1st.

LOYOLA 2L COME BACK AND TEACH US HOW TO BE POOR!

Jesus Christ, I have not once corrected your typos all this time, but it's fucking Jon Stewart.

John Stewart is very funny, but it seems his grasp of economics interferes with his comedy. The show last night wasn't funny (other than the unintentional comedy of watching Kramer skirm, beg, and almost break down crying) and Stewart's analysis on the problem is little more than a cathartic outlet of anger.

Jon Stewart needs to tackle a bus. He is nothing but suck.

I think Stewart came off asd a self-righteous prick. Kramer actually one of the good guys and Stewart cherry picked sound-bites to distort reality. It was kind of shameful, especially for a guy who is supposed to be smart.

The growth question is not quite that stupid. Many of decorated economists, e.g., Sen, have challenged the wisdom of using GDP, as currently measured, as the sole metric of the success of economic public policy, and, accordingly, whether increasing that number should be the aim of policy as an end in itself.

I'm an anonymous internet poster. I say John Stewart sucks because it's my job to say that this topic sucks. If this post were about my soul's salvation, I would tell you it sucks.

Anyone who shortens "Jonathan" to "Jon" needs to eat a dick, but Jon Stewart would really be best served by playing in oncoming traffic. Douchebag.

5 - this is exactly what I was thinking but would've taken me much longer to articulate.

Cramer is, of course, a clown, but nobody watches him for real investment advice any way. Stewart, on the other hand, jumped the shark years ago and Bush leaving office was the end of any residual relevance he may have had left.

Basically this is just two has-beens fighting each other to generate publicity for both of them.

Elie, you f'ing retard: if Maher's question was stupid, then why don't you explain why growth is important? Apparently it's really obvious, so go crazy.

Did anyone else notice Cramer flat out lie when confronted with his videotaped admission of market manipulation? He claimed he was "inarticulate" and that he was merely trying to illustrate what goes on Wall Street. Watch the video and decide for yourself. Jim Cramer is a sociopath and it's rather surprising that he's not in jail.

And seriously, Elie, get it together. J-O-N Stewart. Jesus.

Jon Stewart is an embarrassment to the Tribe and lesbians everywhere.

Jesus, Jon Stewart is almost as self-righteous as Keith Olberdouche. I thought Cramer looked fine.

7: Cramer is NOT one of the good guys. He's a sociopath who can't recall whose side he's on.

http://www.deepcapture.com/jim-cramer-is-a-complicated-man/

"Jim Cramer’s moral code is written in hieroglyphics, and I would no more try to judge that code than would an anthropologist pass judgment on the rite-of-passage ceremonies of some obscure tribe. In the face of something so foreign, one may only say, it is what it is."

I like John Stewart. He never made fun of me. On the other hand, Jon Stewart is an asshole. "Big time," as Cheney would say. BTW - What does this have to do with law or the legal profession?

I hope CHOMPERS the Chimp eats Jon Stewart's self righteous face off in front of his children.

twentieth!!!!!!!

This was a pretty sad show last night. Stewart doesn't get it. Cramer is one of the good guys and has never pushed the get-rich-quick-without-hard-work tact that Stewart seems to be so mad about. If you've read any of Cramer's books or watched Cramer's show, his mantra is Buy and HOMEWORK! If you just buy and hold you are a pig going to slaughter for real professionals out there who are looking to make money.

Stewart is also pissed at the wrong people. He blames the financial industry for playing their games while unsophisticated dopes lose money in their 401(k)s and pensions without knowing what is going on. Maybe the point is that if you don't know what is going on you shouldn't put money into a 401(k). Financial illiteracy is not an excuse. There is no such thing as easy money. There are plenty of people on CNBC that Stewart could have tried to skewer with some legitimacy. Cramer is not one of them.

In closing, Cramer is the one of the few people on tv that continually preaches diversification. Sure you will the meteoric rise of some industries or only take part in the next tech boom with a portion of your portfolio, but you will also be able to avoid losing all your life savings when Enron and Worldcom collapse. His lessons would go a long way in preventing people that are near retirment from losing 50% of their 401(k)s just before retirement. Cramer continually pushes for people to ease out of stock as they get older; the closer to retirement the less stocks, i.e. volatile positions you are to have.

i'm shocked it has been almost 20 minutes and you haven't gotten a cease and desist from Viacom yet.

it is like 2 stoopid monkeys throwing feces at each other

Hey Elie,

Why is "growing" good for the economy then?

Many of the problems we're facing today from pollution to population growth to war and scarcity of resources are as a direct result of increased economic productivity leading to increasing population necessitating further increased productivity ad infinitum.

Mahers question is actually the pre-eminent fundamental question that 21st century society faces. Its just we're myopic to what the real problems are.

If we stopped the emphasis on economic growth. Population growth would arrest (you can't create extra people without extra food).

I hope Judge Halverson eats Jon Stewart and then shits him out all over Colbert's desk.

why "growing" is important...

what do you people think 'sustainable' really means? it's zero growth. i know i know the congnitive dissonance is jarring. it's time for all you econ rejects worshipping at the alter of growth to understand the fundamental incompatibility between exponential growth and finite resources.

It's JON Stewart, Elie. Srsly?

For those criticizing Stewart, I think it's wrong to characterize his discussion as an attempt to analyze the current financial crisis... He seems to be mostly upset that the folks at CNBC (a) know the game is rigged but pretend to value "market fundamentals" anyway and (b) merely repeat the words of corporate executives with little analysis or independent investigation. Stewart isn't talking about the bubble, he's talking about the lax media oversight that allowed the financial industry and corporate establishment to grow the bubble without serious inquiry into the viability of the whole scheme.

Between the vitriol against student loan forgiveness and bashing JON Stewart, I've realized just how horrific the recession is. Generally you douche bags would be busy being kicking in the groin by partners while felating a corporate client..but now you're all 'out in the wild' polluting my interwebs.

Jebus, please fix the economies so all these douche bags get off my interwebs, mmmmm, k.

