Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Cramer is Pathetic

Recs

17

October 31, 2012 – Comments (42) | RELATED TICKERS: SIEGY , C , K

The  Northeast got crushed by a horrific natural disaster and Cramer hits the hallelujah button because it means rebuilding will happen.  He says "unfortunate" yada yada yada, but to tout it as great for the economy is sickening.  Cramer, PEOPLE DIED. Families have been demoralized.  One woman who put her 2 kids in a car and then got out to scout an exit turned around and saw that car swept away.  She lived, the kids presumeably died.  An event she will forever torture herself with second guessing.

No Cramer, you sunk as low as a skunk touting how we now have shovel ready jobs.

42 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 31, 2012 at 11:12 PM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

Bleh tickers should have spelled SI,C,K.

Report this comment
#2) On November 01, 2012 at 11:30 AM, cizastro (< 20) wrote:

My guess is that's exactly the tickers he used, but perhaps the Fool put them in alphabetical order?

That is pretty sickening, but at the same time the show is about making money.  There are plenty of folks out there probably looking to capitalize on this national disaster.  They're all equally sickening.

Report this comment
#3) On November 01, 2012 at 11:39 AM, kthor (70.48) wrote:

He doesn't care about the peons .... all he cares about is his cash flow into his coffers ...

Report this comment
#4) On November 01, 2012 at 12:01 PM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

Unfair!!!

Cramer did express sorrow for those who suffered loss before going about the usual business of his program.  Nothing in his advice to his viewers was harmful or disrespectful to the victims of Sandy.

Report this comment
#5) On November 01, 2012 at 12:36 PM, L0RDZ (80.14) wrote:

ED,  you just can't win with  a wall...

I can't  say  I  saw  the  show or remember seeing it ? but come on as  if  Cramer  needs wall to let him know  that people died or  as if  he  should have not tried  to give his viewers  some hope in  the  aftermath  of  the storm. Was  Crammer  cracking  jokes  or  did he  poop  in someone's cereal ?

What should he have instead done ?  let me guess to make wall  happy  Crammer should  have  bashed  candidate Romney  and  told  his viewers to abandon all  hope  should  the Potus  not  be  reelected.

Crammer should  have mentioned  how  global warming was responsible  for  the devastation  or  maybe  he just should have pretended  as  if  the storm never happened.

Why  are  we even talking about  Crammer ?? if anything  you should  be  bashing  his  choice's  but no lets  pitch fork  the guy  for trying  to do his show  in  the after-math  of  the first in a  hundred  years  2  day closing of the  US  markets  due to weather.

I  think  maybe  a bigger bash should be  that I don't  think the guy  did  his  shows on the days  the markets we're  closed ?  if  i'm not mistaken I could  have sworn  they ran repeats  of  past shows ?

Be  that  as  it may,  like  ED  has  said,  unfair.

But  thats to be expected.

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 01, 2012 at 1:18 PM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

Bizarro Alstry why don't you actually watch it.  Hitting the hallelujah button and cheering for shovel ready jobs was classless.  Of course it is a show about making money.  He could have talked about anything else.  I guess you and he can sell T shirts at funerals.

Report this comment
#7) On November 01, 2012 at 1:59 PM, L0RDZ (80.14) wrote:

JR...  if  you could  at  least show me  the courtesy of  addressing me at  the  very least  by  my  only  screen name  which is  L0RDZ or  LORDZ  or   my  Lord  or  just  Lord....

Selling  stuff  at  funerals ?  t-shirts ?   what  are  you saying now ?

Why would I  watch  a  episode  you  say  was  classless ?

Wall  I  just  have  one account...   I'm not  Alstry,  nor  am  I  any  other name...   I  would  have thought  someone with any  sense would  be  able  to  distinguish between  what  I  write  and  what someone else  does,  but  I can't  say  I  am not  surprised given  how  you are  so  thick-headed  and  dense.

Surely,  no  one  is  rejoicing  about  what  has  occurred,  but wow  for  anyone  to  see  some  silver  lining  in  the storm clouds.

People  die  all  the time,  often unfairly,  being  at  the wrong place at  the wrong  time  or  just  because  it's  their  time.  Nothing  will  change  that  short  of  a  miracle  or  some brave soul being also at the wrong  place  but  at  the right time so as to render assistance and  cheat  death.

What  do I say to death today ?  not today !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqihaEPq_lY

Now  for  some  levity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=1kLSYTHQbm4&feature=fvwp

OMG  to  curse  in  German....     simply  saying  a  recipe  can  make  a  woman   moist....  grin...

