Berry_1
John Berry, the Washington Post reporter (now at Bloomberg) who covers the Fed — and widely believed to have a direct line from Greenspan and other FOMC members — came out swinging this morning. In today’s column, he accused CNBC reporter Maria Bartiroma of "burning Bernanke," engaging in journalistic ethical lapses, and failing to treat private conversations at an off-the-record event appropriately.

Earlier this morning, Berry wrote:

"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke wasn’t cautious enough about the ground rules when he chatted with journalists at the White House Correspondent Association’s dinner April 29, and he got badly burned . . .

Virtually all reporters treat discussions at such events as being off-the-record — that is, not for publication — unless there is an explicit understanding otherwise. You can be sure he has learned that painful lesson."

In other words, the veteran print journo is accusing the TV anchor of not understanding the rules of engagement when mixing at social functions with the personalities and subjects they cover. CNBC (through a spokesman) disagreed, saying "there was no question Bernanke’s comments were on-the-record."

Berry goes on to add that it was clear the Fed is "Not Finished" and that markets did misunderstand the concept of a pause; he quotes WaPo reporter Nell Henderson’s column, that while the central bank may "pause in the process of raising interest rates to restrain inflation, that would not necessarily mean they were finished.”

Reuters reported that "speaking after the markets’ close on Tuesday on CNBC’s "Kudlow & Company", Bartiromo said she was sure Bernanke didn’t want to see major market reactions to his remarks and that "in his heart, I did him a favor."

Several others have criticized Bartiroma for sitting on her market moving news until her 3pm show began. After she released her "scoop," the market tanked.

Bartiroma, formerly known as the "Money Honey" for her reports from the floor of the NYSE, has generated all kinds of criticism and coverage since the snafu.

I suspect we may not have seen the last of this story . . .

>


UPDATE 2 May 4, 2006 11:48am

Ben is a fast learner; from a friend (quoting Reuters) we see that:

Yesterday, midday, at that local-economy talk the Fed Chief gave in DC, “When he arrived at the conference, reporters asked exactly what he had said at the dinner, but he walked by without a word. He did not take audience questions, and left as silently as he had arrived.”

Apparently "Once bitten, twice shy" is a fair assessment of the new Fed Chief’s experience with the Press. Dunno what they taught you at MIT and Harvard, Ben, but all you hadda do was call, and I woulda schooled ya on the finer points of dealing with the media.

Now ya know.

>

UPDATE 1 May 3, 2006 9:48am

Here’s a link to the video of Maria Bartiromo’s 3 PM interview.

Note: This only works with Explorer 6, and I am using IE 7; (Leave it to Microsoft)

>

Sources:
Bernanke Couldn’t Be Clearer — You Hear That?
John M. Berry
Bloomberg, May 3, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/fu38z

Other Coverage:

CNBC’s Bartiromo says report does Bernanke a ‘favor’
Joe Maguire
Reuters, Tue May 2, 2006 6:01 PM ET
http://tinyurl.com/fxuch

Bernanke slips on Bartiromo peel
Fallout uncertain on off-the-cuff interview as confusion reigns
Greg Robb
MarketWatch, 6:24 PM ET May 2, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/jtd76

Bernanke remarks leave analysts bemused
Jennifer Hughes in New York
FT May 2 2006 21:55 | Last updated: May 2 2006 21:55
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12600114/

Investors Misunderstood Bernanke Testimony, CNBC Anchor Says
Nell Henderson
Washington Post, Tuesday, May 2, 2006; Page D03
http://tinyurl.com/syjh9

When The Fed Chairman Speaks, Everyone Freaks
CBS, May 2, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/kb59t

Ben Bernanke Tells All to the Money Honey    
WONKETTE.COM
http://tinyurl.com/hf59s

Bernanke Boots His Rally?
Minyanville Staff
May 02, 2006 9:37
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=10224

Fed Struggles to Convince Markets Of Its Own Uncertainty on Rates
GREG IP
WSJ, May 3, 2006; Page A1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114661897580842186.html

