Dow at 36,000 and the sad lack of a guillotine in American life.

[JackRiddler]

1999:



2003:



(The Bush Boom: How a Misunderestimated President Fixed a Broken Economy.)

October 10, 2008:




http://www.chartoftheday.com/20081010.htm?T

Today, the Dow closed at 8,579.19 -- down 39.4% from its one year old peak. For some perspective on the magnitude of the current decline, today's chart illustrates how the Dow performed during the first year of all major corrections since 1900. As today's chart illustrates, the first year of the current correction has been more severe than the first year of any correction since 1900 -- and that includes the correction that began in 1929.

And now it's lost another 1000 points since October. Though do recall, the DOW is an index, meaning it's always got a certain scam quality to it, since one stock will get replaced by another as they rise and fall in value and thus importance. (AIG was recently replaced by Kraft Foods - maker of Velveeta, a form of whipped air that at least tastes like something when you pretend to eat it.)

===

Last day of February, 2000 = last day of the dot-com bubble.

The correction begins literally a few days later, in March 2000. Here is what CNBC's Cramer had to say or rather scream on that day, to all of you frackin' no-balls losers.

http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/891820.html

The Winners of the New World

Jim Cramer

02/29/00 - 09:42 AM EST

Editor's Note: James J. Cramer is the keynote speaker at the 6th Annual Internet and Electronic Commerce Conference and Exposition, held today at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City. We're running the full text of that speech here.

You want winners? You want me to put my Cramer Berkowitz hedge fund hat on and just discuss what my fund is buying today to try to make money tomorrow and the next day and the next? You want my top 10 stocks for who is going to make it in the New World? You know what? I am going to give them to you. Right here. Right now.

OK. Here goes. Write them down -- no handouts here!: 724 Solutions (SVNX Quote - Cramer on SVNX - Stock Picks), Ariba (ARBA Quote - Cramer on ARBA - Stock Picks), Digital Island (ISLD Quote - Cramer on ISLD - Stock Picks), Exodus (EXDS Quote - Cramer on EXDS - Stock Picks), InfoSpace.com (INSP Quote - Cramer on INSP - Stock Picks), Inktomi (INKT Quote - Cramer on INKT - Stock Picks), Mercury Interactive (MERQ Quote - Cramer on MERQ - Stock Picks), Sonera (SNRA Quote - Cramer on SNRA - Stock Picks), VeriSign (VRSN Quote - Cramer on VRSN - Stock Picks) and Veritas Software (VRTS Quote - Cramer on VRTS - Stock Picks).

We are buying some of every one of these this morning as I give this speech. We buy them every day, particularly if they are down, which, no surprise given what they do, is very rare. And we will keep doing so until this period is over -- and it is very far from ending. Heck, people are just learning these stories on Wall Street, and the more they come to learn, the more they love and own! Most of these companies don't even have earnings per share, so we won't have to be constrained by that methodology for quarters to come.

...They all do the same thing: They make the Web faster, cheaper, better and easier to access anywhere, anytime. They allow you to get on the Web securely anywhere in the world. They make the Web economy the only economy that matters. That's all they do.

We try to own every one of them. Every single one. And if I had my druthers, I wouldn't own any other stocks in the year 2000. Because these are the only ones worth owning right now in this extremely difficult, extremely narrow stock market...

About eight years later, in January 2008, Karl Denninger looked back on Cramer's picks:

Does anyone remember Jim Cramer's infamous rant on February 29th of 2000, in which he listed 10 stocks "you must buy today for his 'New World'"? They were SNVX, ARBA, ISLD, EXDS, INSP, INKT, MERQ, SNRA, VRSN and VRTS.

Of those SNVX, ISLD, EXDS, INKT, SNRA and VRTS are no longer are listed under their original ticker symbols. Some were outright business failures, others were bought or merged in the collapse that followed - just a couple of months after Cramer's "buy buy buy" call.

Of the "survivors", ARBA traded for $800 back then. It now trades for $11. INSP traded for $1150. It now trades for $18.90. MERQ traded for about $90; it now is $51 (and has the ignobility of being the "best of the bad" on a total return basis!) VRSN traded for $238; it now sells for $37.88.

If you listened to Jim on 2/29/2000, you lost more than 90% of your money.

NINETY PERCENT!

Even more succinctly, Denninger said:

Cramer's FAMOUS call in the early months of 2000 still stands as the crown jewel of pure folly in listening to these people - if you believed him THEN you lost basically ALL of your money!

How does an asshole like this who literally bankrupted people back in the 2000 "tech wreck" get his own TV show? How does he sell ANY books? How is it that his FAMOUS calls over the last few months - CROX anyone - aren't enough all on their own to lead people to show up at his studio with pitchforks and torches?

