This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ratigan, Spitzer And Toure Clarify The Fed's Obsession With Secrecy
MSNBC's explanatory take on how the Federal Reserve "bailed" the system out and why the Fed is so keen on perpetuating its secrecy.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
»
- 5432 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
ratigan is so bad that he went to msnbc, which is the only network that is more innacurate than cnbc.
This piece is masterful. The only way the Banksters can keep stealing is by making it seem complicated. It isn't complicated; it's simple. This piece shows how simple it is. Also, Spitzer is just all right with me. I don't give a damn about his sex life.
I am with you Anony!
Starting last fall, I use to email him my scathing letters about the Lehman AIG Tarp rip off, and i continued with detail, to about all the continuous lies that were passing off as true in all the papers, and on TV--it was like the whole world was asleep and couldn't see what was happening. Fortunately, he practically started preaching all the same stuff i was writing about, thank GOD, but, he took hell over it by all of the shills he worked with.
I can't bring myself to turn on MSNBC because of keith oberman, although, i want to watch Dylan again--maybe next week
And Dylan if you are reading--KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT AND GOD BLESS YOU! YOU TOO ELLIOTT!
Talking about God, I figure if He'd intented for there to be a Fed He would have made trees out of gold.
And, by the way, a day or two afterBear went down, and MS gets the Fed window, i emailed Larry Kudlow 30 minutes before his show, aboutwhat an outrage that they didnt give all the IB's the fed window way back in June 2007 with the first bear hf blow up, and that the JP/Bear deal BS looked truly more like a crime scene.
20 minutes later, he blogged about glass-stegall and the fed window, and when his show came on, he looked like he was going to have a stroke singing the glass-stegall song, but none of his guests could even catch up with him, or fathom what he was saying.
I am saying this because even though some of the people at CNBC are hardcore liars, Larry isn't, i just think he is caught up in not realizing the effect of the organization he is working for. And that said, the more that they try to correct their misdeeds, it is a good thing since they do have a big viewing audience, and their words have a power--so emailing them constructive criticism does seem to work occassionally.
Is this a collection of our greatest financial minds: Ratigan, Spitzer, and Toure?
Next thing you know, they'll be trying to morph Buffett into some cartoon character for the kiddies to watch on Saturday.
Wow, what a scary thought!
Whatever, let's stick to the facts.
Wake up and realize that good reporting about finance isn't about being a great "financial mind". It's about good communication and convenance of intricate concepts broken down in ways that still retain accuracy while shedding unnecessary complexities of the story.
People here slamming MSNBC or Ratigan for whatever sound a lot like the kind of people who are unable to separate political affiliation with the issues. Please grow up or stop posting.
Agreed.
That was my post above (I forgot to login), so any rock-throwing folks here are welcome to respond to me instead.
It blows my mind how many people are so hell-bent on tearing others down because of the most unrealted things. Sure, Woody Allen has some sketchy preferences on the women he likes but tell me how does that affect the quality of films he's shot in the past or that he'll shoot in the future? Sure, Spitzer paid for a prostitute, but tell me how that affects Ratigan's piece?
Likewise, people here digging on MSNBC or Ratigan while making no comment what I think is a brilliant piece are as much as the problem (and ignorance) than a benefit. I can show this piece to family and friends who don't know squat about finance and they can really get their arms around the problem--and the best people here can do is shit on MSNBC or Ratigan? I get totally frustrated and turned off when I see this level of one-liner idiocy dominate a discussion board--please go somewhere else and don't turn zh into digg or slashdot if you're one of these posters.
As zh evolves a peer-rated system, I urge TD and MS to select a system that penalizes one-liner posters who don't contribute to the discourse (i.e. an account-based moderation system, rather than a message-based moderation system--or at least a weighted combination of them).
There's a time a place for one-liner fun, don't get me wrong, but let's be constructive here folks. Let's save the fun for wallstreetpro videos and the like.
