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools. Of course others might have a different opinion.

[Dan Conner]

I have little interest in the outcome of a food fight between two liberal entertainers, just like I would have little interest in the outcome of a food fight between two conservative entertainers.

I think you must have a strange definition of "food fight." I thought Jon Stewart properly admonished Cramer for holding himself out as an almost prophetic stock guru, but not being much more accurate than most any other investor. In fact, he performed a valuable public service by revealing that Cramer was really only a "showbiz entertainer." And Cramer appropriately apologized for all his misinformation.

People who watched the show will probably better realize that Cramer isn't anything close to the guru he thinks he is, or advertises himself to be. To me that is a valuable public service announcement. In this case, Stewart demonstrated there was far more serious and truthful material coming from the comedy network than the "financial network."

I think Bob was right to describe Cramer as an entertainer, but I think he goes overboard to say people who relied on him to be "fools." In that case, there are millions upon millions of "fools", not only by listening to Cramer, but also, Madoff, Stanford, most of Wall street bankers, etc. I don't think it is appropriate to label people as "fools". I will bet him we have all been "fools" using his definition. Besides, calling people fools does not fix the problem. The people giving this misinformation need to be corrected/imprisoned, whichever is appropriate. The object here should be to fix the problem, not label people as "fools."

[Bob Jentges]

I think you must have a strange definition of "food fight." I thought Jon Stewart properly admonished Cramer for holding himself out as an almost prophetic stock guru, but not being much more accurate than most any other investor. In fact, he performed a valuable public service by revealing that Cramer was really only a "showbiz entertainer." And Cramer appropriately apologized for all his misinformation.

People who watched the show will probably better realize that Cramer isn't anything close to the guru he thinks he is, or advertises himself to be. To me that is a valuable public service announcement. In this case, Stewart demonstrated there was far more serious and truthful material coming from the comedy network than the "financial network."

I think Bob was right to describe Cramer as an entertainer, but I think he goes overboard to say people who relied on him to be "fools." In that case, there are millions upon millions of "fools", not only by listening to Cramer, but also, Madoff, Stanford, most of Wall street bankers, etc. I don't think it is appropriate to label people as "fools". I will bet him we have all been "fools" using his definition. Besides, calling people fools does not fix the problem. The people giving this misinformation need to be corrected/imprisoned, whichever is appropriate. The object here should be to fix the problem, not label people as "fools."

Come on Dan. You know what I meant by the phrase food fight!

One definition of "fool" is: "A person who acts unwisely or imprudently". You seem to agree that people who listened to Cramer, Madoff, Stanford, etc., acted unwisely or imprudently. Therefore I suggest they were fools by definition in that respect. Almost certainly each of us has acted as a fool on occassion. When I do something foolish I do not take offense at being told that. If someone called me a fool for something foolish I did it would not fix my foolish mistake, but it might prevent me from making the same foolish mistake again.

[Dan Conner]

Come on Dan. You know what I meant by the phrase food fight!

One definition of "fool" is: "A person who acts unwisely or imprudently". You seem to agree that people who listened to Cramer, Madoff, Stanford, etc., acted unwisely or imprudently. Therefore I suggest they were fools by definition in that respect. Almost certainly each of us has acted as a fool on occassion. When I do something foolish I do not take offense at being told that. If someone called me a fool for something foolish I did it would not fix my foolish mistake, but it might prevent me from making the same foolish mistake again.

Yes, I think I know what you mean by food fight, and I would not characterize the discussion as a food fight. If it was a fight Cramer lost it miserably. However, I think it was more of a discussion, with Jon Stewart doing most of the talking. Cramer listened and promised to do better. That's a win-win.

I very much disagree with your characterization of "fool." Acting imprudently or unwisely is characterizing the act. Fool is characterizing the person. The dictionary defines "fool" as, One who is deficient in judgement, sense or understanding, along with other descriptions. However, it is a description of the individual. Would you rather I say you are a "fool", or someone who acted imprudently or unwisely? I think it is a derrogatory word used to describe someone in a demeaning light. I kind of think you must know that. It is name-calling. I don't think you would like to be called a fool and neither would I. However, if you wish to question my wisdom or prudence on a particular subject, that is OK. Also, being told you are acting foolish is a lot different than being called a fool. I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for you to call Ellen or Liz a fool. There is a big difference.

All of us can act foolish, but that doen't mean we must be fools. One does not necessarily follow the other. If we use your definition, and concede we all have acted foolish at one time, then we are all fools using your reasoning. However, I don't agree with that. Calling someone a fool is a conclusion arrived at about a person. Foolish is more of a description of an act or event. I might have characterized some of the things you have said as foolish, but I wouldn't call you a fool. I would hope you refrain from doing the same, as one fool to another.

[Bob Jentges]

Yes, I think I know what you mean by food fight, and I would not characterize the discussion as a food fight. If it was a fight Cramer lost it miserably. However, I think it was more of a discussion, with Jon Stewart doing most of the talking. Cramer listened and promised to do better. That's a win-win.

I very much disagree with your characterization of "fool." Acting imprudently or unwisely is characterizing the act. Fool is characterizing the person. The dictionary defines "fool" as, One who is deficient in judgement, sense or understanding, along with other descriptions. However, it is a description of the individual. Would you rather I say you are a "fool", or someone who acted imprudently or unwisely? I think it is a derrogatory word used to describe someone in a demeaning light. I kind of think you must know that. It is name-calling. I don't think you would like to be called a fool and neither would I. However, if you wish to question my wisdom or prudence on a particular subject, that is OK. Also, being told you are acting foolish is a lot different than being called a fool. I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for you to call Ellen or Liz a fool. There is a big difference.