MARIA, FED HEAD GO HEAD-TO-HEAD
PAUL THARP
N.Y. Post, May 3, 2006
http://www.nypost.com/business/67944.htm

Maria’s Fed Minute
Jeff Cooper
Street Insight, 5/2/2006 7:09 AM EDT
http://tinyurl.com/mbnsm

Category: Federal Reserve, Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

43 Responses to “Berry to Bartiroma re: Bernanke: Big Burn, You Blew It”

  1. B says:

    “I did him a favor”

    I mean come on. I’ve been wanting some favors from her for years. When do I get my favor?

  2. RW says:

    This has become an interesting tempest in a teapot but it limns a couple more significant issues:

    Bernanke’s testimony was clear enough: FOMC decisions are data-driven and a pause means just that, a pause, and no more. If a significant number of market participants appear to have read his comments in some other way, perhaps in the way they have become accustomed to reading Greenspan’s, then that clearly has implications for the form of communication Bernanke must adopt in future. It will be interesting to see what he does about that, whether, like Greenspan, he ceases all informal interviews with reporters or whether he adopts some other strategy.

    On the reportage front, Berry criticizes Bartiromo for bad form. This may be true, I have no way of knowing, perhaps talking heads aren’t supposed to do real reporting. But it is not difficult to also interpret this flap as Bartiromo putting the reporting gravy train at risk because continuing access to movers and shakers depends upon a certain amount of, umm …discretion and ‘balance.’ This is a familiar theme and appears to be one of the main reasons we’ve had so much trouble getting real news (as opposed to talking points and ‘balanced’ opinion) from most media out of Washington D.C.

  3. thecynic says:

    she’s a bimbo and clueless about how the markets work. my favorite part was that she seemed startled when the S&P pit erupted after her comment, “what’s all that commotion down there?” uh, you set off a wave of sell programs you dumbass.

    i wonder of the authorities are looking at an investigation. does she have any guidelines on releasing material information to the market? did she tell her hedge fund sources so they could get short before her interview? i can’t imagine she sat on that scoop for 2 days without telling someone who could have profited by the info

  4. asdf says:

    I agree she’s a bimbo and clueless but who cares how she released it. How does the timing of when she said it, change the outcome? It doesn’t. Move on. Nothing to see here.

  5. royce says:

    Screw John Berry and the rest of his beltway punks with their ground rules for what gets reported and what doesn’t. If Bernanke doesn’t want his statements on policy to be reported, there’s a very simple solution: he can keep his freakin trap shut.

    What Berry wants to keep is to keep his own gravy train running: “I get secret info from the Fed, so you better read my stuff.” There’s too much of that in the media these days. Too much coziness between reporters and the people and industries they cover. The newsmedia right now is the single worst run institution in American society. Colbert had them pegged.

  6. JoshK says:

    Let’s talk about the real issue. Maria used to be a hottie. Now she looks like she just got off a 3 day bender. What gives?

  7. McSwiggen says:

    Is that a snafu on the part of the Chairman or our money honey? And by the way does SNAFU stand for S… Not Another F… Up?

  8. thecynic says:

    i think she’s been on a 10 year bender.

    if it was an off the record comment but she told a portfolio manager or a bond trader before she released to the public, that would seem to be an issue (i can assure you she has a lot of contacts). the chairman of the Fed can’t be in the business of giving private info to some people that contradicts the info his is giving to the public (and congress). that would be a violation of the trust of the office.
    kinda like telling the public there are WMD when you know there are none.
    if it was on the record, CNBC should have confirmed with the Fed’s press office and then released Sunday or worst Monday pre-open, not at 3:00 or whenever she said it. that would have given all market participants to digest the info and potentially get an official statement from Bernanke as opposed to this off the cuff cocktail blabber.

    trust me, if you got hit on a half billion 2YR notes at 2:45 by someone who had the info, you’d question the timing of the release. the outcome could have been different if the market had all day to digest.

