Stewart Cremates Cramer (Again)

Tyler Durden's picture

Fast forward to 7 min 50. At this point what more can be said: Stewart is simply jealous because Cramer draws far more laughs every time the former Goldman Private Wealth Management expert (the kind of wealth where you become a millionaire, if you started of a trillionaire) shows up on TV.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2010 - The Re-Changening
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

h/t CNBCOMCASTAGANDA


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Daedal's picture

Stewart is just jealous he didn't load up on all those CIT shares when he had the chance.

Rusty Shorts's picture

 - natural selection will be a bitch for cramer.

Daedal's picture

The problem with natural selection is that sometimes before it can take effect on the lesser entities, they manage to procreate.

Anonymous's picture

If Cramer sticks it to his women the way he sticks it to his audience, no worry about Cramer pro-creation.

abemko's picture

If Cramer sticks it to his women the way he sticks it to his audience, no worry about his ability to procreate.

Bthewee's picture

No comment!!!

 

 


 

Anonymous's picture

Which is the bigger douche... Cramer or Stewart... Yawn...

abemko's picture

And if Cramer did happen to procreate by accident, the outcome would be making comments such as the one above, again, no worry.

Anonymous's picture

And a link for Canadian viewers pls pls?

Anonymous's picture

Hotspot Shield hides your IP and the video gets delivered.
http://www.hotspotshield.com/

Anonymous's picture

very astute comment. cramer is funnier than stewart. and that's not a complement for either of them. cramer is a joke and stewart is not funny.

moneymutt's picture

Oh come, stewart is never funny? please....if you can't laugh at him occasionally, you must no be much fun, please tell me you are not under the age of 35.

If it is his partisan nature that makes him unfunny to you, know he does a decent amount of just general non-partisan stuff, also makes fun of left media, so there is stuff for anyone to laugh at. He may not be your cup of tea, but I notice both men and women laugh at him, Brits and Americans etc..which is typically a sign your a pretty good comedian to appeal to several different sense of humor.

If nothing else, he does good montages, with the MSM providing all the laughs, ala his Cramer bits. As we know, lazy MSM often piles on to one "take" or take-away to an event without looking at what really was happening or investigating the on the ground facts, so its good, and funny, to have someone point out the lemming-ness of these dolts sometimes. And his recent dis on Olberman was funny also, althougth not 1/10th as funny as Afflecks SNL spoof of the bombastic one. Stewart's piece on Olberman actually corrected and humbled him, a mean feat.

the bohemian's picture

agreed-  Stewart is very funny- not sure how someone can say otherwise-

he sniffs out bullshit better than most "real" journalists

Unscarred's picture

From my perspective, the deeper that Stewart delves into any topic, the less funny he is.  Slapstick and dry/condescending humor are his forte, and when he walks off those well-beaten paths, he loses his mojo.

Now The Colbert Report, on the other hand, is just funnier than hell every night!

Dirtt's picture

It's not that he can't be funny sometimes.  It's the fact that he let partisanship dictate his content.  This Administration's act is legendary already in its buffoonery and yet he managed to gloss over it like it were a debate about synchronizing street lights in Bethesda vs. taking over nearly 20% of the US economy.

 

Blasphemy.

Anonymous's picture

I think Stewart and Colbert are funny but their partisanship is annoying. Often my annoyance is greater than the enjoyment I get from their humor. And I'm an independent who usually votes third-party but, if forced to vote for a D or R, I'd probably vote D ~90% of the time. So if their partisanship is annoying to me, I'd guess it would be really annoying to Rs (or R-leaning independents).

Master Bates's picture

You must mean like the "independents" on Fox News.  Especially Glenn Beck.  He proves he's independent every day with his astute reporting...

greased up deaf guy's picture

our anonymous friend did not say stewart was never funny. his point is that cramer is funny in a way he's not supposed to be.

here's another recent stewart bit (you may have already seen here) that's rather hysterical...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-12-2010/clusterf--k-to-the...

Anonymous's picture

I don't think Stewart is very funny either. I find his jokes simplistic at best. I don't think he has great skill as comedian, satarist or social commentator. Besides, how many writers does he have working for him? Wasn't Colbert one of his writers? Perhaps he was funnier when Colbert was on his staff.

Circumspice's picture

Well that's annoying. The market anticipated a Brown win and rose in response, as Cramer correctly explained. The next day we had a bad unemployment report and inflation in China, and some people may have gotten wind of the new bank regulations.

