Mike Pento Rages Against The Central Planning Committee And Moral Hazard

Tyler Durden's picture

Delta Global's Michael Pento refuses to go gently into that good central planning night:

[The Fed] is making the situation much, much worse and they actually caused the problem to begin with. They have the foolish belief that they can pick the right interest rate. The interest rate should be a function of the supply of savings versus the demand for money. If you have one person or twelve people on the FOMC deciding that interest rates should be 1% or 0% they distort the cost of money and they cause the demand for money to rise, they cause the amount of money in circulation to skyrocket, and then you get this rolling bubble economy. That has to stop, that's where we have to start...We have now inculcated firmly this bailout mentality in the country, and that also has to stop.

Comrade Pento, Comrade Pento... Do you know the meaning of the word Gulag? We sincerely suggest you familiarize yourself from a distance, before you are forced to make appropriate acquaintances in person. Please cease your spreading of objective and honest truth before the same FOMC you so vocally complain about, and its downstream apparatchiks, eliminate that particular optionality. Sincerely Yours, Liberty 33

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AN0NYM0US's picture

Obama just now announcing the bank tax.

"I urge the banks not to pass this on to their customers"

what a sham

HelluvaEngineer's picture

Did he actually wink after he said that?

Anonymous's picture

You could have just said +2.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You might consider that it was an accidental double post. They do happen sometimes.

Gordon_Gekko's picture

Yes, and he also sucked some bankster c--k afterward to make up for even suggesting such a thing.

Anonymous's picture

Homey on the downlow, yo.

1984's picture

That's before, during, and after. 

There. IFIFY.

Crab Cake's picture

If Obama doesn't understand that all business taxes end up on being paid by the consumer, always, then he doesn't understand business.  Yes, the sky is blue, I do understand that, I'm just say'n.  This is why the tax base should be formed by, and only by, sales taxes.  Yes it would effect the poorer in a larger way percentage wise, but everything would be above board, and one could choose not consume and thus not pay.  No taxes on property, or death, and especially on labor.  God,  I'm so pissed off!  Our government is run by corrupt imbeciles (yes that's both f'ing parties).  WTF!?

Ragnarok's picture

This policy is designed to fail, it is a set up for justification of nationalization when the impending next crash happens. 

HelluvaEngineer's picture

It would also trigger an influx (and in-sourcing) of manufacturing.  Someone should notify Washington that some of these might be "good paying" jobs, not that job growth is a goal.



MarketTruth's picture

Uh huh, and i won't c__ in your mouth. (apologies to all for being crude)


TraderMark's picture

well based on "credit card reform" we should expect increased fees within the month.

Anonymous's picture

Better they pass it along to their customers, since that might encourage customers to find a non-TARP bank. Perhaps---this is wishful thinking---it will initiate the whittling down of the TBTF banks.

By the way, did anyone see Jamie Dimon after the hearings yesterday when a few reporters tried to ask him about bonuses? The look of contempt and arrogance was astonishing.

Cursive's picture

I would gladly welcome the banskters passing the tax onto me.  What I never wanted was to pass my tax dollars on to them.  This solves nothing and reinforces their greed.

chinaguy's picture

The quote was: “I'd urge you to cover the costs of the rescue not by sticking it to your shareholders or your customers or fellow citizens with the bill, but by rolling back bonuses for top earners and executives.” (via ABC News)

"Aww come on......please.....I'll be your friend...."  Talk about a lost teenager trying to get along in a pool hall in the bad part of town.

He can't be this stupid. Seems more like he's saying saying to the sheeple: "Look! I'm sticking it to the bankers!!" and at the same time he's saying to everyone else (the sheeple being too stupid to understand) "business as usual, enjoy the bonuses boys"

deadhead's picture

That stupid shit Obama did the same thing re: credit cards at Federal Hall speech.  I started laughing so hard I thought I was going to die.....banks rallied like a son of a bitch that afternoon.

CB's picture


"I urge the banks not to pass this on to their customers"

can someone please tell me who are the dingalings that believe that's gonna happen? oh yeah, the sheeple.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Comrade Pento, Comrade Pento... Do you know the meaning of the word Gulag?"

If he doesn't now, he will shortly, though it won't be a Gulag of the physical kind. When professionals publicly speak out against the consensus, they're usually shunned and ostracized by their peers long before the thought police come calling.