Getting so sick and tired of the left-wing bias of this site. Aren't you radicals happy enough that your socialist president is destroying this country??? Losers.

Stewart is becoming really annoying. All he does is advance an agenda day after day. The second he's confronted on it, he's like "Ohhhhh, it's a comedy show!!! What's your problem?" If he wants to be Keith Olbermann with more of a light-hearted touch he should just admit it.

Serious question -- how would the ABA "stem the tide of legal layoffs"?

I'm happy to look at Dealbreaker material, interested even, but if I have to see that damn grapes ad one more time, I may set fire to monitor. I have to shrink the browser down just to avoid the damn thing.

26, you fail at economics. Economic growth doesn't require increasing consumption of resources; economies can (and usually do) grow by making more efficient use of the resources they're already consuming. Growth and "sustainability" are not incompatible in the least.

Wait - it's Friday afternoon. Where is the Kirkland layoff rumor? Did Kash take a three-day weekend? Recycled late night comedy isn't why we're on this site - anonymous tipstering is.

33 - yeah, i love watching asian chicks get stuff shoved int their mouths as much as the next guy, but really. Stop the vomit inducing dealbreaker ads. Plz. Thnx. K.

Elie, its nearly one o'clock on a Friday, and you've yet to post anything about layoffs. There's news to be had out there - find it. c'mon, this post belongs in the non-sequitur section.

13 and other dumbasses -- if the population is growing, you need economic growth to keep unemployment from going up. if you want to decrease poverty without relying on wealth redistribution, you need economic growth. finally, people want stuff they don't have, which requires economic growth.

QUINN REMAINS unamused.

And no way I'm going to fucking Dealbreaker as long as that goddamn ad is running

fourtieth!!!!!!!!!

31 is on the money. Stewart's shtick tries to have it both ways. He wants to be lauded as the insightful satirist with an influence on the political process, but also retreats into his "I'm on Comedy Central" defense every time someone calls him out on a softball interview, an unfair characterization, or an ignorance of facts.

Stewart's method, namely juxtaposing video clips in which people contradict themselves (or reality), can be very effective. But he needs to stop pretending that he's just a nonpartisan clown, and take some responsibility.

Actually, Maher's question was an excellent one. Too many people like you, Elie, have drunk the kool aid for too many decades, and assumed that growth is always good. That's the kind of thinking that gives us housing and stock market bubbles, and that causes CFOs to cook the books to make sure they deliver "growth" every quarter. The problem is, it isn't always good or sustainable to have growth all the time. Sometimes, we need a correction.

31 hit the nail on the head. Stewart needs to stop with that "we're a comedy show" BS. Cramer's mistake last night was that he went in there with a good heart and thought he would be treated fairly. He should have just ripped Stewarts head off.

Stewart is attacking Cramer because Cramer has repeatedly criticized Obama's economic policies. If someone criticizes Obama, then it becomes a public witchhunt, especially on networks like Comedy Central.

38 - You are incorrect.

You seem to imply that growth is a good thing? growth = population growth - get it? Our population is doubling at a rapidly increasing rate (now on track for doubling every 30-40 years)

Do you think that the prospect of 12 billion people on this planet by 2050 is a good one?

Because to feed these people you need to invent ever more productive means of generating food for 12 billion people. And if you keep feeding more and more people...they keep creating more and more people.

You INCREASE poverty through economic growth - its a race you can never win because the increased production fuels increased population.

For Ever.

Now: This is not the same as saying "we should let people starve to death (before some D-bag suggests it) Just maintain economic levels to feed the current population...but don't GROW.

If you think about it

The definition of Poverty is

"Too many people exist in this area. They cannot be supported by the resources available for them."

There is no "poverty" in the animal kingdom. And no need for charity and food stamps and aid. Except in exceptional times - the population of every species on the planet other than man is supported adequately by the resources available to it.

But we're smarter than that arent we. We're not animals. "How dare you" We've made such a great job of everything and our cleverness at ever increasing production and focus on growth will ultimately "save" the world from poverty.

right?

Stewart is attacking Cramer because Cramer is a bastard who himself made a fortune through securities fraud, and who now styles himself as some kind of fucking market guru despite making below average predictions with zero consistency. The number of people willing to shill for Cramer, even now, astounds me.

Growth has its limits, ask any virus. We think our potential is limitless. Evolution and the market are going to teach us otherwise.

CNBC is a collection of hack cheerleaders, and Cramer is pat of that group. These are not journalists in the true sense of the word. They have no insight. They do no investigative reporting. They do little more than report what has happened to the Dow and coo over Warren Buffet.

1) Jon Stewart was not attempting to be funny. He specifically stated that this topic was not a joke and that he was taking it seriously.

2) Jon probably conducted the interview like that because one of his points was that tv show hosts let these idiots off too easily in interviews. He was simply not being a hypocrit.

3) My generation loves Jon Stewart so get used to it. Consider that most Daily Show viewers score higher on knowledge of current substantive issues than do viewers of other networks.

4) Incorrect to say that if people don't understand the market they shouldn't put money in. Most people hire professionals who are supposed to invest wisely for them. Totally reasonable to have no knowledge of finance, invest money, and expect to not get wiped out.

Jon Stewart killed my monkey.

45 -- the question was why is economic growth necessary. regardless, your argument is nonsense. see china (fastest growing economy, fastest rising standard of living).

besides, everyone knows that poor people have more babies, not less.

"But, if you ever wanted to see what it looks like for a grown man to put his foot up the ass of an annoying man, you'll enjoy this clip."

Mystal, you sound like my three-year old.

If I wanted to watch David Lat eat grapes with some weird bearded hipster dude then I would have gone to one of the ATL parties. Stop the madness!

I <3 Jon Stewart.

I don't want to have any babies, but if I did want babies, I'd want to have his babies.

@48

"3) My generation loves Jon Stewart so get used to it. Consider that most Daily Show viewers score higher on knowledge of current substantive issues than do viewers of other networks."