A financial roundtable consisting of Ratigan, Spitzer, and Toure is not exactly providing the education you seek for your family. Financial topics are complicated by nature (sometimes I think on purpose) and by presenting them in a ham-bone format does not bring clarity to anyone. I'm sure your family and friends would be greatly served by MORE intellectual discussions rather than the contrary. The world we live in has been designed with complexity and understanding certain aspects REQUIRES thinking. If you think your interests are being served by TV, then by all means keep watching, keep listening, and recommend it to whomever you choose.
If you wish to censor me, that's OK too, but your motive to do so may speak volumes to your incapacity of handling discourse.
True, the world we live in *is* complex, but there's an entire populace of young adults, grandparents, school teachers, and so on that have zero knowledge in banking or finance that would be lost after 30 seconds of a more complex recap of the last year. I think an issue is that, like everyone else here, you're far above the level Ratigan's piece is targeting. So instead of condemning him, MSNBC, or the piece, just recognize and appreciate it for what it is.
Try to show a piece any more complicated to a school teacher or a grandmother and see how well that goes. Hell, most of them struggle to keep up with the most basic finantial concepts--it's so alien to them. Just because Sesame Street is too basic for adults we should replace it with PHDs and chalkboards? Let's show some common sense here.
And as for censoring you, please drop the straw man. Look at your original post (along with many others here) and honeslty tell me you were adding value to the discouse.
Agreed. the workings of the Federal Reserve system are complicated - by design. They don't want the public to understand exactly how it works. Even financial "experts" don't understand money and banking that well.
Here, here. I agree completely. This was an excellent piece of journalism. The fact that it was so simple is what made it excellent. Effective journalism speaks to its audience. People outside of finance need things explained in simple, easy to understand terms. That doesn't mean they are stupid.
We live in a democracy. That means we will either live or die by public discourse or the lack thereof. Educating society is granted constitutionally to the press. It's about time some of them do it.
Its complicated is an unacceptable answer now and forever. The fundamentals of finance are as simple as relating the options an individual has if they've run up debts. If a financial instrument is too complicated to fit in an example people can relate to their own lives, then in all likelihood it is a product designed specifically to make a balance sheet look prettier than it should.
The collective we need more intellectual discussions yes, but more importantly we need stripped-down examples that people can relate to their own lives. You can have someone with a degree in thermodynamics explain what makes a fire burn in conjunction with a puppet show about the dangers of playing with fire that would both serve the public well. Too much debt = boom is an elemental truth and it is very very simple to convey.
In some senses, money and finance has evolved into levels of complexity, probably on purpose. The best alternative for people who don't want or cannot understand it is to simplify their lives. Reliance on some other entity to manage their lives via finance is not the answer. For example, if you don't like the way Wall Street works, don't send your money to them. Are there oppurtunity costs to this decision? Of course, but that's the price paid for not educating themselves. But the worst outcome is blind faith that the system will take care of you and the realization, AFTER THE FACT, that it won't. If we thought in those terms, maybe everyone would be better served.
The problem is that you've outlined a catch-22 for these people: how are they supposed to educate themselves about the financial system (or even know to know that should invest the time to edcuate themselves) if they don't have the appropriate tools or journalism to bring them to the next level?
I think the fault in your argument is that you assume all people have grown up with equal levels of education and have been exposed to the facts equally.
Consider the problem of obesity. Although it's the case there are obsese people who were once healthy, many obese people grew up in poor situations and have never been educated on the basics of nutrition, essential eating habits, and excersise. When NYC passed that law that food joints has to post nutritional info about their menus at the counter, it was the first time a lot of undereducated people out there ever even realized they were making poor decisions about their diet.
So, my point is that educationally speaking, everyone has not been created equally. By that token, it is unreasonable that all people should be able to bootstrap themselves to a baseline knowledge level of finance. For example, the fact that credit cards will soon have to have the "Nutrition Facts" equalvalent on credit card statements and bills is a wonderful step forward in terms of protecting the public.
I'm not arguing anything. It's up to you either to accept what I'm referencing or discard it as rubbish. If what I've described resembles a catch-22 to you, then your next thought might be why you came to that conclusion. Would anyone or anything have a perverse incentive to setup the system that way? I'm a small fish in this pond and only in control of myself. How I chose to interface with the system is unique to me.
