Yes the only positive things happening in Iraq after the end to saddam's rule was the cars that weren't being blown up by insurgents.

The only positive things happening in new york are the jews who aren't jewing you blind, the blacks who aren't mugging and murdering people, and the gays who don't have aids yet.

I can play that game too.

 Reply

By the way, Jon Stewart was not saying in HIS original comment that nothing positive came out of the Iraq War. He was making fun of the idea, in the midst of a very difficult and death-ridden part of the war, that journalists should cover things like people not dying instead of, oh, PEOPLE DYING.

Anyway, I'm wasting my breath here, since no one is reading this anymore and you two clearly have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

 Reply

@Lucille van Pelt: The people that jump in and out of the market lose their money when a big fund pushes the stock down to buy it cheaper. If that is the objective then that same big fund will then push it up. If you hold the stock for the duration of that ride, you lose nothing and maybe even gain. It's still wrong that the market is manipulated like that, but that single action shouldn't destroy someone's retirement. Additionally, if you are properly diversified, even the temporary damage should be minimal.

@stevenstevo: You're a soothsayer. Where have you been?

 Reply

Actually funds will "push the stock down" because they are short in the stock. Not trying to be oppositional here, but I think it is a point worth making since we're on the topic. Anyways, so traders actually want the stock to go down as much as possible. Hedge funds have long been accused of creating rumor that, while typically legal (and which Cramer discusses openly in his biography), are often seen as immoral. However unethical and commonplace such schemes may be, this is not what caused the financial crisis. In fact, it is not even one of the main factors. Such ploys usually only affect one stock (out of thousands), and plus stocks almost always rebound and revert back to their intrinsic value.

The sad reality of it is that getting all riled up and pissed off at George W. (four nights a week for eight years) has turned him delusional. Or maybe sanctimonious is a better description--perhaps his Peabody awards have gone to his head. Whatever it is, he now has this retarded self-righteous belief that he has been appointed to be the voice of little people (many of whom complain incessantly of their tax dollars going to waste despite not paying any income taxes). In reality, he tricked Cramer into coming on his show--a rather pathetic move IMO--and he took out his frustrations for the global recession on someone who had no idea this was coming.

 Reply

I think you might be confused about which "Cramer" is implicated here. The actual Jim Cramer, being a media professional and smart guy, was in no position to be "tricked" or to have "no idea this was coming" with respect to The Daily Show, of all things.

Now, the notion that individuals are being targeted by people's nonspecific frustrations with macroeconomic conditions -- there, I think we're all in agreement. And Stewart is probably as guilty of that as anyone. But implying that Jon Stewart is some Machiavellian string-puller trapping poor innocents like Jim Cramer in a web of deceit that's beyond their capacity to imagine -- no, I'm sorry, that's just too fantastic, like believing that putting on your superhero underwear actually makes you a superhero.

 Reply

While I agree Cramer is not exactly a media rookie (he has been on CNBC for six or seven years), his industry has not really been under attack until recently. I think the game changed in that time. A year ago, if he had gone on the Daily Show, he would have been ridiculed solely of for his antics. Now he gets to be the face of an industry that caused people to lose their jobs and homes. In this case, Stewart was correct in that he did have the wrong guy.

@stevenstevo: You're right about the shorts. I was trying to keep it simple, but I have heard of a tactic where hedge funds will take two stocks in the same industry. One weak and one strong. They will go long a stock like Apple and then short a stock like Gateway. That type of situation is gives them the incentive to start trying to drive down Gateway and pump up Apple. The Overstock CEO blamed this for their demise. Usually, if the underlying company is strong, the earnings reports will eventually turn the shorts into fools.

 Reply

I do note, however, that the gap separating Scott McClellan from Jim Cramer is probably enormous.

 Reply

@Lucille van Pelt: Looks like someone hates truth and justice!

 Reply