Pretty much the most explainable market moves I've seen in months.

jmc8888's picture

Well the funny thing is this.  Cramer SAID what he said, KNOWING there would be an unemployment report, knowing there would be an update on inflation in china, and new banking regulations have been talked about since the crisis started (and the ones announced amount to nothing...oh it's something, but in terms of scale of what's needed, it's about 1 percent...meaning nothing really changed in terms of regulation)

 

Yet Cramer still said what he said. 

 

If it was so explainable, Cramer should of known that.  Even then what was the China inflation number 1.9 percent?

 

Of course they're lying about the job numbers, as usual.

 

No, I feel it was not an explainable market, because you could say on any given day that these data points move markets, because these data points, or similar ones from when they last reported have always been out.

 

Not much to move the markets but the herd that wants to move them.  Today, they said the info matters a little more than normal. That is NOT a normal market move.

 

When sometimes the same data moves markets up, other times market down, other times nothing at all, and the data has been out there, it's something other than a normal market move based on normal info.

 

Cramer was guessing, which is all he ever does. Guess.  Which is fine, but label it as such, don't say 'it's the truth'.  Don't go on your show and forget everything from the next day that could move the market, and say this overrides tomorrow. 

 

Either way Cramer was quite wrong.  But who could blame him, he's trying to talk about facts in a market made up of opinion.  (which is all it is these days).  Who knew this was the day the bunk info would move markets?  Would would have known that traders would see a 1.9 inflation rate in china and freak.  Who would have thought that the 'never gonna change anything regulation reform' was going to be picked that day only as a threat to what is going on? 

 

It's quite simple, there are very few market moving things left, the only ones that can will either move us straight up or straight down, until then, it's anyone's guess what will move markets.  As of now it's pretty much momentum regardless of the news.  If the market REALLY paid attention to facts, every major bank would be gone now.  Since it hasn't, you should conclude it doesn't, that it is acting irrational, and to forget most of what you learned, and just look at what's happening now, because whatever is happening now is the only reason the move is happening now, and it surely is based off of opinion. 

 

Of course you can say, technically or fundamentally this will move like that, but does it? Not really.  The market has a mind of its own, and if the fed isn't making every investment a winner, it will go insane. 

 

So cramer didn't explain anything.  He guessed about what a Scott Brown win would do.  Guessed that it was the reason for the rally, and predicted more despite what layed ahead.  But again, when the metrics are abandoned by the market, as they have been for two years, who was to say Cramer was wrong on giving that advice?  We've heard much worse stuff and the market soars. 

 

The point is no one knows, and if they ever did, that stopped when this crisis started.  This market is anything but free, and it can crush us any way that is traded at any given point, due to this fact.  (if that were to go away, and the market was free to be a free market, it would be free to crash, and it would.) Therefore everybody should realize, that no one really knows crap.  Use this latest Cramer bull call to remind you of that. 

 

 

 

Brett in Manhattan's picture

Oh, really. How exactly could you prove the market wouldn't have done the exact same thing had the Democrat won?

Eduardo's picture

You gotta love the results of the cnbc poll asking if Bernanke should be reconfirmed

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35036342

 

 

jmf's picture

Moin from Germany,

nothing compared to his "Bank&Housing Shortgage Call" from Jan.2008..... :-)

http://immobilienblasen.blogspot.com/2008/07/cramer-jan-2008-ten-trillion-worth-of.html

Keep in mind that this was just 6 month after his famous breakdown calling out Bernanke& Co.....

Instant Karma's picture

C'mon that was funny. Cramer has mastered describing the past as if he had predicted it, and, as if tomorrow will be the same as today. Anyone have any info on how Cramer's charitable trust (Action Alerts) has done since inception? Or the last few years? A few years ago it was supposed to be up to 4 mil, now I'm hearing 2.5 mil. Losses or charitable contributions or both?

john_connor's picture

LMAO ROTFL.  Cramer and all sell side pumpers = epic fail.  What an asshole.

Hephasteus's picture

Ah they got wharehouses full of false hope. They'll just dust off an ancient one. The problem is the ones that work on some don't work on others. So for every gain they lose something. So it's just going to turn into a shotgun blast of bullcrap till the ammo runs out.

milbank's picture

You miss spelled "whorehouses."

Unscarred's picture

Cramer, et al, are merely Pied Pipers.  Fault the masses for latching on to their every word.

boooyaaaah's picture

As long as the banksters can NAKED SHORT

They can cause the market to crash on command

And Cramer knows this --- so do you Tyler

Are we going to let a few hundred points on the Dow decide

whether we free ourselves from the banksters?