BTW, the system cannot protect the public from themselves. It's impossible.
> How I chose to interface with the system is unique to me.
Never said otherwise.
> BTW, the system cannot protect the public from themselves. It's impossible.
A fair point for sure, but if we ask ourselves how can we make things better, answers present themselves. For example, having a public-owned news media rather than a corporate-owned one. Or, how about unscrewing the US lobbying system so that corporations are aren't steering the ship.
Point being, things aren't black and white and there's some simple mechanisms, that if fixed/unscrewed, would allow us to unscrew the state of our government and financial system by arming the masses with more knowledge and education.
I believe that Financial topics ARE NOT complicated, and that Banksters and their lackey pseudo-economists just make them SOUND complicated, in order to trick The People of These United States out of everything they work for.
As zh evolves a peer-rated system, I urge TD and MS to select a system that penalizes one-liner posters who don't contribute to the discourse
zh is using a Drupal CMS with various plugins, so chances are pretty slim they will pay someone to code-up a moderation plugin that marries moderation to the user's account. Even then, hooking into comments would be complicated and then the final effect may not be what you are looking for.
May I suggest dropping the plugin they are using that flags the message and use the plus1 plugin instead?
Also, I'd be interested to hear some of the techincal goings-on. How is Drupal handling the load? Is their colo using a shared db? VirtualMachine? You can present that stuff without divulging metrics. But I don't see a problem with divulging metrics either. I'm crazy that way.
I'm sort of curious who decides who actually contributes to the discourse? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? You?
We'll, you've managed to rule out yourself. *ducks*
Seriously though, I think we can both agree it should be a level far above what we see on digg and the like. Do we agree there?
I agree to no such thing. I absolutely abhor anything remotely smelling of elitism. And that is exactly what repression of speech is. As far as I'm concerned, anything other than spam should be allowed to be posted. Obviously if someone makes terribly offensive remarks about your mother, I would say that is crossing the line. Other than that, who the fuck are you? It's assholes with this perspective that have trashed our society and marginalized a huge swath of society. Let's ship your ass to China and you can work for the communists and determine who is allowed to add what to any particular topic. It's a good thing you aren't here or I'd bitch slap you like the little bitch you are.
Go read the comments on digg and tell me I'm wrong. Kids and dumb posts are pesticide to a good discussion. While we're at it, how about we let anyone that wants to write in Harvard Law review or Scientific Amercian because to say otherwise is to trample on the first amendment.
P.S. The second half of your paragraph sounds like 16 year old niece wrote it. Also, someday you'll have to explain to me how effective moderation is communism.
You can take your elitist Harvard Law and shove it. Right before I bitch slap you. I would love to see the emotional development of children in your household. So, kids aren't allowed to be inquisitive or ask anything unless it meets Hitler's level of worthiness? And, then as adults we are not allowed to remark or comment unless it meets the level of the Ministry of Truth?
Your analogy is a back track that makes no fucking sense. Those are professional journals. This is a forum for public comment and debate. You don't seem to understand the ideals this country was founded on. And, thank God I am protected from mouth-breathers like you.
The 1950s called and they need you back at the McCarthy hearings.
Yeah, change the topic. Because you don't have anything to stand on. It's ironic that your remarks play right into McCarthyism. That is, choosing to disallow anyone who doesn't rise to your level of what it take to be a "good" American. I'm bored with this. At least give me something intelligent to debate.
Or why don't you try actually contributing something? I have found that trying to put together my thoughts and experiences to write a comment on economics never feels boring. It feels stimulating. It feels challenging.
"I'm sort of curious who decides who actually contributes to the discourse? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? You?"
Well said EQ!
I am always suspicious of those elitist types, regardless of their views. It was the articulate intellectuals, aka PHD types from Yale and Harvard etc, who were pushing their bullshit globalizationist crap down our throats for over 30 years that got us into this mess. Had middle America not been sidelined and pushed out of public debate, we would have never been in this mess in the 1st place.
My comment is about the technical (ex. slashcode vs. drupal) problems of moderating.
I don't know how you jumped from that to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It's totally inappropriate.
