DOW possibly at 4700 by Tuesday

[Ferocious]

So says Cramer

I think the guy is part looney.

But even if the actual downside drop is 'only' half that, we might see a 2000 drop point drop quickly.

:shocked:

 

[techs]

Is that the guy who screams and screams during his show?

 

[Fern]

If I was in the SEC I'd be checking him to see if he shorted the market.

IMO, remarks like he made are irresponsible; we're going to end up with even more panic.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: techs
Is that the guy who screams and screams during his show?

That's Ron Jeremy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
If I was in the SEC I'd be checking him to see if he shorted the market.

IMO, remarks like he made are irresponsible; we're going to end up with even more panic.

Fern

Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible. You need to be careful to balance between preventing market manipulation and stifling whistleblower who happen to think the market is going down and upset the powers that be, who want people thinking it won't. What if someone had wanted to sound an alarm bout this crisis and faced sanctions if they did for 'irresponsibly concerning investors'?

 

[Hugh H]

I thought I heard several people it had touched the bottom... plus with Pres. Bush's buying stocks initiative and the G-7 meeting last Saturday I think investors will start feeling more comforatble... so I predict it will start going positive.... who knows.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
So says Cramer

I think the guy is part looney.

But even if the actual downside drop is 'only' half that, we might see a 2000 drop point drop quickly.

:shocked:

I thought there is an automatic stop at 1100 in one day?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible.

IMO, the guy is screaming *FIRE* in a crowded theater.

Furthermore, IMO, the right of free speach brings some responsibility to use it appropriately. His remarks could become self-fulling and cause a lot of damage to a lot of people.

Note: I have absolutely no money myself in the stock market.

Fern

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: Fern
If I was in the SEC I'd be checking him to see if he shorted the market.

IMO, remarks like he made are irresponsible; we're going to end up with even more panic.

Fern

I don't think he is allowed to invest for personal gains anymore with this show. I think he runs a charitable fund though.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ferocious
So says Cramer

I think the guy is part looney.

But even if the actual downside drop is 'only' half that, we might see a 2000 drop point drop quickly.

:shocked:

I thought there is an automatic stop at 1100 in one day?

I believe those stops (put in after the 1987 crash) were removed several years ago. Apparantly it was felt there was no more need for them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

What would it take to halt U.S. stock trading?

 

[Ferocious]

n/m

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
What would it take to halt U.S. stock trading?

[/quote]

EDIT: no stops if plunge occurs after 2:30 pm!

 

[Lemon law]

The consensus on the talks show was, if we do not have impressive international agreements made in this weekends meetings of finance ministers, the markets could again drop like a stone tomorrow.

No one knows how deep the meltdown goes, what can be saved, and they are all making up plans as they go. Right now, almost anything could happen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
What would it take to halt U.S. stock trading?

In the event of a 3,350-point decline, the market would close for the day, regardless of the time.

I see.

The 1100 is of only before 2pm. They take an hour break and then it could down 3350.

Wow, could be down to 3600 next week easily.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible.

IMO, the guy is screaming *FIRE* in a crowded theater.

Furthermore, IMO, the right of free speach brings some responsibility to use it appropriately. His remarks could become self-fulling and cause a lot of damage to a lot of people.

Note: I have absolutely no money myself in the stock market.

Fern

When the theater is on FIRE there is no thing wrong with screaming fire.

 

[whylaff]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible.

IMO, the guy is screaming *FIRE* in a crowded theater.

To quote him from The Today Show on the day following his comments, when asked about that specific analogy, "What if the theater is on fire?"

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible.

IMO, the guy is screaming *FIRE* in a crowded theater.

Furthermore, IMO, the right of free speach brings some responsibility to use it appropriately. His remarks could become self-fulling and cause a lot of damage to a lot of people.

Note: I have absolutely no money myself in the stock market.

Fern

Fern, do you support forced optimism? lol

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
Stifling 'free speech' is irresponsible.

IMO, the guy is screaming *FIRE* in a crowded theater.

Furthermore, IMO, the right of free speach brings some responsibility to use it appropriately. His remarks could become self-fulling and cause a lot of damage to a lot of people.

Note: I have absolutely no money myself in the stock market.

Fern

Over-analogizing the 'fire in a crowded theatre remark' leads to all kinds of bad things.

When the president and many others are saying that there ARE WMD and we have to protect our country, isn't it 'crying in a crowded theatre' to threaten the war effort by making baseless claims that maybe the war is not a good idea? If the president said that Saddam was behind 9/11, would you be providing aid and comfort to terrorists if you said he wasn't? If the market is about to crash, are you yelling fire in a crowded theatre to tell people the truth as you see it and not let only the 'insiders' plan for it, while they lie?

There's a value to free speech, and a price. Sometimes free speech is 'harmful', and sometimes it's wrong, but overall people who are democratically inclined notice that it has more benefit than harm and protect it, rather than grabbing short-sighted benefits by restricting it. Power likes to have as little challenge as possible, and restricting free speech helps it - and that helps lead to tyranny.

The antidote to lies, generally, is the truth, not censorship. Censorship may begin well-intentioned, but quickly has a new master and hides the truth.

 

[LegendKiller]

Cramer is a fuckin idiot. Why anybody even cares what he says is beyond me. He is the Jerry Springer of the financial world.

 

[nageov3t]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yca7nbhyMVY

still cracks me up.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Cramer is a fuckin idiot. Why anybody even cares what he says is beyond me. He is the Jerry Springer of the financial world.

There are alot of idiots that would listen to this one. He is partially blamed for the fear starting on Monday when he was on the Today show.

 

[StageLeft]

He also said to spend 25% of the cash you got a few weeks ago with his advice to buy stock on monday and the other 25% on Tuesday. He admits, as does everybody, that he has no real fvcking clue where it's going at all.

 

[Butterbean]

It was obvious a long time that houses and stocks etc were over-valued. A crash was to be expected because everyone kept psychotically playing the game like musical chairs but expecting the music to never stop. I cant accuse Cramer of panicking people after Schumer and Reid intentionally tried to cause a panic and causing banks and insurance companies some great loses.

 

[sandorski]

Even if he is right, and he very well might be, Cramer needs to get off the Stimulants. He makes for good TV, but I wouldn't want to take the guys advice.