You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Santelli And Liesman In The Octagon: Preview Of CNBCOMCAST Pay-Per-View
Another masterpiece in the blistering Santelli-Liesman clash. The Rickster continues questioning the economic comprehension of Comcast's brand new chief economics reporter. That, and of course highlighting the propaganda reporting of said economist who enjoys highlighting good news, and "sweeping any bad news under the rug." When asked "do the bulls want to cry when the numbers don't go their way" Liesman responds appropriately, and hilarity ensues as usual. Some pearls of wisdom from Steve: "Rick, what you need to do is understand Emergency Claims Benefits" to which the retort is: "You don't say anything I find interesting to hear."
Fast forward to 4 minutes into the clip.
»
- 8340 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
They killed Rick's Mike at the end, during the live output.
As suggested on Empire State Manufacturing thread , maybe Rick or Steve could
post a follow up on here. With out Mike's being faded or words edited....
This is why I don't watch CNBC.
Santelli hit on a very important topic that I'm pissed hasn't had a lot more coverage (if you read this Liesman let's here it): Friday's retail sales number and the new sample. I mean WTF, the gov. changes the way it counts and the "media" never questions it?
If Santelli gets in another blast with Liesman (which he will and he reads this, I'm sure) he should press that and ask him about the CBOE closing the RLX on 12/3 and why the World Leader in business never mentioned it.
"why the World Leader in business never mentioned it"
Which is why the distrust grows. . . or in my case contempt.
"Experts" all agree that changes to Government metrics are all sensible, always, and anyone who dares question them (think Williams) is a crank. Pravda says so - therefore it is so.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/25/BU6K10JTEF.D...
LOL
Whenever I hear the terms "experts" and "consensus" I think of cattle and cliffs. People who consider themselves experts rarely will take positions that will threaten their expert status.
I talk about how difficult it is to get people to do "A" when they are paid to do "B". Being "paid" is more than a monetary phenomenon. It's also a status and power thing. Thus the more the experts tell me I'm wrong, the more likely I am to distrust them. Flexible thinking should be rewarded when in fact rigid conformist thinking is what is compensated.
+1 When you canonize science you get religion.
+1 for lay clergy...
Next time Liesman mentions paying back TARP money, someone needs to remind him of all the FDIC backed bonds all these banks have sold, at rates way lower than they would have borrowed at without the backing of the US Govt.
Can someone post a link later of the Ron Paul segments? I need something to look forward to after finals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zZeIfx2g6M
there are 3 parts
as a reminder - Steve Liesman is not an economist - he has a BA in English from a state college in Buffalo
And a damn fine propagandist as well!
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/12/propaganda-western-styl...
He also has a masters in journalism from Columbia....
Those are the qualifications for economists these days. I guess no one told you. Allow me to break it down: Literacy + Public Speaking = Economist.
I'm glad you brought up his "masters" from Columbia (a grueling two semester program) that features a killer curriculum:
To graduate, M.S. students must complete all required courses and pass Reporting & Writing I, Master’s Project, Advanced Reporting & Writing Seminar and Media Workshop.
Full-time students complete their requirements as follows:
Fall SemesterReporting & Writing I
1st Elective (RWII)
1st half of the Master's Project
Journalism Essentials
Skills
Spring Semester
Advanced Reporting & Writing Seminar
Media Workshop
2nd Elective
2nd half of the Master's Project
http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270052468/pa...
So that I understand, is there no such thing as Master thesis?
I'm currently writing my MS thesis and had to write also one for my BS studies..
Haha what kind of masters is that with no thesis. I suppose the final project consists of a a BJ and a handshake goodbye!
double post
that's a correct.
you speak-a good english and you-a smart man.
you put a suit on this-a man, and watch-a out, he gonna become president.
we live-a in smart times.
Letters behind one's name do not define what one is; listen to tyler some more
what's-a matter with you. the world no work-a this way.
stop-a talking about-a the truth this-a way or you make-a me angry.
when i'm angry, i make-a sacco and vanzetti look innocent.
A state college in Buffalo? Awesome.
I guess this is an awesome environment for stocks when inflation looks to be creeping up, margins getting squeezed (best buy annoucement) and consumer credit tapped out.
I think CNBC producers will make sure these 'conflicts' happen weekly. Helps sell those GE jet engine ad spots...oh wait.