Your criticism is well taken; however, there must be a distinction made between those who are light heartedly participating, and joking, and those whose only jokes are ad homenem attacks based on politics. I personally often enjoy a clever one line reply, and I think just about everyone does, so lets not confuse the issue. Keeping ones sanity amongst the chaos of mass deception and ignorance is a good start. I won't disagree that at times distracting comments can be annoying, but I also won't lie and pretend I fully understand everything that is discussed here. I read enough about it, eventualy I learn.
I enjoy coming here to learn by reading the articles, to discuss, sometimes seriously, sometimes vociferously so. Still other times, I joke, even in one line. (As you can tell, I'm certainly not here to show off my excellent spelling ability.)
I don't think it's possible, or even warranted, to imply that there is a particular way anyone should act on here, but there is a difference between coming to enjoy yourself and someone who comes here with matters of pressing importance to discuss... on a public board in front of everyone, (some of whom are just here to make jokes.) The latter invites me to question your choice of forum for such activities.
Zero Intelligence? Now that's some serious business!
Good points. Quality one-liners are worth sharing, so the issue is better described as pointless posts that most readers would agree as being better left unposted. Consider, for example, the first posts in this story.
The bizarre irony is that most of the authors of these posts are capable, intelligent, and hungry individuals (or else they wouldn't be on zh in the first place).
andy 55 ... judging by your previous comments you must be a Harvard graduate ... and because of that i can engage you in this topic and say to you, that i " ate for breakfast " your types in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE, PLANING OR EXECUTION I HAVE EVER LEAD WITH THEM ... every single one ... and not just scratching the surface of the topic with things that are generally known, but with deep detailed knowledge of the topic we were debating on ... and you now what ... i don't have a Harvard degree, nor do i wish to ever obtain one, and you know why ... because types like you think that they are better than everyone else because they graduated from Harvard ( thank your mom and dad ), and think that this fact certifies them to look down on the rest of the people ... but you're nothing more than a pussiffied group of self-entitled individuals who for the past 50 yrs have contributed nothing to this society, and have create nothing, except the financial system that is crumbling down under the weight of its own illogical assumptions and flawed belief of how economy should be lead .. furthermore, every single one Harvard graduate never had nothing to contribute to the conversation or development of ideas or executions except for repeating what they memorized ( not learned, or god forbid understood . they were like self-entitled sheep who thought they were better than any one else just because in their barn there was always warm ... and you know what i'm proud most in my life ... it's not the money, or other material possessions; it's saying to those Harvard types; WE DON'T THINK THAT YOU WOULD FIT INTO THIS COMPANY AND ITS CULTURE; and then escorting them out of the building with a nice fuck you written on my face with a biggest possible smile ... so fuck you, and what you believe you are entitled or for what you stand for, because you stand for nothing ....
Hi Anony,
Even though there may be a big population of Harvard graduates that meet your characterization, please don't stereotype this way because it dilutes the power you have in your understanding of the people that do behave badly. i promise you, i know plenty of Harvard graduates, and other Ivy leaguers that are nothing like your characterization. Additionally, there are plenty of people across all walks of life that act entitled, superior, and conceited.
Thank you for your consideration.
You are right on Andy..People cannot paint with too broad a brush when attacking media because there are some good people in media. For example, Dylan here was hosting a bullshit show where some guys just picked stocks. His contract ran out and he was fed up being a shill for the industry so he changed. I heard David Faber among others also wanted to leave the network. David is smart but he is also sitting on a pile of worthless options as a bonus and he is not making a relatively large sum of money. Meanwhile he has to protect some idiots making billions.Do you think he liked his job? I too love this site and its direction but TD has to better carve out where to attack. Gasparino is in fact a shill.He is lazy and he is not that smart. His connections just abuse him for their own selfish needs. Tits Cabrerra is just a mindles bitch that wants to suck on billion dollar cocks. Sue Herrera on the other hand is just a nice lady rying to raise her family..Griffith is in the same mold.Both report in a mild non invasive manner. But Larry Kudlow is also a shill, so is Cramer who ran the worst fund for over a decade. Kudlow is a lazy economist who was always hired by friends--he was always considered lazy and a blowhard within the industry--so no one listens to him aside from a right wing electrician or an illiterate restaurant owner. IMO the media industry has just begun its change--what it looks like in ten years no one knows. I applaud TD's efforts--its just that some people on this blog have to understand that there are in fact good smart people in the media so we should actually applaud these people while trying sniff out the mindless shills.
