It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Valhall
I'd like to follow up with something just to give an indicator of how deep this rabbit hole goes on trying to prohibit all us working stiffs from actually realizing profits on our retirement funds.
So latter part of 2006 is when I started pulling...some times every day. I get a letter from the HR administrator in our company. The letter states that the company managing our 401k (I won't name any companies right now) has noticed a significant amount of trades on my 401k and that if they continued they might have to block my ability to make transactions. They went on to say "we do not recommend managing your 401k account based on predictions of market performance"...and I'm not crapping you on that.
Yesterday, I idly wondered whether all the hullabaloo over CNBC and how very wrong and/or out of bounds its commentators have been on some occasions will affect the network's ratings, for good or ill. I put the question to you, my loyal legions, and a pretty decisive 78 percent of you predicted that all the criticism will hurt CNBC's viewership.
And while it's too early to say if that prediction will be borne out -- The Daily Show's initial broadside was only nine days ago -- there is some very preliminary, very ambiguous evidence that perhaps the pummeling has begun to have an impact.
In the first three days of this week, CNBC's Business Day programming block was down 10 percent in the key demographic of adults 25-to-54 versus the same period the week before, and down 11 percent among total viewers. Meanwhile, Mad Money was also down 10 percent in the 25-to-54 demographic, but only 4 percent among all viewers -- suggesting that maybe some of those bored college kids who watch Jon Stewart did, in fact, tune in to find out exactly what is the deal with this Jim Cramer character.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,540,000 for cramer on jon stewart. (0.13 seconds)
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
He gets his cajones nailed to a wall in that video. I'm surprised he didn't get up and walk off the set.
"But you'll never hear me say that on T.V."
"... Well, its on TV now."
That was shocking. Too bad the point is lost on some.
Originally posted by sos37
I have to agree with this as well. Seriously, if you're relying on a television show and only that show to tell you what to do with your money - then you DO deserve to lose it.
Of course it makes sense that teenagers would see it on television and think it's a great idea, or read about it on the internet and think it's the right thing to do. Everything on the tubes must be right.
If you're really serious about making money using a TV show, what you SHOULD be doing with shows like Cramer's is considering the advice, maybe taking notes, and THEN going and talking to a certified financial advisor at a reputable company and asking that person what they think about what you watched.
Heck, talk to a few financial advisors and get a consensus.
It's your money, after all. If you want to throw it away on a whim then you might as well be buying lotto tickets.
Originally posted by redhatty
Yes the interview was hard-hitting and excellently done.
It is almost a sad indication of where we are when a Comedy Channel show (entertainment) is giving us the REAL NEWS while CNBC (News) is giving us "entertainment" programming.
Calling the entire network out (CNBC) and saying that it should have been them doing the investigating and finding the truth was the best part of it.
While most people know that Cramer is a shill/tool, many people view CNBC as a financial news network, and expect more from them than they have been receiving.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by questioningall
This kind of upsets me too. Can someone from Canada or in the UK explain this please?
Cramer had been on convicted inside-trader Martha Stewart's show earlier that day, admitting to a vague sense of guilt and confessing his fear of the beating he would get from his "idol" Jon Stewart. In all his on-air appearances (at least, all those after Huffington Post put up theStreet.com tape of Cramer recommending spreading false rumors to make quick money, which Stewart ran again and again), Cramer had so thoroughly pre-atoned that he'd instantly agree with Stewart's every criticism even before he finished a thought. Stewart was saying something about "treating people like adults," as Cramer blurted, "HowaboutItry? I'lltrythat! Icandothat!"
In fact, he was so quick with his prostration that it seemed clear Cramer didn't really understand Stewart's argument at all, which wasn't about whether he or CNBC was right or wrong on this or that stock tip, but that the network's entire ethos made it part of the massive fraud that Wall Street has been engineering for the past decade or more. Stewart's was that oldest common sense argument: There's no such thing as a free lunch, and wealth you don't have to work for eventually goes poof. "There's a market for it and we give it to them," Cramer protested, showing, again, that he didn't get it. "There's a market for coc aine and hookers too!" Stewart replied.
Stewart is often praised, and rightly so, for doing what reporters should be doing--James Fallows just wrote that he's become Edward R. Murrow--but his rise as a tribune of the people has less to do with his own virtues than it does with the remarkable failure of American journalism under George W. Bush. Stewart is not a reporter, nor a financial expert. He's merely unconstrained by cozy access arrangements and corporate media shibboleths, free to call a war lost or an economy rigged--or a TV network hopelessly full of hype and bombast--based on what's right in front of his own eyes.
His interview with Cramer was so white-knuckled and full-bore that this morning even Cramer's buddies, like the head-in-the-sand crew over at Morning Joe, said nary a word about it, firmly averting their eyes from their colleague's nakedness.
Will Brian Williams make the Cramer vs. Stewart bout the lead item on NBC Nightly News tonight as he did Santelli's rant? There are a lot more folks in the media and on Wall Street who need a televised defenestration like this.
UPDATE: As to whether NBC news would lead with the Stewart/Cramer bout, the answer is no. Ann Curry, who subbed for Brian Williams Friday night, didn't mention it. Nor did Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (even though Keith had previously made Rick Santelli one of his Worst Persons). If an item from TV Newser is right, the loud silence from the extended NBC "family" was no accident: "A TVNewser tipster tells us MSNBC producers were asked not to incorporate the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview into their shows today."
Still, I was hoping against hope that freer-thinker Rachel Maddow would buck any such corporate edict from on high. And buck she did! She gave the story a couple of minutes, describing it in fairly neutral tones, ending on the lament that just when we really need a tough financial watchdog press--implying that CNBC ain't it--the Washington Post announced it's eliminating its stand-alone business section.
We all know a cable network that could use some solid business reporters...