[Toshi]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice

worth watching. the daily show, of all places, showing how incompetent CNBC has been.

 

[ohio]

The amazing thing is that had we bailed out the homeowners, specifically and exclusively, in August, we could have avoided this whole mess at a fraction of the current cost and had a relatively stable correction.

But I can see how Wall Street would be up in arms...

 

[Toshi]

The amazing thing is that had we bailed out the homeowners, specifically and exclusively, in August, we could have avoided this whole mess at a fraction of the current cost and had a relatively stable correction.

But I can see how Wall Street would be up in arms...

i'm not so sure that that would have been possible. the problem is deeper than just subprime. it's Alt-A. it's commercial real estate. its the tremendous amount of leverage in companies across the board. everything was predicated on asset prices increasing indefinitely. this simply wasn't a safe assumption.

 

[jimmydean]

Last nights show was both funny and depressing.

 

[ridiculous]

John Stewart has been amazing lately. That show has really picked up since the election.

 

[stevew]

i actually chuckled.

 

[stoney]

i'm not so sure that that would have been possible. the problem is deeper than just subprime. it's Alt-A. it's commercial real estate. its the tremendous amount of leverage in companies across the board. everything was predicated on asset prices increasing indefinitely. this simply wasn't a safe assumption.

IT's more than that. It's CDS. People taking out massive contracts ($50 Trillion in the US alone) banking on companies and loans defaulting. What is starting to become the next push that is keeping companies from being able to get out by re-structuring debt are negative basis trades. You buy a small piece of company debt at cents on the dollar, then take out a large CDS contract on default by the company.
In holding the debt, you can prevent the company from being able to re-negotiate their debt, forcing a default and bankruptcy. IT's a rigged game...

 

[allsk8sno]

I miss that show, i'll have to start catching it online more often

 

[RUFUS]

IT's more than that. It's CDS. People taking out massive contracts ($50 Trillion in the US alone) banking on companies and loans defaulting. What is starting to become the next push that is keeping companies from being able to get out by re-structuring debt are negative basis trades. You buy a small piece of company debt at cents on the dollar, then take out a large CDS contract on default by the company.
In holding the debt, you can prevent the company from being able to re-negotiate their debt, forcing a default and bankruptcy. IT's a rigged game...

Take out of it what you will, not pushing anything on anyone. I watched the whole thing and formed an opinion based on multiple sides and arguments.

Non the less, it is very impressive and has a lot of good info on the banking system and how money is created out of thin air.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

[stoney]

I'm in the industry, while somewhat peripheral, I am still well within. Some of the stuff I've seen is ridiculuous.

 

[$tinkle]

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

no! no! no! no! no!

don't forget: there's only one endorsed public official - and his name is ron paul. also, they claim that scarcity = profit. been to a walmart lately?

it started off ok, then just shat itself. it took unrelated truths & tried to assemble them into free-mason pr0n

 

[narlus]

i'm not so sure that that would have been possible. the problem is deeper than just subprime. it's Alt-A. it's commercial real estate. its the tremendous amount of leverage in companies across the board. everything was predicated on asset prices increasing indefinitely. this simply wasn't a safe assumption.

you mean Brian was wrong about real estate prices?

 

[Defenestrated]

Take out of it what you will, not pushing anything on anyone. I watched the whole thing and formed an opinion based on multiple sides and arguments.

Non the less, it is very impressive and has a lot of good info on the banking system and how money is created out of thin air.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

As for the daily show episode, amazing CNBC got torn a new asshole.

 

[RUFUS]

As for the daily show episode, amazing CNBC got torn a new asshole.

And your rebuttal? Is the best you can do an incredibly old motivational poster?lthumbsdown:

I didn't say that I believed it all but I did do quite a bit of research on banking and the creation of money and there are some, some being the key word, valid points.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that it is all wrong my friend.

 

[valve bouncer]

John Stewart has been amazing lately. That show has really picked up since the election.

Definitely the best in the business.

 

[ire]

Anyone read the book the Black Swan? It was a bit of an eye opener on our inability to predict the future. As a nation we tend to take the current trend, like increasing housing prices, and forecast that it will continue forever and thus be a safe investment. He talks a lot about oil prices in the book and how poor the forecasts for the future were. It has hit the fan and we'll continue to slide, and eventually recover. I'm banking on recovery sometime in the next two years and have increased all of my investments.

 

[stoney]

Another good one on bubbles is 'Devil Take the Hindmost'. I learned tons from this which thankfully I was able to put into the last few years.