All of us can act foolish, but that doen't mean we must be fools. One does not necessarily follow the other. If we use your definition, and concede we all have acted foolish at one time, then we are all fools using your reasoning. However, I don't agree with that. Calling someone a fool is a conclusion arrived at about a person. Foolish is more of a description of an act or event. I might have characterized some of the things you have said as foolish, but I wouldn't call you a fool. I would hope you refrain from doing the same, as one fool to another.

Charactize the Stewart v. Cramer thing as you want and declare whoever you choose as winner or loser. As stated in my first very brief post in this thread, I do not care.

The definition of "fool" I cited i.e. "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently;" was taken Oxford Concise English dictionary. Please note the word "person" in the definition. Oxford defines "foolish" as "lacking good sense or judgement" which would certainly seem to suggest it takes a person to do something foolish. It follows then that person would be a fool, with respect to that act. I try to speak in a plain, simple, and common sense fashion.

But what disturbs me greatly is your statement: "I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for you to call Ellen or Liz a fool". That suggests I did, and anyone that read your remark without reading what I actually said could conclude I did. I NEVER CALLED ELLEN OR LIZ A FOOL!! What I said is: "I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools".

I am not the only person on the Forum that has said this to you in one form or another in the last few days, but I will say it again---Stop twisting others words. Be reckless with your own words if you like, but do not try to twist the meaning of my words.

[Dan Conner]

Charactize the Stewart v. Cramer thing as you want and declare whoever you choose as winner or loser. As stated in my first very brief post in this thread, I do not care.

The definition of "fool" I cited i.e. "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently;" was taken Oxford Concise English dictionary. Please note the word "person" in the definition. Oxford defines "foolish" as "lacking good sense or judgement" which would certainly seem to suggest it takes a person to do something foolish. It follows then that person would be a fool, with respect to that act. I try to speak in a plain, simple, and common sense fashion.

But what disturbs me greatly is your statement: "I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for you to call Ellen or Liz a fool". That suggests I did, and anyone that read your remark without reading what I actually said could conclude I did. I NEVER CALLED ELLEN OR LIZ A FOOL!! What I said is: "I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools".

I am not the only person on the Forum that has said this to you in one form or another in the last few days, but I will say it again---Stop twisting others words. Be reckless with your own words if you like, but do not try to twist the meaning of my words.

You sure have. You stated people who have made mistakes in either investments, jobs, and other choices, were not very smart (foolish). I guess you therefore, characterize them as fools. I am so surprised you have told me you so carefully pick your words because you were a legal supervisor. Yet, I think you have been careless. You even affirmed what I previously sent in my reply. YOUR definition of fool was a PERSON WHO... dON'T YOU GET IT? I told you it refers to a person. Foolish refers to the act. Again, your definition of foolish..."lacking good sense or judgement." There is no reference to a person there, right? The key word, person was omitted. Come on Bob, I thought you would know better. I'll tell you, you can go through life then, calling everyone a fool, and let's see how far that gets you. If you do, I suggest you get good dental insurance.

Maybe I should acquaint you with a previous quote of yours: "The way I read the first two posts on this thread, plus mine of yesterday, they seem to form a consensus (3 out of 4 people who have posted) that Cramer is probably closer to an entertainer than a serious financial planner. I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools. Of course others might have a different opinion." This was in reply to Liz. That's fine if Liz never invested based on what Cramer said, but I'm sure others did. Why didn't oyu say that people did something foolish? Instead, you called (insinuated) them fools. Not appropriate for a legal supervisor. If you stick with your ridiculously rationalized definition, then you are a fool!

Also, I get the impression you never saw the Stewart/Cramer discussion? If you didn't, then you are careless to characterize it as a food fight. More careless talk. I know you said you don't care, but then I suggest you pick your language more carefully because others might care.

[Bob Jentges]

You sure have. You stated people who have made mistakes in either investments, jobs, and other choices, were not very smart (foolish). I guess you therefore, characterize them as fools. I am so surprised you have told me you so carefully pick your words because you were a legal supervisor. Yet, I think you have been careless. You even affirmed what I previously sent in my reply. YOUR definition of fool was a PERSON WHO... dON'T YOU GET IT? I told you it refers to a person. Foolish refers to the act. Again, your definition of foolish..."lacking good sense or judgement." There is no reference to a person there, right? The key word, person was omitted. Come on Bob, I thought you would know better. I'll tell you, you can go through life then, calling everyone a fool, and let's see how far that gets you. If you do, I suggest you get good dental insurance.

Maybe I should acquaint you with a previous quote of yours: "The way I read the first two posts on this thread, plus mine of yesterday, they seem to form a consensus (3 out of 4 people who have posted) that Cramer is probably closer to an entertainer than a serious financial planner. I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools. Of course others might have a different opinion." This was in reply to Liz. That's fine if Liz never invested based on what Cramer said, but I'm sure others did. Why didn't oyu say that people did something foolish? Instead, you called (insinuated) them fools. Not appropriate for a legal supervisor. If you stick with your ridiculously rationalized definition, then you are a fool!

Also, I get the impression you never saw the Stewart/Cramer discussion? If you didn't, then you are careless to characterize it as a food fight. More careless talk. I know you said you don't care, but then I suggest you pick your language more carefully because others might care.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I do not intend to go through step-by-step and try to explain why you are wrong. Maybe if you took a deep breath and reviewed this thread from beginning to this point you could figure it out for yourself. Finally,since you are one who is always mentioning winners and losers I am declaring myself the winner and ending this exchange, at least from my position.

