Jon Stewart: "The Only People Who Have Recovered From The Meltdown, Are Those Who Caused It"

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Oso's picture

i laughed. i cried.  i gave this two thumbs up. 

 

nothing else is working.  thank god for Jon Stewart.

Anonymous's picture

Way to go John!

You might remember many times in 2008, Hank Paulson saying we cant do this or we cant do that because it will spook the markets. To bad the rumors around the banks didn't indicate if the bank was short real estate like Goldman, or long real estate like Lehman. Then we could of had just a partial "bank raid" instead a full on bank raid.

A very old trick in deed.
Create the crisis.
Offer the solution.

It's like stealing somebodies dope,
and then helping them look for it!

Anonymous's picture

Wasn't that what JP Morgan did creating the panic back in 1907? A hundred years later and not even the NAMES have changed! The monetary system we live under is a rigged ponzi scheme.

Cursive's picture

 

"The Only People Who Have Recovered From The Meltdown, Are Those Who Caused It"

+1  And where the hell is Alan Grayson?  Too busy picking a fight with Limbaugh, or something?

ETA:  The clip is really worth the 5 minutes.  There is more news and analysis on that clip than the blips and blurbs I catch on the MSM.

 

Anonymous's picture

Grayson is a moron. If that is the left's brilliant leader, they are in trouble. He very well could be a one termer.

faustian bargain's picture

i wonder if any of his writers peruse the humble pages of zerohedge?

deadhead's picture

i wouldn't be surprised if this was written by zh folks......

Anonymous's picture

I think Stephen Colbert's writers might - there is some very good material here too:

http://www.examiner.com/x-26918-Glenn-Beck-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Stephen-...

Crime of the Century's picture

Beck refuses to apologize for endorsing gold, OK - got it. What is the problem, and why would ZH care? Many here recommend gold to family and friends as well. If I could get paid for doing it, I would be on that like white-on-rice.  

 

Anonymous's picture

Glenn Beck also trys to address the corruption in the captial markets as well.

OH, AND he doesn't spend the rest of the time sucking to the main source of our corruption (our coward-in-chief) like john liebowitz does.

chumbawamba's picture

Oh yeah, Glenn Beck is a national fucking hero!

I am Chumbawamba.

Anonymous's picture

I'll connect the dots if you like...

If any writers "peruse the humble pages of zerohedge" they certainly could ALSO find fodder for plenty of 'omfg this f*cking country is f*cking gone and the fiery, violent end is inevitable' conversations - the same of which are also regularly made fun of on these same Comedy Central shows.

See Colbert's Doom Bunker - i guess it isn't funny if you believe it...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2...

faustian bargain's picture

My point was, you don't see this point of view reported very much in the mainstream media, so is it possible the Daily Show writers are getting some subject matter from blogs like this? i.e. are contrarian viewpoints starting to emerge into the public's consciousness?

Anonymous's picture

Actually, you do. Unless you live under a rock. In no way is any of the matter Comedy Central lampoons either groundbreaking or enlightening - by nature for something to be 'uniformly' funny, the audience has to understand the collective background in the first place.

People who rail on bankers bonuses, leftists who go overboard, and chicken-little doomsayers are all obvious targets the mainstream public is aware of. ZH does not have a monopoly on this niche - it is a niche of a niche.

I suppose the overarching question would be at what point is it accepted/realized that the 'mainstream media' doesn't control everyone's mind - and people have more than enough data points, ancillary and primary, to support whatever position they have chosen?

My elderly father, not uncommon of many folks these days, listens only to what you refer to as 'mainstream media' and he doesn't need anything BUT MSM to agree with the commonly-espoused principles of this site - 'ie we are effed, the corporatacracy rules, we are mortgaging your grandchildrens futures and i need to take my country back' from this personally-alleged 'rogue website that challenges the paradigm' website. This is not uncommon.