Santelli should be the anchor in control and Liesman should be on the floor being shouted down. But who do you think would be the one to be fired? The one who actually knows enough to speak to reality and that would not be Liesman. However, since CNBC worries more about market share and ad revenue than accurate financial advice (who listens to them for accurate financial advice anyway?) , they'll probably keep both around for the their Faux Newz shouting match entertainment value.
CNBC worries more about the political agenda they're supporting.
They need a tool in Liesman's position to validate the administration's position.
And no one else is dumb enough to go up against Santelli.
Tyler,
Can you do a quick write-up on the retail sales sampling data so I can come here and understand what the heck Rick was talking about?
And don't bother with all the numbers and junk and stuff - just break out any positive indicators that you might find.
Thanks in advance,
Steve L.
Burnables were expensive last month and they won't be next month.
Stuff that ignites burnables (cigs) were up but that may not be a trend (or is it?).
But I'm paraphrasing.
Here Dude,
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3708556
The Census Bureau, starting with Fridays number, used a new sample set to measure retail sales. The release said to see their website for details on the changes. The PDF on the website explaining the changes said that the sample set changed... and that's it. No one knows how the sample changed so anyone's write up about it will be as worthless as the original release.
Hence the need for a journalist to investigate or at least question the data.
I guess. People could read the release for themselves instead of waiting for a journalist to tell them what it says.
http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf
.
You're not really considering making a trade or an investment based upon real economic data are you....nobody does that anymore...how passe' ;)
Let me try this again without the abbreviation... I do appreciate the links, but think my satire may have been taken seriously...
Tyler,
Can you do a quick write-up on the retail sales sampling data so I can understand what the heck Rick was talking about?
And don't bother with all the numbers and junk and stuff - just break out any positive indicators that you might find.
Thanks in advance,
Steve Liesman
Ah, Jeff, you been pretending to be Steve all along...
Duuuuuude!
WHAT ABOUT A GOOD SHOOT ÉM UP TO COMPLETE THE SCENE -
here's a speeded up version of the Guggenheim blood bath in the move The International: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxOjCgOUlY
duke
If Comcast has any brains, they'll make the Santelli-Liesman segments pay-per-view.
Rick has a couple good points. I see the increase in food prices everytime I go shopping. These prices seem to reflect when oil was at $140. What is going to happen when things turn around and oil prices go skyward?
A cute little trick I've noticed is maintaining prices while reducing size.
16oz is now 9oz but almost the same box
Yeah, and my 1/2 gallon of ice cream is now only 1.25 quarts. WTF?
My wife keeps saying, "You're going through these things faster and faster."
Damn UN.
Tyler do a story on this, this is one way they squeeze profits by screwing the consumer. Its wide spread.
Definately noticed the miniature candy at Halloween.
you mean 1.75 quarts? i just checked my ice cream and they're jipping me by .25 quarts!
Liesman is such a douce !!
Jesse had an interesting post yesterday about Steve Liesman: http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/12/propaganda-western-styl...
Nice...
Excerpt:
The Nation
The Journal's Russia Scandal
By Matt Taibbi & Mark Ames
October 4, 1999
Just before Christmas in 1997, as a tumultuous stock-market
crisis ravaged emerging markets in every corner of the globe, readers of the
Wall Street Journal were treated to some good news: Russia was going to emerge
from the mess unscathed. While conceding that "few debt markets outside
Southeast Asia were hit harder by recent financial turmoil than Russia's," the
Journal's Moscow bureau chief, Steve Liesman, added quickly that "many analysts
believe an equally strong rebound may be in the offing." Moreover, Liesman
wrote, investors were rapidly coming to the realization that "Russia's problems
are far different and, for the moment, less dire than those that undermined
Asian economies." The December 16 piece was headlined, "Russian Debt Markets Due
for Rebound."
A few weeks later, Liesman and the Journal used even
stronger language to trumpet Russia's economic merits. They chided investors who
were too busy "fretting over Asia's financial crisis" to notice what they called
"one of the decade's major economic events: the end of Russia's seven-year
recession."
The Journal's prediction was more than a little precipitate.
Instead of getting better, things in Russia got worse. A lot worse. Nine months
after Liesman declared that Russia's debt market was due for a rebound, and just
over seven months after proclaiming the end of the Russian recession, the
Journal--like most US newspapers--found itself having to explain the near-total
collapse of Russia's economy and capital markets...
Liesman has been in the back pocket of bankers, a sunshine blower and wrong for more than 10 years.
Which banker is nicknamed Sunshine?
OK...so what of the claim that the banks are paying back TARP? My BS alarm is going off, but Liesman is right in point of fact. How does one explain said repayment?