Sorry Tyler, MSnarkyBC is dead to me. And spitzer that poor boy, well he will rehab like Nixon. What a mess!
Notice how they took Dylan off of primetime! If he were to do that on CNBC primetime he would be murdered...(by the banks)
Buffet is senile. he is this milleniums version of Mr Magoo. "Where did I put those 45,000,000,000 shares of BNI? Did I buy them? I don't know. Where are my glasses. Am I playing my ukelele or is this Maria?"
peel the onion...pull the string...come'on. keep it up.
Alot of people are getting diluted about "who" as opposed to the content of the message....that is the very same BS that they try to sling at zero hedge...grow the fuck up and see what they are saying not who is saying it...
If I walk by an idiot who has the answer to world peace, how do I react?
Comforted by his knowledge or dismissive because of his idiocy?
How do I rationalize the two?
Dylan used to work in a parking garage, but now I'm supposed to listen to him rant about financial topics? Is he qualified to educate me on the ways of the financial world? Just because he is on TV doesn't mean he holds authority over what he is talking about.
BTW, this thought could apply to any channel on TV.
You used to wear diapers and drink from a baby bottle. So what?
I am sure you don't need to be educated by Dylan any more than I do, but John Q does.
And let's welcome aboard any others who are putting out the word, even if they disgust me as people (say, Bill O'Reilly.) It's the message that counts, not the messenger.
I've said from day one that if the LIBERAL media doesn't go after this, we're screwed. Too many bankster wannabe's, sycophants and financially bought-in money-grubbing freaks in the other camp to fuel any decent fire. Smoke maybe, but no fire. Sorry, but you know it's true.
And, I don't mean to inspire talk about how they're ALL bought off or that libertarians (who have no MSM) are the answer.
The viewers of each camp's messages are VERY different people as a whole (MUCH love for my "conservative" brethren here at ZH, BTW.)
The liberals are important only because they run most of the media. The republicans have ALL signed up for Ron Paul's audit the fed bill, so who isn't signing up for it by process of elimination?
Are you talking about the Senate?
In any case, the liberal constituency would be afire if they got hip to this (rather than distracted by energy, supreme court nominees, health care, etc.) because this is gonna be the issue that breaks the economy's back. Republican people will be wasting their time trying to blame liberals. But there has never been a situation that was more antithetical to liberal values than this one.
BTW, don't think that democrats and liberals are one and the same. Not true, not by a long shot.
I think one of the reasons why Congress' most libertarian (Paul) and most socialist (Sanders) members are on board with this is because everything the Fed stands for is antithetical to both their beliefs.
The Fed is in the camp of Corporatism. Certainly libertarians don't like this, but neither do socialists.
It is funny that a lot of the so called Republican commentators criticise Obama for being a socialist. He is nothing of the sort, he is a Fascist/Corporatist.
(Actually, I am not sure if Obama is anything but a puppet, and Geithner and Summers are corporatists who are pulling his strings, but that is another discussion...)
Since we're discussing ism's, I think it's healthy to point out that our only choices are not actually between corporatism/fascism on one end, and socialism on the other. There are other options. We have bicameral legislators, bipartisan representation, two choices for president, etc, but in real life, there are more than two options.
I replied to you ghostface, but I'm going on this rant just because something you said reminds me of things I think about a lot, so this isn't directed at you :D I'm talking at the people who are about to hit the reply button as soon as they read my next sentence, and fail to read the rest of them first.
I'm a capitalist, damnit, till you pry my calculator and computer from my very likely bloodied and damaged corpse. I'm certainly not hiding behind the term 'conservative' so as not to be thrown in the bus with those bastard Corporatists by the straw man makers. Capitalists are not corporatists, and no, I don't mean 'capitalists like George Bush' so if thats what you were thinking I meant, or were going to use Dick Cheney as a way to pester me, stop right there.