Translation

"I'm smarter because I watch the Daily Show. Who needs IQ tests when you have the Daily Show, which, by virtue of watching it, proves you're a genius."

*Looks self directly in eye in mirror whilst wanking-off"

I too liked Jon Stewart, but man has he become a fucking douche. He is little more than the Rush Limbaugh of the left at this point. I miss the days when he picked on EVERYONE mercilessly (that was true comedy) and wasn't constantly wiping off his chin after fellating some Dem (usually Obama) or hounding Republicans ad nauseam.

As far as economics go, Democrats are fucking morons. Go save the whales or fight for civil rights. I don't say that because I'm trying to be a dick, but honestly, you guys have the drive and determination to do it, and it needs to be done by people who are not as greedy as me. And ya, I'd be willing to pay some taxes to help you out. But when it comes to economics, how about we don't replicate policy that has failed numerous times elsewhere. Just because we're America and BHO is our president doesn't mean we can't beat basic market forces.

And yes, it is fucking ironic how all of you B.A.'s, who tout the importance of learning early English Renaissance history and other such bullshit can't look back over the last 50 years and see how every time socialist medicine or collectivization has been implemented, it has ultimately failed or become so burdensome that it drained the country's tax base.

Huh? Is growth=bad the new liberal meme? Hilarious!

I especially like the "there's no poverty in the animal kingdom" statement from 45. Sorry, but by our standards there is *universal* poverty in the animal kingdom. Unless you don't think it is poverty to let the weak and sick die each year as a matter of course? Unless you think high infant mortality is a mark of weatlh?

What's wrong with you people? The University of Pennsylvania and Penn State University are completely different schools. Penn is an ivy located in Philadelphia, while Penn State is the state school with campuses across the state.

"Consider that most Daily Show viewers score higher on knowledge of current substantive issues than do viewers of other networks."

So you're saying that one group of ignorant TV news watchers is more informed than another group of ignorant TV news watchers? Do tell!

Stewart is a punk. Notice that this entire beef got started because Cramer dared to criticize Obama's policies. What was Stewart's response? To string together a bunch of videos showing how Cramer made bad stock picks. WTF? Only later did Stewart piece together some coherent argument about "Oh, what I'm really doing is indicting CNBC and the whole financial media!" No you weren't, you were mocking a guy in a totally unrelated way because you didn't like what he said.

But of course Stewart can always have it both ways. If anyone criticizes his ignorant douchebag views, he can always drop back to "But we're just a comedy show!" Prick.

@54

They don't want to look back over time because that would damage their conception that they're always right. Both parties in this nation are filled with fucking morons. Every damn election it's Bible-Beating Billy v. Liberal Lesbian Lover Larry (read: Douche v. Shit Sandwich).

"As far as economics go, Democrats are fucking morons."

54: Not to disagree with your point, but I hope you aren't attempting to imply that Republicans AREN'T fucking morons. See, for example, 2001-2009.

@58

My vote is for Free Candy Chester. All the kids love him!

Stewart is the Limbaugh of the left, and Colbert could pwn him in a match of wits any day.
Cramer is an idiot, too, and should have come in with the gloves off swinging like Jared Boll.

JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JONJON JON JON JON JON JON JON STEWART

SPELL IT CORRECTLY YOU A**HOLE.

54- then I take it you are against medicare, medicaid and social security?

Argument against growth:

1) growth cannot continue forever

2) we've already done some growth

Conclusion: the limit of growth is nigh upon us.

Anyone see the flaw? It is of course correct that the Earth cannot hold an infinite number of humans but there's no way to know what the limit is and everytime someone has tried for the last few centuriesvthey'be been wrong. Meanwhile the folks who claim to be so worried about the human race end up running after anything they can find to destroy it like forced sterilizations and reduced development in the places it would help the poorest.
Growth should always be sensibly done but a much higher percentage of the population now has access to food, water and medicine than ever before (notwithstanding population growth) as a direct result of economic development.

48 - if you don't know what you are doing and are completely ignorant when you hand over your money to some idiot kid with just a B.A. from a shitty college thinking it will magically grow, you are an idiot and deserve to be wiped out.

@59

I disagree with you in principle (that Republican's don't know what they're doing) because the GOP's true calling of fiscal conservatism is more amenable to economic growth and health--I won't talk about regulation, a certain amount of which is necessary for sure.

As for 2001-2009, that was a complete dismantling of the basic tenet of GOP policy: Less Government = Better Government. Bush, a typical MBA, micro-managed the shit out of everything, built in a lot more waste, and proceeded to attempt to buy out the Democrat voting base with a $300 rebate in 2001 and other failed stimuli--erasing the good work done by Clinton in generating a nice budget surplus. How he ever thought $300 (in 2001) to each person was better for consumer confidence than "Hey, we're $1 TRILLION IN THE BLACK," I will never know. I hope he falls face-first into a cow turd and suffocates. It was the perfect opportunity to build on prior fiscal responsibility--with or without the dot-com bust that really only took out companies that weren't producing tangible goods or anything of true substantive value, although I do miss www.auntmillie.com...

Talking that out, I realize my statement was rather generalized. Clinton did good work. Bush did terrible work. BHO's main fault, so far, is continuing Bush's policy that was horribly liberal and pushing it forward. But I do love this:

2001

"Americans need to go out and spend to help us out of this economic crisis!"

*Dramatically signs stimulus bill with tax relief*

2008

"Americans need to go out and spend to help us out of this economic crisis!"

*Dramatically signs stimulus bill with tax relief*

2009

"We cannot continue failed policy!"

Okay, now that we've got that out of the way,

"Americans need to go out and spend to help us out of this economic crisis!"

*Dramatically signs stimulus bill with tax relief*

to the people bitching about the dealbreaker ad: download firefox, install the ad block plus add-on. Works perfectly. I had no idea what everyone was complaining about until I saw ATL on internet explorer.

Hahahahahahaha.

