He is (in his mind) an important TV star / celebrity.
He is completely, and legally protected from anything he says on TV (and his BEST friend is now the governor of NY)
Though some folks might think he is trying to help out his hedge fund buddies, I do not believe that.
Cramer is a liar, who in 2000 was pumping the stock market and writing articles to that effect (see the article "Winners of the new world"- dated 3/00) yet was shorting stocks at his hedge fund at the same time. He was bullish thru the first 40% decline in the Nasdaq, subsequently went bearish, and 2 years later, was denying he was ever bullish on the market in 2000. Today, he even has the nerve to say he was the first and only one who was bearish in 2000. Criminal.
Why and how can he get away with this? Because Cramer and CNBC know that 90% of American sit on the stupid bench.
Cramer preys on the "have nots" in this country. He knows people in general are weak minded, need to be told what to think and do. Just like any good TV evangalist.
I myself are part of the "haves" in this country. I know and understand how Wall Street works. Cramer is part of the "super haves", while 90% of America (regardless of what the media and CNBC claim) are part of the "have nots".
At the end of the day, Cramer and all the CNBC anchors, boys from Fast Money, etc, are Multi Milionaries. You my friends, (or 99% of you) are not, and never will be. Do people really believe that Cramer and CNBC anchors have all their money in the very market they tout and lie about everyday?? LOL LOL. Please,,,LOL.
In a way, it is a perfect setup for Cramer to thrive. You have a country were most people have little or no net worth, and need to get huge returns in stocks to live in the future, so they turn to someone who takes public information and spins it to look like an expert.
I mean really, is it any secret that MO, once it breaks itself up, is going to go up bigtime?? But when it comes from Cramer's mouth, the average white trash, toothless wonder, with a whole $5000 in savings, thinks he is getting private information that only Jim Cramer can provide,,,LOL.
And at the end of 2007 after MO breaks itself up and the stock goes up, Cramer will be patting himself on the back, claiming that he and he alone was the only one who knew about this....LOL
More to come on the truth about Cramer....
There's this little thing called the poverty line, and it is defined by income, not by net worth.
Our guy with the so-called $600,000 house (so-called because he's now underwater on it) and the $620,000 (or more) debt may or may not be below the poverty line since he took out a "no doc" loan and lied about his income. But no matter how you slice it he has negative net worth and until the tide goes out it will appear that he is rich living in his McMudHut and trying to parlay his $2000 year end bonus into a killing in stocks following Cramer's advice. One thing's for sure: if he spend $500 on Action Alerts Minus, he's a loser with an immediate 25% drawdown, but perhaps it make it all back up on today's equivalent of buying NT at $8 and selling at $4 or buying EMC at $76 and selling at $19.
"I understand that there are lots of poor people in America, but do you really believe they are putting their money in the stock market using Cramer advise?"
I don't think the guy was talking about poor people as that term is usually understood. In fact, I searched his post and there is no use of the term "poor". He said most people have "no net worth" - I suspect he means they have negative net worth. NET worth guy, NET worth. You are not rich if you have a so-called $600,000 house, a $600,000 mortgage and $20,000 in credit card debt. Technically you are insolvent, but someone living in a $600,000 house is generally not referred to as poor.
As for researching your nick, I haven't yet done so, but I figure you have some bone to pick with Microsoft. I have not looked at Vista except to read some descriptions and reviews (I have not tried to run the "release candidate".) Unfortunately there are 3 programs I use which are vital to my trading that only run under Windows or I'd be running Linux. For now I continue to happily run Win2k except on my laptop which came with XP. Eventually I'll be forced to upgrade because my data providers will eventually drop support of Win2k (though I suspect that is a couple of years off). I may upgrade to XP soon in order to put off the need for upgrading 12 video cards to DirectX9 capability to run Vista.
I suspect you're right that Vista sucks resources and provides no new functionality that I care about. Aero? Give me a break.
"But since you started the thread with a different nick ..."
No, I didn't. What's more, I think the original poster is DEAD WRONG about Cramer with regards to his hedge fund buddies. Way too many coincidences involved to believe Jim Cramer isn't somehow profiting from his wrong calls.
It's 90% entertainment, so accept it for what the show is. CNBC has to fill the time and this is a lot better than the alternatives elsewhere. I like the show, the guy is funnier and less biased than the evening news. IMHO
I understand that there are lots of poor people in America, but do you really believe they are putting their money in the stock market using Cramer advise? Hell no! A lot of people are lucky just to get something to eat. Anyone that buys on Cramer's advise deserves to lose their money. I just responded with my opinion on that subject and you jumped in ready to fight. Why don't you do an advanced search on me and post some garbage?
It's really not that big of a deal, is it? But since you started the thread with a different nick of your's I guess you need to defend it tooth and nail. Go ahead with The facts about Cramer Part Two
"Why don't you explain it to me."
OK, I'll give it another try:
The original poster said (in reference to the US): "You have a country were most people have little or no net worth".
(He made absolutely no reference to the wealth of the nation as a whole or how it ranks in the world.)
At one point you offered up this gem (well supported by the graph you linked to): "I understand the distribution of wealth in America is disproportionate and the rich have most of the wealth"
But now you claim everyone is well off because per capita GDP is X, an arguable claim in the first place, but completely irrelevant in a discussion predicated on the skewed distribution of wealth in the country (THAT WAS HIS FUCKING POINT - GET IT?).
Now I will concede that I refuted your [irrelevant] claim about the wealth of the US, pointing out that you were confusing debt with wealth. I should never have done that. I should have merely pointed out that what you said was completely IRRELEVANT and did not serve as any kind of refutation to the original post in this thread. I apologize for taking a detour that was too complicated for you to follow.
OK, I will now stipulate to the fact that you clearly have no idea what per capita GDP measures and more generally, that you cannot understand anything you read.