164466...please see my post below.
this is primarily about FASB 157 coupled with the US regulators failure to enforce US law and regulations (prompt and corrective) regarding capital standards.
bottom line: bank balance sheets are still nearly insolvent but the authorities are pretending that it ain't so.
DH - Ya, in a world where negative real interest rates exist for the reserve currency I suppose "nearly insolvent" can imply that a firm could, with some effort return TO a simple state of insolvency. With the noted FASB actions being one of the primary remedies for this state of affairs in a sizable portion of the world's primary banks we appreciate how this dynamic has the potential to encapsulate so much. So easily. It appears as if this may be one of the developing points of pressure. We'll know more if Biden is sent back to Scranton to make sandwiches.
I think everyone has forgotten how TARP worked. It was immediate capital injections into banks. Later that assistance was replaced with Fed Reserve swaps which put newly minted cash into bank vaults.
TARP prevented armeggedon (or so they claimed) while the FR props took a little longer.
Bottom line, they are paying back TARP with newly printed dead presidents. I would not know how to go about proving this but in the end the taxpayer is footing the bill. We loaned them the money via TARP and now we have loaned them the money to pay it back.
Say, I wonder if that would work for me ... you know ... until I get on my feet??
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1728-The-Potential-Impact-of-Wells-TAR...
Many thanks. Are there any articles or resources you could point me to for a more detailed view/explanation on this process?
Most, if not all, of them raised new capital by selling new shares in their corporations. They did so primarily to avoid the constraints they faced under TARP--especially executive compensation. Moreover, the value of said millions of shares was larger than the amount they needed to pay of their debt. So, in fact, they were actually raising new capital to address upcoming losses they are going to have to declare. Bummer! (Yes, some may still not be solvent; just smart enough to fool some of the people all of the time.)
And, if you are a shareholder before the sale, you get to see the value of your investment diminished from the get-go.
Also, don't forget that a good chunk of the money they are using to pay back TARP was obtained through the selling of bonds that are currently guaranteed by the FDIC and were sold at non-market prices precisely because of that guarantee.
Yes they paid them back, but the TARP money was like pocket change compared with the other money they recieved. Thats why Santelli says "yea you owe me $5 and you give me .50 cents and I'm happy. See the Ratigan video(Tarp breakdown) for a general explanation.
Its now more obvious than ever that steve liesman would sell out americas children to please his banking masters.
Two man enter, one man leave.
Kudlow live, Deutsch went.
What we really need is Captain Walker to come back.
Ron Paul busting out was the best part of the clip.
Moin from Germany,
not sure if this has been posted before but Jesse has a very good find on Liesman and his "expertise"....
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/12/propaganda-western-style.html
Nine months after Liesman declared that Russia's debt market was due for a rebound, and just over seven months after proclaiming the end of the Russian recession, the Journal--like most US newspapers--found itself having to explain the near-total
collapse of Russia's economy and capital markets...
Go read the entire link..... Pure comedy
To paraphrase a quote I heard years ago from some Eastern Block citizen, "We have an advantage in the East. We KNOW what we are hearing is propaganda. You assume what you're hearing is the truth."
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Poor liesman can't understand emotions since he has NONE. LOL
i don't care about liesman's collegiate background. if he did work after college, that would be great.
i don't think he did, but his college degrees really mean nothing. i'm a trader, but never got anything in college for trading, finance or economics.
They both know the truth that high unemployment is a positive for corporations long term. We all know Americans income is going to drop in absolute terms and relative too probably. There is no need to get sentimental about it or go all faux populist.
In 1960 the poverty rate was 22% and dropped in our time to a consistent 12% range in large part due the 'welfare state' and general government deficits. We will now go back to 20% poverty rates not because this is better for the economy but because it will engender the desired social order.
It has taken a stupendous amount of work to build this whacked out system based upon monetary expansion and inflated asset prices all so we can again build an underclass. The price may be severe for many who cling to middle and upper middle class status but it will have been worth it.
You put that many people on the government payroll and this entire thing will implode. Businesses will fail, wages will drop, consumer credit will continue to fall, and people will just stop buying. There is no way they can keep this charade up with a 20% poverty rate.
Misspoke.....
Santelli is right! Go Santelli Go! OK put that aside. It appears to me that the inflation threat is more concentrated in the energy side of the equation (which in my opinion includes a larger basket of "other" commodities.
Now, if oil & the rest of the commodities have been rising as the dollar fell, couldn't Uncle Ben and Tiny Tim intervene here to pop that bubble and get the dollar back up?