I find it totally hilarious that you guys who are complaining that BigLaw salaries may actually go down, you might not be able to get those big salaries just for graduating, your health insurance won't be covered anymore by your firm, are ALSO saying growth can't last forever. You are espousing zero growth to save the planet at the same time you are whining about layoffs and your inability to continue in BigLaw.

Use your brains people. GROWTH is what allowed your salaries to balloon to obscene proportions. GROWTH is what allowed you to wear Armano and Ferragamos. if there is zero growth, the carnage in biglaw continues.

hahahahahahahaha

#45. "There is no 'poverty' in the animal kingdom."? That's the defense for zero growth?

There is no poverty in the animal kingdom because there is no money. And it only appears that animals are supported adequately by their environment: because the weak and starving die off. We can achieve this sort of parity if we cull out some of our own. We can start by getting rid of doctors, lawyers and people with edikayshun. (Didn't Pol Pot do something like that?) Or maybe we should start with bankers.

Hell, if we didn't have farmers we wouldn't have growth. Let's get rid of them too. And all that growth from farming (tractors, tearing plowing under grasslands, feritizer) all contributes to growth. We can have none of that.

Let's go back to having lunch by picking out termites with branches. Better yet, let's only eat termites that voluntarily climb into our mouths.

How ignorant can you get? Ants grow their colonies, often by destroying their surrounding environment. Chimps continually seek to expand their territories through growth (and destruction of others). They all seek growth in the "animal kingdom." (Are we 7? do we think that the "animal land" and "human land" are two different places? Can we visit the "magic kingdom" after the "animal kingdom"?) Every species seeks to grow that which it considers its own, in the way that best suits it. Try applying that last sentence to the world around you: you'll probably get better answers than, "animals don't have poverty."

It's like you get this "animal kingdom" utopia from some fairy tale ... like some Green version of Genesis before the Fall. You know, the fake story about a place where man, beast, and vegetation lived side-by-side in perfect harmony.

Watch a nature show - you aren't ready for the news yet. Growth is good.

This is clearly ATL trying to promote Dealbreaker by disguising it as a legitimate post.

54,

You are the poster child for what is wrong with America: greed. So many people are willing to do whatever it takes to make a bigger profit, whether it be legal or not, without regard for how it will affect others.

Your comments about Democrats really highlight your intelligence. The last time I checked, it was Republicans who were in office during and in the years preceding the two biggest economic meltdowns in US history, the Great Depression and the current one. Each party is filled with morons, evidenced by your allegiance to the Republican party. It amazes me how the only thing Republicans talk about is how great Reagan was. His economic philosophy may have worked in the 80's, but times have changed, there is no guarantee that lower taxes and less government is the answer.
Do I want less government? Of course, but how can the banks and other financial institutions be trusted? We cannot vote for or against them.

I feel sorry for you 54, because when you're on your deathbed maybe you will realize there is more to life than making the most money possible. There's no taxes in hell, asshole. Sorry, I'll let you get back to beating your wife and watching NASCAR.

21 - "Maybe the point is that if you don't know what is going on you shouldn't put money into a 401(k). "

Given that most 401(k)'s are administered by "experts" (i.e., mutual funds) and represent the only way any one of us W-2 douchbags are going to have any retirement, where the fuck do you suggest we stick our money? Up your ass?

@63

Absolutely. Why do I have to subsidize old people that didn't save? As far as the medical care, I think people should have to buy into it just like auto insurance. Decreases the risk profile, increases capitalization and lowers premiums. Also, just like auto insurance, you can take the risk of not having it, but you get hit with a huge fine. Don't give me this "but doctors have to help!" Yep, and so do police officers and firemen when they pull your uninsured ass out of the 97 Cabriolet you just wrapped around a tree. Doesn't stop them from fining you.

We need to stop subsidizing failure. Social support systems are there for those who absolutely would not survive without them. I would support a social system that helped ameliorate the cost of mandated health insurance for those that couldn't afford it, that's fine. But I think it's detestable that people with perfectly good bodies are sucking money away from those that actually need it just because they wanted to live a life they couldn't afford or were to lazy to work.

The government has just made too many promises. And what's bullshit is that we owe ourselves for all of this entitlement crap--and we owe the Chinese too. It is pointless and 100% income redistribution. People who actually pay taxes pay back China and fund free stuff for everyone else (that they could actually pay for should they work--handicapped persons not included--not public goods).

Fuck socialism. As JJ Rousseau said:

"Were there a nation of gods, their government would be democratic (in that time, this meant complete horizontal rule--i.e., socialism)"

We are not all created equal. I'm sick of our apologist society throwing money at dumb-asses that fulfill menial, yet vital, roles in our society just because they're not living like fucking Donald Trump.

Three points for the listening compromised among you, which based on the comments I'm reading is definitely the majority (and the cynic in me says less than a quarter of you dipshits actually bothered to even watch the video):

1) Stewart repeatedly stated in the interview and prior to it that Cramer is only part of his criticism of financial news coverage, and probably not even a significant part. Santelli might be a more apt target for derision, but apparently he's also a spineless tool that would rather lob stupidity from the safety of his friends on the floor of the mercantile exchange than debate people who disagree with him in a civilized format.

Still, as has been stated, Stewart's critique of CNBC has less to do with ideology than the media's duty to its viewers to inform them intelligently. CNBC has failed spectacularly as a so-called media outlet. It is a mouthpiece for Wall Street that provides zero accountability for the statements made by members of the financial industry on its programs. (Just look at the "interview" they did of Allen Stanford a few months ago.)

2) Stewart has levied truly damning critiques of the Obama administration and Democrats in recent months. You don't hear about them because his audience is mostly ideological and don't find the jokes near as funny when he's drawing striking and embarrassing comparisons between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. To say that Stewart has anything in common with the pompous liberal shill Keith Olbermann (or conservative asshat Rush Limbaugh) is to confess to being totally ignorant of what Stewart and The Daily Show actually do every night.

