Cramer: No Longer "God"

Jon Stewart has two kinds of angry. There's the "Aww Come On" anger, and his "Mad As Hell" anger. You don't want to be on the wrong side of the second one.

For the past few weeks, Stewart has been delving into the dark secrets of the stock market -- looking for a way to both reveal the hidden villains and unearth the actual unease that Americans feel with the market.

Last night -- Jim Cramer wandered out into the line of fire. It was a massacre.

Following the avalanche of twitter comments as the show was broadcast, the outrage and anger that average Americans feel toward what Stewart characterized as "The Two Stock Markets" was stunning.

If you didn't watch the interview, you should -- the entire uncut piece is here.

And before I go into the argument Stewart made, and Cramer ratified -- let's regroup and remember who the players are.

Stewart has done this before. When he took aim at the quality of political discourse on cable TV -- his target was CNN's Crossfire. A pointless political scream-fest that was a harbinger of the now deeply divided political system that is entrenched in Washington. Stewart then begged the so-called political analysts to "Stop Hurting America." His request resulted almost immediately in the cancellation of Crossfire.

Expect no less from last night's tirade. Cramer's Mad Money will be off CNBC, that's almost a certainty. But here, Stewart may be hunting truly big game.

Cramer lamely sat sleeves rolled up and sweaty in the guest's chair and responded with "We could have done better", Stewart's basic line of questioning came back, time and time again, to the simple refrain: Is CNBC a news network? -- and If so, do they have any obligation to investigate, report, question what they put on their air? This is no small matter. What Stewart charged last night was that CNBC was in fact a co-conspirator in the meltdown of the US Stock Markets. That while Cramer and his 'in the know' buddies operated a fast moving, highly leveraged, game of "Credit Default Swap Poker", Cramer on air was preaching the standard -- long market vision, keep your money in -- buy and sell shares, but overall accept that the markets are sound.

Using an interview that Stewart turned up, in which Cramer in 2006 talked about how he often broke the rules, because the SEC doesn't enforce them, and how he cheated because "everyone does", Stewart conducted a live, point by point, indictment of both Cramer and the system he represents. By all accounts, it wasn't even close. What is clear now is that Cramer at the very least was presenting a view of the market on air that couldn't have represented what he knew to be true. As he explained in one of the taped 'instructions', Cramer said you can move to market with rumor and innuendo. No surprise, but does CNBC endorse that Cramer's Mad Money show is entertainment, or financial advice? There's no doubt they're meeting to throw him under the bus this very morning.

But that isn't what Stewart is after -- and he as much as said so on the air.

Remember that Cramer is more than a carnival barker. He was the founder of TheStreet.com, a seasoned hedge fund operator, and perhaps the most visible insider on financial cable today. So the fact that Jon Stewart can present Cramer's repeated financial advice as little more than a cablecast side show raises some real questions about how, and where Americans are supposed to get serious, balanced, journalistic financial information. After all, it was CNBC's own promos that promised; "In Cramer We Trust".

Comments

[unitron]

I found it interesting to compare the unedited interview to what I saw when I watched Thursday night's show. I was previously unaware that the interview segments were "nipped" and "tucked" before airing, which I suppose is a compliment to skill of the editors.

But I wonder how, other than being longer, the full interview of Cramer from a few years ago differs from the bits and pieces that Stewart ran. Just the no more than 5 or 10 percent removed from the Stewart-Cramer footage made a small but real difference in context.

I'm guessing that the two or three clips that Stewart ran make up no more than 5 or 10 percent of that old interview and I wonder how accurate an impression of the whole they gave.

[markburn]

You can find the whole interview on youtube.
And yes, the clips by Stewart were acurate.

[veracity]

I was about to comment with LINK to full CRAMER COMMENTS - but Cramer's TheStreet.com has FORCED YouTube to STOP hosting the video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU&feature=related

"TERRIBLE" doesn't BEGIN to describe just how EVIL Cramer reveals himself to be.

He explains "IF you are running a hedgeFund, & you are SHORT a given position, sometimes you MUST 'knock the price of that stock DOWN " or your fund will loose a fortune."