The Empire report, to me, demonstrates that we still have a SERIOUS end demand problem. Per the report: "Manufacturers See Margins Squeezed Survey respondents faced somewhat higher input prices in December, while their selling prices declined. The prices paid index rose 9 points to 19.7, reversing a drop of similar magnitude in November and suggesting some renewed price pressures. At the same time, the prices received index slipped 6.6 points to -9.2, its lowest level since August. Employment indexes declined for the second straight month, falling below zero for the first time in a few months: the index for number of employees slipped 7 points to -5.3, and the average workweek index fell 11 points to -5.3.
My interpretation of deflation does not always have cataclysmic results as some. Every situation can go to the "extreme" mind you. Deflation (to me) appears to be one mechanism that spurs the re-allocation of resources (demand goes down, asset prices drop and the idiots that mis-allocated the resources in the first place get clobbered), not to mention that it is a NATURAL market answer to try to spur demand. Demand falls and producers answer by lowering their prices and therefore manufacturers lower their prices and finally the retailer lowers their price & low and behold the consumers decide to buy and everyone gets a good deal.
I don't buy the fact that the consumer puts off a decision to buy due to falling prices. If that were so we wouldn't be witnessing the return of the Real Estate "Flip". Especially since there are pundits out there that say Real Estate prices can and will go down much further. This is not discouraging the "flippers".
My point is, I don't think Ben will let rates go through the roof IF IT CAN BE CONSTRAINED through the manipulation of the dollar.
Nice work Steve. You just keep telling the suckers how wonderful everything is. That's what you're getting paid to do.
I think the Thunderdome would be better. Two go in, one comes out.
man that video is entertaining!
It should be obvious that - at a minimum - a production associate for CNBC reads this site.
The "Rick and Steve" conflict is becoming too scripted.
Although I agree with Rick, CNBC will only promote the "battle" in an effort to get viewers versus having some real point-counter point debate.
Expect to see a whole lot more of these 30 second "fights" between the even more annoying "breaking news" segments.
In the words of Chuck-D - "Don't believe the hype"
Liesman: "the banks paid the TARP back. What do you think about that"
Mr. Liesman: here is a good one where you present only one side of the equation.
I challenge you to come on to ZH with an article to discuss the impact of the FASB 157 modifications allowing the banks to mark to model vs. mark to market and the impact that this had on bank profits as well as capital ratios. Here's a starter: check the WFC quarterly for Q1 and tell us how much the 157 revision added to WFC's profit. Second clue: tell us about RF's balance sheet for same quarter when their assets are marked to market, vs. marked to model.
Relating closing to this issue is FASB 166/167. Please address this matter in light of the banks paying back the TARP.
Frankly, a failure on your part to fully report on these two issues puts you in the pundit column vs. reporter column.
if you are a pundit and want to express opinions, great, God bless the First Amendment.
if you and cnbc continue to say that you are a reporter, then you are a fail as both sides of the equation have not been discussed by you and cnbc.
remember Steve: "sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
Appreciate your response above...I'm moving my comments below yours. Correct me if any part of my synopsis goes awry.
FASB moved the goal posts and allowed the TBTF banks to claim a level of profitability and health that doesn't actually reflect the market value of the assets on their balance sheets. The combination of the appearance of health, and FDIC-backed debt issuance, attracted a disproportionately high level of private capital. It is this capital that the TBTF banks are using to pay back TARP.
Does that sound about right? Anything else to add?
I would like to add this bit for your consideration. Debt that carries the explicit backing of the US Government has far greater utility and power as a medium of leverage than debt that has implicit USG backing and debt that has none. These aspects and the opportunities that flow from them are indeed numerous and quite profitable. Especially when you can pay a nearly 0 coupon on the money borrowed for the return these notes carry.
RJI and DBC are flat. Wither inflation on the energy side?
Santelli had best watch it. He may have a cult following ( I'm one of them) but personal animosity displayed on air can get you fired. Dylan Ratigan's outbursts were not long
tolerated on CNBC and I don't think Santelli will fare any better.
It seemed to me that right after Santelli's initial rant there was a clear change in his on-air demeanor. I got the feeling that he was taken aside and told in so many words "shut the fuck up or you're out the door" and for a few months he was very quiet and sedate.
Now I get the feeling he's finally just saying "Fxxk it. This is just so absurdly outrageous I don't care if they fire me. This is just too much shit to eat to get to a few measly peanuts."
Anyone else get this impression?