In reality, as long as Pento's followers don't grow significantly, he'll actually be encouraged to continue to speak out against the machine. It's only when a few dissidents are allowed their (carefully monitored and controlled ) free speech rights are we able to continue to believe in the illusion that we actually live in a democratically elected republic. That illusion is what keeps the peasants out of the streets and in front of the boob tube.

Don't worry comrade, "24" and "American Idol" are back in a week or two. The 2010 mass hypnosis session is about to begin. 

Commander Cody's picture

I'm all for hypnosis.  Bring it on Jack!

faustian bargain's picture

I think people are getting way too junk-happy recently; it's become pretty meaningless. I'm guilty of it too. I think I'd prefer if there were either 1) a better 'reputation' system (maybe with thumbs-up and thumbs-down, as well as a cumulative total under everyone's username) or 2) no comment ratings at all.


+1 on the cynical take.

WaterWings's picture

I agree that an up/down voting system would be nice. The topographics would be amazing! I like MarketWatch's system the most - their comment screener is the gold standard IMO. Although I could see it turning into a popularity contest instead of truly indicating fresh, insightful additions of content. It would probably make the comment section even more popular - I wonder how many readers click straight to the comments with the current system? 

About junks in general, I would say one junk is probably some signed up lurker that either has a grudge or hasn't been around long.

defender's picture

Maybe a simple limit to the number of junks allowed in a time frame, making people save them for more offending posts.  Eventually this number could be increased for the more behaved posters/junkers.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Maybe a simple limit to the number of junks allowed in a time frame, making people save them for more offending posts."

What a great idea. Then we can call in Goldman Sachs to set up a OTC market in saved unused junks which will trade on the free market and can be borrowed and shorted. Then GS can sell derivatives and short the junks they're selling out the front door while screwing us using the derivatives out the back door. Dude, that's brilliant! Where's Lord Lloyd when you need him?

Marla, I smell M O N E Y!! Here's that steady income stream you've been looking for. ZH junkers for sale over here. Get them while they're hot.

faustian bargain's picture

Oh sweet! You could sell junk allowances via paypal. Just like the market for online game currency.

Ragnarok's picture

Welcome to the Banana Republic of USA. 


Where is my tropical drink with an umbrella in it already?

What's that you say?  Pool arobics start at what time?

AN0NYM0US's picture

the BKX sure took President Obama's tough words to heart:



Anonymous's picture

they are talking about anonymous buyers of treasuries right now on cn bullshit. my my, who is doing this? let me guess...

JR's picture

WE? Mr. Pento.  Who are WE?  I prefer THEY. And we know who THEY are. Otherwise, right on!

As Mogambo Guru asked on April 25, 2009: How…can “Fed Vice-chairman Donald Kohn, one of the arrogant, lowlife mental defectives whose egregious monetary actions got us into the mess we are in” talk about purposely creating at least 2% inflation in prices and then talk about the Fed’s duty to pursue price stability at the same? As Mogambo said:

…a currency “losing half its purchasing power in a generation” means the most to those people who do not have jobs at all, and those who cannot have jobs, and therefore they have no income at all, but who still must pay all the doubled prices

And although Mr. Kohn does not use the word “sacrifice,” or the phrase “The Federal Reserve is going to make it possible for the government to steal you blind,” or admit that “The people of the United States and the world are going to be consumed in the fires of inflationary hell so that the Federal Reserve can continue to create misery and failure, while having fun playing around with their completely idiotic neo-Keynesian econometric stupidities, an absurdity that has completely captivated the dunderheads in the major universities of the dumbed-down USA, like Princeton, which has such low academic standards that Ben Bernanke, the bozo that is now the chairman of the Federal Reserve, was the head of their economics department! Hahaha!”


Hephasteus's picture

Fed doesn't give a crap about savings. All the money they loan is faked. The only thing they are interested in is not faking too much too often and rising inflation too much. That won't happen in 2010. They'll fake an entire economy.

This is how savings relates to the system.

Banking is simple. We profit by the indebting of others by taking advantage of their need for money. We do this by creating money from nothing using the savings of others to do so. -The Dark Arts: The Secrets of Banking, 14th ed.

They are going fuck up their art this year. Fuck it up hard.