 

 

 

Report this comment
#8) On November 01, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

All aside I fail to see how destruction can truly be good for an economy.  Yeah you get more shovel work, but that comes out of savings.

Report this comment
#9) On November 01, 2012 at 2:38 PM, L0RDZ (80.14) wrote:

Valyooo  it's  kind  of  like  how  you first have  to tear  down muscles  in order  to  get  them  to  rebuild  themselves  and  grow  larger.

The  destruction  is  going  to boost  demand  for  resources  that  otherwise would  have probably  still  have been utilized but no  as  quickly  as  the  now  forced  demand  based upon  the  need.

Imagine  all   the  food  that  has had  been  wasted based upon  the power  and  infrastructure  disruption.  The  people will still need  to be feed  and  will need  to be clothed  as  well as housed.

The benefits to the economy  will be all  the  rebuilding  that otherwise  would  have not  occurred...   Now  granted  if  such destruction was to  happen  frequently  it  would  probably be more bad  for  the economy  than  good.

To  say  it  another way,  lets use the example  of  someone who loses  a   home  but  has  insurance,   lets  say  they  didn't  like  the home  or  did not plan  to  use  any  money  to  upkept  or  expand  on the home.  Now  all the sudden  you  have  money  needing  to be spent  so  as  to  allow   the people in the example  to  re cloth  themselves  as  well  as   have  a  home  for them to live in. 

All  the  now demand  will  experience  a  multiplier  factor  and  like some  weird  mathematics  2+2  will now  equal  more than 4.

The disaster  will also  benefit  the insurance companies  as  people will  face  increased  rates  as  well as  see  that  such insurance is  really  needed  and  not  some  waste. 

It's  generate  the type of  added business  as  like  in  a  casino  with someone  winning  ~  if  no  one  ever won in  a  casino ~  they would  all  eventually  disapear.

Hopefully  you all catch my  drift  and  can understand  how sometimes  even  a  disaster  can  be  a  hidden blessing.

It depends upon people  actually coming together  to  survive as  opposed  to  staying  far  apart  and  being  selfish  only  looking  for themselves.

 

Report this comment
#10) On November 01, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

That doesn't boost the economy it just raises inflation

 

Lets say I live on a deserted island by myself. I own a house.  I am in the process of building a boat, which will be done in 2 weeks, and I am half done with it.  I own 1 house and 1/2 a boat.

 

My house gets destroyed. It takes me 8 weeks to rebuild.  2 weeks from now, I still only have half a boat, and 1/4 of a house, rather than an entire boat and an entire house

Report this comment
#11) On November 01, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

And I also have extracted more timber from the land, pushing up the price of timber, boosting inflation on top of having less.

Report this comment
#12) On November 01, 2012 at 4:27 PM, L0RDZ (80.14) wrote:

Come on Val...   I think  you  know better...

Living  on  a  deserted island ?  hmmm  did you build  the house  all by  yourself ? is  it a  modern  house with electricity  and  glass windows ?   hmmm  did  you own any special  or  non special tools  by  say  craftsman ?   an  axe  ?   a   saw  or  are we  going to just imagine  that somehow  trees  transform  into boats and homes.

Don't  get me  wrong  I  see what  you're trying to say,  but  out of  kicks  n  giggles  did  you happen  to have  had  that imaginary home insured  ?  will you qualify  for any disaster relief from some big brother ?

Many  of  the people  affected by  Sandy  will  have had  insurance which  will  boost  the economy  because  they will be  able  to afford  to hire  and  help employee  all the persons  who will now  have  extra  work  into restoring and improving  things.

Yes  inflation will be  a  factor  and  prices will likely increase  as  well as  fewer  supplies  will result as  a result  of  the demand  on resources.

Lets say  you build a  better home,  more modern home,  you fly in or ship in  workers  and  materials  and   now  suddenly on  your island  it's not  so deserted,   those workers  will need  something to eat  and  a place  to stay at. 

The government  is  purposefully  trying to boost inflation anyways and  force spending  ~  now  they  have  a  scenario  to encourage  more  spending and utilization of  assets.

Hopefully  when  you  do rebuild  your house on your deserted island  you  build it  a little better  oh  and  how  was  it  that  the house only  got destroyed  and  not  the boat ???

