Rick Santelli Uncut (And GE Turbofan Commercial Free)

Tyler Durden's picture

Having rapidly become the only person worth listening to on CNBC, Rick Santelli's insights on the economy are now far more valuable than any other guest's on the Jeff Immelt propaganda station. Which is why we were very happy to find that Eric King's latest interview was with none other than Mr. Santelli. The topics discussed are numerous, varied and and very critical to our economy, covering such concepts as deflation, deficit spending, bailouts, government spending multipliers, Fed transparency, spending cuts, austerity, the folly of Keynesianism, strategic defaults, direct bidders and treasury auctions, and lastly, tea party dynamics, making this a must hear interview for anyone still on either side of the economic fence, and who enjoys listening to Rick for longer than the 45 second segments the CNBC producers will allow.

  • Deflation: "deflation is the most disingenuous argument especially in the current conditions. [When the bubble process ends prices have to come down to reality] the process really is deleveraging, but what happens when prices go down you get the economists call it deflation. Deflation is always the biggest bogeyman in a central banker's closet. It also allows them to use the only tool in their toolbox, which is to spend money, and usually money they haven't collected yet, so it's usually a deficit form of spending. Think about what economists are trying to do: we go up too high in leverage, prices are too high, we try to correct that process, it's called deflation, and they try to put money in to prop it up at an artificial price-deleveraging is the word we should stick to"
  • Deficit spending: "the only thing that works is across the board tax cuts because it fuels the type of small business that does the bulk of the hiring"
  • Bailouts: "the only regulation that will ever work is failure. If you don't allow failure what you end up with is regulators trying to serve when it's time to take punch bowls away. Regulators never go against the grain. Back in 03-04 many in the fixed income markets saw it coming but nobody wants to pull that punch bowl away. Businesses should fail, that's the way the system was designed"
  • The Multiplier of Government spending: "Larry Summers on many occasions has said that the multiplier of government spending is greater than 1. If that was true, we'd never have another recession ever again, and I would be advocating to spend a trillion dollars every hour. It would be like a perpetual motion machine and all physicists know those are impossible. Every dollar the government spends comes from somebody's pocket"
  • Fed Transparency: "It seems to me we are making some progress on the financial audit. I absolutely agree that on all of the issues that take taxpayers' money and end up being distributed or put on the balance sheet and in any way used by the Fed, there should be an audit that should be fully transparent. I am worried about the financial accounting"
  • On Spending Cuts: "Listeners, this is going to be the most important thing I am going to say: we need to maintain the focus on spending, the politicians in my lifetime always spend. If we end up spending way more than we can take in, in essence the deficit panel becomes a tax panel. We must stop spending before we talk about VAT taxes or taxing Americans more, we need to get spending under control. The retings of congress are the lowest they have been in history." 
  • On Austerity: "Nobody wants that. But there is a silver lining - the UK have conditions in their economy worse than the US, but they came up with an austerity plan, and we see that their currency has been rewarded. The GBP has risen about 10% in a very short period of time."
  • On Keynesianism: "The Keynesians are both right and wrong. I don't think Keynes advocated the kind of helicopter-Ben spending  that many say he promoted. He promoted the kind of stimulus that created jobs, that's more the medicine for a cyclical downturn, we have a structural issue because of the bubble credit scenario."
  • On the ECB's Debt Monetization: "I think that the ECB has a huge issue and they are behind the ball. They don't have a constitution in the eurozone, they have cultural and monetary cultural issues to deal with. I think that buying securities or monetizing or QE is always a bad idea. Once there is a subsidy in the marketplace, it becomes the normal pricing mechanism. For the Fed or the ECB to unload these securities, becomes a destabilizing force and in the long run does more harm than good."
  • On Strategic Defaults: "I have feelings on this that go both ways. I think morally I would have an issue doing that, but people who did the mortgage, or the second mortgage, or took a HELOC to pay for cars, pay for the vacations, I think it is reprehensible that we end up reshuffling wealth to pay some of that off. But I think the dynamic is from the government side - I think contracts between banks and homeowners - if it's unsecured, it's unsecured, I don't have an issue with that."
  • On Direct Bidders being a proxy for the Fed (a much debated topic on Zero Hedge) and Treasury Auctions in general: "That's the best question anyone has asked me in a long time. I think there is a recycling quid pro quo going on: the Fed is making banking obsolete because a lot of the programs that they have is to take the cheap end of the curve and invest it in Treasuries. Well the Treasury needs as many buyers as it can get. I think the financial institutions are recycling easy money that should be going into John Q Public's pocket, to those that deserve credit, all this money is ending up in the forms of purchases of 10, 7, and 5-Year Notes, and I don't like that way that's working. That's why I think that raising rates would be a good thing. Why? Because it would take some of the easy ways the banks recycle the Fed's cheap money and put it back in the hands of the public and actually make banking a relationship between banks and Americans that need it whether it is for funding a mortgage or funding a small business."
  • And on Tea Party dynamics: "I think November 2 is going to be a watershed of Americans letting Washington know they're the boss."