I'm not rich, but I'd like to be, and I think I might be able to work that out. And if I do, I promise you now, I do not promise to give it all away. (I will donate as I choose, but only to those causes I see fit because they would coincide with my principles.) I sure as hell don't want to act as though I sanction the right of the 'majority' to decide what rights the rest of us have to give up so that 'most people' won't have to give up anything.
Rights are not given and taken away by states. They aren't granted in exchange for a pledge to sacrifice your life to any particular cause. Rights are rights. They can not be granted, not even by super majority vote, nor can they be taken away as such. They can only be violated in such ways.
Oh shit, I think I have a case of ideology again. I really oughtta get that looked at. It's terribly inconvenient.
All good aldoust, please continue! ( and what's wrong with being afflicted with idealism!)
Nothings wrong with it, I'm being sarcastic! (I mean about saying that I should try not to be so.., the rant is not sarcastic at all.)
Looks like a few more people have stopped taking their blue pill meds. Time for some nice soothing thorazine, aka NBER's declaration that the recession is OVAR. Expect it any day as the green shoots blossom and ripen.
Someone at The Economist just ripped off their elbow patches, ready for a fight.
I think Spitzer should be a verb
As in, to be 'Spitzered'. ie. Mark Sanford got Spitzerd
GS is about to get Spitzered. Just wait.
, i keep hoping he will get private funding to continue his Elliot Ness work.
People can ran all they want about Dylan and his past jobs. Fact is, a powerful video was just put up and sufficiently summarized much of what transpired in enough of a simplified manner than the avg joe Q citizen can understand. People need to get upset to get this cleaned up. This would help so for the petty dispute about Ratigan, stuff them out you wazoo!
Agreed. I have no problem if Bernie Sanders is co-sponsoring S 604, as long as it gets done.
There aren't enough libertarians around to carry the flag on this one.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Exactly. I'd expect sophisticated players to appreciate and embrace that.
Dylan took every chance to throw out the truth in small bites that people could understand when he was on CNBC--it was like he was a prisoner calling for help though, because most of his on tv associates looked at him and scoffed in disapproval to do their shill work. He has integrity, since he tried very hard to tell the truth where telling the truth gets you in big trouble.
There is no link or URL?
yeah, doesn't seem to be working, i went over to the old site to get it.
Ratigan:
"I feel as if America has suffered the greatest theft and coverup ever."
Yup, and been going on since 1913.
Ding.
I wonder (since I can't view the video until later) if someone has been feeding info to Ratigan, slowly opening his eyes to things he never saw while he was holed up at CNBC. It's like he's on a mission to discover the truth, but isn't being fed everything at once. I fear if he comes too close, Immelt will be instructed to dump him.
Spitzer needs to go a bit further than calling it a "Ponzi Scheme" (which couldn't be farther from the truth). If anyone has the motivation and dedication to expose them, it's Elliot. But it's too bad that he was so corrupt himself that he won't stand a shot at winning this battle.
The video is actually pretty good, in that it simplifies the issue in a way a person not familiar with the inner workings of the banking system would understand.
The analogy they use is being able to donate to Goodwill and putting your own value on the junk you donated being the equivalent to the banks giving assets to the Fed in return for cash - not a perfect comp, but it gets the point across.
In effect, the whole fractional reserve banking system is a ponzi scheme. The pieces of paper are actually worth nothing in and of themselves. Dollars must be continually passed on for things of value because over time their value goes down. Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. The dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to 1913.
Has everyone forgotten that Spitzer was doing the job that ZH is doing now? He was Wall Street's pitbull and they were scared of him, that's why they took him down. They catered to his ego, his feeling on invincibility and that was his undoing. Sure, he looks like that yellow-skinned dude from Sin City, and I don't trust him more than any other being that wants power, but at least he was doing something to equalize the scales.
Tyler, don't fall into the same trap that these fuckers will set for you either. Maintain your anonymity, never accept interviews so that they can track you down, and never let them goad you into fucking up. You're the only one right that that is doing this work, and you have momentum, so please keep on doing it. Keep up the amazing work!
