Santelli, again, on the most idiotic rant I ever heard. Basically saying that bankers are going to cheat and steal; it's just their nature, so don't blame them. (He used the analogy of his dog stealing food from the barbeque. It's their nature.)
So the real blame according to Santelli lies with the regulators, who don't understand the real, criminogenic, "natural state" of bankers.
Listen, I don't think that regulators are doing a great job--not at all. However, to state the problem as Santelli has, is assinine. But then what do you expect from Santelli.
10 comments:
Mike,
He was ranting "Raw meat! Raw meat! Raw meat!".... again with the metaphors, that's all he has got is metaphor, he can't explain what is really going on.... disgrace.
Did you see him talking to Senator Coburn? "Come on...you fiscal conservatives...what's wrong with you??...push harder...cut, cut, cut."
He's pathetic. I really can't believe CNBC thinks this is good. I also don't believe he gets much ratings at all. What an embarrassment.
This is the neoliberal argument of non-intervention in markets. It's "caveat emptor." The thinking is that everyone knows that the financial sector is crooked to the core, and that's the price of playing, sort of like choosing to swim in shark invested waters. No one is forced to do it.
It's way beyond asinine. It's insanity. All these people are sociopaths, and its the fault of the system that it selects sociopaths to run it. This is the basic message of Occupy, for example.
Mike,
I cant believe that there aren't some people over there at CNBC that see this as embarrassing...
His behavior is not professional.
I can see how we have to make things interesting sometimes to hold folks attention, but not to the point of dispensing falsehoods... somebody over there has to get a handle on this... or at least consistently present the opposing (accurate) view.
Resp,
Matt, my impression from ZH, for instance, is that a lot of the younger crowd is really into this. It sells to them.
While it may appear moronic, it is just a cultural thing. There's always a generational disconnect that makes younger people appear moronic to older folks and older folks appear like fogies to the young.
I think that Santelli may just be a manifestation of it and CNBC puts him to please that niche of its market.
Matt: "His behavior is not professional."
What does "professional" mean these days? Sure not what it used to mean. One at least had to play the part even if one didn't really believe in professionalism. If you didn't, you were gone.
Even if CNBC is leaving him there for ratings, I doubt that is working. Their ratings are falling across the board.
>>The thinking is that everyone knows that the financial sector is crooked to the core, and that's the price of playing, sort of like choosing to swim in shark invested waters. No one is forced to do it.<<
I could almost get behind their argument, except that the government subsidizes the financial sector. We tax capital gains and other income less than others. We tax even less if it's put into a 401k. People are being forced into the market by government subsidy. Even worse, conservatives are pushing a national sales tax that would eliminate taxes on financial income completely.
This is almost circular in logic. Sure, regulators lost sight of their real objectives and got it badly wrong (by making the the system just about as laissez faire as it comes, but guess what? They were very effectively "captured' by the banking lobby, so yes, we can blame the socks off the bankers, while at the same time lamenting the lack of backbone of regulators.
Or should we really be lamenting the lure of money? After all, US corporate and financial executives seem to move into government positions and back out into the private sector like osmosis on steroids. The financial and pharmaceutical companies are especially good at this. When you don't like a law, get your man on the inside and change it, and reward them on the way out. That's how the US government and corporate sector work. Has for years. It's not so much a divide, but a happy marriage.
As for Santelli, like many of the conservative extremists, he is good for a rant, and extremely good at it. The content doesn't come into it. Psychologists have noted how the tone and timbre of voice, and speed at which a person talks, are positively correlated with their perceived "authority" and "intelligence". Slower talkers are assumed to be less truthful, less persuasive, more passive.
Don't forget the great Costanza:
"it's not a lie if you believe it to be true" ...
apj
Where is the line between government, business, finance? It's extremely blurry, to the degree I call it institutional fascism.
Institutional fascism is based on corporate statism through elite capture of the apparatus of the state, and it is also politically repressive through laws, regulations, and sub rosa practices ("black ops") that suppress democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights in the name of security.
Post a Comment