Full must hear interview can be listened to here, courtesy of King World News.

Comment viewing options

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

Makes too much sense. Must be wrong.

Popo's picture

On Keyensianism he could be even more clear:

Here's Keynesianism in a nutshell:  When times are good, government has to save.  When times are bad, government has to spend.

A work of genius, it is not.

The problem with the jackasses running the show right now is that they forgot the first part and now they're trying to implement the second.  They forgot the 'saving' part, and they're attempting the 'spending' part. That of course, is retarded -- and only produces unsustainable compound debt.

To be fair, Keynes gets a bad rap because the dim bulbs in power today claim to be Keynesians.  They are not, and never have been.  The only word for the current fiscal philosophy is one of "utter irresponsibility".   Bernanke has a big green flashing button marked "Spend", and he slaps it whenever he gets into trouble... then he yammers on about the "art" of central banking...  What a douche.

 

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Po, I have not seen you post here on zzzzhhh,

so perhaps you have missed a few points:

a. gov leaders always need a crisis so times are always BAD.

b. saving in good times has no current benefit to your voters, how do you justify that you belong in DC? The next guy will bring home the bacon.

c. so simple if you would think about who is in gov ..not angels. so simple Keynesianism in our system of gov is unworkable and leads to QE2 and 3 ....

stay in the real world please.We here at ZH value that, above all else.

economicmorphine's picture

There's nothing wrong with his post.  It's certainly preferable to posts from pompous jackasses who lecture other posters on what to post, for example.  The fact of the matter is he's right.  

anarchitect's picture

He's right, but so is the response, because it explains why politicians will never save when times are good. That makes the response even more insightful and useful than the original post.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

as hard as TD and many here on ZH try to remove bias from our views and post what

evidence there is for what is true vs manipulated data or facts or preconceptions, many will cling to long held ideas no matter how much the objective data refutes them..

the human condition..socialists ..if stalin was only a pure communist it would have worked..

as for kensyians: we will keep the faith no matter how many times it fails.

the founding fathers did not put much faith in "those who seek to govern are angels"

when you assign almost absolute power to others why expect to get anything other than what human nature predicts: there are many more sociopaths than angels in any current population of those seeking power.

mdwagner's picture

Keynes also said that too large of a trade deficit will lead to permanent recession.

wagefreedom's picture

Oh for the day when a guy so marginalized by CNBC can have more of a platform. Thanks for this.

russki standart's picture

Never happen. GE, aka CNBC, is a financial  services firm in the business of selling stock and carbon credits. Santelli is a guiding light in a sea of mediocrity,  but the first and last purpose of CNBC is to promote GE views via soft porn stars and stock hypesters.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Wait a second...wasn't NBC sold to Comcast?

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I suspect the only reason Rick remains employed by CNBC is because he brings some credibility to the network. I keep CNBC running on my desktop all day with the volume off........except when I notice Rick is speaking. Then the volume is immediately turned on and I pay attention. I suspect since my TV is tuned to CNBC for the entire business day, I'm measured as a viewer. I know of a number of other independent brokers who do the same thing.

It just kills me to think that I might just be one of many who are keeping CNBC alive and kicking. Please CNBC, fire Rick so your network can die the natural death it deserves

RockyRacoon's picture

I also have CNBC on all the time.  There are cherries to pick now and then, but Santelli always gets my attention.  For a possible scenario, just see how Dylan Ratigan's career changed for basically the same philosophy diversions.  (Not necessarily the same ideas, just the dissonance of viewpoints compared to the network as an entity.)

ZeroPower's picture

Word. Have CNBC playing on mute like most ppl, usually turn it up to hear Santelli and if perhaps Schiff, Grasso, Gartman, or one of the PimpCos are on. Strategy session's not bad either. Fast Money's half decent.

Oh anyone know what Jeff Macke is up to? Youtube Macke Attack and enjoy:)

Spitzer's picture

i thought strategy session was lame as fuck. I like Kudlow

Nikki's picture

Kudlow ?. Surely you are trying to be a provocateur Spitzer. I wish I had the YouTube link of him and (f)Art Laffer ripping on Peter Schiff's housing/banking doom scenario.... That came to be.

Kudlow is a buffoon, a clod, a clown, charlatan, hypster, con man.... Or as most ZH readers would say... Ass Clown.

RockyRacoon's picture

Kudlow is my best contra-indicator.  He has, however, lately admitted that gold is becoming an important currency.  So, he can't be all wrong -- just 90% wrong.

Mark McGoldrick's picture

I do the exact same thing. 

I have my back to the television virtually all day with low volume - except for Rick's commentary. For that brief minute, I actually pay attention to CNBC.   

He always makes sense, and I never feel like I'm being sold an agenda.  Just unfiltered, sensible, honest market commentary.  Why is that so fucking difficult?

