Jump to content

Jon Stewart destroys Mad Money's Jim Cramer


Recommended Posts

Guest Jules
it's close though... but you're right, that one was just amazing

 

 

 

"that fucker" = Cramer?

 

that guy always seems like he's on speed to me

Well, both, but I expect it from Cramer. Stewart was all amped up. I thought it was funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

funny as in embarrasing and uncomfortable.

 

You know, Norm McDonald has built a career on being uncomfortable and embarrassing. And he's a funny guy.

 

...

 

Something I think none of us should forget is the fact that all Jon Stewart is really trying to do is top Steven Colbert's 2006 White House Correspondent dinner address. Jon never got the chance to make fun of a sitting president to his face, and I think he's suffered because of that. Sure, he gets some credit for nailing Crossfire and CNBC, but he doesn't yet have that perfect hail mary pass. Keep trying, Jon Boy. Keep trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But neither does the Wall Street Journal, so is it smart to read WSJ but not to watch Cramer? Plenty of people don't know that one is accurate and one may not be.

 

No its best not to take any one source as your only source of information. Listen and or read but verify with thrid party sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No its best not to take any one source as your only source of information. Listen and or read but verify with thrid party sources.

 

I have to watch that tool Cramer, read the WSJ, and find some third party that is also not totally on the take? I'm glad I don't invest (other than the kids 529 plan).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fool is one of the most powerful and misunderstood archetypes in modern culture. I would say the time is ripe for a reintroduction.

 

 

I would gladly throw my hat in the ring for the job.

 

Daddy Crow Magnus '12

 

geico.jpg

 

Tanned, Rested, Ready

Link to post
Share on other sites
But why would he want to? It is ambiguity (the court jester's outfit, the Joker's make up) that allows satirists to get away with saying the things they do.

 

but the show, sometimes, is hardly ambiguous. i get what you are saying and, again, i'd never ask him/the show to change up what they are doing. that said, it's at least disingenous for him to say what he's doing on there is 'just comedy'. if it was, the show would be no different than hbo's 'not neccesarily the news' and the DS goes way beyond sniglets in it's influence.

 

plus, would you say that stewart was just lampooning and/or making fun of cramer or really taking him to task? again, where does the line blur between comedy and punditry no different than a hannity/olberman? whatever, i just think it's crazy when he makes statements like the one pedro alluded to earlier about 'going back to making fart jokes'...the show runs much deeper than that and he knows it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but the show, sometimes, is hardly ambiguous. i get what you are saying and, again, i'd never ask him/the show to change up what they are doing. that said, it's at least disingenous for him to say what he's doing on there is 'just comedy'. if it was, the show would be no different than hbo's 'not neccesarily the news' and the DS goes way beyond sniglets in it's influence.

 

plus, would you say that stewart was just lampooning and/or making fun of cramer or really taking him to task? again, where does the line blur between comedy and punditry no different than a hannity/olberman? whatever, i just think it's crazy when he makes statements like the one pedro alluded to earlier about 'going back to making fart jokes'...the show runs much deeper than that and he knows it.

Of course he knows it runs much deeper.

You use disingenuous as if it is a bad thing. I'm saying that's precisely what this show is going for.

 

Not to be too esoteric here (:rolleyes), but this archetype is non local, invisible, beyond definition. Him saying it's 'just comedy', and wanting to 'go back to making fart jokes' is the cloak he pulls over the show to keep it 'safe'. The show is intentionally a Whack A Mole game. Copping to 'serious' political discourse would undermine it's fluidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned, anyone can call those who identify themselves as journalists on the carpet at any time. Stewart walks a fine line, to be sure, but he's got a right to say his thing and as long as the information upon which he bases his commentary is accurate, I don't have a problem with it.

Now, in the defense of journalists, I will point out that the derivatives which apparently caused the problem were so complex that not even Greenspan, apparently, could understand the danger. If people who were supposedly the most expert of the expert couldn't get a handle on it, it was unrealistic to expect all but a few journalists to be able to perform their watchdog function. That's the problem - we created an economy (with the help of computers and funky math) that we couldn't understand and couldn't control and fooled ourselves into thinking the human element no longer mattered, or that human behavior could always be correctly predicted by mathematical formulae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jnick/m.chris...both solid points and i wouldn't disagree. to be clear, i like the comedy and legitimate political commentary it brings into my house every night. i will say that he/they need to keep that balance and/or ethos in check...it'd be really easy for both he and his show to become (or at least come close to becoming) what they're making fun of.

 

As far as I am concerned, anyone can call those who identify themselves as journalists on the carpet at any time. Stewart walks a fine line, to be sure, but he's got a right to say his thing and as long as the information upon which he bases his commentary is accurate, I don't have a problem with it.

 

put much better than i've been trying to put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jnick/m.chris...both solid points and i wouldn't disagree. to be clear, i like the comedy and legitimate political commentary it brings into my house every night. i will say that he/they need to keep that balance and/or ethos in check...it'd be really easy for both he and his show to become (or at least come close to becoming) what they're making fun of.

Yup. It's a fine line and thus far I think that show has walked it pretty brilliantly.

 

Edit: :pirate bjorn

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, in the defense of journalists, I will point out that the derivatives which apparently caused the problem were so complex that not even Greenspan, apparently, could understand the danger. If people who were supposedly the most expert of the expert couldn't get a handle on it, it was unrealistic to expect all but a few journalists to be able to perform their watchdog function. That's the problem - we created an economy (with the help of computers and funky math) that we couldn't understand and couldn't control and fooled ourselves into thinking the human element no longer mattered, or that human behavior could always be correctly predicted by mathematical formulae.

 

According to the nerds over at Wired, the following formula "destroyed" Wall Street.

 

20090224_gaussian_copula_function_23.jpg

 

So, as you can plainly see, any moron could and should have figured it out.

 

A link to the interesting, if slighly opaque article - http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/1...currentPage=all

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to watch that tool Cramer, read the WSJ, and find some third party that is also not totally on the take? I'm glad I don't invest (other than the kids 529 plan).

 

I just look at it as purchasing aproduct. Hopefully we don't impulse buy everything and maybe doa little reasearch on the bigger ticket items.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just look at it as purchasing aproduct. Hopefully we don't impulse buy everything and maybe doa little reasearch on the bigger ticket items.

 

I think a lot of people are under the impression that people like Cramer already did the research they should have done themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of people are under the impression that people like Cramer already did the research they should have done themselves.

 

True, but even experienced, highly educated, market savvy investors lost their shirts.

 

Plus, if folks have that impression, it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree here. Several years ago I remember how the lack of personal savings amongst Americans was a huge concern of economists. Now, savings are on the rise and the economy is on the decline.

 

A lot of people wouldn't be up shit creek right now if they had 8-12 months worth of take home pay in the bank BEFORE they started buying a bunch of crap they didn't need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...