  9. Brian says:

    My fav Maria Moment? When she asked the CEO of Encana about drilling for gasoline.

  10. mkpb says:

    Her husband is Jonathan Steinberg. If he was at the event, or she whispered in his ear, what are the chances he was establishing a position in the morning? And it wouldn’t have been illegal, I don’t think. That’s just good research I suppose.

  11. jim says:

    Yeah, Steinberg published Individual Investor magazine in the ninetys. I made some real dough from his stock picks.

  12. getshort says:

    She’s a babe.

  13. Bynocerus says:

    “what’s all that commotion down there?” uh, you set off a wave of sell programs you dumbass.

    thecynic

    I can just that exchange as lines from Beavis and Butthead

    Beavis: Hey Butthead, what’s going on down there?
    Butthead: You just set off a wave of sell programs, dumbass.
    Beavis: Don’t call me a dumbass, bungmunch (kicks Butthead in crotch).

    Annnnnyway, on a much more important topic, I’ve never thought a whole lot of Maria on CNBC. She’s not ugly or anything, but for my money, Katie Couric is the network babe of babes, followed very closely by the blonde Australian reporter on 60 minutes/CNN.

    And finally, who cares if Bernanke and Bartoromo’s comments were on and off the record. To beat a dead horse, is this any way to set public policy?

  14. Alaskan Pete says:

    Look, if the dipshits didn’t go on a buying orgasm on the “we may pause” bit, nobody would be complaining.
    They cherry picked one sentence out of a statement that had plenty of counter arguments in it , because they wanted a rally. It was simply “here is one option we can pursue, if the data warrants it. but even if we saw reason to pause, we could keep hiking afterwards ”

    So all this bellyaching about “Lips” Bartiroma is BS. They’re just pissed because they got off balance and put WAY too much emphasis on reading the entrails and throwing the bones on every peep out of a Fed member.

  15. B says:

    Oh come on! Katie Couric? She’s like 90 and all weathered from too many sunny vacations in the south of France with the other liberal elites. (I prefer the needles rolling up on the beach of the Jersey shore. Second best is Virginia Beach for lovers. Yeah right. Drunk sailors from the local Navy base shagging hookers on the crusty beach.)

    Now, CNBC/MSNBC has the hottest babes although Fox has tried to emulate them. Although I can’t hardly stand to watch the Nazis on Fox. Christine Johnson from MSNBC pipes in on Squawk. She’s like a more mature Jessica Alba. Contessa Brewer? Natale Morales? Nora O’Donnell on Chris Matthews? There’s a couple more but I can’t place their names. A super hot blonde as well.

    Btw, if Maria did blow some smoke, and I’m sure she did, and it reached some big money, that might be a legal problem. It almost felt like a set up. But, I have to think traders aren’t that stupid unless they talked to their attorneys first. And, they likely did.

  16. drey says:

    Katie Couric? Yikes.

    ‘SNAFU’ I believe has a military origin and stands for “situation normal, all f—-d up”.

  17. Bynocerus says:

    How old are you guys? Sure, Katie Couric isn’t Molly Sims, but you should pray to god that your wife looks that good at 50. She’s one of those few women who get better with age (up to a certain point. Eventually, getting old unmercifcully takes over.).

    To me, Bartoromo looks like someone you settle for after 12:00 during an unlucky night at the bar.

  18. B says:

    I must be younger than you. 42. Katie is nice for 50 but you are right. She isn’t Molly Sims. I’d prefer Molly Sims. Got any contacts? Don’t you think MB looks a little like Sophia Loren? Although her TV personality ain’t getting a vote for Sophia Loren-ish. More like Hillary Clinton-ish. Although I must say Hillary is growing on me.

  19. Bynocerus says:

    Sophia Loren looks like MB? Honestly, that’s like saying that Barry looks like a young Robert Deniro. Maybe they could be second cousins, but that’s about it.

    And no, I can’t hook you up with Molly Sims, although I do know Miss USA vicariously.