3) Stewart, apparently, can't catch a break. If he says it's a comedy show, he's hiding behind his entertainment format. But if he tries to do a serious interview, he's derided for not being funny. Anyone who thinks he's being a hypocrite is just a terrible listener. His criticism is primarily about expectations. Networks like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News have promoted their brand as if their analysts are oracles, experts, and investigative journalists. None of their reporting bears this out even in the slightest, and there are hours and hours and hours of footage that Stewart draws on to demonstrate this epic failure of the media elite.

Stewart's show is presented to the viewer as fake news and consists of media and political satire. He's simply not claiming to be an expert of any kind or purporting to be a responsible member of the fourth estate. He's not misleading his viewers, except to the extent that his program is probably more of what real journalism should be than almost any program on television.

To that end, I don't particularly care if Stewart's position on the financial situation is economically accurate or sound. If it's not, then an industry insider like Jim Cramer should be able to mop the floor with his criticisms. For whatever reason, Cramer chose not to do that. But what I did see during that interview was what I should be seeing everyday on the "real" news channels: reasoned, informed, and prodding questions tempered by intense skepticism of everything the interviewee is saying. In essence, Stewart was trying to get answers. Most members of the media are doing nothing more than offering a mouthpiece to opposing viewpoints. That isn't journalism; it's public relations.

But, honestly, what I liked most about this situation is when it became clear that the interview needed more time than TDS typically allows for an interview, they modified the show format to account for it and posted the full video online unedited. What does the "real" media do when presented with a discussion that can't be wrapped up in the alloted 10-minute segment?"Oops, we're out of time." And this is on a goddamn 24-hour news channel. It's a joke.

Bottom line, the reason we're in this mess is more the fault of the press/media than any other entity, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat. I support Stewart 100% in his crusade against the bad journalism that is dangerously polluting, if not outright killing, our democracy. I just don't know if I should be happy that this kind of discussion actually happened on television or sad that the only network willing to put something like this on air is Comedy Central.

Well, you got me to click over to dealbreaker, after I have been intentionally refusing to do so based on the dumb-ass video ads.

Is everyone seeing an Americanized Asian chick being arrogant with a passive white dude? Because I live in Asia, so I am not sure. It could be contextual marketing (if that is the proper term). Man that chick is so ugly by Asian standards.

"I feel sorry for you 54, because when you're on your deathbed maybe you will realize there is more to life than making the most money possible. There's no taxes in hell, asshole. Sorry, I'll let you get back to beating your wife and watching NASCAR."

Spoken like the truly erudite, compassionate liberal you believe yourself to be. You sir, are a pompous and uninformed ass. You know nothing about me, yet you generalize from the most highly stereotypical picture that you can. Allow me to do the same:

I feel sorry for you, because as you lay on your deathbed wasting away from the AIDS you contracted from your 501st gay partner, you'll realize that there's more to life than getting offended at everything and decrying how evil the very people that have built this nation into the world powerhouse are. There's no granola in hell, needledick. Sorry, I'll let you get back to fighting for endangered parakeets and drinking wheatgrass with your life-partner Bruce.

71 & 76 have me confused:
endangered parakeets > wife beating.
but
Taxes > NASCAR > granola > wheatgrass
and yet
501 lovers > most money possible > parakeets >Taxes > AIDS > hell >NASCAR > granola > wheatgrass >>>> wife beating.

Clearly, I'm very offended by all of this.
--Elie

@71

Saying that it was Bush's fault is like me handing you a ticking time bomb, having it blow up in your face and then asking you why you detonated it. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the bubble truly started when Greenspan started giving away dirt cheap capital that fostered a false growth in the economy, especially high-value assets that needed significant amounts of leverage.

For the sake of argument, let's just say a representative asset would be a house. Not sure if it fits, but we'll go with it. Home prices increased steadily for 15 years due to the absence of a high enough cost-of-capital and stringent lending requirements. Once Wall Street got caught with their hand in the cookie jar (a phenomenon that will always occur in the absence of diligent oversight--here's looking at you Mr. Cox), the whole house of cards came tumbling down, and institutions that say, lent out credit to fund high value, highly-leveraged assets suffered.

Last time I checked, President Bush did not hit a secret button to trigger the downturn. Did he facilitate its arrival? Yes. Also, Bush was not in office for 15 years. I'm not saying that he's blameless, but reasonable people (that the average American is most certainly not) understand that the chain of blame does not start and end with one person. This was a systemic failure to adequately account for and price risk. Period.

This argument is akin to saying that President Bush has tarnished our reputation in the Middle East. I happen to remember this young strapping fellow named Jimmy Carter who had the C.I.A. train and fund another young strapping fellow named Osama bin Laden and their upstart group, Al Qaeda. I also remember that this Carter fellow unsuccessfully meddled in Iranian politics. At this point, we awoke the bear, and we've been dealing with it ever since. Carter had such little credibility that the Iranians wouldn't even release the hostages until Reagan came around, only because they hoped Reagan would stop fucking around with them. Reagan did, and was subsequently reamed for dealing arms to them to get on more diplomatic terms. Ever since then, we've had to deal with the Middle East. I'm not saying Carter is totally to blame, but he is the initiator of this chain of events, and every person that has added to the calamity is personally culpable, not just the latest.

Our recession today is not a product of one, albeit dim, president. It is a byproduct of our systemic need to over-consume, our incessant sense of entitlement and our inability to stay out of foreign affairs We do not all deserve houses, we do not deserve everything, and the world does not deserve to have us harangue them non-stop on how to conduct their business. I could care less if a bunch of Arabs or Persians beat their wives or their goats, keep that money here for us, that's what we intended our taxes for.

I get it, we're all pissed, and it's easier to blame the person you don't like. Republicans blame some obscure lending act; Democrats blame G.W. Everyone has their share, and apportioning it will not help us recover--learning from it will.

"Bottom line, the reason we're in this mess is more the fault of the press/media than any other entity, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat."

So it was the media that invented and promoted collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps?