What is the derogatory 'mainstream media' then, if people don't have to search any further than the very MSM to arrive at the same level of action this website supports?

Reminds me of when that 'Alternative Music' movement was 'Alternative'... Until it became Mainstream and diluted.

Recognize and evolve. If you are popular enough to be made fun of - you are now part of 'MSM' - for better or worse.

faustian bargain's picture

I suppose the overarching question would be at what point is it accepted/realized that the 'mainstream media' doesn't control everyone's mind - and people have more than enough data points, ancillary and primary, to support whatever position they have chosen?

That is a good question. The number of data points is hardly relevant, though. People tend to see the evidence they want to see, i.e. confirmation bias and narrative fallacy. And these things are influenced (some would say manufactured) by media. Ours is a culture that fosters tunnel vision, and the ones who can see anything on the periphery are a self-selected tiny minority.

I don't watch the evening news because it is just too inane, so I admit I don't fully know what the MSM is reporting these days.

Anonymous's picture

I look forward to selling my gold to people like Colbert for several thousand dollars an ounce as the bull market explodes (and probably becomes a bubble) and they chase the price up. Because as the sheeple know all too well, the way to invest is buy high and sell low.

gossamer's picture

Saw this and liked it a lot.  However Stewart has lost my respect because he treats Oblama with kid gloves.  Wish he would have called out Oblama for the favorable treatment that he has given to the ones who caused the meltdown. But this aint happening.  Stewart has proven to be just another Lib tard who feeds the left/right, red/blue illusion of choice.  

packeteerist's picture

don't worry, by 1/1/2011 even John Stewart will be hatin' on Oblama. The real story is wether or not the wingnuts and the libtards can find some common ground.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

My biggest problem with Stewart and Colbert is that they talk about the issues, but in the end they justify them, or don't give them as much importance as they deserve.

 

I can think of many occasions where they have made very good points about corrupt politicians, or fraud involving the war on Terror and global warming scams...  And then followed it up with... Nothing.  Sell outs, IMO.

Anonymous's picture

What do they care? They are employed. And receiving a very nice pay check no doubt.

Anonymous's picture

They follow with nothing because they surrender to hopelessness. It's like how the Dilbert comic strip make very good points about corporate culture but follow with nothing. It's not selling out since no benefit can be taken.

your neighbor's picture

totally agree. Stewart is the best at what he does. However it scares me to think how his socialist views are shaping the minds of the Gen X and Ys.

Anonymous's picture

Yeah I gave up on Jon too. He's too much of a f*ing hypocrite when it comes to Obama.

But we lest forget, he's only entertainment not too much different than American Idol

Anonymous's picture

"However it scares me to think how his socialist views are shaping the minds of the Gen X and Ys."
That's because you can't see the fascist forest for the socialist trees.

your neighbor's picture

We are becoming more fascist every fuckin day. I am talking about Jon's view. He is a fascist? I think not. Think before you speak.

A tumor named Marla's picture

They're entertainers.  Comedians.  On Comedy Central.  The demographic is "entertain me" college kids.

You're actually getting waaaaaay more from Stewart/Colbert than one could reasonably expect.  This is coming from a self-professed "wingnut" who can't stand the Lefty nonsense Stewart spouts the rest of the time.

It's not the Big Finance Network or the Big News Network or Big ZHTV; it's a late-night news-oriented entertainment show.  They'll make jokes and actually slip in a little cogent analysis occasionally, but ultimately their job is to make their audience think JUST ENOUGH about the issue so that they can make a joke out of it and move on.  They do their jobs very well.....

It actually reminds me of the news reporters in Babylon 5 who have a specific story that Dear Leader wants told, but they are able to slip in a tiny bit of truth, enough to be real but not enough to justify getting shut down.  Not saying that's the case here, it's just a morsel to chew on.

Anonymous's picture

Agreed.

JS loves Obama and rallied the troops to vote for him. Despite government being the primary source of many problems, the liberals love to embrace it. (many liberals on both side of the aisle).

lizzy36's picture

Tyler, perhaps the $64T question?

