So, what about Cramer? What is his legacy? I interested as an amateur market historian. I say, we can't end this period until he self destructs, which was my original premise. I don't think he goes quietly. Does he keep talking crap, and eventually gets lucky for a cycle? Or does this market, that he's gotten wrong most all the way, reverse had, test and break the lows while he' s long (if you can pin him down)? What say you (se)?
After watching the face to face between Stewart and Cramer I almost felt sorry for Jimbo...almost. Stewart took him apart. I'm no big fan of either, as Cramers show is short on substance and big on show, while Stewart does have a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts. Cramer is walking point on this and is taking hits that the entire CNBC gang deserves to be taking. The entire network has lost whatever credibility they had, and Jim will go down as the guy that made one too many jokes in a time where there wasn't much to laugh about. He and the rest of the CNBC gang will laugh all the way to the bank, but it's now out there for all to see, they are the pump and dump network that is long on sophomoric entertainment and damn short on providing anything of real value.
You are probably correct, Unhommefou, but let me give it a shot anyway. Pabst, are you listening? http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav
Traders and investors have been calling him out for years. Notice how Stewart only bothers to take him on *after* the market tanks 50%+. Taking him on during the boom would have been gutsy, doing it now is just like kicking a mentally retarded kid after he falls out of his chair and starts rolling around on the ground with his tongue out. Stewart is basically lacking in balls and going for easy targets. Let's see him go on Saudi TV and lampoon the sexist laws and oppression of minorities there. It will be a cold day in hell before any professional "comedian" in the west does something significant or gutsy in this world. "Comedy" in the USA is just a racket to make lots of money for the people involved, there is no dissent, no controversy, guys from Lenny Bruce through Bill Hicks to Howard Stern and Jon Stewart just serve up canned "rebellion" for the suburbs to raise a few cheap laughs, pretending they are saying something important whilst increasing ad revenue for their masters on TV and radio. Worst thing is, most of it isn't even funny.
Stewart attacked Cramer only after Cramer committed the unpardonable sin of criticizing Obama. Until then, he'd probably never even heard of Cramer. Obviously, someone told him to take Cramer down a notch. None of that helps Cramer. Few will ever take him seriously now. He was crazy to go on that show, and he was insane to roll over and take it without fighting back.
Somebody in the mainstream media have to be working on a "Did Cramer Manipulate the Market?" story. NYT? Bloomberg? This is a no brainer for assignment editors, especially with that video out there. After that, it's the A.G.'s office, a trial or a plea ... And CNBC won't utter a word about it.
It's an old story. Remember some kid who worked for Cramer told it all in an expose' a few years back. Besides the statute on 1990's activity is long expired. Plus I'm sure you know Cramer had the ultimate protection for years: Spitzer was one of Cramer's oldest and biggest clients.....
I think Mary Schapiro has to do something to show she's not the wimp that Chris Cox was. Simply putting out a statement saying the S.E.C. is looking into Cramer's apparent admittance of illegal market manipulation (see Henry Blodgett's Slate piece on this) is an easy thing to do. We'll see. Personally, the book on Schapiro, from what I recall from my days in NYC, are that she is a total nonentity, an affirmative action case. An A.G. will have to do the S.E.C.'s work yet again, in all likelihood.