John Stewart Slaps CNBC and Santelli, Oh and Cramer Too

[sanantonio]

Won't be commenting just found this humorous and wanted to share. :p

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7482/26433

[sanantonio]

After a few days of back n forth and Cramer being butt hurt he actually went on Stewarts show tonight and in a word had his azz handed to him. It was a beautiful thing to watch as John slowly took him, CNBC, as well as the financials apart so much so that I almost felt sorry for him.........NOT!!! I'll post the vid once it's up.

[sanantonio]

Here's the video:

http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I saw the clip. Cramer didn't do himself any favors but Stewart was so way off on a lot of what he was talking about. It sounds good and it gives people someone to blame but it just isn't a factor in all this. Even the clip of Cramer conversaitons about how Hedgies work the market has nothing to do with the issues at hand. That was a funny diversion but not anything that proved a point.

It is interesting how people want someone to blame. Hedge Funds don't make stocks go down. CNBC doesn't make stocks go down. CNBC doesn't have insider information. They understand about the underbelly of the market but if you bought MSFT when it IPOed there is nothing that anyone could write or say about the company that would have stopped you from making a ton of money. Over the long-term stocks follow fundamentals...not rumors or pundits or political parties. Secondly it is not CNBCs responsibility to inform an investor on his investments. All the hard data that Cramer has we have free on the internet in the form of annual reports and 10-Ks and 10-Qs.

This current crisis started with homeowners. If there is no loan there is no toxic asset. There were a ton of warnings signs that were ignored once we got past the initial loan that can be blamed on regulation but if you go all the way back to the beginning if the homebuyer would have simply said "no thanks, I can't afford this" then none of this would have happened. By the time this stuff got to "Wall Street" it was aleady bound to implode. No bankers wrote a lo-doc or no-doc loan. No banker labeled a product AAA that was not. No banker bought a bond he knew was junk and lied and said it was AAA.

If anybody can prove to me that this crisis would have happened if homebuyers only toook loans they can afford I am willing to listen.

-TS

[sanantonio]

I saw the clip. Cramer didn't do himself any favors but Stewart was so way off on a lot of what he was talking about. It sounds good and it gives people someone to blame but it just isn't a factor in all this. Even the clip of Cramer conversaitons about how Hedgies work the market has nothing to do with the issues at hand. That was a funny diversion but not anything that proved a point.

It is interesting how people want someone to blame. Hedge Funds don't make stocks go down. CNBC doesn't make stocks go down. CNBC doesn't have insider information. They understand about the underbelly of the market but if you bought MSFT when it IPOed there is nothing that anyone could write or say about the company that would have stopped you from making a ton of money. Over the long-term stocks follow fundamentals...not rumors or pundits or political parties. Secondly it is not CNBCs responsibility to inform an investor on his investments. All the hard data that Cramer has we have free on the internet in the form of annual reports and 10-Ks and 10-Qs.

This current crisis started with homeowners. If there is no loan there is no toxic asset. There were a ton of warnings signs that were ignored once we got past the initial loan that can be blamed on regulation but if you go all the way back to the beginning if the homebuyer would have simply said "no thanks, I can't afford this" then none of this would have happened. By the time this stuff got to "Wall Street" it was aleady bound to implode. No bankers wrote a lo-doc or no-doc loan. No banker labeled a product AAA that was not. No banker bought a bond he knew was junk and lied and said it was AAA.

If anybody can prove to me that this crisis would have happened if homebuyers only toook loans they can afford I am willing to listen.

-TS

I don't want to get into a back and forth but I think blaming the home owner is the easy way out and that the financials have thier burden to bear as well. Take myself for example when we took out our mortgage we were well within being able to afford it but without getting into details things change and circumstances happen. This caused a severe financial strain on me and my family fortunatley not to the point of losing our home but a strain none the less. My point is that unforseen circumstance can and does change financial situations and it has nothing to do with me or my wife being lazy or dead beats. But for the Grace of God we could be in foreclosure as well.

I have seen it as being so easy to blame home owners enmasse I see that as being a cop out for the real issues.