.... How hedgeFund traders can "KNOCK A STOCK DOWN" with as little as $5 to $15 million ... & how "FUN" it is to make people who were LONG on that stock suffer... how a fund can FORCE the stock down enough
to trigger automatic closing of positions.
(by trading WITHIN the fund; ie. sell 1,000 shares from one of fund's traders to another of the SAME fund's traders - really, the stock has NOT changed hands, BUT you see the new, LOWER TICKER PRICE flash across the boards)

Fortunately, I copied Cramer's incredibly assinine & INCRIMINATING comments to RealPLayer, but I don't know how to post 'em here at HuffPost.

HOWEVER, IF HuffPost WANTS TO STEP UP TO THE NEXT LEVEL, THEY will GET that video, & POST IT, as a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION "public's Right To Know" service -

____ Cramer ADMITS COLLUSION to DEFRAUD INVESTORS of TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars in COORDINATED, PREMEDITATED MARKET MANIPULATION. ___ !!

Only thing Cramer doesn't mention is WHERE HE LEARNED THOSE TRICKS - in his near-decade as Trader for GOLDMAN-SACHS.

[19iowa62]

We need people like Jon Stewart to keep fanning the flames of public outrage. I get outraged when someone like Cramer uses the word “shenanigan”. Isn’t “shenanigan” spin for intentional deceit. “Yes, Mr. 401K, I used your long-term investments for my own short-term gain, but hey it was only a shenanigan­.”

Those shenanigan pullers need to be investigated…all of them. If they committed a crime(s) then they go to jail…real jail and not a bed-and-breakfast, white-collar jail. Rules only work if people are scared of them.

[Conceptor]

Jon Stewart has won a Peabody or two. Do those who deride him as a "mere" comedian have better credentials?
Jon Stewart is a satirist in the company of George Carlin, Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Henry Fielding, Jonathan Swift and other lightweights who may not meet The Great Scarborough's exacting standards, and who probably would not get past cable news' HR departments.
Reading a teleprompter or parroting talking points is easy. Comedy is hard.

[magicwanz]

Comedy is where you find it. Investigative comedy rises from the ashes of journalism.

[wanttruth]

Awesome interview. Jon Stewart had all the facts and he articulated how I felt as a consumer. I almost felt bad for Mr. Cramer until I saw those clips with him bragging proudly about lying to SEC and stockholders. His show needs to be cancelled and CNBC needs to be investigated.

[jerrypl]

Stewart was great. He called out Cramer and backed him into his own corner with the Youtube clip. Cramer totally backed down and admitted failure. Stewart was angry at being conned. Cramer is a conartist and should be investigated by both the FCC and the SEC for fraud. "It is not a game!" How true. If Cramer wants to become Soupy Sales then do that without giving advice.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[Weirdwriter]

Jon Stewart is doing the hard work. And he makes it look easy.

The so-called "real journalists" focus on the easy stuff and try to make it look like hard work.

[usedtowander]

Cramer proved that he's a standup guy with more integrity than anybody else on Wall Street.

Stewart was fair. He asked reasonable questions. And, as almost always, he was not at all offensive.

Cramer had the stones to take the criticism directl - unlike any of the executives and pundits at CNBC, Bloomberg, Fix Business, and others.

I think they both came off very well with this. And, the stoneless executives at CNBC should be ashamed of themselves.

[TheRetiredOne]

I agree. I love Jon Stewart and thought he did a great job. Imagine, though, being Jim Cramer and having to do that in front of millions of viewers. Santelli didn't have the stones to come on the show, but Cramer did (even, though, by all accounts, he knew he was going to be crushed). You have to give Cramer an "A" for not hiding from the bloodbath.­...