 

Report this comment
#13) On November 01, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Bays (29.98) wrote:

Valyooo is completey right and used an extreme example to illustrate a point, LORDZ.....  If your economic theory is correct, then why dont we just evacuate cities and factories and get the military to start bombing!  Imagine the jobs....

This is a benefit to certain trades, of course, but it is an overall net loss to the economy.

Here is another example.... a kid throws a rock through a barber's window.  The barber had saved $50 and was going to use that money to take his wife out for a dinner.  Now he has to pay the $50 to replace the window.  The glazier gets $50 in revenue... He wins.  The barber loses $50 to replace something he already had.  He loses.  The restaurant owner loses out on $50 of revenue.   As you can see, this is a net loss for society.

And great, more inflation!  Inflation is the largest tax of them all on the poor and middle class.  The rich are generally not affected as much.  So Obama thinks he's helping the poor with all these debt funded programs... he's actually hurting them even more with the silent inflation tax!

Youre just looking at the direct consequnce, and not evaluating all of the "harder to see" consequences.

Report this comment
#14) On November 01, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Bays (29.98) wrote:

Valyooo is completey right and used an extreme example to illustrate a point, LORDZ.....  If your economic theory is correct, then why dont we just evacuate cities and factories and get the military to start bombing!  Imagine the jobs....

This is a benefit to certain trades, of course, but it is an overall net loss to the economy.

Here is another example.... a kid throws a rock through a barber's window.  The barber had saved $50 and was going to use that money to take his wife out for a dinner.  Now he has to pay the $50 to replace the window.  The glazier gets $50 in revenue... He wins.  The barber loses $50 to replace something he already had.  He loses.  The restaurant owner loses out on $50 of revenue.   As you can see, this is a net loss for society.

And great, more inflation!  Inflation is the largest tax of them all on the poor and middle class.  The rich are generally not affected as much.  So Obama thinks he's helping the poor with all these debt funded programs... he's actually hurting them even more with the silent inflation tax!

Youre just looking at the direct consequnce, and not evaluating all of the "harder to see" consequences.

Report this comment
#15) On November 01, 2012 at 7:06 PM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

Bizarro Alstry is there something in your genes that compels you to make ridiculous arguments?  Valyoo is spot on.  We had wealth DESTRUCTION.  Rebuilding is not NEW WEALTH.

That is why Cramer's rejoicing over ready made shovel jobs was idiotic.  A lot of people are not going to be able to replace what was lost.  Most probably don't have sufficient insurance.  And imagine those whose property was mortgaged to the hilt and don't have sufficient insurance to rebuild.  They are forced to walk away and leave the deed to the bank.

And I will continue to call you Bizarro Alstry because I had to deal with ridiculous arguments and predictions made by him for years until he finally capitulated.

Now enter you doing the same thing.

For future reference  first watch the clips I am referring to before defending the content you haven't even seen.

Report this comment
#16) On November 02, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

bays:

I think the barber was going to buy a suit, not take his out to dinner (I read economics in one less too, haha) 

Report this comment
#17) On November 02, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Valyooo (99.43) wrote:

It's strange to me how we can build rockets to take us to other planet, create chemicals to blow up cities, cure drugs, travel to other side of the world in under a day, use quantum mechanics to create televisions...yet a basic grasp at economics alludes everybody

Report this comment
#18) On November 04, 2012 at 7:58 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Valyoo sorry but you do not understand economics in my opinion. Bays I don't agree Valyoo is completely right. Tell me this. Why do you need jobs for an ecomony to grow? Then why do we need to do work? Work is needed for a product to be built. Work equals money. Assests aslo = money. In the case above an asset was destroyed. That means it needs to be rebuilt. Sure the value of the assest is nulled but rebuilding it causes a chain reaction and the movement of money. Take this example. What is no TV ever broke or was destroyed. We would never need to buy or build another TV. What if our house lasted forever?  Now better growth comes from population growth and the need for more assests to be produced for that indivisual. But you are right about one thing economic growth does extract resources from the land. That when you think about it is kinda sickening. People consume resources like no other. When we built something we have to destroy the earth to build it. Some is replenishable some is not. We may be destroying at a faster rate than the earth can replenish I do not know. The real ? is do we really need all this STUFF? I guess I don't know the answer to that question either

Report this comment
#19) On November 04, 2012 at 8:08 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

I am not a fan of Cramers either. I didnt see the show but I would bet Cramer did not intend for his statement to come off like you thought it did awallejr. I think  edwjm's line of thinking is correct. That is my opinion also. One can agree or disagree that is fine. My best wishes go out to anyone effected by the storm though.