[Dan Conner]

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I do not intend to go through step-by-step and try to explain why you are wrong. Maybe if you took a deep breath and reviewed this thread from beginning to this point you could figure it out for yourself. Finally,since you are one who is always mentioning winners and losers I am declaring myself the winner and ending this exchange, at least from my position.

Bob, you seem obsessed with winning and losing. That's what you keep coming back to. I am not wrong. I'm sorry you can't see your error, but you are wrong. Now, you can keep calling people fools, since everyone makes errors, but then what is the purpose, since we all make errors. Then, if it is given we are all fools, what's the purpose?

I have been breathing easy the whole time. It sounds like you are the angry one. I suggest you take the deep breath and reexamine what you said. You spend the whole time launching accusations, but never addressing the quote. Did you watch the Stewart Cramer discussion? If you did where did you get food fight? You launching accusations about people being fools, declaring yourself a "winner", but not being able to address the substance of what you, or for that matter, what I've said seems to be a "smokescreen" for you not being able to answer adequately.


Calling people fools is wrong, especially when you don't even know them
Characterizing a discussion as a "food fight", when you probably haven't even watched it is foolish


I suggest you take the deep breath back away and try another approach.

[Liz Ratcliff]

The way I read the first two posts on this thread, plus mine of yesterday, they seem to form a consensus (3 out of 4 people who have posted) that Cramer is probably closer to an entertainer than a serious financial planner. I think those who might base their investments on his observations might be fools. Of course others might have a different opinion.

I would agree that Cramer isn't reliable, but until this all came to light, he was being touted as the financial wiz kid of CNBC. I didn't watch his show - which as I understand was a platform for him to give financial advice, not crack jokes. And if you watched the Jon Stewart interview, you would see that Cramer doesn't protest much... You would have also seen that he was caught in several blatant lies. He was caught playing both sides... taking advantage of the loose moral standards of the financial industry of late... and certainly seemed to me to be a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that controls wall street. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, TV personalities carry influence. And if they are being promoted as experts, they should be able to stand by their words. Personal responsibility is supposed to apply to us all... not just the working folks. Jon Stewart is one hell of a journalist as opposed to all of the sell outs that are peddled on network TV... INDEED!

[Dan Conner]

I would agree that Cramer isn't reliable, but until this all came to light, he was being touted as the financial wiz kid of CNBC. I didn't watch his show - which as I understand was a platform for him to give financial advice, not crack jokes. And if you watched the Jon Stewart interview, you would see that Cramer doesn't protest much... You would have also seen that he was caught in several blatant lies. He was caught playing both sides... taking advantage of the loose moral standards of the financial industry of late... and certainly seemed to me to be a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that controls wall street. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, TV personalities carry influence. And if they are being promoted as experts, they should be able to stand by their words. Personal responsibility is supposed to apply to us all... not just the working folks. Jon Stewart is one hell of a journalist as opposed to all of the sell outs that are peddled on network TV... INDEED!

I couldn't have said it better Liz. Calling people who listened to Cramer, fools, was inappropriate and not constructive. Cramer has long been advertised by CNBC as a Wall Street guru. His claim to fame was on derivatives (which got us into these troubles). Cramer had his own firm, I believe. It's pretty easy to use 20-20 hindsight and call Cramer and entertainer, when no one disputed him being a financial guru until Stewart exposed him.

[Bob Jentges]

I would agree that Cramer isn't reliable, but until this all came to light, he was being touted as the financial wiz kid of CNBC. I didn't watch his show - which as I understand was a platform for him to give financial advice, not crack jokes. And if you watched the Jon Stewart interview, you would see that Cramer doesn't protest much... You would have also seen that he was caught in several blatant lies. He was caught playing both sides... taking advantage of the loose moral standards of the financial industry of late... and certainly seemed to me to be a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that controls wall street. Whether you like it or agree with it or not, TV personalities carry influence. And if they are being promoted as experts, they should be able to stand by their words. Personal responsibility is supposed to apply to us all... not just the working folks. Jon Stewart is one hell of a journalist as opposed to all of the sell outs that are peddled on network TV... INDEED!

Good morning Liz---This thread seems to have developed into a situation where some seem to think that I am defending Cramer. I am not. Please see my 3-14-09 10:45 PM post. I have never watched his Mad Money show on CNBC. All I saw of the exchange between Cramer and Jon Stewart on Stewarts show were clips on other networks.

You referred to Jon Stewart as a "jouranlist". In mine of 3-14 referrenced previously I referred to him as an "entertainer". Since I have heard some in the media refer to Mr. Stewart as a "comedian". To each his own. It is not important to me.

PS Dan---I had hoped our discussion on definitions of "fool" and "foolish" were a thing of the past, but because you alluded to that again in your recent Reply to Liz's post let me say, hopefully for the final time, what I said in my 3-16-09 6:36 AM post was: "I think those who base their investments on his observations might be fools." I did not specifically name any person. In that same post I cited the Oxford Concise Dictionary definition of "fool" as: "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently;", and cited Oxfords definition of "foolish" as "lacking good sense or judgement". Based on Oxford a "fool" is a person while "foolish" is an act. I think it is therefore fair, based on Oxford, to suggest fools commit foolish acts. If in retrospect you do not think those who based their investments on Cramers observations were guilty of foolish acts so be it.