This is a part of that back room crap John was talking about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4490541725797746038&ei=4Tu3SanSO6Ss-gGo_I2EBA&q=phantom+shares&hl=en

[theanalogkid]

Some of these comments were taken out of context. I know for sure the comment Cramer made about keeping your money in Bear Sterns was about keeping your money in Bear Stern's accounts (which was FDIC insured), not owning their stock.

t if you go all the way back to the beginning if the homebuyer would have simply said "no thanks, I can't afford this" then none of this would have happened.

Too bad, it's not all about the homebuyer, the bank could have said "No, we do not think you have the ability to pay back your mortgage, please come back when you are in better financial shape." The banks are just as guilty for giving out these loans as the homebuyer is for taking them on without knowing exactly what they were getting.

[sanantonio]

Some of these comments were taken out of context. I know for sure the comment Cramer made about keeping your money in Bear Sterns was about keeping your money in Bear Stern's accounts (which was FDIC insured), not owning their stock.

Thats not taking him out of context that's him not being specific.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Too bad, it's not all about the homebuyer, the bank could have said "No, we do not think you have the ability to pay back your mortgage, please come back when you are in better financial shape." The banks are just as guilty for giving out these loans as the homebuyer is for taking them on without knowing exactly what they were getting.

Like I said there were a lot of warning signs that were ignored once the original loan was signed, but no matter how you cut it if you don't take the loan there is no loan. The fault for taking a bad loan is 100% of the homebuyer. Banks can't force you to take loans. Just because a banks offers you something silly doesn't make it any less your fault for taking something silly.

If a bank exec was here trying to tell me it is the homebuyers fault for taking his loan I would tell him that the fault of writing bad loans is 100% on the bank.

However when you step back to the very beginning of it all things only get in motion when the homebuyer signs the docs. No signature, no loan...no loan, no "toxic asset"...no "toxic asset", not credit crisis.

-TS

[sanantonio]

Like I said there were a lot of warning signs that were ignored once the original loan was signed, but no matter how you cut it if you don't take the loan there is no loan. The fault for taking a bad loan is 100% of the homebuyer. Banks can't force you to take loans. Just because a banks offers you something silly doesn't make it any less your fault for taking something silly.

If a bank exec was here trying to tell me it is the homebuyers fault for taking his loan I would tell him that the fault of writing bad loans is 100% on the bank.

However when you step back to the very beginning of it all things only get in motion when the homebuyer signs the docs. No signature, no loan...no loan, no "toxic asset"...no "toxic asset", not credit crisis.

-TS

You can paint it anyway you want but the bottom line is that the laws were changed to make it easier for loans to be made to those that couldn't get them to begin with in the name of greed and profit. In turn huge profits were made from these loans on the short end as quite a few people walked away and are still walking away rich from the loans and increasing bailouts of taxpayer money. But thats ok as long as the people who took out the loans don't get your money, I'm just assuming that's your take, right?

[TheSphinx 2.0]

You can paint it anyway you want but the bottom line is that the laws were changed to make it easier for loans to be made to those that couldn't get them to begin with in the name of greed and profit. In turn huge profits were made from these loans on the short end as quite a few people walked away and are still walking away rich from the loans and increasing bailouts of taxpayer money. But thats ok as long as the people who took out the loans don't get your money, I'm just assuming that's your take, right?

No, no I have made it clear where I stand on all bailouts. I am against them all! Period. The only thing the federal government should do is make sure the banking system is functioning because if the credit/capital markets truly freeze up then the world will come to an end. Beyond that they should do nothing else. Everyone who invested in a bank that is insolvent should lose it all. Bondholders should lose as well. People who bought houses they can't afford should lose them. My tax dollars should not be proping up anybody's investments be it individual or institution.

If you look at the big corporate bailouts the government is basically using the taxpayer as a stop gap. They don't dare blow up the bondholders in fear that many of the bonds are held by China and the Middle East and other foreign institutions (either directly or indirectly). Since we can't wipe out the people we are going to go to and ask for financing from in the future the government is putting the taxpayer inbetween the equity holders and the bondholders. The way it should work is that the equity holders get wipe out and then the bondholders get wiped out. But the way it is working is that the equity holders get wiped out and then the tax payer is being used to prop up the bondholders. We will never get most of our money back so basically we are being used to protect the people they really care about (foreign bondholders).