Report this comment
#20) On November 04, 2012 at 9:01 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

In my comment 18 I was thinking about it and I guess the main factor is you are building something NEW not rebuilding it as it was. It is no different from building something that was never there before except for the fact that is would be less on the assest side. New minus old equals X then you have New minus nothing equals Y. Y would be greater than X but one has to understand NEW is greater than OLD also. Either one causes and increase in value though. Work causes this to happen and more work equates to economic growth.

Report this comment
#21) On November 04, 2012 at 9:17 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

And great, more inflation! Inflation is the largest tax of them all on the poor and middle class. The rich are generally not affected as much. So Obama thinks he's helping the poor with all these debt funded programs... he's actually hurting them even more with the silent inflation tax!

That is bull. I will give you an example. And I would like you to reply. My brother has a brain tumor. His medical expenses would have put anyone who makes under a hundred thousand in financial ruins. He got a bad break. He is 33 years old. Do you think he deserves to die because he can't afford treatment?  I would say if everyone in this wealthly nation pitches in...... more so the rich and wealthy companies (on a percentage basis in the form of taxes) that his life could be prolonged I would say that is a good idea. I know if you were in that spot I would want you to get treatment even though I don't know you. I would want you to have Medicare and get a Social Security check to help one in need out a little since he or she is less fortunate. But that is just me.  

Report this comment
#22) On November 04, 2012 at 9:21 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Sure there are some cases were the policys get abused by certain people but look at Mitt's tax returns. Does one think he is not trying to take FULL ADVANTAGE of the system. You aint fooling this guy. If you think your above statement is true how could you EVER vote for him.

Report this comment
#23) On November 04, 2012 at 7:23 PM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

Since people like to comment on content they haven't even seen, here's a link to Cramer's opening:

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youtube%20jim%20cramer%20october%2031.%202012%20openening&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.cnbc.com%2Fgallery%2F%3Fvideo%3D3000126161&ei=zAGXUNqZMqb10gH9kYCQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGli38B5wN1k-HUIjESORGwww4b_A

Now you can be the judge.  Please don't argue silver linings.  There never is one when concerning such disasters.  The fact that some people may find jobs, and certain companies may gain revenue is no offset to a family who now lost everything and doesn't have the insurance or financial wherewithal to rebuild.  And while some companies will benefit, there will be plenty of others that will suffer.

Right now there are about 2 million people displaced between New York and New Jersey.  Many of them aren't ever going back home.

Cramer's assumption is that the wealth destruction will be replaced with greater new wealth creation when in fact it won't for the very reason that many people can't rebuild for financial reasons nor can they ever replace all those priceless generational momentos and artifacts that are forever lost.

Report this comment
#24) On November 04, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Bays (29.98) wrote:

Valyooo,

What a book! I think the dinner analogy is more "current" as people will argue that the suit is made in china! 

valuemoney,

Comment #21 - You can cherry pick in order to make your point and make reference to someone who is on his deathbed and how it helps this one person, but I am analyzing the greater outcome and effect of Obama's "spending money he doesnt have" policies. Im not looking at one particular person, or group.  This creates inflation whether you like to believe it or not.  I dont even think this is arguable?  And I dont want to single Obama out like i'm some Obama "hater", this seems to be the new norm regardless of who is in power.   The inflation tax is hurting the poor and middle class more than the "1%", and the government is to blame for that.  

It is not moral to spend money that you dont have, and put it on the next generation's shoulders. 

 

Comment #22 -  This is absolutely ridiculous...... Im not a Mitt Romney fan by any means, but Mitt Romey has paid MORE than his fair share of taxes.  I'd be very interested in seeing how much taxes he paid indirectly through his investments, which were  taxed at the corporate rate.   For example, if he owned 10% of the common shares of Company X, and Company X paid $10m in corporate taxes, Mitt's share was $1m.  However, this will never show up on his personal tax return.  I'd love for someone to do the math on all of his holdings and add that number to his personal tax return so we can get the TRUE amount of taxes he paid.

Who are you to say he didn't pay his fair share?  He's most likely paid more than you will pay in many life times.

Comment #18 - I do not agree with your economic theory whatsoever.  If we didnt have to reproduce a tv again? Those resources would be directed somewhere else.  This isnt rocket science.  You act like if houses were indestructible, and never had to be rebuilt, that homebuilders would just be unemployed for the rest of their existence and would never make a transition into another industry. 