"By art we conquer, by nature we are overcome." It's too bad nature is in all the arts.

faustian bargain's picture

They don't even use savings. They just utter some magic words and poof, there's some money.

Anyway - further to your pre-edited post, the economy is already 96% fake, what's another 4%? (Just my $.02 * 0.04)


Hephasteus's picture

Nope they are completely reliant on savings which makes the dependency on savings oriented eastern cultures the lynch pin to this all. They fake money. There has to be something real to counterfeit. People don't pay for counterfeit tungsten bars. They pay for counterfeit gold bars. The savings MUST be present to have the underlying fakeable assets. I can't stress how vital this is to the alchemical theft of this system. Without savings the system is an uncontrolled inflationary zimbabwe animal.

With china and japan telling us to be on our merry way. Well. You can see what is going to happen. You can keep Japan in a recession for 20 years because of the ingrained savings behavior. You got 3.5 years to work with the US. We are 1.5 years into this. I guarantee you that you will see pant seems rip when this economy bends over the 2nd time. The whole world will see and hear the pants rip.

ayanni's picture

Damn you said that well.  

Anonymous's picture

Hugo Chavez devalued the Bolivar by 50% but business had better not raise prices.

Obama says he's gonna tax banks but urges them not to pass on the higher cost to consumers.

Can somebody explain the difference, because I don't see it.

Anonymous's picture

Yes, I can.. Hugo did it more honestly by at least announcing what he was doing. Obama is passing the cost to the citizens under the table.. He has a front, the big evil bankers that all the people can be pissed at now.

Commander Cody's picture

Elizabeth Warren was making sense earlier today on CNBC.  How could that happen?  Have the parallel universes shifted?

Anonymous's picture

i totally agree with you guys on a lot of this stuff, but at the end of the day, what are you gonna do about it? newsflash - the central bank is not going to be disbanded just because, theoretically, it's causing problems. trick is to figure out what's happening, not harp on what we wish would happen.

faustian bargain's picture

BB has been a 'model of transparency'?? that's a good one.

Anonymous's picture

Do taxes really matter?

Good question, douchebabe.

Pento, do you take an inordinate amount of downers? Your inner fortitude must be immense.

Personal use of malt is inverse to economic spew.

Ban options:)

40muleteam Borax

Let them all fail's picture

Greg must be in the same building as Fortress, exact same view....

Anonymous's picture

The Subsidy That Won't Die

The big banks claim the government isn't helping them anymore. Not exactly. Check out this little-known subsidy.

Banks and financial institutions have to pay money to get money. When they pay less to borrow, it's much easier to make profits, and they tend to borrow more of it. When they have to pay more to borrow, it's more difficult to make money. This chart (from Bloomberg, via Zero Hedge) breaks down the TLGP borrowings of individual institutions as of Nov. 30 and the interest rates they're paying. General Electric was the largest user, with nearly $88 billion. (Its GE Capital unit has prodigious borrowing needs.) But GE was followed by the big bailed-out banks: Citigroup ($64.6 billion), Bank of America ($44.5 billion), JPMorgan ($39.7 billion), Morgan Stanley ($25 billion), Goldman Sachs ($21.26 billion), and Wells Fargo ($9.5 billion). With the exception of Citi, the government no longer owns shares in these firms. And so they feel the government should have no say in their practices going forward.

But if these firms are such rugged individualists, why do they persist in borrowing on the public's credit rather than their own? And why did they do it in the first place? After all, unlike with the TARP, participation in the TLGP program was entirely voluntary. Here's a list of the banks that opted out of the program: You'll note that the Wall Street biggies aren't on it. At any time, the banks could go out into the public markets and raise debt to replace the taxpayer-subsidized borrowings. But they haven't. The reason: It would make them less profitable. Take Goldman. The chart shows that Goldman was paying a blended rate of 0.767 percent annual interest on $21.3 billion in FDIC-guaranteed debt. For every 100 basis points (i.e., if that debt bore an interest rate of 1.7 percent instead of 0.7 percent), Goldman is saving $213 million in interest costs per year. In the spring of 2009, when much of this debt was issued, the spread—i.e., the difference between the interest rates charged to private-sector corporate borrowers and to the government borrowers—was significant. In April 2009, it stood at 540 basis points. I don't know what to call this other than a huge subsidy.