Agree. He may have been given the nod to rant some more but I didn't see his characteristic big smile at the end. This is real. We need more people like him who are willing to take the punch, while laughing and spitting blood in the faces of these bastards.
Yea he better watch it or he might end up getting his own show where he can tell it like it is. i.e. Ratigan
Who caught the Star Trek fight music? Cracks me up.
Didnt know what that music was but im glad i wasnt the only one who heard strange music during the faceoff
The truly disturbing part? Lies Man is breeding....
GO RICK GO! I'm with YOU buddy!
The look on Ron Paul's face is Priceless.
Good job Rick.
I like Rick, but Liesman made him look like a lunatic. I have seen Rick more composed (but still on a rant) and his arguments carry more weight when he speaks a bit more calmly.
The inflation and employment numbers speak for themselves and the argument they are being spun by Liesman and others is completely valid. These numbers, when you look under the hood, are not very good and this needs to be stated calmly and succinctly.
FAIL...
The time for calm has expired.
Let me know how that works for you when the bullets start flying.
+
Yeah, Rick went on tilt a bit. Liesman won the composure component of the contest, and composure counts for something to the viewer, for better or for worse.
Liesman is too stupid to have emotions.
I'd prefer to see some of the female anchors mud wrestling and pulling hair in the octagon.
i heard that's how-a they got the job and they won't do it again.
Lies man is such a douche
You guys are out of control.
Both of them are worthless, but Liesman should be most embarrassed because Columbia is the Harvard of Journalism. He should be ashamed.
These people are supposed to be reporters. We're not supposed to care about their opinions. If they want to editorialize, that should be happening in some different news segment. Both these guys should shut the hell up, and every one of you knows it.
Will it hit the ratings? You know what? It's not guaranteed that it would. Bloomberg doesn't do this kind of thing and they are still on the air.
I am reminded of a Crossfire show many years ago where it is customary to have two guests on and have them yell at each other about something political. One day they invited George Will and David Broder on.
They responded to a question and then shut up when the other was speaking. They rebutted carefully what the other said. Then counter rebutted. All very quietly with excellent content on both sides.
At the commercial break Michael Kinsley said something like, "well, we'll have to lower the violence and volume here to break for commercial." He was looking for a laugh. Both of them had no idea what was funny.
Now, economics is not SUPPOSED to be politics where the right answer might change from year to year, so they are SUPPOSED to be arguing about what 2+2 is. The fact that they are suggests economics should be moved to some category of "arts" at universities and their budgets slashed accordingly.
Rick is also wrong about a broken clock being right twice a day. A "stopped" clock is right twice a day. Rick needs to get a clue.
Rick is also wrong about a broken clock being right twice a day. A "stopped" clock is right twice a day. Rick needs to get a clue.
I meant Steve. Not Rick.
Great. You've corrected yourself.. Well done.
Your posts. Just really, really awful... I will never get back the 60 seconds to read and attempt to comprehend your random collection of thoughts, then the additional 60 seconds to come to the conclusion that there was no point.
Please remove your anonymity so that I do not make this mistake again.
Thank you.
when i was a bambino i learned that joseph goebbels killed his children
this-a is not a true. they escape-a to america to start media businesses
we are listening and watching the children of goebbels
this is ok-a because when nietzsche talk about the herd, he no talk about a metaphor. capish!
Che bene! Tu hai detto una cosa bellissima, amico.
Joe LaVornga just made Steve Liesman smile. Never, and I mean never listen to a sell side bank/brokerage economist. For hope springs eternal and reality is but a mere set of data to be manipulated and molded to SELL, SELL, SELL!
Good lord I love Rick Santelli.
One day he's gonna take a bunch of american money and tear it up on camera to protest the government printing press.
-MobBarley
I blame zerohedge for having influence over CNBC to turn it into WWF wrestling.
South Park episode on wrestling was hilarious!!!
When the facts are not on your side, the best strategy is to upset the other side and make them angry.....a light insult
will go undetected, and the anger will make the other party
seem irrational, and therefore not to be believed.
Rick should be careful not to fall for that bait.
Never mud wrestle with a pig...
Please... all of CNBC should be pay per view already. I mean that disparagingly.
Santelli for president!
I for one hail Santelli as our new overlord!
Seriously, he's the only guy worth listening to on CNBC. I guess he knows things are probably going to change at CNBC and isn't cutting back on his beliefs.
Mark Haines is a delusional old man always pimping the bullish stance , just pathetic.
I wouldn't piss on Joe Kernan if he was on fire.