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

[Naked Gents Rut]

Given the fact that there wasn't anything particularly complex or novel about the Madoff scam, I would say that it points to the fact that there was indeed a lack of due dilligence on both the part of regulators and individual investors when it came to the market in the run up to this crisis.

I've never said there was only one reason for the financial crisis. There were many.

[DinoDoc]

Given the fact that there wasn't anything particularly complex or novel about the Madoff scam, I would say that it points to the fact that there was indeed a lack of due dilligence on both the part of regulators and individual investors when it came to the market in the run up to this crisis.

I've never said there was only one reason for the financial crisis. There were many.

I didn't think we were talking about the reason for the financial crisis.

[DaShi]

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?

I've addressed this point several times here already. Sorry, if it was too complicated, but there's only so much I can do for your kind.

And since the others have pretty much dismissed you, I don't have to go any further.

[DaShi]

Given the fact that there wasn't anything particularly complex or novel about the Madoff scam, I would say that it points to the fact that there was indeed a lack of due dilligence on both the part of regulators and individual investors when it came to the market in the run up to this crisis.

I've never said there was only one reason for the financial crisis. There were many.

No, but you did try to dismiss all the arguments here with a simple-minded point that failed fully address the issue. :yawn: What's next? Are you going to tell us that buying stocks is risky?

[GePap]

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

The Economist? Financial Times? WSJ? Oh, I forgot, the WSJ is a patsy for the conspiracy, nevermind them.

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 how you end up with a single tulip bulb selling for 'two loads of wheat; four loads of rye; four fat oxen; eight fat swine; twelve fat sheep; two hogsheads of wine; four barrels of beer; two barrels of butter; 1,000 pounds of cheese; a marriage bed with linens; and a sizeable wagon to haul it all away.'

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.

Well, there was Nouriel Roubini for one, and I am sure there were plenty of others who saw the insanity out there. But since they urged caution, and to keep from making a quick speculative buck, well, who wants to listen to the people urging sobriety in a kegger?

As for CNBC being there cheerleader for the bubble, they were the most successful cable channel devoted almost entirely to the financial markets out there. In NYC, if a bank has a TV in it, it is on CNBC. FBN is relatively new, and CNNF and Bloomberg never have had the reach.

[GePap]

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

Yes, plenty. There is this channel called PBS - they have this thing called the News Hour - that shows news. There is also this long running series of one hour news documentariesd - its called Frontline. That is news too. And this being a global media marketplace, there are actually channels from other countries, and small channels from this country in which one can find news.

The claims by you and Darius that there are no news seem to make the assumption that because the most popular outlets are crap, that somehow journalism in television has died. that is false. In this fragmented market, you can find any nieche programming, including "gasp", real journalism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Interestingly enough PBS is government run and doesn't rely on advertisers. Can you see where we could all think you are ignoring a BIG difference there, whether deliberately or not. What is the relative viewership, btw of PBS compared to the rest?

And where exactly does it say PBS has a patent on the word "news".

[GePap]

Interestingly enough PBS is government run and doesn't rely on advertisers. Can you see where we could all think you are ignoring a BIG difference there, whether deliberately or not. What is the relative viewership, btw of PBS compared to the rest?

Last time I checked, most commercial news outlets have been paid for mainly by corporate advertising for the last 75 years at least - yet the iwidepread failure of journalism is relatively modern (last 20 years). Just saying that most news is paid for privately isn't a explination of anything in an of itself. And one could just as well argue that an roganization operated by government is less likely, not more likely, to be bad news (as in government run news in authoritarian governments).

As for the ratings arguement, PBS has never been the ratings leader - so using a fact that has been true for 40 years to try to argue something recent isn't much of an arguement either.

And where exactly does it say PBS has a patent on the word "news".

PBS doesn't. CNN claims strenously to be news as well, as does Fox News. Neither of those organiztions would accept your claim that news equal entertainment. how can you claim that Americans have accepted a new definiton of news when those who are the purveyors of news would streneously disagree with that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's become more accelerated lately because of the increase in channels (ie, options for viewership). Which of course strengthen the advertisers. When you have 5 channels and all have news on at 6 PM EST (say), there isn't going to be much pressure to make it more "entertaining".

CNN claims strenously to be news as well, as does Fox News. Neither of those organiztions would accept your claim that news equal entertainment

Have you watched them? They sure do. They may not come out and say it, but they prove it with every day's programming. Actions, as you well know, speak louder than words.

Why don't they claim news = entertainment? Because the definition of news has changed to include entertainment. Hard for them to claim that the definition of news hasn't changed, when they consider "breaking news" to be Britney Spears was seen with her head shaved.

[GePap]

It's become more accelerated lately because of the increase in channels (ie, options for viewership). Which of course strengthen the advertisers. When you have 5 channels and all have news on at 6 PM EST (say), there isn't going to be much pressure to make it more "entertaining".

