Ten years ago, I watched CNBC quite often. All those charts and numbers and analysts and financial experts....wow, what a bunch of cerebral genuises (new band name?). Rick Santelli, before he became the financial sector's Joe the Plumber, would give the bond market report each morning. The scene behind him was always a clusterf*ck of shouting and arm waving and mounds of order paper on the floor....you know....serious stuff. Why so serious? Because the CNBC guys were hardened, seasoned, hihgly trained, financial professionals, their guests, larger-than-life giant genuises....they knew so much about what they were talking about.
Like this guy...
"Don't be silly." Like I said. Very serious experts. Talk about rewarding failure.....Cramer still has his own show on CNBC.
You may also enjoy Jon Stewart's extended piece on these financial wizards.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Former Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Draw your own conclusions from the emboldened sentences. I have. Where have all the Eisenhower Republicans gone? So sad.
"Sweden, on the other hand, had a problem like this. They took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and, a couple years later, they were going again. So you’d think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here’s the problem; Sweden had like five banks. [LAUGHS] We’ve got thousands of banks."
"The four biggest US commercial banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo – possess 64 per cent of the assets of US commercial banks (see chart) [chart not available online]. If creditors of these businesses cannot suffer significant losses, this is not much of a market economy."
One of the first actions Obama should have taken was to dismantle the four insolvent banks named above. He should have, in an orderly fashion, sold any assets left in order to partially pay creditors, zeroed out all shareholders and closed and locked the front doors. "Thousands of banks" are not insolvent. Just those four big ones.
To my dismay (thus far) President Obama seems to be hesitating in doing the right thing with these banks. In my opinion, he's making a big mistake. His comparison to the Sweden situation isn't credible.....it's a bit disingenuous.
If it's true that these banks are "too big to fail".....then we've already failed. Think about that.
About This Blog