Spitzer took down Hank, who was a key cog of the Shadows. That ended his career, to put it mildly.
Creature from Jekyll Island - G Edward Griffin
Case against the Fed - Murray Rothbard
weekend reading boys
Agreed. Two books that should be required reading in high school.
Admittedly, some of their conspiracy theories are a bit over the top, but they give different perspectives that are thought provoking, and which you won't see from the idiots in the MSM.
At worst, those 'theories' will lead many to research the documented facts behind the story. Wherever they want to go with them, it's better than being clueless or even blindly faithful.
True, I know I had a browser available when I read the books, to do my own research on the subjects I was curious about.
Good books both, they help tie a lot of things together (like Obama's signing statement on giving money to the IMF - why does he care enough about that issue to try to overrule Congress???????).
I didn't read the book, but I read the story ala the web, Col. House and the whole bit.
Then the next six months of my life was spent in dark and creepy places. The Rothschild's, Rockefellers, CFR, Freemasons, Bildebergers, Illuminati, Jesuits, on and on, and on. When I reached Planet X and reptile people, I finally said fuck this shit.
Some parts are probably true, or quasi-true, but once truth comingles with fiction and faulty analysis, the stories lose all cedibility.
And even though I don't believe Adam Weishaupt & Mayer Rothschild are still ruling the world from their graves, I still say - Audit the Fed then End the Fed.
Who the fuck is Dylan's audience - elementary schools? Are Americans really so dumb, this is how it has to be explained to them? And the sad part is, many of them still won't get it, or even want to know.
Breaking things down into terms that less educated people can understand is a challenging art, as I came to appreciate tutoring undergrad econ students. Ask any teacher. He's laying the groundwork for more . . .
"Are Americans really so dumb"
Is that a rhetorical question?
If the average person cannot understand what is going on right now, how will they believe it necessary to support the changes that are required to make our financial system stronger..
It is a great explanation for the average person whether plumber or doctor.. these people do not understand the markets or finance as we do.
Spitzer should be in charge of the FED.
I saw what he was spending his money on and I must say it was money well spent on thet hooker.
He has my vote for FED chairman. :)
Isn't it ironic and telling that somebody can be "ruined" by a marital indiscretion, yet Super Criminals still get the red carpet?
Too bad that it happened. He, like a lot of people, would be a better FED chairman. Of course, since it's owned by the banks, nothing like that much "reform" is ever gonna happen at the FED.
The whole damn thing is gonna have to be burned to the ground.
Spitz is playing the comeback trail the right way, writing a blog, guest commentator etc
I'd bet he gets another shot in politics
"Quasi - autonomous"? The Fed is private - a private corporation. Either Spitzer doesn't know any better or he is too afraid to say it.
If Wall Street did to you what they did to him, wouldn't you be nervous?
I'd go with the motto that I've got nothing left to lose. That is the most dangerous enemy of all.
Ok Fed question for the day. The tv told me yesterday, via a discussion about MS's earnings relative to GS on the CBNC, that the Fed has been encouraging bank holding companies to engage in the risk trade.
Its certainly not an original supposition that this equity rally is mainly a case of excess liquidity finding a home. Despite urgings to increase lending, the Fed pays interest on deposits expressly to keep that money from being lent out. Yet the Fed is pumping these companies full of free cash.
The banks massive profits from "trading" the past 6 months lends strong support to the Fed-dollars-in-the-market thesis. If the Fed is actually encouraging the banks to go this route that would be the most shameful repudiation of their mandate imaginable. Is the Fed telling banks to put on the "risk" trade? Is it too much to hope anything official exists in writing even alluding to this?
ps...-273 on y'alls merchandise, clever
Seems to me the Fed wouldn't have to tell the banks anything on that one--not because it's as simple and unnecessary to explain as breathing, but because the FED and the major banks are one and the same.
Please take a moment to tell this administration what you think about the Fed & Goldman fraud, and demand an investigation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
OK, if you don't like the messenger although the story is correct, perhaps you have heard of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson - most Americans would think highly of these two shapers of our republic. Let's listen to what they had to say about the FED:
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe...corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." --Abraham Lincoln
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --Thomas Jefferson
What you got?