Im sorry to hear about your brother and I truly do hope him a speedy recovery.  

Report this comment
#25) On November 05, 2012 at 12:08 PM, bcvz (22.69) wrote:

Hmmmmm.......

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/02/make-no-mistake-about-it-hurricane-sandy-was-not-g.aspx?source=ihpsitth0000001

Thanks Motley Fool.

Report this comment
#26) On November 06, 2012 at 1:16 AM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

Mine was dated October 21 ;p

Report this comment
#27) On November 06, 2012 at 1:16 AM, awallejr (79.68) wrote:

31 st grrr

Report this comment
#28) On November 07, 2012 at 1:26 PM, tdoodler (23.65) wrote:

Chris Matthews last night:  "I'm so glad we had that storm"

Report this comment
#29) On November 08, 2012 at 3:14 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Sorry I don't believe the one person theory. My brother is just one out of millions that can't afford health care or something has happened health wise that a person is unable to work and thus can't pay their health care. How many people are disabled in this country? Anyone have MS or Down Sindrom and one esle have cancer? Anyone in a wheel chair? Health care is a huge cost. Some people get a raw deal or have an unfortunate accident. Insurance only covers some of the costs. What about people in their 70's and 80's that are unable to work. Should we not care for our elders? Now don't get me wrong their is some spending that doesn't need to be done. I know that but all and all MOST of the benifits that our government provides is good and a good idea. If you want to argue things like QE1,2, and 3 cause inflation that is fine because they do. Good or bad the U.S. fought the financial crisis by flooding the system with money. In some ways I think it was good because we are currently borrowing the money at RECORD LOW RATES. I don't know if you noticed but people here and around the world are giving the US money at almost no cost. Why not borrow it? Sure rates will go up and this will not last forever but if our economy recovers at a faster clip and more STUFF is produced our revenue will be a lot higher a few years down the road and our current deficit will not seem so big. Take the other sinario. What if the government didn't throw a whole bunch of money at the problem. Let all the banks fail....because the would have like dominos. Let the financial system crash. We would be in a great depression right now.

Report this comment
#30) On November 08, 2012 at 3:31 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

As for the Mitt Romey answer. Why did Mitt Romey get that much money in the 1st place? He ran businesses that generated a lot of money. Business that use the land and resources of this nation WAY WAY WAY more the myself. Lets do a comparison. How offen to I use the highway for my own use not counting driving to work for the business I work for. Well I think taxes should be split up that way and they are. That is why business pay WAY WAY WAY more taxes. Plus who gets to lobby congress and have a huge influence on them. Certainly not I because I don't have Billions of dollars at stake. Now add in the less fortunate people in this nation. Is someone making 30K or less going to help out because they have barely enough to get by. Or should someone who benifited grately from this system we have help out a little more? Lets say if you make over 500K. Or we could just say let the less fortunate suffer!

Report this comment
#31) On November 08, 2012 at 3:42 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

You act like if houses were indestructible, and never had to be rebuilt, that homebuilders would just be unemployed for the rest of their existence and would never make a transition into another industry.

That is what is happing right now and for the last five years. We built way to many houses. When the homebuilders start building again the economy will pick back up. ALOT. That is how the economy works. You need something. People do work to achieve that goal. One can just need a new home or a house can burn down either one causes activity causing an economic uptick. It is that simple. You are right it is not rocket science.

Report this comment
#32) On November 08, 2012 at 3:51 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

I will give another example this anyone can understand.

KO Coke Cola.

This is a business that adds to the economy.

How?  It provides us with soda.

What do we do with the soda? CONSUME IT. Or you could say DESTROY it. Either way more has to be made.

GET IT?

Anyone get it? Or am I wrong? Anyone can comment. I would like them to because maybe I don't understand and I would like someone to tell me how it works.

Report this comment
#33) On November 08, 2012 at 3:57 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Bays these comments are not meant to be rude or insulting either. And thanks for the end of your #24 comment as well in regards to my brother!

Report this comment
#34) On November 08, 2012 at 4:22 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Inflation happens because more dollars are chasing the desired item. If there are more dollars (in the case of the US we are printing more) that causes inflation. Inflation will happen to a lesser extent if we are using up the resources but if we are doing that wealth is being created in the form of the product or assest if you will. Like a house. Inflation is beat by buying into a company such as KO because if there are more dollars KO will charge more for their product getting the same amount of dollars on balance for their product. The pie stays the same there are just more pieces.