[reno1190]

HE HAD NO IDEA HE WOULD BE CRUSHED REMEMBER HE SAID "A COMEDIAN" AND CNBC WOULD HAVE NEVER ALLOWED THIS REMEMBER THESE ARE THE SAME EXECUTIVES WHO STAND BY SANTELLI WHO DID NOT HAVE THE NERVE TO COME ON TO CC AND CRAMER THROUGH HIMSELF INTO THE MIX THOUGHT HE WOULD SHOUT HIS WAY AND REAP THE PUBLICITY WRONG MOVE

[Rule Of Law]

Your link for the video does not work. Any help?

[Rule Of Law]

Also, does anyone have a link to the incriminating Cramer interview that Stewart showed? Thanks.

[anothervoice2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/jim-cramer-on-daily-show_n_174558.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/jim-cramer-shorting-stock_n_173824.html

[NotMcCain]

Cramer's deception is just a symbol of what CNBC in general does.

" Is CNBC a news network? -- and If so, do they have any obligation to investigate, report, question what they put on their air?"

Stewart made his point brilliantl­y--particu­larly as no other commentator in the media has dared to point it out at all.

[Dukedraven]

Cramer looked like a bear shot with a couple of tranquilizer darts. Shakira has a song called "Hips Don't Lie." Well, neither does the video. You're busted, Cramer.

[Catfish1968]

really? You're going with Shakira?

[socal56]

If all americans with 401k's withdrew all their funds would Wall Street notice. (approx 2.5 trillion as of 1--09 per Employee Benefit Research Institute)

[Shieldmaiden]

Wall Street would notice, but sadly the rest of us would actually feel it. Taking out that much wealth would really s.crew us over sadly. The best thing to do is throw those a$$holes into the slammer.

[inthedesert]

When I used to watch television I thought Cramer was nothing more than a ranting, silly, comic crackpot with dubious credentials to be doing what he was doing. I am very leery of ANYONE who claims to be an expert in ANYTHING esp the stock market. I doubt this clown will be around very much longer. From what I am picking up on various websites(where I get my news now)he was just totally made a fool of by Stewart and came across as something much LESS than the stock expert that he presents himself as on TV. I say good work Jon and good bye Cramer.

[Foreground]

Actually, he came across as a guy that is incompetent at advising laymen about the stock market, but accurate but horribly corrupt when it comes to advising hedgefund managers about the stock market.

[lj9283]

Now if only he could do the same for Glen Beck.

[WonderWomanGoddess]

Don't worry, Colbert is on that one, with a vengeance.

[Elias Zuniga]

Hey, I am not a fan of Cramer, but Stewart's and most people's analysis is flat out wrong. Isn't "investing" in the stock market just legalized gambling? Don't you, when you invest in the stock market, realize that you could lose all of the money you put in? How is this Cramer's fault? If the stock market dives, and so called "wealth" is lost, it wasn't real wealth to begin with, just paper money.

Is it Cramer's fault that the American system of retirement relies on a system as faulty as the stock market?

[AngelaQuattrano]

How it's Cramer's fault is he deliberately told people to buy stocks that were already overvalued. They bought quick, some of them got out quick before the bump passed, by which time Cramer had already short-sold the stock and reaped big profits from the results of the advice he had given on television. Following Cramer's advice would have consistently lost you money. Doing the opposite—selling short every time he told you to buy—would have netted you 25% on your investment per month.

[propitiousmoment]

It may be gambling, but it is a system rigged to benefit the insiders to the detriment of the rest of us. One of the things I picked up from the interview is that Cramer knew these big companies were in debt way beyond their capacity to repay, but kept on recommending buy, buy, buy, and reassuring his audience that the companies were sound. He KNEW better, but he f****ed over the unsophisticated who he knew relied on his advice. Moreover, he actually manipulated the market to his own benefit. The system as designed would not be nearly as risky as the system that has been rigged against the common investor. I'm hoping that an investigation of Cramer is just the tip of the iceberg to result in many, many indictments to come, to warn off the potentially unscrupulous as well as to reform the system to guard against these kinds of shenanigans in the future. If the federal government wants to encourage ordinary people to invest in the market - which it does by way of the tax laws encouraging 401(k) and similar schemes - then it needs to take a hand in ensuring that it is not sending ordinary Americans out to be sheared like sheep by unscrupulous players.