Jim Cramer scheduled to be guest on Thursday's "The Daily Show"

[KrazyHorse]

Capital flowing to those who will invest it more wisely:

[Darius871]

I remember reading a while back that there's an entire industry based off of shorting Jim Cramer's recommendations.

Maybe that's been his grift all along; he was already notorious for using manipulative rumors to improve shorts (including many naked shorts) at his hedge fund, so maybe he realized a TV show would be the best way to artificially drop prices for the same purpose. Of course he doesn't have a fund any longer and there's no news that he's personally trading against his own recommendations, but there's always the chance a friend or subsidiary does it to his benefit. Maybe there's a diabolical genius hidden behind the buffoon we see on his show. People that have known him personally have used the word "sociopath" more than once, and his infamous TheStreet interview from which Stewart only took a few snippets show his true colors, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Darius871]

P.S. Oh-so-coincidentally Cramer's short-selling interview in EPW's post#25 was pulled from YouTube after the Daily Show interview for a "copyright claim." Fortunately there's another copy elsewhere:

[Zkribbler]

I surfed passed Cramer's show last night. He seems to now be playing Wall Street cop.

[Darius871]

I surfed passed Cramer's show last night. He seems to now be playing Wall Street cop.

Could you be more specific? What did he have to say about whom?

[notyoueither]

NYE, until you begin to understand the concept of supply and demand, I think you should refrain from commenting on something which is actually mildly complicated.

Victor, you're a nincompoop who doesn't even understand what consequences Ricardian equivalence would have on the fiscal multiplier, despite the fact that it's almost a tautology.

I understand that you have a high supply of snark. Unfortunately, I have low demand for it. That would mean it has little value, yes?

[Zkribbler]

Could you be more specific? What did he have to say about whom?

He was ragging on AIG [big surprise]. He was complaining about lack of transparency and wanted RICO charges brought. [I only watched for a couple of seconds.]

[Darius871]

He was ragging on AIG [big surprise]. He was complaining about lack of transparency and wanted RICO charges brought. [I only watched for a couple of seconds.]

I finally found his full reaction on Friday; there actually is a whole spiel about evil hedge fund managers' manipulative short sales, so to an extent he did stick to his promise on TDS. Not sure if it'll last though, and he still uses the buttons

[Darius871]

Oddly enough, apparently Cramer was about as expositive as Stewart would like when it came to hedge fund gangsters' questionable CDS bets on Lehman and the SEC's incompetence in that regard (not that any of this is surprising to the well-informed), and this was months before the "feud":

[Zkribbler]

As I watched the Daily Show, I kept wondering if Cramer's real purpose for appearing was to set himself up for a rebirth of his image, so he is now seen as a Wall Street investigator.

[Victor Galis]

Victor, you're a nincompoop who doesn't even understand what consequences Ricardian equivalence would have on the fiscal multiplier, despite the fact that it's almost a tautology.

I think you're confusing not living in a fantasy land where neoclassical economics works with not understanding it. I don't doubt your math is better than mine, but I suspect you lack the healthy amount of scepticism that economists should have.

Also at the thought that I know a lot about theoretical economics.

I know how to write down and solve differential equations along with a few definitions (in order to get lingo right).

God, it's easy to succeed in things which aren't physics.

You seem to think there's more to theoretical economics. There really isn't.

Ito calculus = regular calculus with finite dispersion term.

So ****ing simple...

Suppose your assumptions don't hold.

It's kind of humbling how little I know about the basics of real math. I think JM might be right in suggesting we teach it in high schools.

Why? I took multivariable calc in high school, now I remember so little of it because I haven't really needed it.

[Victor Galis]

In Aggie's world Drake and I can agree to buy rocks off each other for a million dollars apiece and as long as nobody calls us on it we'll all be trillionaires!

Sound mark-to-market principles at work

[KrazyHorse]

I think you're confusing not living in a fantasy land where neoclassical economics works with not understanding it.

No, I'm talking about obvious misunderstandings of simple theoretical concepts. Not whether or not those concepts hold true in the real world.

Which is not something I've really opined on, son, except by presenting empirical results.

Some of us, unlike yourself, have the intellectual capacity to grasp these theories. Just because we've got the ability to craft a discussion within such a framework doesn't mean that we drink the kool-aid. You ridiculous person.

Suppose your assumptions don't hold.

"My" assumptions? Poppycock. They are the assumptions within which a certain brand of mathematical analysis works. They are not something I have a religious belief in. Again with this railing at strawmen....

Why? I took multivariable calc in high school, now I remember so little of it because I haven't really needed it.

Yeah, "do you want fries with that" is probably about as demanding as your life gets.

[Theben]

That is after the peak of US home prices, and it is about Canada.

Keep digging. I'm sure you will find something, somewhere. The point is that the widespread feeling was positive until a very late date, and a little longer.

Interestingly enough, Tal's article was posted here back in 2006. I can't find it though.

As for digging, I could cite Bill Moyer's Journal, which noted the city of Cleveland had noticed the negative effects on neighborhoods and tax revenue due to sub-prime lending as far back as 1996. Otherwise a cursory look around some sites does show positive articles wrt the economy until well into 2008.

[Victor Galis]

No, I'm talking about obvious misunderstandings of simple theoretical concepts. Not whether or not those concepts hold true in the real world.

I don't recall engaging in theoretical debate with you. I recall telling you your conclusion was wrong because your assumptions were wrong.

Some of us, unlike yourself, have the intellectual capacity to grasp these theories. Just because we've got the ability to craft a discussion within such a framework doesn't mean that we drink the kool-aid. You ridiculous person.

Then why keep spouting nonsense, trying to sound authoritative and whatnot. You could preface your statements by saying "In theory," but you don't. And if you don't, I don't have to limit myself to attacking the internal consistency of your arguments, which is hard given that they tend to be pretty unassailable on that front.

"My" assumptions? Poppycock. They are the assumptions within which a certain brand of mathematical analysis works. They are not something I have a religious belief in. Again with this railing at strawmen....

But you're choosing to apply that sort of math to stock markets. We should have known better since the downfall of LTCM.