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

[Zkribbler]

Darn. Og has an entire chapter on the tulip boom & bust.

[notyoueither]

It was extraordinary.

I believe there are bills of sale that still exist, but I do not profess to have seen them.

That list was not the most extravagant I have heard of. It was a handy list off the second hit on google. However, the point is the extent of insanity that can be seen during a bubble. That, and we see them periodically. One would imagine once bitten, twice shy, but we see them repeat time and time again.

We had a warning as recently as 2000-2002 and the dot com incident. Still, people came back looking for more easy money from speculation. One would imagine they have a nose full of it by now, but there are still people saying 'buy, buy, buy.'

[DaShi]

You should rent a clue before saying anything. Just saying.

Not surprised by your response. Still, watch the interview, you'll find that your statement doesn't apply here.

[notyoueither]

I've watched it, twice, and I think my reply to GePap was apropos.

Perhaps you should take up reading.

[notyoueither]

From an article in today's G&M:

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090313.wsubprime14/BNStory/Business/home

One of the first experts to sound the alarm about the proliferation of subprime mortgages was Benjamin Tal, an economist with CIBC World Markets who published a report in late 2006 warning “the genie is out of the bottle.” Mr. Tal declined to be interviewed, but his report estimated that subprime loans were growing at a “meteoric” annual pace of 50 per cent by the end of 2006, making it the fastest growing segment of Canada's mortgage market. In 2006, Mr. Tal estimated more than 85,000 Canadian homeowners had subprime loans.

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.

[DaShi]

I've watched it, twice, and I think my reply to GePap was apropos.

That's probably why he didn't even bother to respond.

However, I will.

Originally Posted by GePap
Stewart picked on CNBC for a vcery clear and simple reason - they were the cheerleaders of the bubble. That is why the best part of his initial rip into CNBC was the interview with the guy running the multibillion dollar ponzi scheme where the CNBC "reporter" ends by asking if it was cool to be a billionaire. That level of stupidity is instant classic.

Can you, or Jon Stewart, show us any credible sources warning about conditions prior to the downturn of US home prices?

Jon Stewart cited several times in the interview that CNBC and Cramer knew how the "real" market was played and that it could easily go pop. In fact, he argued that the advice CNBC and Cramer were giving seemed only to feed that market at the expense of the people who bought into it. I guess you missed all that, while watching it twice.

Now, since you watched the interview, you would know that Jon's point wasn't that they weren't warning about the crash(although, he believed that they should have been able to catch it), it was that they weren't warning about what really happens to the money people are investing and borrowing from. That's what makes their cheerleading outrageous. They really should have known better. And you may be right that no one else was either. But your wrong in that this isn't about what this whole thing here is about. It's about CNBC's explicit cheerleading while claiming to be insider experts, when they either should have known better or did know better and deceived their viewers.

Your local financial advisor, and just about everyone else, was a cheerleader for the bubble. That's how bubbles work. An old axiom goes that when your cab driver is telling you to buy, it's time to sell. The problem is when you agree with the cab driver, and don't pick up on that or any other negative signal.

That's just it, there were no negative signals. Stewart pointed out that CNBC claims to be experts. They specifically claim that the advice they are given is factual and honest. However, Jon has exposed that it is neither. They knew that the system was ****ed up and what the banks were doing and said nothing, hence Gepap's point about the "cool billionaire." And then one of CNBC's own people goes on a rant blaming the people who trusted them.

It'e easy to point and laugh at the fools after the fact. What has been demonstrated countless times over the last several hundred years is that it is very difficult to escape being a fool during the fact.

Again, Jim Cramer threw out this response and Jon turned the discussion back to the true topic of "real" and "unreal" markets.

You know what, I'm going to be fair to you. Perhaps you just missed the point. That's all. Now you know. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.

[notyoueither]

Full of yourself, much?

Stewart picked on CNBC for a vcery clear and simple reason - they were the cheerleaders of the bubble.

That is what I replied to.

Saying that CNBC were 'THE cheerleaders of the bubble' is an interesting, ill-informed, and simply ignorant reading of the situation.

'The bubble' reached far beyond the shores where CNBC is carried on cable companies and less more than more widely consumed.

'The bubble' infected financial markets where Cramer would be no more recognised than a turnip.

That is my point. Stewart delivered a seemingly devastating indictment of financial reporting, but he missed the target. While doing so, he put up the scape goats for you and any other easy to please media consumer to throw cows at. Meanwhile, you and the rest of the cattle completely miss the lessons to be learned.

It's not your fault, after all.