 

[ire]

Another good one on bubbles is 'Devil Take the Hindmost'. I learned tons from this which thankfully I was able to put into the last few years.

I'll have to check that book out

 

[MikeD]

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean that it is all wrong my friend.

Indeed. Only the fact that it's utterly wrong means it's wrong.

 

[MikeD]

Anyone read the book the Black Swan? It was a bit of an eye opener on our inability to predict the future. As a nation we tend to take the current trend, like increasing housing prices, and forecast that it will continue forever and thus be a safe investment. He talks a lot about oil prices in the book and how poor the forecasts for the future were. It has hit the fan and we'll continue to slide, and eventually recover. I'm banking on recovery sometime in the next two years and have increased all of my investments.

I read The Black Swan. There's a lot of good stuff in it; it jives with my view of the world, anyhow.

But I tend to find that there's a bit of truth in forecasting based on the past on a microcosmic level, and you can't take his extend his viewpoint on unpredictability past its own usefulness. For example, I work in security. I can't say, "Well, we've used this route 5 times and experienced an attack 3 of those times. But why should I avoid that route, since the past has no bearing on the future?"

We need to be mindful of the possibility of 'Black Swan' events, surely, and plan accordingly, but also let experience (individual and collective) frame our viewpoints. (Also, of course, being aware of the limitations of our own experience...that's part of awareness of/planning for unpredictability...)

 

[3D.]

Forecast. shiff with a 4 year detail
it's almost hard to stomach art laffer... ben should have stayed in the movies... and the other commentators are basically void of any intuition or foresight.

His predictions are extremely accurate

 

[X3pilot]

Cramer answers back in a pretty good article. I don't personally like the guy's entertainment factor of screaming at me on a finaicial show, but he brings up some very good points.


Lengthy article but insightful.

Cramer Takes on the White House, Frank Rich and Jon Stewart

Take Frank Rich and Jon Stewart. Both seize on the urban legend that I recommended Bear Stearns the week before it collapsed, even though I was saying that I thought it could be worthless as soon as the following week. I did tell an emailer that his deposit in his account at Bear Stearns was safe, but through a clever sound bite, Stewart, and subsequently Rich -- neither of whom have bothered to listen to the context of the pulled quote -- pass off the notion of account safety as an out-and-out buy recommendation. The absurdity astounds me. If you called Mad Money and asked me about Citigroup, I would tell you that the common stock might be worthless, but I would never tell you to pull your money out of the bank because I was worried about its solvency. Your money is safe in Citi as I said it was in Bear.

Is Stewart the other side's Rush?

 

[Silver]

Cramer answers back in a pretty good article. I don't personally like the guy's entertainment factor of screaming at me on a finaicial show, but he brings up some very good points.

First off, Cramer didn't make that assertion about Bear nearly as clear as he is saying he did. I do admit that you can interpret it that way after the fact, but that's only if you're being extremely charitable to Cramer. There's also the question of why the stock chart popped up if he was talking about brokerage accounts.

Cramer also doesn't deal with other criticisms that the Daily Show piece made, because he has zero defense for them.

Now, it's not that I think that a particularly good job is being done by the Obama administration right now. It's just that Cramer really doesn't have any credibility to diagnose the problem. I wouldn't trust him with a piggy bank that had a peso in it, myself.

 

[Westy]

Are people actually taking the Daily Show seriously? Not to take anything away from what John Stewart does, it is hilarious. It just goes to show what a joke the rest of the media has become when the DS is worthy of arguing about.

 

[X3pilot]

Cramer also doesn't deal with other criticisms that the Daily Show piece made, because he has zero defense for them.

Geez, you go giving Stewart credibility by having people answer criticism from the Daily Show and then you're going to have to give Rush the same credibility and expect Obama to debate him. Hoo boy.

I agree, I wouldn't necessarily rely on Cramer for sound finiacial advice, no more than I would Keith Oblerman or Sean Hannity for credible news.

 

[Silver]

Geez, you go giving Stewart credibility by having people answer criticism from the Daily Show and then you're going to have to give Rush the same credibility and expect Obama to debate him. Hoo boy.

Yeah, that's a prime example of a non-sequitur. Really, look it up. It's latin for "does not follow".

Of course, I remember all the times Bush and Cheney went on the Daily Show to debate John Stewart...that happened multiple times, right?

 

[jimmydean]

Are people actually taking the Daily Show seriously? Not to take anything away from what John Stewart does, it is hilarious. It just goes to show what a joke the rest of the media has become when the DS is worthy of arguing about.

What's funny is Fox takes it seriously enough to pull stuff out of context along with other "news" sources.