To the people arguing in defense of growth as an economic model. The problem with this position is that it assumes endless resources. None of the economic growth models take into account that resources are limited. If you're going to grow and grow and grow, you need an endless resources to support this growth. Our planet is only so big - at some point, we're going to run out of space to support all of this growth.

Many economists think a steady-state model is more appropriate for situations in which endless resources are not obtainable.

79-- actually, the media (esp. 24/7 news cycle) and the political sound bite culture creates an environment where the short term tintilation creates more drama and sells more ad time than long-term, thougtful analysis. So yes, the media had a part in creating the environment that allowed these financial devices -- that allow a company to beat the competition in the short-term only -- to flourish.

But you were probably too busy watching Nancy Grace to notice that.

I am offended at 77. Please moderate.

I’m losing respect for Jon and Jim. Jon for being closed minding; Jim for not defending himself. Jon kept asking Jim about himself and showing clips of Jim. And what did Jon say when Jim answered...That is right "it is not only about you"—
Jon was clearly trying to make it about Jim… I could not tell you what Jon wanted, nor, I suspect could he.

And when asked about journalistic integrity and the ability to go against the crowds, government & bankers, Jim seems to forget that "they know nothing".

ohh and it was not even that funny!

All I know is the boys (and Gals) on BNN are civilized.

-Bay Street is awesome!

For the people defending Maher and the other misguided posts here regarding economic growth, it's really quite simple - in a system with a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, you MUST have growth or the system will collapse. You cannot be in support of "zero growth" unless you also support a completely different monetary/financial system.

81 -- I think I understand; it was Nancy Grace who invented and promoted collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.

And I suppose the great depression was ushered in by the transition from print media to radio newscasts. Damn the media, their proliferation is crippling our economy!

@85

This is not 81, but I think you need to be a bit more charitable. I believe what s/he's trying to say is that a culture of shock and awe journalism combined with feverish reporting on every millisecond of stock market movements perpetuates a notion in this country that short-term, stupendous profits are the norm, and anything outside of that is calamitous.

This is the same notion that leads people to misrepresent financial statements (to meet the demand for the stupendous short-term profits: cue, vicious cycle) and invent ridiculous derivative instruments. If the media calmed down and stopped trying to sell print with sensationalism, maybe they would give people that pull that sort of nonsense the verbal smack-down and humiliation that they deserve--instead of hero-worship for short-term profits and apocalyptic despondency for negative economic news.

Your sarcasm does nothing to counter his or her point. It does, however, make you seem like a jackass who didn't stop and think about what the poster was actually saying.

21 - Stewart prefaced the interview by saying that he was sorry that Cramer had to be the one to take the brunt of this.

Clearly, CNBC's ex-derivatives trader Rick Santelli, who called home mortgage defaulters "losers" (after the finance industry got a $400 billion+ bailout) and cancelled his appearance on the Stewart show, is the reason the whole war of words started. He and Larry Kudlow (former Bear Stearns exec) are the epitome of what is wrong with finance culture and business reporting. Everything with these guys reeks of secret handshakes, self-interest, and short term profits at the expense of "regular" non-insiders.

21 - Stewart prefaced the interview by saying that he was sorry that Cramer had to be the one to take the brunt of this.

Clearly, CNBC's ex-derivatives trader Rick Santelli, who called home mortgage defaulters "losers" (after the finance industry got a $400 billion+ bailout) and cancelled his appearance on the Stewart show, is the reason the whole war of words started. He and Larry Kudlow (former Bear Stearns exec) are the epitome of what is wrong with finance culture and business reporting. Everything with these guys reeks of secret handshakes, self-interest, and short term profits at the expense of "regular" non-insiders.

All those claiming we have finite resources and cannot have growth -- please leave the planet. You are taking those finite resources from the rest of us.

Posts 74 & 78:
Too long. Didn't read.
Posts 71 & 76:
Not long enough. Confused Elie.

Hey all - watching a clip on Dealbreaker doesn't qualify you to discuss the ins and outs of a financial crisis. Try to stick to what you're actually good at, like NASCAR v granola flame wars.

91-

Please tell me how I am wrong. If you cannot come up with anything besides a baseless ad hom, then please shut the fuck up.

-78

"Stewart, apparently, can't catch a break. If he says it's a comedy show, he's hiding behind his entertainment format. But if he tries to do a serious interview, he's derided for not being funny. Anyone who thinks he's being a hypocrite is just a terrible listener. His criticism is primarily about expectations. Networks like CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News have promoted their brand as if their analysts are oracles, experts, and investigative journalists. None of their reporting bears this out even in the slightest, and there are hours and hours and hours of footage that Stewart draws on to demonstrate this epic failure of the media elite."

Can't catch a break? Steward defends himself against serious criticism by noting that he's just comedy. That's what he said to Tucker Carlson. Now he wants to be taken seriously?

As for media being oracles and experts, is Stewart 10 years old? Is everything that comes out of the magic box supposed to be the god's honest truth? Yes, and if you eat that box of "fat-free" brownies, you'll lose 10 pounds! Am I supposed to feel sympathy because grown adults can't discern that TV is there to sell you shit? That news programs sell themselves as "balanced" or "accurate" in order to get you to watch?

And "hours of footage"? Stewart strung together a few minutes of shitty program. CNBC is on 17 hours a day--what's the fucking ratio of bad reporting to total reporting? And if you don't trust CNBC, don't fucking watch it. What kind of moron gets outraged because a network about business gets stuff wrong?

I'm surprised jon stewart is able to say anything with obama's nuts in his mouth

93 - Do you have any understanding of what CNBC does? Nobody watches it--nobody, except everyone on Wall Street. It is an echo chamber and an insiders club that probably has more singular influence over the fate of the economy than any other non-governmental entity in this country.

Stewart's critique seems to be that CNBC has a duty to be a gatekeeper/watchdog rather than a mouthpiece/shill. What exactly does that have to do with the content or nature of Stewart's own show? Address the argument rather than the speaker.

