EL the Famous

truth. even above that, i'm not quite a completely liberal, more centered and i love my money...a lot...and still think at worse case, someone w/ a recent track record like cramer shouldn't have a show, responsible or not. or, at least, shouldn't be billed as any sort of an expert...just a wacky bald guy who may or may not have a grabber on air while giving shitty financial advice.

...but they had no business using the Mad Money program as an investment tool in the first place.

sole investment tool, sure. that said, again, it doesn't absolve him giving shitty advice/guidance on his show no matter what auspices you want to put it under. you cannot say it's NOT part of the problem.

this isn't really a liberal/conservative argument, dude. bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever...is bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever. yeah?

for me, i think it was from bale it sounded really (and uneccesarily) forced. his voice is fine enough to talk as is. granted, haven't seen watchmen yet, so...

If people think they can make a bunch of money in the market by watching TV and following whatever talking head flavor of the week is on, they shouldn't be managing their own portfolios.

i agree and did agree w/ this...but completely (or at least nearly completely) absolving cramer and like-minded 'experts' of responsible/ethical guidance under the auspices of what their show/network is about...is just as silly as applying complete blame to him.

So we

Stewart's point is that CNBC marketed Cramer (and others) in such a way that misled people into thinking that they were receiving a multi-faceted, educated approach to investing. Now, we can argue over whether those people were morons, or naive, or reasonable, but to me, that's the coup de grace. Cramer is nothing more than Dr Phil or Rush Limbaugh (an entertainer). And CNBC held him out as something else. And to take it a step further, combine Cramer with everyone else on that channel. All of CNBC is a facade. And it's a facade that helped to convince lots of people to put 401k money into the market because the stock market goes up 10%/yr. Why? Don't ask questions. It does.

 

It doesn't.

i don't disagree w/ you or Jon an iota and i'll assign lion's share of the problem to cramer/CNBC/analysts/whomever...but, like the countless discussions on the mortgage problem, people need to learn to not take things at face value. especially when it comes to large amounts of their own $. all i'm saying.

finally going to see watchmen tonight...

cramer has made a lot of $ in the market over the years, but i'm glad to see him (and more so 'entertainment journalism') called on the carpet.

that said, i'll also throw some accountability towards anybody who based their financial gameplan solely on his advice or other like douchebags versus a multi-faceted, more educated approach to their investments/finances.

read yesterday that scarjo to star as black widow and mickey rourke as whiplash in Iron Man 2. i have no issue w/ either actor, but whiplash?! wtf?! lame-sauce bad guy if you ask me and i think they could find somebody a little better for that black widow role.

looks like marvel studios also pushed back their overzealous release timetable for a lot of their other flicks from 2010 to 2011...which is fine by me if it means quality work.

You cant go on and on about how much responsibility they have.

Sure I can, but i'll also agree that there needs to be more accountability in the way of their compensation. Which, I do believe there is in a lot of companies, even if it seems like there isn't.

Whatever. My bigger point (not directed at Matt) is that there is no black/white absolute stance here...even though it's much easier to argue when you make it like that.

I wonder what would happen if the rest of us non-CEO

...Also poor performance at the top easily sets the table for failure at the bottom, rarely if ever is it the other way around.

i agree...to a certain extent. i'd just say, again, that you seem to be discounting so many levels of other management and employees below him...and that you aren't providing even strata either way. it just seems either way CEO = bad guy. i guess i don't believe that is true across the board and that there are exceptions. i also don't like the deflection from any level of accountability on individuyal employees.

Let them follow their free market principles and seek over the top and unjustified compensation in other countries. They have effectively run this country into the ground and we can not afford their salaries or their "superior" business sense anymore. If they own the company then they can pay themselves anything they want. If they simply run the company then more realistic and justified salaries are in order. I'm tired of watching people starve so some guy can buy a gold plated toilet. There is some serious brainwashing in this country. We are at the greatest wage disparity since the great depression in this country. And we are paying the same consequences now we did back then for it.

so, again, CEO of a company that is failing should either get zero salary/compensation and/or deported...CEO of a company doing well is still way too overpaid and (still) solely responsbile for fucking the country up. makes sense to me.

dude, really, shit isn't so black/white. how may actual CEO's do you know/have you met?

The CEO is directing the failure, he is executing the plans of the board plans which he had a great hand in creating.. So you agree that failure should be rewarded?

what if the company is succesful? is he still overpaid? if he's so accountable for failure, should he be just as compensated for success? somehwere in there is some level of justifcation for their salaries/bonuses...granted, they need to shoulder said burden either way.

i'm not defending bad ceo's and/or management...but i will say that, unless you've been in that role, you have no clue on what it means to be in it.

Well, it is his money afterall.

because i can...pffft.

the record was 700+ back in the summer of 2007 or something. The mods purge the count every once in a while. I have also been informed that we have hit 10,000 users before, as evidenced by the Member No.'s on new users being in the 24-25,000 range.

thanks, a-man!

it's all your fault, matt. have fun lighting your cigars w/ $100 bills while i can't afford to buy a new motorcycle. comfort and joy and many happy returns, fatcat.

everybody is probably looking at that obama/econ thread for answers on how to fix our country...or a link to a drag the river album.

i finally plowed through all of the hellboy and BPRD trades over the past week. what great stuff. i actually enjoyed the BPRD stuff more than the hellboy stuff. love mignola's artwork...but i think i found davis's stuff a little more fun.

i haoping i have enough of a peripheral on the book w/out actually reading it. again, i've never seen a movie after reading the book it's based upon that i like. never. i'd kind of like to at least halfway enjoy the film and then read the real deal...it's been on my shelf, calling to me, for almost a year.

But who the F gives out loans to people with no income?

unless a banker came to his door and offered him the $, i'd still say the larger part of the problem is the guy himself...or, at least, it illustrates that this is (and a lot of other instances of this banking mess we're in) a 50/50 split between irresponsible lenders/borrowers.

my point is that it isn't just the shadowy cabal of CEO's or whatever that has gotten us here. to continue that thinking will drive us further into this mess.

Besides its an anecdotal story that we have to assume is true.

austrya = liar!

how many pictures are there of the four of them amongst some barren landscape looking stoic?

547.5

edgy

I should also point out that his family also doesn't have any kid of health insurance or life insurance right now either.

oi. nice priorities, jackass.