|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Now what actual points do you disagree/agree with? |
But what is your problem with Jim Cramer's politics and advice, again? Or do you know little about him and blindly fall into line behind Jon Stewart just because his holier-than-thou, sanctimonious anti-W. Bush and now anti-financial channel posturing turns you on?
Difficult not to scoff at so many here who demonize and perpetually complain about -- sometimes as hysterical alarmists -- Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh but who innocently ask why can we not simply talk about the reasonable points Rachel Maddox, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, and Jon Stewart want to raise in good-faith...Blah, blah, blah. Spare me.
People need to get a grip. The guy idolizes Socialists and their propagandistic style. At least know who it is that you are all getting into bed with. Bring on the deniers. Like Rigoberta Mench�, just a simple Guatemalan Indian woman, not a guerrilla at all, who used Marxist and feminist language and methods, and who also vigorously denied that Communists existed in Central America in the 1980s. "What Communists? What does a Communist look like...?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another evasion.
But I will answer your question. I don't have any problem with Cramers politics or advice. I think the guy is relatively (for Wall St) honest and does not deserve to be the face of this whole fiasco-That should be obvious to any thinking person.
I think this because I am relatively financially educated (up to a undergrad level), I know that when I buy shares, or property that I need to do my own research and make sure that I can afford the payments.
The only problem I have with Cramer is that he speaks too fast for me to use in my business classes. So I usually find the CEO interviews and the odd analyst interview and use those. I have a sample of 55 videos all from CNBC all watched and analysed so I do have a pretty representative idea of how they work.
But CNBC has all to often served as a cheerleader for bubbles. Any average Joe using CNBC to make investment decisions would have lost their shirts any number of times during the last few years. Do you disagree with this? Cramer himself didn't. He took it like a man. CNBC advertise themselves as the source for financial advice, but they're a trailing indicator-by the time they know it's no longer news.
Please accquaint me with any serious points that Limbaugh or Coulter make, and I will comment on them. As a non American I'm close to an unbiased source- I know very little about either, except that I've read one of Coulter's books in a Korean bookshop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Another evasion. |
Not at all. Again, I see no reason why I must comply with and respond to the game as people such as Jon Stewart and now you would dictate it. The power is in the questions, OneWayTraffic. Any law student will explain this to you.
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| But CNBC has all to[o] often served as a cheerleader for bubbles. Any average Joe using CNBC to make investment decisions would have lost their shirts any number of times during the last few years. Do you disagree with this...? |
Any average Joe who wholly relies on CNBC or any other single source when making investment decisions deserves to lose his shirt, OneWayTraffic. If you know anything about investing, you should know this.
Further, ever heard of freedom of speech and a free press? What basis exsits in American law or general practice that should compell CNBC to discuss finance, business, and corporations in ways that Jon Stewart would approve of? There is a strong current of moving to suppress nonleftist voices in the press these days: open attacks against R. Limbaugh's radio station, Ya-ta Boy and his sources' (the Huffington Post and others) growing hysteria over Glenn Beck, and now Jon Stewart and allies' open move to hit CNBC in the jugular, to fatally undermine it.
Why so threatened by those who speak against the Obama adminstration? Does the left, coming off these last eight years as it just did, not understand "playing the opposition?" Laughably hypocritical.
It seems that when the right holds power and the left hurls its attacks, the right tends to respond by attacking the left's patriotism, calling the left "subversive," etc. Now that the left holds power and the right is hurling attacks against it, we see the left fall back on its borderline totalitarianist impulses. Very predictable. Also very dangerous.
But while we are going down this pathway, why has Jon Stewart not critiqued himself for his coverage of John Kerry? Or why has he not critiqued CNN for its coverage of the Obama administration? Are you aware that CNN sells Barack Obama t-shirts that sport pro-Obama political slogans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cramer is a product of the bubble. Average people should not be investing beyond mutual funds etc. The mania placed too many individuals without a solid grip on investing in the market, and the entertainment media took over. He is fully useless as a commentator. Not a serious guy (at least in his wacky show).