[Dan Conner]

Good morning Liz---This thread seems to have developed into a situation where some seem to think that I am defending Cramer. I am not. Please see my 3-14-09 10:45 PM post. I have never watched his Mad Money show on CNBC. All I saw of the exchange between Cramer and Jon Stewart on Stewarts show were clips on other networks.

You referred to Jon Stewart as a "jouranlist". In mine of 3-14 referrenced previously I referred to him as an "entertainer". Since I have heard some in the media refer to Mr. Stewart as a "comedian". To each his own. It is not important to me.

PS Dan---I had hoped our discussion on definitions of "fool" and "foolish" were a thing of the past, but because you alluded to that again in your recent Reply to Liz's post let me say, hopefully for the final time, what I said in my 3-16-09 6:36 AM post was: "I think those who base their investments on his observations might be fools." I did not specifically name any person. In that same post I cited the Oxford Concise Dictionary definition of "fool" as: "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently;", and cited Oxfords definition of "foolish" as "lacking good sense or judgement". Based on Oxford a "fool" is a person while "foolish" is an act. I think it is therefore fair, based on Oxford, to suggest fools commit foolish acts. If in retrospect you do not think those who based their investments on Cramers observations were guilty of foolish acts so be it.

Bob: When you say someone is a fool who follows Cramer's advice, you very might be calling Liz and everyone else, reading your post, who followed his advice, a fool. The whole thing is that it was unnecessary. You don't have to name call to make your point. I very much considered it name calling. In fact, you called anyone who listened to and or followed Cramer's advice as fools. That's not appropriate.

You also raise another important issue in this post. You acknowledged that you never watch "Mad Money," but then you slam Cramer as an investor expert and call him only an entertainer. How would you know, if you never watch the show? I'm sure, in a legal way, you sure wouldn't be an expert witness there. I think you should better confine your judgement to people or things you know about or research. Cramer was a very successful (of course they only measure success in $$$) Wall Street investor. However, he is also an entertainer. However, he is not as good as he thinks he is. If you are going to interject your opinions, it would be nice if you knew something about the subject or person you are attacking.

Also, you referred to the Cramer Stewart discussion as a "foodfight." Now you admit you only saw snippets of the show. Again, you readily offer opinions on a subject where you only have superficial knowledge. I think you need to refrain from that if you expect to be credible. If the discussion was a "foodfight," Cramer had no food and Stewart had a proverbial smorgasboard. Cramer left humbled and speechless. He not only lost, but he damaged his career. I think the discussion was a little deeper than a "foodfight." It was an iterview of considerable consequence. Cramer also acknowledged committing an illegal act.

PS...Bob, people who have committed "foolish" acts aren't necessarily "fools." Fool is a much deeper and personal judgement.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob: When you say someone is a fool who follows Cramer's advice, you very might be calling Liz and everyone else, reading your post, who followed his advice, a fool. The whole thing is that it was unnecessary. You don't have to name call to make your point. I very much considered it name calling. In fact, you called anyone who listened to and or followed Cramer's advice as fools. That's not appropriate.

You also raise another important issue in this post. You acknowledged that you never watch "Mad Money," but then you slam Cramer as an investor expert and call him only an entertainer. How would you know, if you never watch the show? I'm sure, in a legal way, you sure wouldn't be an expert witness there. I think you should better confine your judgement to people or things you know about or research. Cramer was a very successful (of course they only measure success in $$$) Wall Street investor. However, he is also an entertainer. However, he is not as good as he thinks he is. If you are going to interject your opinions, it would be nice if you knew something about the subject or person you are attacking.

Also, you referred to the Cramer Stewart discussion as a "foodfight." Now you admit you only saw snippets of the show. Again, you readily offer opinions on a subject where you only have superficial knowledge. I think you need to refrain from that if you expect to be credible. If the discussion was a "foodfight," Cramer had no food and Stewart had a proverbial smorgasboard. Cramer left humbled and speechless. He not only lost, but he damaged his career. I think the discussion was a little deeper than a "foodfight." It was an iterview of considerable consequence. Cramer also acknowledged committing an illegal act.

PS...Bob, people who have committed "foolish" acts aren't necessarily "fools." Fool is a much deeper and personal judgement.

I think I will stick with the Oxford Concise definitions. But if it will help end this discussion I will say that, in my opinion, a person that commits a "foolish" act in one situation does not mean they are "foolish" in everything else they might do. In otherwords, once a "fool" does not mean always a "fool".

[Dan Conner]

I think I will stick with the Oxford Concise definitions. But if it will help end this discussion I will say that, in my opinion, a person that commits a "foolish" act in one situation does not mean they are "foolish" in everything else they might do. In otherwords, once a "fool" does not mean always a "fool".

Use whatever you want, but like I pointed out earlier, even your Oxford Concise definition says fool refers to a person. Foolish refers more to that act. That's why it is name calling. If I say you are a fool, then that's name calling. I just think it is better to refrain from calling people fools, since we all share that at times. And, if we do, what's the point?

If you say you want to correct poor judgement, then explain that to the person, along with some suitable alternative, but don't just call them fools. Otherwise, you might be speaking as if you were looking in a mirror.

[Bob Jentges]

Use whatever you want, but like I pointed out earlier, even your Oxford Concise definition says fool refers to a person. Foolish refers more to that act. That's why it is name calling. If I say you are a fool, then that's name calling. I just think it is better to refrain from calling people fools, since we all share that at times. And, if we do, what's the point?

If you say you want to correct poor judgement, then explain that to the person, along with some suitable alternative, but don't just call them fools. Otherwise, you might be speaking as if you were looking in a mirror.