Your willingness to defend a negligent media is sad. Why Jon Stewart should be criticized for demanding more from the press is beyond me. We all should be demanding more. If as a nation we were, we probably wouldn't have half the problems we do. But as it stands Anna Nicole Smith and Rhianna get more daily coverage (even on networks like CNN) than, e.g., the content or substance of the stimulus package.

All of you who are so quick to call Stewart a biased douche seem to fail to notice Cramer's direct statement about fomenting. This is exactly what the point of the interview was: people in privileged positions using their power to fuck everyone else except themselves--oh yeah, and people in the media who know what's going on not saying a damn thing. If you weren't actually watching or paying attention--like it seems most were not--I'm referencing the point where Cramer talked about how to use other sites to spread rumors to create an artificial price depression for a quick short sale. This is a patently illegal act (fraud on the market for those who are not familiar with SEC Rule 10(b)).
The even bigger point is, that the people giving "financial news," those that we expect to actually do some basic fact checking research and expose financial irregularities are just regurgitating press releases and not actually asking tough questions. I stopped watching CNBC because I'm sick of watching talking heads jack off CEOs on air. Those of you who keep asking "how is this about the law?" are fucking idiots. How does this not implicate the law--First Amendment guarantees (at least the exercise thereof in the marketplace of ideas), SEC regs (now and in the future), oh yeah and structured finance (although I know a lot of you are out of work now).

Get your collective heads out of your giant asses. I've said my piece.

3 years of Harvard Law School, and Cramer can't even amass one good counterargument against Stewart. You let me down Cramer...you let me down big time.

Jon= big effin lib

Jon= big effin lib

CNN reported that Jon "won." lmao. Jon did not win; Jim was much more gracious and it's clear that Jon just wanted to attack him.

76 - I have it on GOOD AUTHORITY that there IS granola in hell. See you there!!

so TTT.

You guys have got to be freaking kidding. You made it through law school with your head up your ass. No wonder you are all whinnying about cut backs in your law firms and getting rid of student loans. And I thought doctors were the only morons who were IQ smart and otherwise illiterate. This blog is really really sad. You don't know shit about what has happened in the fiancial world except for your lay offs and student loan debt. Can you be any more narcissistic?

"All of you who are so quick to call Stewart a biased douche seem to fail to notice Cramer's direct statement about fomenting."

--

What you fail to notice is that a decent amount of the people attacking Stewart don't like Jim Cramer either - we just find Stewart to be even more annoying than and get a kick out of the fact he never had a problem with Cramer until Cramer went after Obama.

All the points Stewart brings up against Cramer came out into the public months if not years ago. The economy has been tanking for at least a year now. But, lo and behold, Cramer attacks Obama (after supporting him for months and throughout the campaign) and all of a sudden, next week, Jon Stewart has discovered a new enemy.

Stewart attacked CNBC, not Crammer. He ony used Crammer for a small part of his attack on CNBC. Crammer was the fall guy.....he was the one picked to take one for the team. I love how Crammer can be all irate and hostile and then goes on the Today show and Stewart and acts so contrite. It's show business folks, and if anybody thinks that CNBC has any journalistic integerity I want what they are smoking.

"Stewart attacked CNBC, not Crammer"

To the extent this is about CNBC, and not Cramer, that only makes what Stewart's doing more ridiculous. Stewart's not the first, the fifth, the 1,000th, or the 100,000th person to complain about CNBC. People, everywhere, have been b***hing about it for years. Yet, now, months after the economy started to tank and years after CNBC started doing the stuff he's complaining about, he all of a sudden feels the need to join in on the critique . . . right after Santelli and Cramer start attacking Obama.

Yea, the vast left wing conspiracy theory. Give me a break. And the 60 days Obama's been in office have caused all the turmoil. Wait.....there's Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.....at least according to Fox News. Lots of people complain about CNBC but Stewart nailed it.

"Yea, the vast left wing conspiracy theory."

There's nothing conspiratorial about this - I'm just calling Stewart a dick, a shill, and a hack - that's all.

"And the 60 days Obama's been in office have caused all the turmoil."

Seeing as Dems were happy to lay the recession at the start of Bush's Presidency at Bush's feet (not to mention blaming him for 9/11 despite all of Clinton's screw-ups during the 90s), I really don't see why they're so outraged about this. However, I wouldn't just blame Obama for the market collapse during his 60 days (and the prior to his taking office, when it became clear he'd be president and what policies he'd enact--Dems seem to always want to overlook that part) . . . of course, neither did Cramer. Again, Cramer was and has been a freaking supporter of Obama, something you'd know if ever bothered to listen to what critics are saying instead of just cheerleading sophomoric attacks against them. What Cramer was saying was that a decent amount of what Obama is planning on doing now is only going to make it worse (and some of what he's planning on doing is utterly ridiculous).

"Lots of people complain about CNBC but Stewart nailed it."

If by "nail it" you mean "come ten years late to the party and sandbag someone coming onto what is usually a puff interview session," then, yes, he nailed it.

Dear 107 and Other Uninformed Liberals:

Remember that "boom" period during the Clinton years? That was nice, right? Do you, perchance, know why that boom occurred? Let me briefly explain:

When people want to consume, they either need their own money or credit. Since we are a nation of big spenders, whenever one or the other (usually both) increase, consumer spending increases. Since Consumer Spending represents approximately 70% of our GDP, it is important that we keep Americans spending money.

Clinton inherited an economy with exorbitantly high interest rates. This stunted consumer spending because it limited the amount of credit people could use--namely because they couldn't afford it. Greenspan, with his infinite academic wisdom, realized that we may be out of equilibrium in re: cost-of-capital, so he dropped interest rates to extremely lower levels.

We subsequently swapped out having artificially LOW consumer spending to having artificially HIGH consumer spending. With the resources to do so, and following the American Dream, people started buying houses. BOTH political parties ate this up, and as I recall, the Community Reinvestment Act was signed onto by members of both parties. We got caught up in a Euphoria wherein we thought everyone was going to be able to afford a home or anything else they wanted. We didn't look far enough ahead into the future.