    Back on topic, anyway we could change Big Ben’s nick name to Rug Bern or Ben Dover?

  20. B says:

    Oh, I vote for Ben Dover. He’s second cousins with Mike Hunt. Althought before it’s all said and done, he might wish he was Seymore Butts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymore_Butts

  21. trader75 says:

    “How old are you guys? Sure, Katie Couric isn’t Molly Sims, but you should pray to god that your wife looks that good at 50.”

    I’m 30. I’d wager my better half could beat out Couric at 50, but the bet won’t come due for another 25 years or so.

  22. B says:

    I could have figured you were 30. You haven’t been around the block enough to realize your doom and gloom predictions about American are repeated every generation. :)

  23. Jimmy Cliff says:

    For those of us who will *only* use the FireFox browser, can you upload this video to YouTube.com, provide the link, so All can see? Thanks.

    [Re: Here's a link to the video of Maria Bartiromo's 3 PM interview. Note: This only works with Explorer 6, and I am using IE 7; (Leave it to Microsoft)]

  24. B says:

    Btw, I am about to incriminate myself for the pig I am. It isn’t about what you have it’s about what you don’t have. It’s a damn mind game that I am always trying to overcome. I guess it’s part of the human condition. Ten years ago I dated a former Miss America. I eventually became bored of her. It’s a constant struggle with the demons inside every man. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and would never cheat if I were married but………As Howard Stern said. There is always a hot chick around the corner some guy is sick of banging.

  25. me says:

    “but you should pray to god that your wife looks that good at 50. ”

    All it takes is money and a good surgeon.

  26. snafu says:

    Term from the good old boys in the military. “Situation normal, all f’ed up.”

    Almost as fun as oll korrect.

  27. Bynocerus says:

    You haven’t been around the block enough to realize your doom and gloom predictions about American are repeated every generation. :)

    B,

    Considering that Barry has linked to From the Wilderness in one of his previous posts (basically a pre-apocalyptic web-site), it’s tough for me to say that the Doom and Gloomers don’t have a point. I, for one, have started my own garden, stockpiled canned foods, gotten into the hybrid thing, etc. And that was before I read Jared Diamond’s most recent book (Collapse).

    If we really are in a Peak Oil situation, we are in worse shape than some of the posts on this thread suggest. I happen to think we’ll delay the End of the World, and that things won’t work out quite so badly, but I don’t discount the idea that things COULD get very ugly.

  28. ben bernanke: breakfast 24/7

    I don’t mean to burst Stephen Colbert’s bubble – his imitation of a Republican last Saturday night will go down as a shining moment in stand-up comedy history. But it seems to me that the things that are actually uttered…

  29. trader75 says:

    I could have figured you were 30. You haven’t been around the block enough to realize your doom and gloom predictions about American are repeated every generation. :)

    Hey Hey, as long as a guy can do the Soros shuffle (riding false trends until they are discredited), it’s all good… I’ve made more money on bull side than bear in recent years, and if the bulls continue to prosper then so shall I… As ol’ Jesse Livermore observed, “there is only one side to the stock market; and it is not the bull side or the bear side, but the right side.”

    Plus there’s plenty of time to wise up… just getting into my wet-behind-the-ears groove here ;-)

  30. Burning Bernanke

    Over at The Big Picture, Barrys got the whole scoop on Berry, Bartiromo and Bernanke.
    In all honesty, I think this is only a big story for a day or two, and then all will be forgotten. Except, maybe, by Bernanke: who I think will be much more c…

  31. jkw says:

    Peak oil is only a minor problem. We have enough coal available to convert to nuclear. We have enough nuclear energy available to last for several hundred years. By then we will come up with another solution to the energy problem.