Regarding your final paragraph, I think I suggested something similar could or should be done in one of my earlier posts. I also think I admittited to having done some foolish things during my lifetime. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Dan Conner]

Regarding your final paragraph, I think I suggested something similar could or should be done in one of my earlier posts. I also think I admittited to having done some foolish things during my lifetime. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

You're still missing my point. We have all done foolish things in our lifetime, but I don't believe that necessarily makes you a fool. This isn't about you doing foolish things, I'll grant you that, but then I ask you...are you a fool? The discussion wasn't about doing foolish things. It was about calling people fools.

As far as my last paragraph is concerned, you might have mentioned you have explained errors to people, but that misses what I said about what you told Liz. You indicated that people who followed Cramer's investment advice were fools. I thought that that was too critical of a judgement, particularly since Cramer was widely accepted as an investment guru, who happened to be entertaining.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart were/are both supporters of Obama. Cramer even stated during the interview on the Daily Show that he voted for Obama.

I am not sure what your point is... I believe he voted for Obama based on this sentiment he made - "Obama is a recession and McCain is a depression"... Just because he made a good call doesn't mean he hasn't made a lot of bad ones. But you know what, I don't begrudge him that. We all make plenty of mistakes... I do have a problem with the blatant DISHONESTY that was revealed by the interview with Jon Stewart. Cramer was caught red handed and couldn't even deny it... I don't care what party affiliation he has, the fact is he played the system and did very well for himself knowing that things were not right.

[Ben Willaert]

Two liberal entertainers? I wasn't aware that Jim Cramer was a liberal entertainer... Am I missing something?

I am not sure what your point is... I believe he voted for Obama based on this sentiment he made - "Obama is a recession and McCain is a depression"... Just because he made a good call doesn't mean he hasn't made a lot of bad ones. But you know what, I don't begrudge him that. We all make plenty of mistakes... I do have a problem with the blatant DISHONESTY that was revealed by the interview with Jon Stewart. Cramer was caught red handed and couldn't even deny it... I don't care what party affiliation he has, the fact is he played the system and did very well for himself knowing that things were not right.

I just was answering your question on Jim Cramer being a liberal entertainer. Which he is. Nothing else meant by it.

[Dan Conner]

Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart were/are both supporters of Obama. Cramer even stated during the interview on the Daily Show that he voted for Obama.

At least this shows that Jim Crameer can get one thing right!!

[Liz Ratcliff]

I just was answering your question on Jim Cramer being a liberal entertainer. Which he is. Nothing else meant by it.

OK, I thought you were inferring something by stating that Jim Cramer voted for Obama. To that I would say, so what? I am assuming that you think that I agree with any Obama supporter by default... I don't rally to any party affiliate unconditionally. Especially one with no integrity. Just because some right wingers say he is liberal... YIKES! Cramer is far more worried about wealth that any other issue facing our country... Here is a quote from "liberal" Jim Cramer -

Cramer, a former supporter of Obama, criticized the president yesterday on the Today Show, saying that his budget has “basically put a level of fear in this country that I have not seen ever in my life.”

“This is the most, greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president,” he added.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/04/cnbcs-jim-cramer-on-obama-greatest-wealth-destruction-ever/

[Dan Conner]

OK, I thought you were inferring something by stating that Jim Cramer voted for Obama. To that I would say, so what? I am assuming that you think that I agree with any Obama supporter by default... I don't rally to any party affiliate unconditionally. Especially one with no integrity. Just because some right wingers say he is liberal... YIKES! Cramer is far more worried about wealth that any other issue facing our country... Here is a quote from "liberal" Jim Cramer -

Cramer, a former supporter of Obama, criticized the president yesterday on the Today Show, saying that his budget has “basically put a level of fear in this country that I have not seen ever in my life.”

“This is the most, greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president,” he added.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/04/cnbcs-jim-cramer-on-obama-greatest-wealth-destruction-ever/

Good job Liz, but I won't make any referece to a wrestling referee.

[Ben Willaert]

OK, I thought you were inferring something by stating that Jim Cramer voted for Obama. To that I would say, so what? I am assuming that you think that I agree with any Obama supporter by default... I don't rally to any party affiliate unconditionally. Especially one with no integrity. Just because some right wingers say he is liberal... YIKES! Cramer is far more worried about wealth that any other issue facing our country... Here is a quote from "liberal" Jim Cramer -

Cramer, a former supporter of Obama, criticized the president yesterday on the Today Show, saying that his budget has “basically put a level of fear in this country that I have not seen ever in my life.”

“This is the most, greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president,” he added.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/04/cnbcs-jim-cramer-on-obama-greatest-wealth-destruction-ever/

Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I was only addressing your question. I too am uninterested in their political affiliation. The point I started this thread on was tossing out the theory that amateur stock speculation is part of the problem with the stock market. As was shown, relying on Cramer’s advice on the stock market would not be a wise form of research, but amateurs may have been duped by his show.

I actually think shock entertainers like Cramer are going to have to turn to making comments about Obama because they don’t know what else to do. They had it too good for too long making fun of Bush (not that he didn't deserve it). They may have supported Obama in the election, but their entertainment value sinks if they don’t have a President to make fun of. Obama has a key ally in Stewart who will go after “traders” like Cramer though. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how long Stewart can go without jumping ship and making jabs at Obama too.

[Dan Conner]

Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I was only addressing your question. I too am uninterested in their political affiliation. The point I started this thread on was tossing out the theory that amateur stock speculation is part of the problem with the stock market. As was shown, relying on Cramer’s advice on the stock market would not be a wise form of research, but amateurs may have been duped by his show.