Classic Jon Stewart.

 

knukles's picture

Criticize not Comrade Stewart for under repressive regimes humor provides the secure medium for truths.

Crab Cake's picture

I feel sorry for Jon.  How screwed up is it that decent informative TV has to come through a comedy show?  It reminds me of the historical Enlightenment period when free speech and the printing presses ran headlong into the monarchies of the day and all criticism pieces were labelled as 'fiction' to get under the radar.  (see Candide among others)

To continue the analogy...

If the internet (ala ZeroHedge) are the handbills with straight facts being passed on the street in a directly subversive way, then the Daily Show is the truth passing as 'comedy/fiction'.

Seer's picture

Consider the days of which he operated, Lenny Bruce might be one of the most courageous entertainer/social commentator ever in the US.

Anonymous's picture

'Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining" Josey Wales

JR's picture
Speaking of "the only people who have recovered from the meltdown," this off the LRC Blog: THE FED MAKES RECORD PROFITS FOR ITSELF BY INFLATING Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on January 13, 2010

About ten years ago a Wall Street Journal article described some of the perks that Fed bureaucrats enjoy with all of their loot, such as a fleet of corporate jets, millions in real estate holdings, elaborate buildings and offices, etc.  Even the head janitor at the time made over $160K a year plus benefits.  Where does the money come from to pay for all of this?  It comes from interest earned on bonds that the Fed owns.  The Fed inflates the currency by buying bonds, thereby putting more money into circulation.  It holds onto the bonds and keeps a large chunk of the interest income on them, sharing the rest with the crooks and conmen in Washington (Oops, I mean “the Treasury”).  Today there is an AP article on the Web that announces, “Federal Reserve generates a record profit for 2009.”  Last year was the biggest “payoff” for creating inflation and boom-and-bust cycles in the entire history of the Fed.

There is research in the economics subdiscipline of public choice that asserts that Fed bureaucrats have a built-in inflationary bias because they literally profit from inflation in the way described here.  The “mainstream” of the economics profession ignores this research because 1) most monetary economists are paid by the Fed in one way or another; and 2) They believe in the fantasy that government bureacrats are selfless public servants devoted to correcting “market failures” (with their help, of course).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/047278.html

FEDERAL RESERVE GENERATES A RECORD PROFIT FOR 2009:

Surplus reflects money made in securities to aid economy AP |The Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON Jan. 13, 2010 — - The Federal Reserve generated record profits last year, reflecting money made off its extraordinary efforts to rescue the country from the worst economic and financial crisis since the 1930s.

The central bank announced Tuesday it logged a record windfall of $52.1 billion. Of that total, a record of $46.1 billion gets turned over to the Treasury Department.

It marks both the biggest profit and payment to Treasury on records dating back to 1914, when the Fed began operating. The previous record payment turned over to the Treasury - of $34.6 billion - was registered in 2007. In 2008, the Fed reported a payment of $31.7 billion.

The Fed's efforts to end the crisis are separate from the $700 billion taxpayer-funded financial bailout program authorized by Congress in 2008 and overseen by the Treasury Department.

Originally set up to shore up banks, money from the publicly derided program also has been doled out to rescue other types of companies, including General Motors, Chrysler and GMAC. President Barack Obama is weighing a levy aimed at recovering tax dollars from government-rescued financial institutions.

The bigger profit reported by the Fed came from $46.1 billion in earnings from the securities it held last year.

Such income went up as the Fed's holdings of securities mushroomed.

The Fed launched several securities-buying programs last year to help revive the economy. Its goal is to drive down rates on mortgages and other consumer debt.

Under one program that ended last year, the Fed snapped up $300 billion worth of government debt. Under another program, the Fed is on track to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and an additional $175 billion in debt issued by the mortgage giants. Those programs have boosted the value of securities held by the Fed.