You were simly misled into thinking 30% returns are normal and expected. You were simply misled into commiting fraud to gain a mortgage. CNBC put you up to it, and damn it! if they had it right you would still be getting your 30% and you would have got away with lying on financial documents to get a mortgage! It's all their fault! Mooo!

[DaShi]

Full of yourself, much?

Very much so. Thank you.

Stewart picked on CNBC for a vcery clear and simple reason - they were the cheerleaders of the bubble.

That is what I replied to.

Saying that CNBC were 'THE cheerleaders of the bubble' is an interesting, ill-informed, and simply ignorant reading of the situation.

But you didn't say this before. Nothing like it. You're arguement was: "It'e easy to point and laugh at the fools after the fact. What has been demonstrated countless times over the last several hundred years is that it is very difficult to escape being a fool during the fact."

This is a new argument that hinges solely on what your interpretation of Gepap's use of the world "the" is. Really? This isn't backpedalling. This is BK like deception. And pretty lame too.

That is my point. Stewart delivered a seemingly devastating indictment of financial reporting, but he missed the target. While doing so, he put up the scape goats for you and any other easy to please media consumer to throw cows at. Meanwhile, you and the rest of the cattle completely miss the lessons to be learned.

Again, that wasn't your point then. And since your new point hinges on Gepap's definiton of the word "the," you can't blame Jon Stewart for it. Unless you have some psychotic grudge against him.

You were simly misled into thinking 30% returns are normal and expected. You were simply misled into commiting fraud to gain a mortgage. CNBC put you up to it, and damn it! if they had it right you would still be getting your 30% and you would have got away with lying on financial documents to get a mortgage! It's all their fault! Mooo!

No one has argued that CNBC forced people to become criminals. There's nothing like this in this thread or in the interview. Ben, you're making up arguments again that simply don't exist.

I'm trying to be nice here. But this is total bull**** you just posted. What will you warp your argument into next? I'm looking forward to episode 3.

[DaShi]

Actually, I'm finally going to come out and say it. NYE, it's getting tiresome to watch you over and over again post about topics you are completely ignorant of then immediately insult anyone who responds. I know, you're the least educated of the big conservative trolls here, but you must have some common sense. Seriously, you lost an argument to Ben Kenobi over roads. That was sad that there even was such an argument, let alone to lose it. So what I'm saying is, either stick to what you know or lose the chip on your shoulder. As stated before, it's one thing to be a smartass and another to be just an ass.

[Impaler[WrG]]

OMG, speaking of overdoing it... "a modern day Mark Twain"??? I feel dirty defending Cramer even the slightest bit, but he was right the other day to note that any comedian can pick ANY stock analyst and conveniently clip out a bunch of embarassing quotes (whether out of context or even in context), because it's not an exact science. Buffett, Soros, anybody. And of course the many good calls go unreported, because as Stewart himself said, it's tough to report on a truck that's not on fire.

Are you aware that Twain was a Satirist and critiqued the greed and social ills of his own time in a little book called The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, You might not think Stewart is as talented or as brilliant as Twain but he is certainly of the same tradition. Entertainment is a vehicle for commentary, Stewart just uses a TV show rather then books.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Such naivete. ... The point is that these people claimed to be experts in their field and time after time has been shown either wrong, naive, or simply dishonest.

You seem to agree with Stewart that incorrectly predicting the future is some sort of failure, but think I'm the naive one?

Stewart picked on CNBC for a vcery clear and simple reason - they were the cheerleaders of the bubble.

It's pretty clear that Stewart picked on CNBC because Santelli went after Obama. Stewart obviously felt the need to defend his side.

[a.kitman]

NGR you have to admit tho jon is a better troller then ann

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You've watched any 'news' in the last 10 years?

Doesn't mean it's right...

[Agathon]

Stewart's lectures are pablum for the uninformed. This one was particularly bad, as hindsight bias was on full display and the target of his hectoring wasn't anywhere near the center of the crisis.

"The uninformed" conceivably includes the majority of the political and media establishment these days.

We're living in one of those wonderful times where the incompetence of the rulers is being viciously exposed. None of them really have a clue what they are doing, but their position in society depends on them saying the opposite. It's priceless. They're all drowning in their own groupthink.

The "conventional wisdom" has proven to be anything but, yet again.

[Agathon]

Stewart was well-prepared, morally outraged and basically relentless. The transition from throwdown to beatdown was palpable and immediate. What was amazing was that it wasn't a brief interview -- it was the whole freaking show, from intro to Moment of Zen. Awesome stuff.

Yeah, it was almost like real journalism. I had forgotten what that was like.