I actually think shock entertainers like Cramer are going to have to turn to making comments about Obama because they don’t know what else to do. They had it too good for too long making fun of Bush (not that he didn't deserve it). They may have supported Obama in the election, but their entertainment value sinks if they don’t have a President to make fun of. Obama has a key ally in Stewart who will go after “traders” like Cramer though. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how long Stewart can go without jumping ship and making jabs at Obama too.

Ben, you are wrong. Cramer is not an amateur. He was a highly paid professional in the market. Like I said in another post, he owned a hedge firm. It's just that he is not as good as he thinks, as a lot of other executives.

[Ben Willaert]

Ben, you are wrong. Cramer is not an amateur. He was a highly paid professional in the market. Like I said in another post, he owned a hedge firm. It's just that he is not as good as he thinks, as a lot of other executives.

Right, Cramer is a professional, never said he wasn't. The people that rely on his show for stock market research are not. I am suggesting that all stock trades are performed through professionals in order to keep amatuer speculation at bay, i.e. no more etrade and such. Investing in the stock market would have to be done through brokers.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Yeah, don’t get me wrong, I was only addressing your question. I too am uninterested in their political affiliation. The point I started this thread on was tossing out the theory that amateur stock speculation is part of the problem with the stock market. As was shown, relying on Cramer’s advice on the stock market would not be a wise form of research, but amateurs may have been duped by his show.

I actually think shock entertainers like Cramer are going to have to turn to making comments about Obama because they don’t know what else to do. They had it too good for too long making fun of Bush (not that he didn't deserve it). They may have supported Obama in the election, but their entertainment value sinks if they don’t have a President to make fun of. Obama has a key ally in Stewart who will go after “traders” like Cramer though. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how long Stewart can go without jumping ship and making jabs at Obama too.

I completely disagree with the assumption that anyone claiming to be a liberal would unconditionally support one party... Can't a person support an ideal? If you are a regular watcher of the Daily Show, you would have noticed that Stewart has already gone after Obama on several occasions. The great thing about liberals is that we don't have to agree with our leader all of the time...

And your first paragraph... I don't think it was the amateurs that brought this economy down... it was a professional job for sure.

For an interesting documentary on more of what goes on behind the curtain, I would recommend "Confessions of a Economic Hitman" (free on Youtube).

[Ben Willaert]

I completely disagree with the assumption that anyone claiming to be a liberal would unconditionally support one party... Can't a person support an ideal? If you are a regular watcher of the Daily Show, you would have noticed that Stewart has already gone after Obama on several occasions. The great thing about liberals is that we don't have to agree with our leader all of the time...

And your first paragraph... I don't think it was the amateurs that brought this economy down... it was a professional job for sure.

For an interesting documentary on more of what goes on behind the curtain, I would recommend "Confessions of a Economic Hitman" (free on Youtube).

Good point about not blindly following a leader. I don’t think that is just a liberal quality though. I did not know Stewart has already gone after Obama. It does go along with another theory I have. I am not sure if we will have another President with a positive rating for more then the first year of office. I think the media has gotten so into blasting the President, I think they will sour our taste of any President in the eyes of the public. Back when the Kennedy’s were in power they partook in drugs, hookers, all night parties…, but the press would not report on it because they found reporting on such things unethical and un-American. Now days, our press licks their chops at any embarrassment they can find. Heck, did you see them going after Obama for the Special Olympics comment on Leno? We focus so much on negative because it sells. I would love to see more positive reporting and a return of patriotism.

I am just brain storming for things we can do to prevent economic crisis like this in the future. Not looking to place blame. Years ago when people first started trading over the internet I wondered if that would have negative effects on the stock market. In no way do I think it led to our current collapse; but the stock market is a very important part in the growth of our country’s businesses and I would like to see it running as efficiently as possible. I am just tossing out a theory to see what people think. Would the stock market be better off if only professionals could make trades? To be honest I doubt it, but I think it is worth talking about.

As soon as I heard John Perkins talk about 9/11 and receiving threats not to write his book, I stopped listening. A quick look on wikipedia confirmed he is a con man. Here is an article from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html

[Dan Conner]

Right, Cramer is a professional, never said he wasn't. The people that rely on his show for stock market research are not. I am suggesting that all stock trades are performed through professionals in order to keep amatuer speculation at bay, i.e. no more etrade and such. Investing in the stock market would have to be done through brokers.

OK, you say Cramer is a professional, but you said people shouldn't have been duped for following his advice? Why would you say that if he is a professional? You are contradicting yourself. You concede Cramer is a professional advising amateurs. Therefore, why were people duped by him? You aren't making your case here. You say investing in the stock market should be done through brokers....yoohoo, Cramer was a broker. So why were people duped again?

[Ben Willaert]

OK, you say Cramer is a professional, but you said people shouldn't have been duped for following his advice? Why would you say that if he is a professional? You are contradicting yourself. You concede Cramer is a professional advising amateurs. Therefore, why were people duped by him? You aren't making your case here. You say investing in the stock market should be done through brokers....yoohoo, Cramer was a broker. So why were people duped again?

I am suggesting professionals actually do the trading, not just give advice. It would be the equivalent of going to a marriage councilor to save your marriage vs. relying on only reading Dear Abby.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Good point about not blindly following a leader. I don’t think that is just a liberal quality though. I did not know Stewart has already gone after Obama. It does go along with another theory I have. I am not sure if we will have another President with a positive rating for more then the first year of office. I think the media has gotten so into blasting the President, I think they will sour our taste of any President in the eyes of the public. Back when the Kennedy’s were in power they partook in drugs, hookers, all night parties…, but the press would not report on it because they found reporting on such things unethical and un-American. Now days, our press licks their chops at any embarrassment they can find. Heck, did you see them going after Obama for the Special Olympics comment on Leno? We focus so much on negative because it sells. I would love to see more positive reporting and a return of patriotism.