The Fed faces a risk, however. The Fed could lose money if the central bank had to sell those securities and their prices were to fall. The Fed might need to sell the securities to sop up some of the unprecendented amount of money pumped into the economy during the crisis.

The Fed is funded from the interest earned on it vast portfolio of securities. It is not funded by Congress.

After covering expenses, the Fed gives the leftover to the Treasury Department.

Besides the income from its securities, the Fed said it earned $5.5 billion from holdings related to the takeover of investment firm Bear Stearns and insurance company American International Group.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.fed13jan13,0,4965700.story

And, of course, that’s just the tip of the money pile. And, with the way things seem to be working as the banks use the American government to launder their debts and profits, what’s “returned” to Timmay at the Treasury will be quietly recycled back to the shareholder banks of the Fed in oh so many “let-me-count-the-ways.”

theadr's picture

Nice.  Our economy loses $10 Trillion and the Treasury makes $56 Billion.  Good f'n return, fucklowns.  Kinda like the one's the lobbyists get from the politicos -- times a 1,000!

Hephasteus's picture

The politicians really are simple fucks. Half of them are barely millionaires kissing billionairs asses.

JR's picture

A postscript from Chris Martenson’s “Time for An Audit…Or Some Competition, January 13 on “what the most powerful cartel is up to, as their private missteps become our collective pain”:

At first I thought a recent Washington Post article regarding 'earnings' at the Federal Reserve was a joke.  But it appeared in the business section, and there weren't any "gotcha!" retractions the next day, so I assume it was meant to be serious.

For those who understand the very simple idea that the Federal Reserve prints Federal Reserve Notes (or their electronic equivalent) out of thin air, the concept of 'earnings' on those same thin-air money units is intellectually challenging…

First of all, the word 'earnings' implies that value was created and/or something was at risk.  Neither applies to the Fed.  Let's review the process by which they 'earned' money in 2009.  We'll simplify this by examining just one of their activities, the purchase of Treasury debt.

Step 1:  Using keystrokes, create $300 billion out of thin air.

Step 2:  Buy Treasury notes and bonds with the $300 billion.

Step 3:  Collect interest from the US government on those notes and bonds.

Step 4:  Report record 'earnings.'

Step 5:  Wash, rinse, repeat.

What is the meaning of 'earnings' in that series of steps?  What value was created?  Where was the risk?  In this context, the word 'earnings' has no meaning or any relevance at all.  It's the exact same thing as if the Fed had printed 46 billion dollars put them on the income statement and called them 'earnings.'  Or 10 trillion dollars.  Or one dollar.  When you can create any number you wish using a keyboard, the number itself is meaningless.

Further, we might wonder about the comfy relationship between the government and the Federal Reserve in which the Fed buys government debt, the government then pays interest to the Fed on that debt, and the Fed then (mostly) returns these interest payments to the government as "excess profits." 

In that little circle, the Fed reports profits and the government reports revenue from the Fed.  They both 'win!'  But the entire thing is really just a sleight-of-hand exercise, wherein the Fed prints money out of thin air and hands it to the government.

It's a crafty little game with lots of moving pieces, but the essence of it is that money was brought into existence without any corresponding goods and services being created.  Which means that it is not a good thing (as reported); it is actually a bad thing.  It is among the most inflationary and dangerous monetary activities that can be performed, at least if the past 800 years of monetary history is any guide.  It looks clever and sounds sophisticated, but it really is nothing more than a distributed tax on every outstanding dollar in the system.  If the founding fathers despised taxation without representation, they would have truly hated this shell game...

The simple truth is that the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air for the purpose of buying debt instruments.  That's it.  That's its entire business model…

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/time-audit-or-some-competition/33878

 

BS Inc.'s picture

I definitely don't think enough heads rolled on this whole deal to make me satisfied. I agree with Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario that we haven't learned a damn thing.

Crab Cake's picture

You don't think enough heads rolled?