I don't really care where criticism of this stuff comes from. CNBC was a cheer leader and is being taken down for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gopher: i recommend you read the paranoid style in american politics by richard j. hofstadter. it seems to me you are using the same "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy" (hofstadter's words, not yours) which you charge the "leftists" of using. it's obvious that the left is also guilty of this, you might even correctly say that they "elevate" it to a high art, but since you seem so intent on not allowing the left to control the terms of discussion..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mises: does not look to me like CNBC is "being taken down" at all. Just a lot of hyperbole from Jon Stewart's cheerleaders here and elsewhere. No more no less.
________
Very well aware of R. Hofstadter and his once fashionable "argument," Ubermenzch. You have read and internalized the left's cannon. Congratulations. You may be interested to know that many leftists have since moved beyond Hofstadter's simplistic, reductionist thinking -- but thank you for assigning me mental illness. Clinical paranoia, no? In which decade are you living and reading the literature, incidentally?
In any case, you may want to read historian Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: the Origins of the New American Right (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)...
| Lisa McGirr wrote: |
| Contemporary scholars [that is, those who observed and wrote in the 1960s. - g.] amplified the tendencies of the popular press [is anyone surprised by this? - g]. In the wake of McCarthyism and the rise of right-wing groups in the early 1960s, Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, and Seymour Martin Lipset turned their attention to explaining the roots of popular support for right-wing politics. Sharing a vision of the United States as fundamentally shaped by the liberal pluralism they so strongly sought to uphold [oh yeah? whatever happened to this love of pluralism and why do leftists continue to aim to exclude conservatives? - g], they viewed right-wing activists as motivated less by any coherent set of ideas or rational politics than by psychological distress. Bell and Lipset, in particular, argued that status anxieties of both an older, dispossessed middle class and an upwardly mobile group of white ethnics explained support for the Right. Hofstadter, in turn, borrowing from clinical psychology, suggested that a sense of "persecution" and "a paranoid style" characterized the Right as a marginal, embattled remnant fighting a losing battle against the inexorable forces of progress. The Right, they concluded, was prone to episodic outbursts similar to those of other "extremist" movements in American history that ran counter to the fundamental direction of change in American life -- the tireless forward march of American liberalism. While they correctly argued for paying attention to the ordinary people who populated the ranks of the Right, their excessive psychological interpretation distorted our understanding of American conservatism... |
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:50 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure how Jon Stewart can point fingers when he, himself, is VERY heavily partisaned. You don't think Jon Stewart has an agenda of converting as many youths to his views? He is in a position as an influencial voice to people.
Even though his TV show is a satire, he holds a lot of media influence. YOu can't just write him off and say, "Its all a joke." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Mises: does not look to me like CNBC is "being taken down" at all. Just a lot of hyperbole from Jon Stewart's cheerleaders here and elsewhere. No more no less. |
CNBC's reputation has been seriously damaged by this. Their nonsense was typically a piece of 'inside' information. In the industry, it was pretty commonly known that they were talking heads with little to offer. Now this is also known outside of the industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| CNBC...is being taken down. |
| mises wrote: |
| CNBC's reputation has been seriously damaged. |
Very confidently assertive. I read this and think that you have allowed yourself to become caught up in Jon Stewart and his cheerleaders' emotional triumphalism in all of this. Yet you seem completely sure of yourself that CNBC has suffered a serious blow is and being taken down.
But it remains on the air.
In any case, how have you come to believe what you assert here? How have you measured these results?
| mises wrote: |
| ...talking heads with little to offer. |
Interesting alleged distinction. This seems worth a laugh. As opposed to the others on the cable-news networks, Mises? As opposed to all that high-quality substance that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show just exude...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I read this and think that you have allowed yourself to become caught up in Jon Stewart and his cheerleaders' emotional triumphalism in all of this. |
I certainly enjoyed watching Cramer get grilled, and I am not exactly happy that it had to be a comedian that did it. But I have experience in the financial services industry, and I know how media fits in. It is all about access. If you're too critical, the big swinging dick hedgie won't give you time. Now that the hedgies are finally being understood as the crooks and frauds they are, an organization like CNBC can be critical.
| Quote: |
| Yet you seem completely sure of yourself that CNBC has suffered a serious blow is and being taken down. |
Yeah. Water cooler talk. But CNBC can rebuild and improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As opposed to the others on the cable-news networks, Mises? As opposed to all that high-quality substance that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show just exude...? |
I don't know. I don't watch them. I'm on strike from it.