Artificially low interest rates were then coupled with Freddie Mac and other such GSEs. This created a moral hazard. Lenders could transfer any downside to the government and keep the premiums they received from selling the loans. It became less about proper screening and more about getting loan lots together. It was an insanely profitable venture, and Wall Street, being Wall Street, devised many different ways to make money off of this phenomenon.

Yet, with a risk profile far exceeding the level of interest rates, the house of cards was bound to fall, and hard. Once the defaults came pouring in, it came up the chain. Loans were wiped out, derivatives were wiped out, companies were wiped out. We had far overshot the normal levels of growth that are sustainable in our economy, and we're now faced with a correction for living beyond our means.

This was a slow and gradual process, taking well in excess of the 8 years Bush was president. His complicity and ignorance surely did not help matters. However, blaming him for a systematic failure in our economy to adequately price and plan for risk is ludicrous. Everyone has their share of blame: from the person who lied to get the loan, to the person that told them to lie, to the Wall Street executives paying 6% premiums for loan lots and creating mortgage tranches/derivatives.

So stop making this about politics. How is it any less greedy for a construction worker to go for the $250,000 house, the flat screen and the new Land Rover? Is it because s/he has less money? Avarice is not dependent on wealth. Get off your soapbox about Republicans being the root of all evil. We all share in the blame. Both Carter and Reagan stood idly by as interest rates shot up. Bush did little to help, and Clinton, with good will I'm sure, dropped them too low. GW surely didn't head off the storm, but at that point, coming out and telling people to stop buying houses and to cool it with the consumer debt was akin to driving head into a tornado to stop it with a 78 Pinto. Could he have seen the warning signs? Absolutely. But throwing good money after bad never helped anything after the damage was done.

I love Greenspan's line, though "I didn't think people would be that greedy." Welcome to the real world, Yoda.

People need to stop living life in the short-term. Does this suck for right now? Hell ya. But in life, and the market, this will be a slight dip in an otherwise happy and upward trend. Right now, we have the opportunity to learn important lessons about saving, identifying risk, keeping quants honest and being happy with what we have. If we don't seize that opportunity, and instead focus on petty blame politics, we'll come out worse than before this all hit.

So no 107, no-one's saying it's a vast left-wing conspiracy. All people are trying to point out, correctly, is that it's not all on GW, as much as both you and I both hate him, he's not the only person to blame. Obama deserves the criticism he's received for talking out of one side of his mouth "We cannot continue failed policies!" while taking out of the other "We must pass stimuli!" That's exactly what GW did, and no one liked it or thought it was a good idea. It's a massive loan Americans are going to have to pay back, and we're paying it to ourselves. How is taking $100 from the right hand and putting it into the left ever going to get us out of this mess?

Hey, I didn't know Hank Paulson paid attention to this blog.

Whatever, Cramer had it coming for flipping his shit on Mainstreet.com after Stewart 's initial piece.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart

Stewart's real target was Santelli and CNBC as a whole. Yeah, the Mad Money clips were embarrassing, but Cramer's response just came across as whiny and was asking for the smackdown.

110-

If you're implying I'm Hank Paulson, I've no clue as to how I came across as him.

Perhaps if I said:

"Hey come on guys, if we don't have XYZ banks to push money around, who will? C'mon! C'mon! Wall Street is not to blame."

*Whispers audibly into microphone; "I've still got my Goldman pension, right? Good."

"So ya, we know what we're doing. We just need to make sure banks are profitable at the expense of the taxpayers by cleaning up their mess that they've created with toxic mortgages. This increases consumer confidence. Ergo, therefore, thus, as it turns out, let's write a big fat check."

*Pops bottles on company plane with Wall Street execs after they get their severance payouts."

Like I said, no-one's saying Bush wasn't a puppet being pulled by powerful forces, or that he never appointed an inept insider to oversee a terrible stimulus idea. It just so happens that it is still NOT the only reason why this happened.

-109

Right, and in Crammer we trust.

anyone notice cramer only gets targeted when he criticized obama ? when it was against republicans it was ok, but once he attacks obama's mismanagement of the economy via bailouts and stealth bailouts and pork to non-stimulative groups (which is very similar to bush's mismanagement) he becomes a target. you are all sheep.

I can't believe Cramer didn't even attempt to defend himself. Stewart was basically castigating him for not forseeing the credit crisis/recession and Cramer's respone was basically "I'm sorry. I should have."
Out of all the institutions, experts and professionals on the street, no one saw this coming. Not Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Warren Buffet, Steve Schwartzman or whoever you may respect in the financial world. So why lay the blame on CNBC's clown for failing to see the unforseeable?

Because he is an easy target. The actual explanation of why everything is fucked up is pretty complicated and basically involves the perfect combination of fuck-ups from mortgagors, mortgage brokers, retail banks, investment banks, accountants (huge role!), rating agencies (biggest role of all!!!!), insurers, the SEC, the FASB, Congress, Clinton and Bush, the Fed, and everyone in between.

The problem with that is that it isn't interesting news. You can sell more papers with the headline "Your Layoff: John Thain's Fault" than "Overvaluation of Debt Securities Due to Poorly Constructed Rating Model, Lack of Dilligence, and Arbirtary Financial Valuation Rules." So, I can't believe Stewart was calling out Cramer for being a crappy journalist while he was just trying to make his own bullshit headline.

80:

What in the fuck are you talking about? An economy with unlimited resources has absolutely no need for the study of economics, as ECONOMICS IS ENTIRELY ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF SCARCE RESOURCES. To say economic models assume infinite resources is asinine; clearly you don't know shit about economics.

Also, economics has been modeling the consumption finite resources, such as oil, for over half a century. And the idea that the human population will exceed the necessary amount of resources to support it is almost two centuries old and made by an early ECONOMIST. Retard.