There are a couple guys who understood the heart and soul of Big Capitalism.
I hope they don't get dissed as "socialists."
Here's what I got (in support of your arguments):
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, the man who allowed the Fed to be created.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=xgwAAAAAYAAJ&dq=the+new+freedom+w...
Looks like that quote comes from the second paragraph here.
Wow, sounds like they gave him spanish fly and the hottest hooker known to man to keep him outta the Jeckel Island meeting.
It's nice to know that he knew what he had done before he kicked it.
Thank you for those quotes. Any suggestions for books/sources to read up on the history of this debate?
Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist Moment"
Bill Greider's "Secrets of the Temple"
Kevin Phillips' "Bad Money"
Those three will give you a pretty good history of banking, money, and Wall Street for the last 125 years.
DYLAN You effing ROCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!! We always knew you were way too good to be part of the paid shill impersanator journalist gaggle at CNBC.
Man.. it is so nice to see you finally take off those CNBC shackles and actually get to tell the American people what is really going on! Thank you, and keep up the awesome work and passion.
I cannot believe people are piling on Ratigan. Yes, he is loud and obnoxious sometimes. Yes, he keeps interrupting his guests more often than he should. But there is not another MSM personality who has tried to consistently shine light on the multiple fraudulent schemes that have been perpetrated on this nation over the last couple of years.
You may have problems with his personality, but this is not about him. It is about the issues that he is raising and I cannot find anyone else in the MSM using the platform that he or she has doing the same.
makes you wonder why he was really let go at cnbc
If the average person cannot understand what is going on right now, how will they believe it necessary to support the changes that are required to make our financial system stronger..
It is a great explanation for the average person whether plumber or doctor.. these people do not understand the markets or finance as we do.
Dylan -- Thank you for all you do to get the real story to average people. You have always been so good at taking the complex and putting into layman's terms...now more than ever, your honesty and skills are SO needed.
The fact that you walked away from CNBC so that you could simply have a clean conscience and TELL THE TRUTH is all I need to know.
Keep on rockin in the free world Buddy!
Agreed, he should do guest posts here (though GE would never allow it, of course, maybe under an nom de guerre like Plublius 2).
Folks, The FED is a PRIVATELY HELD INSTITUTION!!!
it really comes down to this:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
--Thomas Jefferson
I live the ant crawling across the camera lens @ 5:06.
sorry, love not live
Dylan - next time give Spitzer one of Wallstreetpro's baseball bats. Looks like he needed a prop.
Pete
Yeah, that really wasn't fair, was it? Coulda given him a whistle if they had just rehearsed the damn piece.
I just watched this again-- i swear Ratigan has been saying all this since last fall, OK , that does it, i am going to watch his show, even if keith oberman is on the same channel!
He mentioned another part of this scandal that is very deep. When the rules about leverage allowed the IB's to take up to 40x leverage, everyone got paid on the bigger junk balance sheet. I use to use John Mack as an example. Prior to this change, Phil Purcell was CEO of MS, then about Spring of 05, he was ousted for John Mack-- if you go back and check compensation as a percent of balance sheet for Purcell in Dec 04, then take a look at Mack's compensation, you can see the clear and direct correlation between Purcell's payment with less leverage, and Mack's payout with more leverage.
Incidentally, last fall, Mack let out a press release last fall to assure the public that he wouldn't take a bonus and that he hadn't "EVEN" taken one in 2007....what a saint.
This is a brilliant piece. It's too bad you can't get objective reporting like this on CNBC. CNBC is the carnival barkers of our time saying step right up.
This was Joe Sixpack education 101 and was great--Ratigan can come over to my place anytime for bbq and beerzzzz. reg-,nat-po-pe,lus--the people rule.
Its time to take this country back.
I'm sorry but I kind of hate Ratigan's show. I feel bad because I'm on his side, but he's not very good at getting his message across, in my opinion. Spitzer is far more articulate and can explain complicated subjects in a way that even a fifth grader would be outraged. I say can Ratigan, and give Spitzer a show of his own.