 

hayleecomet's picture

Touche', CD.   I went from muting CNBC straight to Bloomberg on mute.  Even though I miss Santelli, I couldn't take LOOKING at that station with their octi-boxes and tight titti-sweaters.  They should all be sent to the cartoon network.

ZH should take a poll on how many people keep CNBC tuned in with the mute button.  LOL.

SPONGE's picture

+1 for the mute.

   It's just a stream  for some instant market info. without taking up a computer screen

FEDbuster's picture

That Mandy gal is easy on the eyes, she and Rick should go to FOX.

Treeplanter's picture

I do the same.  CNBC is useful for the changing numbers display and worth hearing when Rick is on.   

russki standart's picture

Quoting CD: Please CNBC, fire Rick so your network can die the natural death it deserves

 

Amen, Brother. Let us pray...

laughing_swordfish's picture

Same Here.

Here at DKM Trading Division we are Bloomberg subscribers but I have a monitor in my office tuned to CNBS with the sound muted.

Santelli (and DR) are the only ones I crank the volume for - except to laugh at Cramer when he's really contrary to all sense and logic.

He's always good for a laugh at the end of the day - and I instruct the younger men to listen carefully to what he has to say and be careful to do the opposite.

 

KrvtKpt. laughing swordfish

DKM Trading Division

 

 

Alcoholic Native American's picture

"Having rapidly become the only person worth listening to on CNBC"

lol, aint that the truth, though I do like looking at Erin Burnett on mute.

Alcoholic Native American's picture

I don't watch FOX, Haven't checked out their business channel, local cable monopoly doesn't offer it, but the regular FOX, I can't decide if they are trying to insult my intelligence or disgust me.  Same could be said for most MSM nowadays though.

Miss Expectations's picture

You've forced me to say this.  Look closely at Rick, I think he has, uhhh, quite a package.

Rick64's picture

Santelli is never one to pull punches. Speaks what he believes, a straightshooter.

Mitchman's picture

Dear Scooby,

Your owner either obviously forgot to pick up after you or he needs a bigger pooper scooper.

Rick64's picture

I am guessing that you disagree. Why I don't know but maybe you should stop watching cartoons and state your reasoning.

homersimpson's picture

Scooby lay off the doobies and stop talking out of your ass.

Rick64's picture

Who is Scooby and why are you listening to my ass?

Scooby Dooby Doo's picture

Homer wants to hear you play your horn.

King_of_simpletons's picture

November 2 ?? Then what ?? Rotation of the crooks batallion from assholes to buttholes

buzlightening's picture

LOL King?  Maybe mix it enough the powers that be do not know who to bribe in the CONgress/SINate for globilzation and eventual world rule; after 11/2!!  Still enough AmeriCON'd the beautiful to take we the peoples choice award from these rat basturds who call dead head fed goons selves; a representation of free people!!  

juangrande's picture

What if everyone voted for candidates from one of the small independent parties regardless of your opinion of them?  No Dems. no Repubs. Just the clusterfuck that would happen while special interests scrambled to "inform" the newbies and the learning time needed to become a "politician" might buy some extra time for folks to wake up! I mean it couldn't be any worse than it is now, right?

Treeplanter's picture

Lindsay Graham wants the Tea Party to die off.  Yeah, anyone with independence drives them crazy. Imagine a huge audit of investment banks, the Fed, Treasury...   And prosecutions to follow.  It may take a national bankruptcy to get there.  

russki standart's picture

What Lindsay Graham really wants is to get his hands on the WH pages..

traderjoe's picture

Agree - the one thing he's got wrong is that the Tea Party will have any impact in the current environment. The Corporations will never let anyone but either of the two/same parties get elected. And the sheeple don't really want to upset the Apple cart too much. Not yet anyway. 

Temporalist's picture

I don't believe it's about electing someone from a different party but rather choosing someone from any party that they have the power to influence electing.

New_Meat's picture

traderjoe:

"The Corporations will never let anyone but either of the two/same parties get elected. And the sheeple don't really want to upset the Apple cart too much. Not yet anyway."

Bob McDonnell (VA), Chris Cristie (NJ), Scott Brown (MA), Bob Bennett (UT).  We know it is a small sample size, but do you see any correlation in here?

- Ned

Bananamerican's picture

Aye lad! There all Scottsmen!

(is that it??)

New_Meat's picture

Tromso, Norway, Feb. '83 SAS Royal Hotel (after a couple of weeks in the snow):

Charles (a Captain in 45 Commando): "Lass, I'd like some whiskey".

Waitress: "Yes Sir, American or Canadian?"

Charles: "No, Lass, you'd say Scotch."

Waitress: "Yes Sir, would you like that with water or soda?"

Charles: "No, lass."

Waitress: "Would you like that on the rocks?"

Charles: "Lassie, that's still fooking water."

thanks-lmao.

- Ned

 

knukles's picture

It's the Bond Guys Always Make Sense, when they're not the market or talking book.