    There are two major problems we have to avoid: nuclear war and ecological disaster. Nuclear war is easy to avoid so long as we don’t put crazy people in charge of the major nuclear weapon stockpiles (Bush is questionable on this one because he at least claims to be a member of the cult of Revelations). Global warming is going to change climate patterns. We don’t know how much or how quickly. There are a lot of climatologists that say things will be fine until they transition very rapidly into something we won’t like (and possibly won’t survive). Avian flu or some other killer disease might be a problem, but most diseases are either virulent enough to die out quickly or not sufficiently virulent to be a serious problem.

    Anything that doesn’t rapidly kill off millions of people is just an engineering challenge. We can handle those. The world will change, but that’s nothing new.

  32. Write-Offs: 05.03.06

    $$$ Happy 537th Birthday, Niccolo Machiavelli!! [Going Private] Which alpha male/female are you: Jack Welch, Richard Branson, Michael Eisner (*shudder*) or Sam Walton? [Fast Company] Berry to Bartiromo: You burned Bernanke [The Big Picture] Mary Meeker…

  33. B says:

    “We have enough coal available to convert to nuclear.” What? Are you using coal to fuel the nuclear reaction? Huh?

    I can be a nice guy but not in this thread. It’s time for some ball busting. Feel free to discount my opinion because that is all it is. But this thread is one reason why nonscientists convince themselves that bullsh8t fed to them by Wall Street types is true. This is my last post on this topic till the end of time because Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I am surely going insane with my own blather. The bears control this board and I’m not going to change any opinions that the fattest of statistical tails you all are predicting come true very infrequently. “Canned foods”? I almost fell off of my chair. Peak oil? Peak metals? Uranium for a hundred years? Coal for a hundred years? WTF? That is just absolutely total bullshit on all fronts.

    1) There is plenty of uranium on earth for nuclear fission till hell freezes over. When hell freezes over, we can mine it from the moon which is extremely rich in uranium. That will last till our sun supernovas.
    2) There is enough coal in the world to power us for 500 years at a minimum. There is so much coal that no one is even looking for it. So, how much is really out there?
    3) Some people question whether we have as much oil as Saudi Arabia off of the continental shelf that we won’t even drill right now.
    4) Canada didn’t have any appreciable reserves a few decades ago and now has more than Saudi Arabia.
    5) It is a high probability from geological studies that there is more oil below the polar ice caps than has been discovered in all of the world. What incentive is there to even attempt recovery when we are swimming in more available opportunities?
    6) Geological studies have shown we have more shale oil than Saudi Arabia has oil and it hasn’t been touched because we have oil coming out of our ears. That figure could actually be larger than all of the known reserves in the world today but who cares because we aren’t in crisis.

    I mean how far do I go with this. I could type fact after fact after fact. Not Wall Street bullsh*t. Or the group grope of the feeble herd in the press. The top mutual fund manager in the US just printed a report basicaly saying we are in a commodities bubble.

    Deflation. Maybe. But this sure as hell isn’t as bad as 1974. We even had a dollar crisis then. Something we haven’t had yet. Oh, and we had one in the 80s as well. Led to the greatest equity bull in history. I’d be more concerned about Asia cratering than the US if we have a dollar crisis. As bad as the 70s wasm we had record profits in the 70s. Better than the 90s.

    Now for a little psychology from the good doctor. A little ingenuity will allow one to draw the conclusion this also applies to the things used to make homes. Insert Oil, Copper, Iron ore, Gypsum, Platinum, Silicon, Paladium, Aluminun, Zinc, Lead instead of houses and apply your own logic.

    http://www.marketpsych.com/blog/2005/11/psychology-of-housing-bubble-i-was.html
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    BUBBLE PREREQUISITES

    FINANCIAL FUNDAMENTALS:
    Low supply. Examples include:
    The scarcity of homes in certain regions of the coasts
    Stricter development regulations
    Little or vague financial information available:
    It is difficult to gauge market price changes
    Realtors have an incentive to hide a softening market
    Excess liquidity in the pockets of buyers
    Low interest rates (and then interest-only loan payments)
    Large capital gains have already been reaped by the “first-movers”, and they’re looking for new opportunities.

    PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNDAMENTALS
    Vividness of the concept
    “I’ve got to have a roof over my head”
    “I like real estate because you can see what you own”
    Limited supply (Perception of scarcity)
    “No more houses can be built on the coasts due to development restrictions”
    Water-cooler or media frenzy: Groupthink and herding.
    “You know, everybody’s buying a house. Are you still a renter?”
    Anticipatory emotions and impulsivity
    Excitement about “getting rich” and fear of missing out.
    Magnitude of potential payoff
    “My friend made $300,000 after owning her house only one year.”
    Certainty of payoff
    “Real estate has always gone up over any 5 year period. I’ll just hold a few years if I have to.”
    Urgency
    “You’ve got to get in now, since you don’t know how long you’ll be able to afford property around here”
    Pursuit of gain (chasing)
    Seminars on “How to get rich in real estate”.
    “It’s proven, the surest way to wealth is real estate”

    Now how do we know when the end is near?

    Any stagnation or reversal in previously positive financial fundamentals paired with:
    1) Historically high volume of turnover (already happening)
    2) Positive expectations are disappointed in some investors (already happening)
    3) Sellers begin dropping prices or relisting with other brokers (already happening)
    4) Intense media focus (already happening) – but ironically, this is usually favorable coverage of the bubble – with real estate it has been unfavorable.

    If you have any ideas or additions, please feel free to add them in the “comments” section below.

  34. Dru Nelson says:

    she’s hot

    end of story

  35. OLIVER says:

    Does anyone find it interesting that in an interview with Kudlow Barteromo describes discussing monetary policy and the market reaction with Bernanke and guess who, Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs…the biggest hedge fund in the world.

    I guess we know who made a buck on that trade.

    More importantly, does Bernanke think this sort of communication is ok? Would it pass a Reg FD type of rule?

  36. dsquared says:

    this Berry guy seems like quite the bullshitter to me.

    1. If you are speaking at a public event you are on the record. There is no such “convention”. One of the least attractive characteristics of American journalists is their habit of pulling these “rules of ethical journalism” out their arses every time they need an excuse for missing the story.

    2. There is no obligation on anyone to share their scoops with anyone else. Berry and his mates could have asked Bernanke the same question but they didn’t.

    3. So what if the market was open? It’s not like CNBC is some mystery sekrit news service.

    4. If it was so g.d. obvious to Berry and his brains trusts that “the Fed was not done”, and if he was in any position to lecture us about the meaning of a “pause”, then would this not have made a good subject for an article in the Washington Post? All I can see is consensusmongering from the guy who’s meant to have a “direct line”. This is sour grapes.

    On an unrelated note, guys, will you grow up already. I hope you all work for yourselves, because this kind of locker room talk is just not acceptable in a company any more.

  37. Bynocerus says:

    Well, B, “thank you” very much for all of that.

    Given that grocery stores in my area have already run out of certain types of canned products (esp during the hurricanes last year), such is my reasoning for having some extra canned foods. I don’t have a Y2K bunker or anything remotely approaching that, but if I want peaches, I’ve got an extra couple of week’s worth in the pantry – something I would have never done in the past.

    The same can be said of fresh vegetables in our area after Rita – hence the 10′ x 10′ garden in the back yard (actually on the side of the house). If a hurricane can empty out the shelves of my grocery store, and we’re not even remotely close to the affected area, imagine what an attack on Gwahar could do. CNN actually made a one hour documentary briefly outlining such a scenario.

    Regardless of whether or not Peak Whatever is here, I don’t think anyone is against decreasing their ecological footprint. And as I hope I’ve demonstrated, whatever is going on with the oil situation, disruptions have effected my daily life already. Maybe not like waiting in line for gas 30 years ago, but inflation adjusted, the price of oil isn’t too far away from where it was back then.

    As for the Bears being in control of the board, I doubt we’ll hear from them much any more if and when P/E ratios overshoot to the downside. An S&P trading at 10x earnings or less will have me pretty much on auto pilot for another 15 years. Until then, though, I have yet to hear a convincing case as to why Corning trades @ 80x earnings or the Naz trades @ 39x earnings.