Its obvious that in this "ADD World" there really are a lot of STUPID people out there, otherwise people like Kudlow and Cramer would have no audience and would be off the air!

Are you one of them?

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2008/01.html

And two months after Denninger's statement, in March 2008, came Cramer's hysterical TV speech on behalf of shares in Bear Stearns, as it was already crashing, having come down from $133, and just days before it plunged from $30 to ZERO and was bought out at $2 (later upgraded to $10 in a govt-brokered deal).

That Cramer* walks around not fearing prosecution or the guillotine, in fact still appears with fanfare on the (newly sort-of repentant) CNBC, sums up the real problem of our age in a nutshell.

* And Madoff-Thain-Fuld-Rubin-Gramm-Greenspan-Bernanke-Paulson-Summers-Geithner-Kashkari-Clinton-Bush-Weill-Moody's-S&P-SEC &C.

[Hugabear]

1. Wait - so you think that Geithner and Clinton both deserve the guillotine?

I agree that most on your list should be looking at long prison times at the very least, but why Geithner and Clinton?

[JackRiddler]

6. Please allow the guillotine as my ironic device...

Corrupt public officials and corporate scam artists should fear it, but I don't believe they should feel it. Not on the back of their necks.

A lot of them should end up in prison, however, after a proper trial and if convicted by a jury of their peers.

Clinton?

Fact: The supposed non-Republican, Clinton in 1999 signed the Gramm bill overturning the last remaining New Deal regulations on banks, leading directly to the derivatives scam-ology of the 2000s. Clinton's crew under Citibank-Goldman Sachs tool Rubin oversaw and helped pump his own era's bubble. He was a champion of the Reaganite neoliberal globalization and wage suppression strategies that caused income to be replaced by credit. Except for the ability to control the deficit, his admin fits seamlessly into the 28 year development that began with Reagan.

Two more key terms will suffice for now: NAFTA. Welfare "reform."

Geithner until a couple of weeks ago sat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, pumping "liquidity" into the bottomless hole of a failed banking sector. Now he wants to set up TARP II to see if there's anything left to squeeze out of the taxpayers on behalf of the precious banks, before this strategy destroys the currency. This is not what we needed. You've got Nobel laureate economists and "safe" Democrats, no radicals, like Stiglitz, Krugman or Galbraith who are willing to try something different. Call on them, not on the Federal Reserve robots.

As for Obama, from me at least he gets the six month or even one-year pass, as he's

a) better than McCain would have been and

b) as a smart and possibly flexible guy, perhaps able to react to the crisis better than he has so far... Once it has properly reamed his middle-of-the-road band-aid measures and crushed all fantasies that it's possible to bail out the tens of trillions in bad bets made by the financial sector parasites. Once it's obvious the only practical solution is to let the plunder class go under and replace it with a national banking sector unencumbered by fantasy values of the past.

.

[Kolesar]

36. the Enron collapse was our warning

There was all this attention to corporate reform, but they were obviously looking past the problem: a need for regulation.

(interesting summary under Clinton/fact, Jack)

[Lost in CT]

2. Thats a great book to read on the train in the morning. nt

[wtmusic]

3. Don't blame Cramer, he just tells everyone what that want to hear

Well, almost everyone.

[JackRiddler]

9. I bet some of it is what his sponsors or friends want everyone to hear...

You cannot be that consistently and dramatically wrong, and yet remain rich. Something else is going on. I don't know what kind of crook he is, but there's little doubt he was reckless with the lives of millions, and completely unrepentant.

But yeah, if in 1999 someone had written a book correctly titled "DOW AT 7500 BY 2009," the marketplace would have punished them. People like to be screwed with optimistic bullshit, it's a perennial.

That excuses no one.

[wtmusic]

10. If "reckless" is giving your hedge fund customers a 24% rate of return

I wish my manager were more reckless.

After he got out of money managing he got in the business of hyping, and has been very successful at it. He hasn't been reckless at all - it's the people who turn on CNBC, hear his spiel and bet their whole retirement on it. Not a good idea with anyone.

[JackRiddler]

19. Gee, I wonder how his hedge fund manages to do that...

even as he sells absolute shite to the patsies watching TV.

This is supposed to make me think better of this con artist?

[wtmusic]

23. Mostly because he quit in 2000 or 2001

although 24% is still decent, especially considering it's after fees and it's averaged over the 15 years before that.

Most people don't want to hear downer financial news on TV. They want to be told "We're going to make A TON of money!". And predicting the stock market short-term (under 10 years) has more often than not been a losing proposition.

Ever see the WSJ column "Experts vs. Darts"?

[snot]

12. you mean, what people like him have trained people to want to hear.