 

Anonymous's picture

The people of OZ are the only ones that listen to Jim Cramer. The bit Stewart did last spring on Cramer was a classic, laugh out loud classic. When Cramer was at Goldman Saches he must of been incharge of the boiler room pump and dump desk---cause he can sell ice to eskimos.

Anonymous's picture

He used to be funny . . . . right ?!?!?

Anonymous's picture

This will be funnier when he does a follow up next week.

Anonymous's picture

Sorry to disagree.

Cramer is never funny.
He's often wrong and shilling a position to make is Wall Street buddies Rich at his Viewer's expense.

John Stewart is America's BEST Investigative Journalist of our time. That's the Sad State of Affairs we have today.

But, hey, did you guys see the SUPERM COURT gave Foreign Companies and Governments the RIGHT to CONTROL US ELECTIONS?

Isn't that cool? We will now be CONTROLLED BY OPEC MONEY, OR CHINESE MONEY? Go Republicans!!!

Anonymous's picture

I have to agree. His shtick is heavy-handed, corny and I can't help but be reminded of Krusty. Little kids losing their lunch money in the market and what not. His vacillation between hubris and self-excoriation wears thin.

I wonder if his breath is bad also?

That, and the whole premise of his show/popularity is bullshit.

Anonymous's picture

++1
i am old and he puts me to sleep the right way, laughing out loud and getting over all of this stupid stuff.

PenGun's picture

 Sterwart is a jewl. The infantile culture you have in the USA needs someone to explain it, at least to me.

 

 Colbert is very good too but not quite to Jon's level.

Anonymous's picture

So funny watching liberal, slacker youth mock politics again after they get a vicious smackdown election loss...

Stewart should have just said, 'Oh, yeah, well we didn't care anyway! So there!'.

Obama was a fad, back to xbox now.

Chopshop's picture

"just the truth"~ hahahah, unreal

anyone notice the stampede from the TSCM BoD over the past 6-8 months ?

fwiw: cody willard is a product of cramer's as well

johngaltfla's picture

Stewart should never have loaded up on BSC like Cramer told him. Oh, wait a sec, that was a few years ago. Never mind. Maybe he loaded up on FNM.

digalert's picture

Everyday Cramer begins with his disclaimer -

"to entertain and educate" you. Stewart is an idiot for watching Cramer, commenting on Cramer and even more of a dolt if he's betting the farm on Cramers word.

Brett in Manhattan's picture

Yes, and then he goes on to pimp stocks for an hour, something that accomplishes neither of those two stated objectives.

Pedro's picture

Stewart's garbage about 30 million americans going without insurance... reinforces the fact that liberals just can't take the fact that americans don't care how smart liberals think they are and also don't care about how they think they know what's best for us inspite of our wishes.

Anonymous's picture

Yeah, they make it seem like either 30 million people can't access a doctor, or that 30 million people 'free ride' the system by somehow finagling free doctor visits. Neither one of those is true!

Everyone I know without health insurance pays CASH at the doctors office. Most doctors considered uninsured, cash paying clients the best of all. Not a single form to fill, and full payment immediately.

Anonymous's picture

If not having insurance is so great, how come more neocon commentators don't opt out of the system? I don't see too many of them refusing Medicare either...

Anonymous's picture

Now Cramer says "look out if Bernanake not appointed". Be especially wary if Gethner "let go". Sounds like ultimate sell signal if both are retained which appears to be what will happen.

Brett in Manhattan's picture

How dare you people doubt Cramer's ability to predict major market events:

The Future of Business

What stories will dominate the financial world in 2008? Our Wall Street guru makes his predictions.

By James J. Cramer Published Dec 30, 2007

1. Goldman Sachs makes more money than every other brokerage firm in New York combined and finishes the year at $300 a share. Not a prediction—an inevitability. In fact, it’s only January, and I think it’s already come true.

MarketTruth's picture

You mean to tell me there are still fools, those not directly connected to JPM/Fed/PPT/GS/RoboTrader/etc, who are still playing the rigged USA stock market?

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Suckers.

Anonymous's picture

"Explanations" for market moves are asinine 9 times out of 10, anyway. CNBC is particulary bad about politicizing meaningless moves.

There was a funny one the other day. They said, "Since Obama announced the plan for a bank tax," the market has tanked. But they never say things like, "Since Obama took office the market has rocketed!"

Now I'm not saying any of these things have any bearing on the market, just saying CNBC's "explanations" are always political.