What heads rolled, at all, figuratively or literally?   

Of course we haven't learned anything!  The answer to the RE bubble popping was/is... Blow more bubbles as fast as possible with low interest rates, crank up the printing press, cook the books, and shove the truth in a deep dark vault. 

I have had it.  Any direction one looks, on nearly any issue, as far as the eye can see, it's hypocrisy, propaganda, out right lies, and bullshit. 

It's nearing the time for heads to actually roll around on the ground, seperate from their bodies.  It's nearing the time for corpses to swing from trees and lamp posts.  It's nearing the time for Mr. Bernanke to shoot his family, and then commit suicide, because the mob is coming for him and his. 

You people want to see terror, real terror, you wait.  It's coming if nothing is done soon. 

If we don't get a peaceful mass movement to bring some sanity to this god forsaken country soon, hell is what we're going to reap. 

Anonymous's picture

Finally, a post I agree with.

Seer's picture

As long as the people accept the system, which makes them believe that they too can kiss a frog and they end up sitting at the top of the heap, then things aren't going to change.

As long as economics is the primary driver of humanity/life then nothing will change: we'll still be under the spell of capitatism's grow-or-die philosophy.

And what exactly would those in power fear from a "peaceful" mass movement?  Perhaps you've missed all those crowd control technologies that the State now has available to it?  You know, the stuff that they use against "peaceful" protest?

silverhammer's picture

You don't have to participate in the system.  Move your money to banks that didn't participate in bailouts.  Transfer your debt if you have any to other institutions and refuse to get more, ever, unless it's an absolute emergency.  Buy used and with cash as much as possible and figure out ways to support yourself that don't involve taxes.  Home brewing is great because of the massive sin taxes imposed on alcohol.  Go on strike and encourage others to do the same, and watch tax reciepts plummet.  Totally peaceful and would kill the big banks fairly quickly, and would be nearly impossible to ignore.

faustian bargain's picture

As long as economics is the primary driver of humanity/life then nothing will change: we'll still be under the spell of capitatism's grow-or-die philosophy.

No, you're incorrect. The system that controls us, TPTB, they don't have to live by the philosophy of capitalism. We peons do, but they don't. Only when TPTB are forced to live under capitalism like the rest of us (i.e. private gains AND losses), will there be a return to economic justice.

And economics always has been and always will be the primary driver. This is a simple consequence of living in a world delimited by scarcity. The only way to escape economics is to die. (See the zerohedge tagline.)

chet's picture

This just pissed me off all over again.

I've been cynical about an American "oligarchy" for some time, but I guess I never really believed it.  I do now.

Even a couple months ago I was dissing on strategic default and such debt protest, but not anymore.

Our system is black cancer down to its core.  And if you aren't one of the very few doing the fucking, you're one of the vast majority getting fucked.

Here's something I've never allowed myself to think out loud:  I'm not sure this country is coming back from this crisis.

Crab Cake's picture

If this is what America is, then fuck America, let it not come back.  We can do better. 

 

Anonymous's picture

Changing my resume goal: Seeking employment with a globally recognized fucking firm where I can utilize my 30 years of fucking experience to assist in the fucking of others.

Well, maybe I need to work on it a little more. I'll let you know if it works, cuz nothing else has.

I was going to ask, where does one go to get educated to be a good fucker. But as soon as that question crossed my mind, I heard a very loud HARVARD in my ear. So, I won't ask the question.

Anonymous's picture

That was fucking hilarious! I may have to borrow that...

chet's picture

This just pissed me off all over again.

I've been cynical about an American "oligarchy" for some time, but I guess I never really believed it.  I do now.

Even a couple months ago I was dissing on strategic default and such debt protest, but not anymore.

Our system is black cancer down to its core.  And if you aren't one of the very few doing the fucking, you're one of the vast majority getting fucked.

Here's something I've never allowed myself to think out loud:  I'm not sure this country is coming back from this crisis.