Anyone who purports to be an expert and makes such unqualified, absolute assertions should certainly be held responsible when proved wrong, at least to the extent that their subsequent assertions should be pretty much dismissed.

Too bad "the boy who cried wolf" doesn't seem to work better w.r.t. the media's preferred experts.

[wtmusic]

18. How should he be held responsible? nt

[JackRiddler]

24. Fired. Apology from CNBC. Investigation to see if he was...

engaging in market manipulation for gain, either directly or to benefit co-conspirators.

Assuming he's cleared, we can hope the government one day forces reparation payments on rich miscreants who helped contribute to the disaster, or a one-time wealth tax on people who have more than $10 million, which I assume he does, and a 50% bracket on everything over $250 K (in current dollars).

Even with all that, he'll continue living the fat and easy life of the undeservingly rich.

[wtmusic]

27. If giving bad advice was illegal I'd be in the pen now

Market manipulation would involve trading intended to artificially inflate or depress prices. I'm not a lawyer but unless you're paying someone to act in your best interests, I don't think there's a crime here.

[JackRiddler]

28. That's not what I said, but for some professions bad advice is potentially illegal...

for example: Lawyers. Doctors. Inspectors and certifiers. Various types of consultants and experts.

The so-called "third party" ratings agencies? Absolutely should be! They were central in the grand deceptions through which financials fleeced the world, they took money to slap AAA ratings on crap they didn't even bother to understand, knowing that they would make more money by granting the AAA, and knowing that the AAA was the most important element in fooling the world's investors.

But again, please don't put words in my mouth! I didn't say Cramer should be imprisoned for bad advice!

But if he gave bad advice even though he knew it was bad, because of an arrangement to do so on behalf of a third, I'd hope that was actionable! The cause for investigating this is in the incredible timing of the two examples given, where the Bear Stearns case especially was painfully obvious to all and sundry. But it may turn out nothing can be pinned on him. He's still an asshole and he's earned a good mass shunning at the least.

Now, Dr. Selective in Your Responses, why don't you tell me: Should he be fired? Should CNBC apologize for him? Should the wealthy be subject to a truly progressive income tax? Should the ruling class be forced to surrender some of the incredible windfall it has accumulated in the last couple of decades?

[wtmusic]

30. Cramer's Disclaimer:

"All opinions expressed by Jim Cramer on this website and on the show are solely Cramer’s opinions and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBC UNIVERSAL or their parent company or affiliates, and may have been previously disseminated by Cramer on television, radio, internet or another medium. You should not treat any opinion expressed by Cramer as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of his opinion. Cramer’s opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Cramer, CNBC, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries are not under any obligation to update or correct any information provided on this website. Cramer’s statements and opinions are subject to change without notice. No part of Cramer’s compensation from CNBC is related to the specific opinions he expresses.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Cramer nor CNBC guarantees any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on this website or on the show. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested. Investments or strategies mentioned on this website or on the show may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation or needs and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website or on the show. Before acting on information on this website or on the show, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/17362458/

What "should" happen is any investor who is stupid and greedy enough to bet their last dollar on a TV pundit promising quick riches "should" get taken to the cleaners. Caveat emptor.

Income tax is an entirely different issue.

[JackRiddler]

31. Disclaimer = License to lie?

Screw his disclaimer. Stop making excuses for corruption.

You're still avoiding the questions I asked.

For example, what if Cramer does favors to friends or even gets payoffs to consciously deceive, giving bad advice. Does a disclaimer cover that?

Absolutely, people are at fault for tolerating this crap. That was my original point above. That Cramer can still go on the show without a few hundred people outside the window howling for his head and every other pundit and commentator laughing that this fraud has the temerity to still show his face is one indicator (of a great many) that this society and its people are clueless, gutless and spineless. Of course, the "few hundred people outside the window" are actually still planted in front of their TVs, and most every "other pundit and commentator" got there by being intellectually corrupt -- generally on the spectacular scale of the Cramers -- with integrity as a career handicap.

[wtmusic]

32. Legally yes, a disclaimer does cover that

It would be a wonderful world if no one ever lied, but IMO you are asking a lot of a legal system to hold citizens accountable to the truth. Lying in itself is not a crime - ad agencies, lawyers, and televangelists are getting rich on lies at this very moment.

In certain cases (full disclosure when buying a home, for example) lying is illegal. If you hired Cramer as a consultant and he pushed a stock that he was heavily invested in you would have a case, but damages would be limited to what you paid him, not what you had lost.

There is an awful lot of good advice out there, and without the freedom to offer nonbinding opinions it would dry up.

[JackRiddler]

33. As you may know, law doesn't really exist until a court rules.

If Cramer represents himself as an honest analyst and news reporter, with CNBC promoting him as such 24/7, whereas in reality he consciously engages in deceptive statements for the purpose of influencing the market in the hope of enrichment (whether of himself or of co-conspirators) then there may yet be a class action or other means in the law to make the bastard pay.

And again, you can dispense all the caveat emptor, tough-shit-for-suckers, self-exculpatory ideology in the capitalist book. All that's just the talk to cover for those who do wrong and know it. FUck them. A predator is still a predator. Cramer is a predator -- a cannibal, more like. A man who feasts on others.


Beyond that, I can't say it enough times: The fact that angry mobs aren't storming the offices of CNBC and the rest of the media, as well as the major financial institutions, the fraudulent monolines and the bogus regulatory agencies, sums up in a nutshell how and why plunder on this scale is possible, and why it will continue until we start rocking these fuckers, French style.


The first step is always the same: knowledge. Why are you obscuring and making excuses for animals who would gladly see you chopped up and served for dinner, if it was legal and they thought it might make them a dollar?


.

[wtmusic]

34. You've been storming the offices of CNBC by yourself, have you?

I admit, that's a tough row to hoe.

[JackRiddler]

35. Actually, I don't give a fuck, which is why I'm free to see things as they really are.

Never put a dime into any of these scams, though I was tempted at times when I had dimes.

Anyway, seems your consistent avoidance of the point is not because you don't get it. You just don't want to say so. What's your stake in the system of corruption you choose to rationalize in this fashion?

[snot]

40. As I said, at minimum, we should heavily discount (stop believing) him.

[GoesTo11]

4. Ah, the good old days.

Remember this, from the article? "Dow closed at 8,579.19 -- down 39.4% from its one year old peak"

Down more than 1100 since then.

[Greyhound]

5. K&R, excellent post.

I had no idea that my old 401(k) was run by Cramer.

I wouldn't guillotine any of them though, I think making them destitute, with waiting garnishment of everything they ever make in the future, and them turning them loose in the world they made is far more fitting.
:kick: & R

[RandySF]

7. Cramer is two-faced

All during the election, Cramer went on about how Obama was the better bet for Wall Street. But as soon as the president start implementing what he advertised well in advance, the loud-mouth went into hysterics comparing Obama to Lenin.

[phusion]

8. You know why people believe him?

Because he has charisma. He gets all excited and often angry on his show. Many, many people fall for this personality trait. Just look at Hitler!

[burythehatchet]

11. If it would recover one dime for one person I would personally drop the blade

on each of the people you listed.

[JackRiddler]

13. Disclaimer - See Post 6

and thanks for the LOL!!!

ambiguous :thumbsup:

[burythehatchet]

14. you have your opinion, I have mine. And I also have my username for a purpose.

;)

[JackRiddler]

17. Bet there's one thing we can agree on.

The real reason we need a guillotine is because the financial crisis guarantees Manny Ramirez won't be playing in Queens this year.

Actually, bet there's lots of things we can agree on!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

37. Me too. Plus, I have a guillotine.

nt

[4lbs]

15. I don't listen to anyone that is emotional and histrionic as he often is on his show.

He needs to take a bottle of Valium and calm down.

Warren Buffett is one of the most successful investors around. When's the last time he went into "hair on fire" screaming, hand-waving on TV?

Buffett, is calm, cool, collected. I'll listen to the financial advice of someone like that, who has a track record of increasing investment returns over time without "end of the world" sermonizing.

There's a reason Buffett was invited to be part of President Obama's economic advisory board and not Cramer. Actually, two. Personality/attitude and knowledge/ability.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Dow 36,000 . . .

. . . aaaaaaaaand then the U.S. selected a Republican idiot. The end.

Bye bye prosperity . . .

Anyone who supports/elects a Reaganite Repuke candidate (really, is there any OTHER kind of Republican nowadays) from this point on is an instant lobotomy patient deserving of as much discredit as creationists.

[Hydra]

21. We didn't select the Republican idiot

We can thank SCOTUS for that.

[unkachuck]

20. K&R....n/t

[stevedeshazer]

22. Recommended.

[Mr. Sparkle]

25. All the fake wealth built up the last few years is disappearing ...

It feels like the economy is going through a cold shower.

[anaxarchos]

26. If you take a look at your bar chart of the DOW...

...in your OP, it does indeed look like a guillotine blade... and you can't dispute that it has, in fact, come down.

The only outstanding issue is whose head was under the blade.

[JackRiddler]

42. Yes, well-observed. LOL.

[JackRiddler]

29. bump

[Kurovski]

38. K&R. (nt)

[JackRiddler]

39. bump

[JackRiddler]

41. Best Sign of 2008