 

[sanjuro]

First off, Cramer didn't make that assertion about Bear nearly as clear as he is saying he did. I do admit that you can interpret it that way after the fact, but that's only if you're being extremely charitable to Cramer. There's also the question of why the stock chart popped up if he was talking about brokerage accounts.

Cramer also doesn't deal with other criticisms that the Daily Show piece made, because he has zero defense for them.

Now, it's not that I think that a particularly good job is being done by the Obama administration right now. It's just that Cramer really doesn't have any credibility to diagnose the problem. I wouldn't trust him with a piggy bank that had a peso in it, myself.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23575614

Dear Jim: Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there? --Peter

Cramer says: “No! No! No! Bear Stearns is not in trouble. If anything, they’re more likely to be taken over. Don’t move your money from Bear.”

 

[Defenestrated]

Is Stewart the other side's Rush?

Oh sh!t, the jig is up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHPm_TEQ0PA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHPm_TEQ0PA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I never thought hate, nationalism, jingoism, nativism, and the denial of rights could sound so appealing.

 

[Silver]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23575614

Every single answer he gave about a company on that link was 100% bad advice as of now.

Heckuva job, Jimmy!

 

[$tinkle]

I never thought hate, nationalism, jingoism, nativism, and the denial of rights could sound so appealing.

so who're you pissed at again? and as he was tyrading, i was thinking he was describing sweden or some other euro country with what i believe are very similar - if not identical - laws.

 

[jimmydean]

Every single answer he gave about a company on that link was 100% bad advice as of now.

Heckuva job, Jimmy!

"If I would have listened to them, I would have a million dollars today. Provided I started with 100 million dollars."

 

[Defenestrated]

so who're you pissed at again? and as he was tyrading, i was thinking he was describing sweden or some other euro country with what i believe are very similar - if not identical - laws.

Wasn't Sweden known for its liberal immigration policies? The current moderate party controlled government is trying to change that I think.

 

[valve bouncer]

Is Stewart the other side's Rush?

I don't think Stewart is a big, fat drug addled blowhard so no, he's not.

 

[jimmydean]

Wait until they post tonights video about Cramer.

 

[X3pilot]

I don't think Stewart is a big, fat drug addled blowhard so no, he's not.

Of course you don't, but the point is they are both entertainers. Nothing more.

 

[X3pilot]

Yeah, that's a prime example of a non-sequitur. Really, look it up. It's latin for "does not follow".

Of course, I remember all the times Bush and Cheney went on the Daily Show to debate John Stewart...that happened multiple times, right?

Ummm, no it's not a non-sequitur and thanks for the offer to expand my vocabulary by looking it up, but I'm familiar.

The point was, they are both entertainers, neither should have anyone seriously defending, debating, promoting or justifying any position of national policy or concern with them. Goes the same for The View, Regis, Letterman, Leno or other entertainment venue. Would you expect realistic, informative and accurate budget policy reporting from ET?

Sadly, though, most everyone gets their view of the news from entertainment sources, be it Stewart, CNN, Fox or other outlets.

 

[Silver]

Ummm, no it's not a non-sequitur and thanks for the offer to expand my vocabulary by looking it up, but I'm familiar.

The point was, they are both entertainers, neither should have anyone seriously defending, debating, promoting or justifying any position of national policy or concern with them. Goes the same for The View, Regis, Letterman, Leno or other entertainment venue. Would you expect realistic, informative and accurate budget policy reporting from ET?

Sadly, though, most everyone gets their view of the news from entertainment sources, be it Stewart, CNN, Fox or other outlets.

You're less familiar with it than you think.

You made that claim that since Stewart, an entertainer, was criticizing Cramer, another entertainer, therefore Obama, the President of the United States, should debate Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer.

I'm not going to even start to point out how you're really missing the big picture here, in that entertainment outlets such as the Daily Show are frequently better sources of news and current events than the actual news media are...

 

[$tinkle]

I'm not going to even start to point out how you're really missing the big picture here, in that entertainment outlets such as the Daily Show are frequently better sources of news and current events than the actual news media are...

and just where, pray, do entertainment outlets get their news?

you know the answer.

 

[ohio]

Of course you don't, but the point is they are both entertainers.

You can't be serious.

Folks try to be dismissive of social commentators, but you're doing yourself a disservice to fool yourself into thinking the above is true. Both are tremendously influential. They are no more "just entertainers" than Fox or Al Jazeera are "just news."

Sadly, though, most everyone gets their view...

The seeds of understanding, those are.

If the your quoted comment is true, how can these guys also be "just entertainers?"