I am just brain storming for things we can do to prevent economic crisis like this in the future. Not looking to place blame. Years ago when people first started trading over the internet I wondered if that would have negative effects on the stock market. In no way do I think it led to our current collapse; but the stock market is a very important part in the growth of our country’s businesses and I would like to see it running as efficiently as possible. I am just tossing out a theory to see what people think. Would the stock market be better off if only professionals could make trades? To be honest I doubt it, but I think it is worth talking about.

As soon as I heard John Perkins talk about 9/11 and receiving threats not to write his book, I stopped listening. A quick look on wikipedia confirmed he is a con man. Here is an article from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html


Don't "they" always trivialize the whistle blowers??? I think so... Too bad you stopped listening, it reveals a lot that can be validated. Wikipedia isn't known to be the authority in accuracy.

Patriotism isn't a pair of rose colored glasses. It is holding our leaders to a standard of accountability and competency. Regardless of who the president is, it is the job of the media to keep the public informed, not to pick and choose what to tell us. The days of wag the dog are over. We can make up our own minds as to what is relevant and what isn't.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Good point about not blindly following a leader. I don’t think that is just a liberal quality though. I did not know Stewart has already gone after Obama. It does go along with another theory I have. I am not sure if we will have another President with a positive rating for more then the first year of office. I think the media has gotten so into blasting the President, I think they will sour our taste of any President in the eyes of the public. Back when the Kennedy’s were in power they partook in drugs, hookers, all night parties…, but the press would not report on it because they found reporting on such things unethical and un-American. Now days, our press licks their chops at any embarrassment they can find. Heck, did you see them going after Obama for the Special Olympics comment on Leno? We focus so much on negative because it sells. I would love to see more positive reporting and a return of patriotism.

I am just brain storming for things we can do to prevent economic crisis like this in the future. Not looking to place blame. Years ago when people first started trading over the internet I wondered if that would have negative effects on the stock market. In no way do I think it led to our current collapse; but the stock market is a very important part in the growth of our country’s businesses and I would like to see it running as efficiently as possible. I am just tossing out a theory to see what people think. Would the stock market be better off if only professionals could make trades? To be honest I doubt it, but I think it is worth talking about.

As soon as I heard John Perkins talk about 9/11 and receiving threats not to write his book, I stopped listening. A quick look on wikipedia confirmed he is a con man. Here is an article from The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html

Speaking of bias... you obviously picked and chose excerpts from the wikipedia page... here is the link for those readers that would like to read the full post by Wikipedia, which I acknowledge may not be accurate but does offer a broader, more fair interpretation of John Perkins... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_(author)

[Dan Conner]

I am suggesting professionals actually do the trading, not just give advice. It would be the equivalent of going to a marriage councilor to save your marriage vs. relying on only reading Dear Abby.

Yoohoo again, Cramer did trade. He was a broker. He owned a brokerage. He was consideered an expert in his field. He is now on television. I don't know if he still trades, but I wouldn't doubt it. He gained his reputation as a trader. That's why he was offered a TV show.

[Ben Willaert]

Don't "they" always trivialize the whistle blowers??? I think so... Too bad you stopped listening, it reveals a lot that can be validated. Wikipedia isn't known to be the authority in accuracy.

Patriotism isn't a pair of rose colored glasses. It is holding our leaders to a standard of accountability and competency. Regardless of who the president is, it is the job of the media to keep the public informed, not to pick and choose what to tell us. The days of wag the dog are over. We can make up our own minds as to what is relevant and what isn't.

Speaking of bias... you obviously picked and chose excerpts from the wikipedia page... here is the link for those readers that would like to read the full post by Wikipedia, which I acknowledge may not be accurate but does offer a broader, more fair interpretation of John Perkins... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perkins_(author)

Wikipedia may not always be accurate, but it is a good place to start when trying to learn about a new subject. I used the Wikipedia page to find the article in The Washington Post for which I referenced. I do consider The Washington Post to be reputable.

[Ben Willaert]

Yoohoo again, Cramer did trade. He was a broker. He owned a brokerage. He was consideered an expert in his field. He is now on television. I don't know if he still trades, but I wouldn't doubt it. He gained his reputation as a trader. That's why he was offered a TV show.

Ok, but I am not questioning if Jim Cramer can trade. I am questioning if you and I should be able to trade without a license or through a broker.

Should the stock market be limited to professionals only?

[Dan Conner]

Ok, but I am not questioning if Jim Cramer can trade. I am questioning if you and I should be able to trade without a license or through a broker.

Should the stock market be limited to professionals only?

WOW! You seem to be spinning off to another planet. You were questioning Cramer's credentials and the need to use professionals instead of amateurs, and now you seemed to have morphed into trading stock without a license. If that was your question at the beginning, why didn't you state it as such?

Trading stocks is not limited to brokers or people with licenses. You can trade anytime via eTrade, etc. Brokers have to be used because sellers have to be found for buyers. Buying stocks is not like picking stocks off a tree. They are brokered between people, and a broker does it, just like real estate. You have to be licensed to be a trader on the floor of the NYSE. Asking why is like asking why do you get speeding tickets for driving over 55. That's just the law.