Actually, the pressure is not one sided - journalism is expensive, not only because it might anger an advertiser, but because good investigative journalism requires more man hours as well. So even if advertisers were willing to accept open news (and some would, if their own brand were to be enhanced by connections to a trusted news source - like the companies that advertise on PBS), there are pressures to cut costs. but an even greater underlying pressure is the same as that which caused the whole mess we are in - the aim of corporations becoming to inflate their quarterly profit reports as high as poisslbe, as opposed to tryign to craft a logn term path to profitability, even if those profits might be smaller and more spaced out.

Have you watched them? They sure do. They may not come out and say it, but they prove it with every day's programming. Actions, as you well know, speak louder than words.

Have you hear of false advertising? If everyone who sold gallons of milk out there started to put in 10% tap water without telling the customers, and noiced no change, or a postive change, that act in and of itself wouldn't somehow redefine what agallon of milk is.

Why don't they claim news = entertainment? Because the definition of news has changed to include entertainment. Hard for them to claim that the definition of news hasn't changed, when they consider "breaking news" to be Britney Spears was seen with her head shaved.

No, they do it because the definition of news hasdn't changed. For them to admit they care more about keeping people watching as opposed to informing people when they watch would be to admit they aren't news networks, thus losing the prestigue that journalism is supposed to have. And the public is not sold on what you claim to be a new defintion of news, which is why public turst in the press is generally lower than that on many of the other big institutions that are also failing us.

you seem to want to claim that all of this is watcher driven, but that is not the case. A lot of it is driven by the content providers as well.

[notyoueither]

Well, there was Nouriel Roubini for one, and I am sure there were plenty of others who saw the insanity out there. But since they urged caution, and to keep from making a quick speculative buck, well, who wants to listen to the people urging sobriety in a kegger?

As for CNBC being there cheerleader for the bubble, they were the most successful cable channel devoted almost entirely to the financial markets out there. In NYC, if a bank has a TV in it, it is on CNBC. FBN is relatively new, and CNNF and Bloomberg never have had the reach.

There's a bullseye.

Now, what was the reception to what Roubini had to say? People didn't believe him because they did not want to believe that people like Greenspan were wrong. Afterall, we were all making a killing and we were being told that 'now' was different from 'then' and there was no reason things would not continue to grow with no major bust in the 'now.' It's those sorts of gains along with conceit about our own acumen and abilities being superior to those who lived 'then' that lead to what seems like willful blindness. Of course the blindness is obvious, after the fact. It is always thus with bubbles.

As for CNBC, is it widely watched in Europe? If not, how did they influence Europeans to join the parade? And why were news organisations such as the BBC unable to make things clear for their consumers? Again, it's because the consequences of what was happening in the US, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere with banking and the financial markets piling onto the boom(s) were not at all obvious to the vast majority of participants, from the lowly saver to the heads of central banks. What hold did CNBC have on European banks, financial institutions, regulators, business leaders, and consumers?

CNBC could be as stodgy, grounded, and interested in serving the public interest as the BBC, and they still would likely not have materially changed what happened. Lampooning them does make for some entertaining television though.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No, but you did try to dismiss all the arguments here with a simple-minded point that failed fully address the issue.

Your worldview still fascinates me...

[DaShi]

There's a bullseye.

Now, what was the reception to what Roubini had to say? People didn't believe him because they did not want to believe that people like Greenspan were wrong. Afterall, we were all making a killing and we were being told that 'now' was different from 'then' and there was no reason things would not continue to grow with no major bust in the 'now.' It's those sorts of gains along with conceit about our own acumen and abilities being superior to those who lived 'then' that lead to what seems like willful blindness. Of course the blindness is obvious, after the fact. It is always thus with bubbles.

As for CNBC, is it widely watched in Europe? If not, how did they influence Europeans to join the parade? And why were news organisations such as the BBC unable to make things clear for their consumers? Again, it's because the consequences of what was happening in the US, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere with banking and the financial markets piling onto the boom(s) were not at all obvious to the vast majority of participants, from the lowly saver to the heads of central banks. What hold did CNBC have on European banks, financial institutions, regulators, business leaders, and consumers?

CNBC could be as stodgy, grounded, and interested in serving the public interest as the BBC, and they still would likely not have materially changed what happened. Lampooning them does make for some entertaining television though.

But the point of Jon Stewart's interview (and this thread) wasn't to lampoon them. Making some fairly obvious statements and asking unrelated questions has nothing to with this thread and only whatever manufactured point you are trying to make. I can only kindly assume that you don't like the topic and are therefore trying shift the discussion away from it. If that's the case, why not start a thread on whatever your topic is like Guy did?

[DaShi]

No, but you did try to dismiss all the arguments here with a simple-minded point that failed fully address the issue.

Your worldview still fascinates me...

Sorry, to understand it requires looking back on what has happened and seeing the whole picture. You aren't capable of that and that I probably should apologize for capitolizing on it for so long. But really, is it my fault?

[Agathon]

The financial types are smarter and understand the system better.

Apparently not, since they've destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth. At least this will probably be the end of excessive mathematization in finance, because it's apparent doesn't work. I guess it is back to gimlet-eyed appraisals of people who trudge into your bank wanting a loan.