Do not give us this theory about financial opinions. Have an opinion of your own. Dispute Cramer if you wish. This is the USA. Your opinion counts, if you know what you are talking about.

BUT! If you do not know what you are talking about, be quiet! (Dope.) For example, I say W. Bush and Cheney are wrong about torture, because torture is evil. I do not say that they are not qualified on the subject of torture.

They are wrong. Right now, Cramer is right. Cool it with your mealy-mouth worthless secondary analysis.

Is that it's a complete conflict of interest for them to be invested in the market. Their previous practice in this area has been about as sound as a restaurant critic reviewing a restaurant in which he's heavily invested or a theater critic reviewing a play for which he's put up a great deal of the money.

Stock analysts and market reporters have been so heavily invested in the market that they simply would not risk telling the truth of this massive bubble as it became clear to outside observers that the value of everything was being inflated, often to near double or even higher, by speculation rather than any justifiable increase in value.

For these analysts and reporters to tell the truth would have been to risk losing their own fortunes.

NO ONE one who reports on the market or who analyzes the value of stock should be allowed to be invested in anything but a nice safe, good-old-fashioned defined-benefit pension plan.

Anything beyond that and their advice is likely to be what most financial advice over the past thirty years has been: B.S.

Nice dissection of Cramer a few posts back. I couldn't agree more. However, my question to you is, how does he differ from the bulk of economic/business/financial reporters and talking heads in any substantive way? They've all been wrong on most issues, for as long as I can remember. They have an atrocious track record, and it's because their commentary is shot through with dishonesty, delusion, wishful thinking, irrationality, and Pollyanna-ish levels of optimism. That's true in good times and bad...shall we discuss "Dow 30,000" or the "New Economy" that supposedly had transcended the classic business cycle?

I watched Jim Cramer on PBS in NYC the other evening. He acted bizarrely. Either he's on some sort of drug, or he is bipolar. I suppose when he was manic (aggression directed outward), he hated Geithner. Now that he's depressed (with aggression directed inward), he loves Geithner.

Ummm....some people think Hamilton and Morgan were really a couple of Scumbags, who were primarily interested in enriching themsleves and the cronies of whatever administration was in power, no matter what the cost to the 'Common Man' and the Nations actual financial well-being, or how badly their Idea (the Federal Reserve bank, etc.) violates the Constitution or the Princilples of the Founding Fathers.

Still, I'm yet to read The Wealth of Nations; which Arianna Huffington refered to as a 'pertinent' source of guidance for these time; and we all Love Arianna, right?

Who else - with Money, no less - do you know, who went through THAT kind of a Transformation in about a year of being on Politically Correct?

If we should look to anybody for Guidance in these times; let's look to Honest Rich People, Like Buffett, Gates, or - abroad - Tata, etc..

The Lemon Drop Kid was a Runyon character, a racetrack tout who gave everyone a different horse in the race, in the certainty that one would win, he would collect a fee, and the other losers would forget.

A few days ago he was telling his Mad Money viewers to sell their gold stocks, the next day his CNBC chat he told them to buy. Alan Abelson of Barrons once had a verbal sparing match with Cramer, and accuses him of "self=puffery." Those are nice light words for the failed former hedge fund manager, whose hedge fund once made 2% a year during the go-go 90's. He was also accused by this staff at the street.com of using Maria Bartiroma to help him day trade Mister Softy. She would hype the rally at the open, and he would sell into it.

Cramer knows nothing, his professional advantage rests in being able to pick up the phone and call just about any CEO. Cramer then gives it the smell test, for the benefit of you, his audience. When he gets fooled, see John Thain, he can be pretty vindictive.

When listening to Cramer I always take the position that whatever he suggests should be done on the other side of the trade. If he reco's XYZ and the stock pops up two points, sell it. Cramer is the perfect post modern man, he doesn't know how to do anything, he succeeds by bringing other people into the arena, who do know what they are doing. He is a frustrated CEO, or a politician waiting in the wings, I am not sure which.

He would say anything to get published, and anything to stay on the air. He represents a moment in media history which is flagging now, he is everything from Elmer Gantry to Huey Long. He's postmodern art, and postmodern crap. Either way Cramer is no place to get investment advice, economic analysis, or anything that doesn't smell of horse manure at the state fair, and gadgets that slice and dice.

I think some people in finance are so taken with their ownership of the Republicans that they just clean forget about the fact that they own the Democrats, too. ;)

Nothing at all to do with this thread, it just jumped out at me. I do appreciate the reply though. And of course you did not anticipate all of those things. Nobody did. Nor should we be expected to divine the future whenever we venture an opinion. But that's exactly the point. How can you or I or Bill Kristol make these sorts of claims in good conscience? We cannot, precisely because the world is crazy. Just a thought.