  38. jkw says:

    When I said there is enough coal to convert to nuclear, what I meant was that even if we found out tomorrow that there was absolutely no oil left anywhere in the world, the coal reserves we know about and can get to easily will provide energy for long enough for us to build enough nuclear power plants to power everything. I believe that nuclear power is the only thing that will work in the long run. Solar cells are too energy intensive to produce. Wind isn’t sufficiently steady to count as a reliable source of energy.

    Global warming will kill us if we don’t switch soon enough. We won’t ever run out of coal because if we burned all the coal in the world we would turn Earth into Venus. When it starts raining sulphuric acid and the temperature is high enough to melt skin, energy problems can be ignored.

  39. B says:

    Keeping canned goods because of shortages due to hurricanes if far from extreme. Being concerned about global warming is far from extrme. Your prior commentary led me to believe you were preparing for global anarchy. I did find that rather ………. odd …….. because you seemed to be quite level headed.

    jkw……….your facts come to light as factless. If we find out we have no more oil? Where do you even remotely come to that conclusion? I’m tired of listening to the bullsh*t. It’s running awfully deep. If we have no more oil, how are we going to run our cars? Nuclear? How does nuclear solve any problems? I agree with using it but our addiction to oil has little to do with energy generation in the US. It has all to do with vehicle usage. You could replace all of our energy generation today with nuclear but it doesn’t really do anything to lessen our imports of petrol. Although it would be cleaner if we can find a way to dispose of the waste. Oh, and we do have new technology to reduce the half life of the radioactive output to less than one hundred years if I recall correctly. And solar isn’t practical? That is also incorrect. There are new technologies the state of California are deploying in a multi-billion dollar project which could generate enough capacity for the entire US energy generation for about $20 billion in equipment. Plus it can all be centralized in one location. Energy is not a long term concern. Conservation is. Improved efficiency is. Global warming is.

  40. jkw says:

    I didn’t say we were going to run out of oil. I said that even if you go to the most extreme case of running out of oil, energy is still not a problem. I’ve read all kinds of things about how much oil there is and I don’t know enough to know which estimates are right. But it doesn’t matter, because even without oil, we have more energy available then we know how to use. If oil becomes too expensive, we will switch to electric cars. They have lower performance, but they can be powered by whatever electricity production means we have.

    Storing nuclear waste is only a political problem. Technically, it is easy to do with almost no environmental problems (you have to turn a few hundred acres into a nuclear waste site, but that is small on the scale of the Earth’s surface or even just the deserted wastelands of America). Burning hydrocarbons cannot be done without producing greenhouse gasses. With enough effort, you can build a zero-emissions power plant by processing the waste gasses, but nuclear is easier. And the technology for trapping CO2 cannot be made small enough to put it on every car and truck in the country.

    Producing solar cells is energy-intensive. I’ve read estimates that say solar cells produce about as much energy over their expected lifespan as it takes to produce them. High end estimates are that they produce 7-10 times as much energy as they take to produce. Combined with the toxic waste you get when you make them, the variability in output, and the land they take up (which is either valuable or far from where you are using power), solar cells are not a very practical solution to energy generation.

    Try to read what I actually write. I have never said that there is an energy crisis. I have in fact said the opposite; we have the technical means and the energy reserves necessary to switch energy sources whenever we decide that it is necessary. Global warming is a far more serious problem than energy, and is the primary reason we should be switching over now instead of later.

  41. pimpjuice says:

    Maria looks like a trashy slut.

  42. barbm says:

    Bartiromo is so in love with herself that she appointed herself Bernanke’s personal mouthpiece. Even a novice reporter should have known that these were off the record comments. She thinks that she is as important and powerful as the Fed. Chair. I wrote CNBC immediately after she blabbed the idiotic comments. Still think that she should go. Come on CNBC, you have made so many bad changes; try a positive one. Can’t take this woman!