But CNBC is always in the background, everywhere I go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has CNBC lost a single sponsor, Mises? Have regional and/or local cable providers dumped the channel? Have any execs and/or producers been replaced and/or fired? What about Jim Cramer? Will the network take him off the air now?
Where are these devastating blows to CNBC? You work in finance and economics. And it remains on in the background everywhere you go. Sounds like you just sealed my case for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given that it is played on every trading floor big and small in the United States and even to some extent in Canada and Singapore (among others) it is unlikely to lose too many sponsors, though who knows. If I were Bloomberg, I'd be licking my chops.. Anways, when I speak of taking it down, I'm referring to respectability. I've been critical of their garbage "YOU'RE A BULL" YOU'RE A BEAR" "DR. DOOM" etc for a while, and suddenly, nobody seems to disagree with me. Their childish antics have been exposed. This reminds me of my long standing arguments with real estate types and how they suddenly, one day, sounded just like me. It is a paradigm shift. But again, I'm sure they will be able to rebuild. They need to get rid of most of their hosts. Fox Business News, for example, has responded to this crises by regularly airing Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell -an anarcho-capitalist-, who their politics aside, got the crises right. FBN also got rid of some of their perma-bulls (their word) like Mike Norman.
Anyways, ratings are down.
Here, watch this. NNT and NR are two of the most sophisticated financial thinkers alive. And CNBC has them on at the same time, for a good chunk of time. Watch the video. The hosts totally blow it. Absolutely unsophisticated garbage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk4TgUxX0fQ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jim Cramer, alive-and-kicking, and looking forward to the next four years on the air, about an hour ago...
| Quote: |
After four years, Mad Money's mission remains the same: to help regular people � shareholders at home watching the show � to better understand the market. Knowledge, as the saying goes, is power. And the average investor needs as much as he or she can get. Let's face it, mutual funds and hedge funds throw around some big money, so the rest of us need to find a way to level the playing field. That's where Cramer comes in.
You see, this show isn't about stock picking, as many critics think it is. Mad Money is about education. Cramer's higher purpose is to explain the forces that move stocks. He wants to teach investors how to make money in even the worst markets. He tries to give the layman the inside scoop on this fashion show known as Wall Street. The big money guys � mutual and hedge fund managers � don't want you to know this. And like it or not, the deck is stacked in their favor. So Cramer does his best to even out the odds, so to speak.
Sometimes that means finding long-term secular trends that offer a good chance for profits. Think China and Cramer's trade-down plays like Ralcorp [RAH 55.53 0.39 (+0.71%)] and Treehouse Foods [THS 28.62 0.16 (+0.56%)]. Other times that means widening the focus a bit to tackle larger issues, such as President Obama's spending plans or unchecked short selling. Mad Money�s themes vary from AIG [AIG 0.83 0.33 (+66%)] to Citigroup [C 2.33 0.55 (+30.9%)] to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to the show's CEOs Wall of Shame. But whatever the topic on any given day, the real focus is always you, you, you. Cramer is doing his best to teach you what you need to know to compete against the big boys, survive the downturns and better manage your money.
No doubt Cramer has made mistakes. He'll be the first to admit that. And, yes, he recommends stocks. But that always comes second to educating his viewers. That is what he has been doing all along, and he'll continue to do it, regardless of what the critics say.
So Happy Fourth Anniversary, Mad Money. Here's to another four. |
CNBC Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mad Money won't survive. If for no reason other than the democratization of equities has been a devastating failure. His is the past financial paradigm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