You were wrong about Jim Cramer and I don't think people were "duped" as you used it. I think it is important to realize that everyone is wrong when it come to the stock market. If someone was always right, they would probably own the market. However, it is important that major media outlets not hold out their employees as some investment messiah, when they are not. Too many people end up putting too much faith in them, leading to catastrophic decisions. Bernie Madoff is an example. Hundreds of extremely intelligent people, including people with much market savy, were fooled by Madoff. Trading stock is simply another form of gambling, just more sophisticated.

[Ben Willaert]

WOW! You seem to be spinning off to another planet. You were questioning Cramer's credentials and the need to use professionals instead of amateurs, and now you seemed to have morphed into trading stock without a license. If that was your question at the beginning, why didn't you state it as such?

Trading stocks is not limited to brokers or people with licenses. You can trade anytime via eTrade, etc. Brokers have to be used because sellers have to be found for buyers. Buying stocks is not like picking stocks off a tree. They are brokered between people, and a broker does it, just like real estate. You have to be licensed to be a trader on the floor of the NYSE. Asking why is like asking why do you get speeding tickets for driving over 55. That's just the law.

You were wrong about Jim Cramer and I don't think people were "duped" as you used it. I think it is important to realize that everyone is wrong when it come to the stock market. If someone was always right, they would probably own the market. However, it is important that major media outlets not hold out their employees as some investment messiah, when they are not. Too many people end up putting too much faith in them, leading to catastrophic decisions. Bernie Madoff is an example. Hundreds of extremely intelligent people, including people with much market savy, were fooled by Madoff. Trading stock is simply another form of gambling, just more sophisticated.

Yes Dan that was the whole purpose I started this thread. Here is a reminder from my first post on this thread:

“With the growth of the internet came the invitation for anyone to trade on the stock market. Now there seems to be a problem that people are relying on entertainment television to “research” their stock decisions. Amateur stock speculation is a contributing factor to our current crisis. Should there be a licensing requirement for making trades on the stock market to limit those amateur whims?”

Unfortunately, as with most threads, this one got diverted. This is my attempt to get it back on track.

I am asking if it is a good idea to have things like etrade? Should people have to sit down and be advised face to face with a professional before they can make a trade? That would limit amateur speculation. Would that be good for the market?

Mad Money is an example of an entertainment show for which amateur traders rely on for serious market research. Is that good for the stock market?

[Dan Conner]

Yes Dan that was the whole purpose I started this thread. Here is a reminder from my first post on this thread:

“With the growth of the internet came the invitation for anyone to trade on the stock market. Now there seems to be a problem that people are relying on entertainment television to “research” their stock decisions. Amateur stock speculation is a contributing factor to our current crisis. Should there be a licensing requirement for making trades on the stock market to limit those amateur whims?”

Unfortunately, as with most threads, this one got diverted. This is my attempt to get it back on track.

I am asking if it is a good idea to have things like etrade? Should people have to sit down and be advised face to face with a professional before they can make a trade? That would limit amateur speculation. Would that be good for the market?

Mad Money is an example of an entertainment show for which amateur traders rely on for serious market research. Is that good for the stock market?


I don't agree. eTrade was started to allow people to trade at home. I believe the cost of doing this is minimal. Dealing face-to-face with a professional cost money. Trades with these firms aren't free. They make plenty of money on each trade. Besides, dealing with a "professional" doesn't guarantee any wiser of a decision. They are also inexacting. They make lots of bad calls.

People trading in the market didn't contribute to this crisis at all. Maybe multi-million dollar stock options to executives did, but not normal trading. That's been the same as usual. I have found that amateurs do every bit as well as the professionals, provided they research their stock first. Trading stock was totally irrelevant to our economic mess.

[Ben Willaert]

I don't agree. eTrade was started to allow people to trade at home. I believe the cost of doing this is minimal. Dealing face-to-face with a professional cost money. Trades with these firms aren't free. They make plenty of money on each trade. Besides, dealing with a "professional" doesn't guarantee any wiser of a decision. They are also inexacting. They make lots of bad calls.

People trading in the market didn't contribute to this crisis at all. Maybe multi-million dollar stock options to executives did, but not normal trading. That's been the same as usual. I have found that amateurs do every bit as well as the professionals, provided they research their stock first. Trading stock was totally irrelevant to our economic mess.

Since starting this thread I have been able to have this discussion with a few people. I think I need to apply my philosophy of not standing in the way of others. Any instability (probably minimal anyways) in the market is offset by the independence and responsibilities gained by those that choose to navigate the stock market on their own. Not relying on a professional can improve a person’s personal responsibility making them a better person and more of an asset to society. So here you have it, I agree with you Dan. :)

[Dan Conner]

Since starting this thread I have been able to have this discussion with a few people. I think I need to apply my philosophy of not standing in the way of others. Any instability (probably minimal anyways) in the market is offset by the independence and responsibilities gained by those that choose to navigate the stock market on their own. Not relying on a professional can improve a person’s personal responsibility making them a better person and more of an asset to society. So here you have it, I agree with you Dan. :)

I hear what you are saying Ben, but the act of trading stock on your own doesn't improve personal responsibility or make them a better person. If they don't trade wisely, they just might be foolish. Even it they trade wisely they can still be foolish. Using a professional is helpful for someone who doesn't have time to innvestigate stocks. No degree of expertise and stock knowledge guarantees success in the stock market. However, I believe it is important that anyone trading stocks need to realize it is much the same as gambling. A person is betting a tiny piece of owership will increase in value. Like all bets, some win and some lose. That's the nature of trading stock and gambling.