Report this comment
#35) On December 01, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Bays (29.98) wrote:

#32 - If KO stopped making coke or people stopped consuming it, some other company would fill the gap or benefit from that.  You're only looking at the benefits to KO!!!!! 

If the consumers just stopped drinking Coke all together, and didn't replace their coke purchases with pepsi purchases, they'd have that much more money in their pocket to spend on something else!!!! 

You have tunnel vision when analysing economic scenarios. 

Henri Hazlitt can explain it better.  Read his book online: http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

Report this comment
#36) On December 01, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Bays (29.98) wrote:

#34 - Inflation is caused by a faster growth in the money supply than the amount of goods and services available.  It doesnt happen over night, and usually trickles down.  However, like you said, inflation can be easily beat by corporations and businesses by just raising prices. Investors can hedge against inflation by holding shares in these companies. 

That's my whole point.... It's nice to want the government to take care of everyone, but when they dont have the money, and need to print massive amounts, they're going to do way more harm than good.  Look at Pierre Trudeau as an example in Canada..... Canada's spending was out of hand during the 80's and Trudeau almost put the country into bankruptcy.  Major cuts followed and extremely high interest rates pursued for an extended time until they were able to get their finances back in order.   The US's fiscal situation is even worse than Canada's was at that time.  Just wait, the party will end one day.

Report this comment
#37) On December 04, 2012 at 2:48 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

#32 - If KO stopped making coke or people stopped consuming it, some other company would fill the gap or benefit from that. You're only looking at the benefits to KO!!!!!

If the consumers just stopped drinking Coke all together, and didn't replace their coke purchases with pepsi purchases, they'd have that much more money in their pocket to spend on something else!!!!

You have tunnel vision when analysing economic scenarios

I don't have tunnel vision that is the way it works. WE CONSUME to make the econony grow. I don't know if that is good or bad. We need a socialist side. If government said no more pop or soda that would be GOOD. How about no more drinking alcohol. Or we have to excercise every day and be at a certain weight. Those all would help! But were do you draw the line. If Americans just all lost 10 lbs on average we wouldn't have a buget problem! America is overweight and unhealthly. How about we stop consuming so much stuff! This is a whole different topic and it has nothing to do with ecomonics for the most part. Sure it all ties in but what you and valyoo are stating is true to a point but what I just stated brings up the real issue in the whole matter of using our resources.

Report this comment
#38) On December 04, 2012 at 2:53 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

What I stated about KO is a fact and the way it ties into economics. Like it or not that is the way economics works. A demand for a product.....then it is used, consumed, destroyed what ever it may be. Supply and demand.  How would you describe it? Just curious.

Report this comment
#39) On December 04, 2012 at 2:59 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

Personally I would love it if no one drove big fancy SUV's. No one had IPAD's or IPhones. How about spend $10 on each person for Christmas! Don't get all of this crap we don't need. Don't spoil the kids. Our economic output would crash but you guys are right. It would use up way less resources. AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD. We would have deflation. Good or bad be the judge.  

Report this comment
#40) On December 04, 2012 at 3:52 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

You stated something in reference to Canada. Read their health care policies and how do they afford it?

Tell me this... Germany with one of the oldest universal health care coverage systems.... how do they afford it? Aren't they considered one of the riches nations in Europe?

Switzerland?

My point is everyone can do what they want to a point.... IT JUST MATTERS WHAT THEY WANT AND IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DO IT!

My classic point is excercise and staying fit. Almost everyone could do it but people just choose not to. Our nation consumes food like hungry pigs. Again adding to the economy by consuming but it is a horrible consumption. Take away all of the fast food resturants. and all of the needless infomercials about wait loss and these gimicy gadgets that no one needs. Less ad dollars and no more business for MCD or Hardees or Burger King. Good or bad be the judge.

Report this comment
#41) On December 04, 2012 at 4:08 AM, valuemoney (99.99) wrote:

This all kind of leads back to awallejr's CAPS Blog.

Is it sickening? Yeah in a way it is but that is the way the system works. Good or bad you be the judge.

Report this comment
#42) On December 04, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Sunny7039 (< 20) wrote:

I agree -- Cramer's rap is really disgusting, and he often comes across as disturbed.  I do pity him.  He does not look like he ever made a complete recovery, and I truly don't know why anyone would listen to him.  Maybe no one does.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement