03-18-2009, 07:07 PM
god i hate this.
our "economy", "stock market", "capitalism", "et al"; is not a go cart you can spin on a dime.
it is more of the Tanker Ship that actually takes a few miles to stop.
while i do not like Cramer, he was correct that for about 10 years the system worked (when the shit started going south that few saw) and no one could have foreseen how the shit was actually going to shake out.
i blame a whole different set of players in this game than most people. i don't blame AIG, the Regulators, the FED, the housing market, speculators, Madoff, who ever.
i blame S&P and Moodys. these are the ratings agencys that are paid to evaluate the risk of a company and give a honest response. if i decide to invest in a risky company, then fine it is my call (and my reward if i call it right). but if they are paid to evaluate a company and call it safe or safer or whatever; they are the trusted agency that is supposed to tell me that the standard "safe" investments no longer are.
and here is a little divergence. they don't have to tell me why. i feel that is the job of the financial reporter. i just want a rating that is correct.
if they did not see it, there is only 2 conclusions. either no one saw it, or they were on the take. if no one saw it, get off of Cramers ass because he couldn't see it either. if they were on the take, stand them by the wall right after the lawyers.
our "economy", "stock market", "capitalism", "et al"; is not a go cart you can spin on a dime.
it is more of the Tanker Ship that actually takes a few miles to stop.
while i do not like Cramer, he was correct that for about 10 years the system worked (when the shit started going south that few saw) and no one could have foreseen how the shit was actually going to shake out.
i blame a whole different set of players in this game than most people. i don't blame AIG, the Regulators, the FED, the housing market, speculators, Madoff, who ever.
i blame S&P and Moodys. these are the ratings agencys that are paid to evaluate the risk of a company and give a honest response. if i decide to invest in a risky company, then fine it is my call (and my reward if i call it right). but if they are paid to evaluate a company and call it safe or safer or whatever; they are the trusted agency that is supposed to tell me that the standard "safe" investments no longer are.
and here is a little divergence. they don't have to tell me why. i feel that is the job of the financial reporter. i just want a rating that is correct.
if they did not see it, there is only 2 conclusions. either no one saw it, or they were on the take. if no one saw it, get off of Cramers ass because he couldn't see it either. if they were on the take, stand them by the wall right after the lawyers.