Here is my reply to all of the criticism:

The way to get value from Cramer is in how you use the information he presents. FORGET his individual stock picks. He sucks, but in his defense, if any of us had to pick 25 stocks a day, we’d suck equally or worse. DO pay attention to his commentary about how the market works… there are very few who understand it better and are also willing to share so openly. And like any other advice presented to you, understand the difference between taking advice ( I take all the advice I can get) and listening to advice (ask anyone who knows me… I very rarely listen).

At the end of the day, it’s your life and your money. Own it and keep your own counsel.

In March 2008 when the market was telegraphing ahead that the way forward was down, my only option was to move my money into a money market. I would have preferred cash– and by October the Feds had to step in to prop up Money Market Mutual Funds, my worst fears were nearly realized.

It’s not as if I work for a small shop or for one that generally doesn’t care. I work for a Fortune 500 company who was in the top 20 of Fortune’s Best Places To Work in 2008, and our 401K is administered through Fidelity. Whatever someone at my company thinks of their specific situation/ job/ manager, I think most if not all would agree that our company at the corporate level tries to do alot for its employees. And yet, in this best-of-all-possible circumstances, I find my 401k coming up short. I can only imagine what it is like for others.

And, even the “lifestage” investment strategies that have become popular with 401K plans in the past few years do little to compensate for “black swan” market events where every asset class precipitously falls–like the last 12 months. What’s more, a precipitous fall has occurred at least once a generation, so it must be anticipated by the 401K plan rather than ignored.

Want to see greater stewardship and ownership of the 401K for the retirement vehicle it is supposed to be? Give people additional methods to manage it that amount to more than “dump it in the market and pray it goes up forever.” And tell them simply that this is part of their job to make it happen. I think you’d be surprised.

There were two comments. The first was by McDowell centered on the necessity of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor and the necessity of this to keeping the global economy at large robust. The second by Bloor simply stated that there is a lack of basic services such as water. My reply below:

Dirk– Bloor is correct. In the developed world, the constraints are more practical, such as basic services lagging population or consumption spikes. As an example, I live in Dallas, and when I first moved here in 2000, 8 of the top 50 fastest growing American cities were in the suburbs of Dallas. It was slow getting everything from telephone service to finding a doctor who was taking new patients (I ended up commuting two towns over for a doctor). With the DFW area adding 150000 new residents in 2008 and an even greater number expected for 2009, this trend will continue. And I predict that within 15 years the two biggest problems facing North Texas will be gridlock and lack of drinking water– all this population being added and we have not added any new sources of water– and it takes about 25 years to build a lake for such a purpose.

In the developing world, the constraints are similar, but more basic, such as no access to clean water. But there, the constraints are truly manifest because there is no genuine infrastructure at all. No infrastructure will come to these places until there is rule of law–  basic guarantees against the violation of property rights without due process. And who will invest in these places until such certainty exists?

I could not disagree more with Mr. McDowell’s assertion that simply giving money is the answer. I have my own theories about the failures of Socialism that I will save for another time, and simply counter that hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars has been handed off to the undeveloped world in the last 60 years, and these places are as bad or even worse off than when we started handing them money. It has been a huge waste of time and resources. 

Want a novel approach? Consider that it would have been less expensive and far more effective to take that 50 years worth of money and buy a million acres of land with access to natural resources, clean water such as a river, and a warm water port.  On this land we establish a government, a constitution, and basic enforcement controls and services. We allow corporations to come in and set up shop, and literally invite people to become citizens. Over time we allow this new country to become self-governing. This would have done more to help those people and would have established a model to be replicated–flaws and all. Instead, we handed off money to corrupt thugs in exchange for tacit stability. And though I agree with McDowell that giving money to these governments does not get the money to the alleged intended recipient (I say ‘alleged’ because I believe the primary purpose of most aid money is to prop up the government of the receiving country, not to help the masses– though tacit, a little stability is viewed as better than none at all), helicoptering in the money directly to the masses would only provide temporary relief and let’s face it, is not a real solution.

At $2.50 per share (Citi closed lower than that today), that is 18 billion shares.

Citi has a current float of 5 billion shares. Are they talking about quadrupling the float of the common stock?

Oh vey. Tell me again how this is going to make the stock price go up?

Disclosure: As of publication I have no position. I am not a professional, but I am trying this at home. It is highly recommended that you consult a licensed financial advisor or broker before making any and all investment decisions.

And, that is, not financially viable with just today’s financial pressures. Sirius XM can’t even pay the bills they have, let alone any new obligations.

When the new high speed internet networks arrive–which for it to consistently stream an audio program and provide nearly ubiquitous nationwide coverage will not be as long as you think–look for either the Sirius XM delivery model to change (if they are still alive) or look for them to get eliminated by the emergence of a low-cost competitor. Hint: anyone who owns a sliver of nationwide broadband spectrum can move into this business fast. And with broadband, issues like line-of-sight are a thing of the past.

To be fair, Sirius XM as a company might survive in some form because they have the two key ingredients to success for any subscription-based business: customers (nearly 10 million of them) and established content that those 10 million users are willing to pay for. 

But at some point, you have to get serious: If you have a lick of sense, you know the way forward for the common stock is to be zeroed out.

Disclosure: As of publication I have no position. I am not a professional, but I am trying this at home. It is highly recommended that you consult a licensed financial advisor or broker before making any and all investment decisions.

That’s a brand-spanking new, permanent job created out of thin air for 1 in every 86 Texans. Not working- age Texans. Texans period.

Take out the 9.5 million Texans who are either under 18 or over 65, and that’s a brand spanking new permanent job for one in 51 working-age Texans.

So I am supposed to believe that this plan–which is little more than wealth transfer from those who pay taxes to those who don’t– will generate this many permanent jobs? This is an exaggeration so very obvious that it borders on ridiculous. Makes me wonder what other exaggerated projections of success are contained in this bill.