My belief is that over the long run you can't save bad investments. You can only delay the inevitable and in doing so limit the ability to create value in other areas. If I believed that these bailouts were good on a long-term basis (meaning they would lead to greater value creation) I would support them. However I don't believe that will be the case.

My objections is purely based on what I think will be better in the long run for the country as a whole. I leave all personal feelings out of it. Why I have been focusing so much on the homeowners is becuase it has been so easy to villify Wall Street and ignore the lack of personal responsibility that is behind a lot of this. Should the people who knowingly falsified loan docs and misrepresented data go to jail? Absolutely. But I think if we really look at it we will see that the people who did those things were your local realtor and mortgage broker...not Tommy Bondtrader at Bear Stearns. The people that said garbage loans were AAA were the rating agencies not Lehman. The people that blocked regulation were your elected officials (both parties) not the CEOs of the major banks. Sure they lobbied to have the regulations dropped but if the lawmakers were looking out for you then that wouldn't have happened. So I see a lot of blame before you ever get to Wall Street but everybody likes to attack them becuase it takes the focus off of how they fleeced us.

-TS

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I don't want to get into a back and forth but I think blaming the home owner is the easy way out and that the financials have thier burden to bear as well. Take myself for example when we took out our mortgage we were well within being able to afford it but without getting into details things change and circumstances happen. This caused a severe financial strain on me and my family fortunatley not to the point of losing our home but a strain none the less. My point is that unforseen circumstance can and does change financial situations and it has nothing to do with me or my wife being lazy or dead beats. But for the Grace of God we could be in foreclosure as well.

I have seen it as being so easy to blame home owners enmasse I see that as being a cop out for the real issues.

This is a part of that back room crap John was talking about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4490541725797746038&ei=4Tu3SanSO6Ss-gGo_I2EBA&q=phantom+shares&hl=en

On Naked-Shorting
Yeah, the Overstock.com CEO has been out there on this alot. Naked shorting is an issue (make no mistake), but overtime fundamentals win out. Naked short-selling can only work for so long. If a company is earning $1 this year and will earn $20 ten years from now the stock is going to go up. Period. You couldn't naked short Microsoft down no matter how you tried. People can do temporary damage but overtime the fundamentals matter. You can only naked-short companies that have very weak fundamentals...don't make money consistently...or are generally weak. But no make mistake naked short selling is bad and needs to be stopped but if you company is doing well there is very little short-selling can do.

On Blaming the Homeowner
Actually blaming the homeowner is hard. It is much easier to blame the "fat cats" on Wall Street. How many times have we heard "it is Wall Street's fault"..."CNBC should have warned me"..."the Adminstration should have done more". When you try to actually say to the person who took the loan that they shouldn't have taken loan then you are "heartless". Lots of people would rather look outward to assign blame than to their own actions. John Stewart is trying ot put blame on CNBC. Politicians (the same ones who looked the other way) are villifying banks. At the same time all the people who are saying "nobody forced you to take a loan so you are at fault for taking the loan" are getting run out of the room as some heartless monster.

I don't believe the banks are without fault in this. They definately are complicit is all of this and in some cases a direct reason for some of it. However no loan means no crisis...no debt = no stress. If nobody would have taken the loans there would be no loans.

-TS

[sanantonio]

On Naked-Shorting
Yeah, the Overstock.com CEO has been out there on this alot. Naked shorting is an issue (make no mistake), but overtime fundamentals win out. Naked short-selling can only work for so long. If a company is earning $1 this year and will earn $20 ten years from now the stock is going to go up. Period. You couldn't naked short Microsoft down no matter how you tried. People can do temporary damage but overtime the fundamentals matter. You can only naked-short companies that have very weak fundamentals...don't make money consistently...or are generally weak. But no make mistake naked short selling is bad and needs to be stopped but if you company is doing well there is very little short-selling can do.

On Blaming the Homeowner
Actually blaming the homeowner is hard. It is much easier to blame the "fat cats" on Wall Street. How many times have we heard "it is Wall Street's fault"..."CNBC should have warned me"..."the Adminstration should have done more". When you try to actually say to the person who took the loan that they shouldn't have taken loan then you are "heartless". Lots of people would rather look outward to assign blame than to their own actions. John Stewart is trying ot put blame on CNBC. Politicians (the same ones who looked the other way) are villifying banks. At the same time all the people who are saying "nobody forced you to take a loan so you are at fault for taking the loan" are getting run out of the room as some heartless monster.

I don't believe the banks are without fault in this. They definately are complicit is all of this and in some cases a direct reason for some of it. However no loan means no crisis...no debt = no stress. If nobody would have taken the loans there would be no loans.

-TS

I hear what your saying on NS but that's still selling over 100% of what is actually there and in the long run how do you reverse that? I'm just a layman but from a common sense stand point you don't and that damage is permanent. Of course the people that are doing the NS could care less if it's reversed or not. If a company is weak for what ever reason and is legitametly trying to become stronger NS would kill that company and that is just another Wall Street smoke and mirrors farce. I have no doubt there are others which is just one small reason financials are not trusted because of that back room dealing that John Stewart touched on.

As for home owners they get our empathy because they are us. As I said earlier I very well could have been in the foreclosed boat through no fault of my own. Unforeseen and unexpected circumstances change many things including finances. I'm sure there are those that did not deserve the loans but there are those that wanted them to have them for the quick and easy profit they would make. Another reason the home owners get our sympathy is because most of us don't understand the lingo or jargon of the financial institutions, it's like another language and they know that. I despise financial shows such as CNBC for that very reason as they tout one stock after another with little to no explanation that the average Joe can understand. And I beleive Stewart when he say's they all knew about the back room dealings ie such as Naked Shorting. As to people taking loans they couldn't afford that is the American Dream to be a home owner and the institutions knew this as well as the easy profits it would generate, REAL TALK!!

However we are on the same page concerning the bail outs I say let it all crash and burn. My point is if we are nose diving out of control 30K feet into a shallow canal with two foot of water and your passing out life preservers to a select few you may as well pass them out to everyone.

There is a way out of this mess using the bail outs and that is to close every base around the world (before we are financially forced to) we have bring home those troops and spend that money here, Ka-Ching!!! :D

[SUPDOG]

I hear what your saying on NS but that's still selling over 100% of what is actually there and in the long run how do you reverse that? I'm just a layman but from a common sense stand point you don't and that damage is permanent. Of course the people that are doing the NS could care less if it's reversed or not. If a company is weak for what ever reason and is legitametly trying to become stronger NS would kill that company and that is just another Wall Street smoke and mirrors farce. I have no doubt there are others which is just one small reason financials are not trusted because of that back room dealing that John Stewart touched on.

As for home owners they get our empathy because they are us. As I said earlier I very well could have been in the foreclosed boat through no fault of my own. Unforeseen and unexpected circumstances change many things including finances. I'm sure there are those that did not deserve the loans but there are those that wanted them to have them for the quick and easy profit they would make. Another reason the home owners get our sympathy is because most of us don't understand the lingo or jargon of the financial institutions, it's like another language and they know that. I despise financial shows such as CNBC for that very reason as they tout one stock after another with little to no explanation that the average Joe can understand. And I beleive Stewart when he say's they all knew about the back room dealings ie such as Naked Shorting. As to people taking loans they couldn't afford that is the American Dream to be a home owner and the institutions knew this as well as the easy profits it would generate, REAL TALK!!

However we are on the same page concerning the bail outs I say let it all crash and burn. My point is if we are nose diving out of control 30K feet into a shallow canal with two foot of water and your passing out life preservers to a select few you may as well pass them out to everyone.

There is a way out of this mess using the bail outs and that is to close every base around the world (before we are financially forced to) we have bring home those troops and spend that money here, Ka-Ching!!! :D

Sup Hollyfield? I likey!!;)