CNBC’s Fast money Dylan Ratigan Rants about the economic problems and what led up to the problem and who’s to blame (at least a couple of the people who are to blame…)

Category: Bailouts, Credit, Economy, Video

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.

15 Responses to “Dylan Ratigan Rant’s About Bailouts & Risk”

  1. Chief Tomahawk says:

    I remember watching it the first time. How many shows never “went” there? How many hours of empty TV were broadcast where the facts were brushed over or never reported? Folks are just supposed to contribute blindly to their 401k’s and leave it there for the long run. At least Ratigan shined a light.

    Hope Macke forgets the meds and really cuts loose now…

  2. SS says:

    A great piece of journalism. One fault that I will attribute to Dylan’s relatively young age. At the end he opines that “this is theft not capitalism.” In ten years this should come out “capitalism is theft.” It is becoming clearer as time progresses.

  3. Todd says:

    Guess CNBC reads this blog. You tube has taken it down.

  4. Trainwreck says:

    Mr Ratigan was one of the very few voices at CNBC that I actually respected. Tis CNBCs loss and another network’s gain!

  5. Moss says:

    Go Boy go!!!!!

    @ SS Re: Capitalism is theft.

    Unless of course you are a Conservative. Then it is Socialism which is theft. Re-branded as a result of regulation.

  6. holulu says:

    Video does not play. It says “we are sorry, this video is no longer available”

    What is going on?

  7. lapsedlawyer says:

    Todd, holulu:

    I just played it and it works fine. Went to YouTube and it’s still up. Or back up. Whatever ;-)

    Thanks Barry, from this non-trading layman just trying to get a handle on just how this got to be this way. (I’m also not terribly mathematically inclined, yet I understand quantum physics better than this stuff — thanks to you and a few others I’m starting to have a firmer basis for my anger.)

  8. Bruce in Tn says:

    Well, here is the truth. Here is my rant.

    This is a failed business model. It didn’t work. Debt was incurred that has to be reconciled. That reconciliation should be that the incorporated company goes bankrupt and the shareholders and bondholders pay a price for bad economic behavior. Instead we are getting generational theft, as the loser in the election has stated, and it isn’t so bad for me, but for my descendents. In the transfer of this debt obligation from the business and its stockholders and bondholders to the taxpayer, people and the offspring of people who lived within their means and made good daily decisions will be punished.

    No matter how this is explained as necessary, this is simply wrong. The idea has been repudiated through the ages. Descendents of debtors do not have debt obligation, and now debt obligation has not only been placed on the backs of those innocent of economic wrongdoing, but also their offspring.

    This is a massive step toward the socialization of society, whereby the poor behavior of some is nullified by the general population. I see this as weakening the economic fabric of our country, in the long term idea of things. Our march toward socialization is increasingly rewarding this behavior, not just in economics, but for instance, by partially paying the cost of hurricane victims who rebuild in areas where there is a much increased risk of storm damage to homes and businesses. Individuals and businesses choose to live in these sorts of areas, the general society doesn’t benefit MORE from the income they produce when the weather is good, but are expected to help bail out these poor decisions when another hurricane comes. I know you understand the analogy..

    If the Chinese manage to leave communism, and should they develop a 1950′s USA style of capitalism, it is they who will have to build fences to keep immigrants out. Here in the USA, we are increasingly rewriting the rules that should result in decline…

    My 2 cents…

  9. “My two cents” and its longer version “put my two cents in” is an American idiomatic expression, taken from the original British idiom expression: to put in ” my two pennies worth” or ” my tuppence worth”. It used to preface the stating of one’s opinion. By deprecating the opinion to follow — suggesting its value is only two cents, a very small amount — the user of the phrase hopes to lessen the impact of a possibly contentious statement, showing politeness and humility. However, it is also sometimes used with irony when expressing a strongly felt opinion. The phrase is also used out of habit to preface uncontentious opinions.

    For example: “If I may put my two cents in, that hat doesn’t do you any favors.” (More polite way of saying, for example: That hat is ugly.) An example of the shortened version: “My two cents is that you should sell that stock now.”

    There is some speculation as to the origin of the idiom. Some believe that the phrase originates in betting card games, such as poker. In these games, one must make a small bet, or ante, before beginning play. Thus, the phrase makes an analogy between entering the game and entering a conversation. However, there is no documentary evidence of this being the origin of the idiom and as such, is merely speculation. Other likely origins are that “my two pennies worth” is derived from the much older 16th Century British expression, ” a penny for your thoughts”. There is also some belief that the idiom may have its origins in the early cost of postage in Britain, the “twopenny post”, where two pennies was the normal charge of sending a letter containing one’s words and thoughts or feelings to someone.

    “Two cents” and its variations may also be used in place of the noun “opinion” or the verb phrase “state [subject's] opinion”, e.g. “You had to put your two cents in, didn’t you?” or “But thats just my two cents.”

    The phrase “If you don’t put your two cents in, how can you get change?” encourages an expression of opinion. It makes a pun on the word “change”. One meaning of change is an alteration — presumably to bring someone or something in agreement with an expressed opinion. Another meaning of change is the cash equivalent of an overpayment. Thus the reference to two cents is in accord with another idiom that values opinions at one cent (A Penny for Your Thoughts).
    “This basic form of pounds shillings pence currency was certainly in use by the 9th century. At that time the minting of coins was not centrally controlled activity. Coins were produced on a local, regional and independent basis, closely linked to the trades and traders who used them. It was to take many hundreds of years before coin production and values were to be unified into a consistent national standard. Moreover, the introduction of the first pound coin – the gold sovereign – was still more than half a century away. Still, the Pounds Shillings Pence structure, ie twelve pennies to a shilling, and twenty shillings to a pound was established by the end of the first millennium.

    The word ‘Penny’ is derived from old Germanic language. The root gave similar ‘Penny’ names across Europe, originally meaning a coin or money, for example Old High German pfenning (and recently pre-Euro ‘pfennig’), and Danish ‘penge’. The oldest English forms, pre 725, were penig and pening. Penny is therefore a very old word indeed. By the early 12th century an English Penny was a firmly established solid silver coin worth one-twelfth of a shilling, and incredibly silver pennies continued in production, although sizes and purities changed, until c.1820, when copper pennies superceded them, forming the early beginnings of modern ‘token’ money (ie., like today’s money, in that the value of the coin is not based on the value of the metal content)…”
    “..The twelve ounce Tower Pound weighed 5400 grains (1 grain = 0.065 grams) and in the early state controlled minting of money, this weight of silver was coined into 240 pence or 20 shillings. This weight standard also became known as Troy, which system was adopted as the legal standard for gold and silver in 1527. During the 12th century, at the time when the English monetary system was being more unified and centrally controlled, the Troy systems of weight and money were inextricably related: ie., a Troy Pound = 12 Troy ounces = 240 ‘Pennyweight’. A ‘Pennyweight’ was the weight of a Sterling Silver penny.

    The Troy weight system dated back to the end of the first millennium. The name is from the city of Troyes in France, which was an important trading city in the Middle Ages.

    A Troy ounce is about 10% heavier than the more conventional and modern ‘Avoirdupois’ ounce, ie., 480 grains (31.1g) versus 437.5 grains (28.3g), whereas a Troy pound (12 Troy ounces) is about 17.5% lighter than the Avoirdupois Pound (16 Avoirdupois ounces), ie., 5760 grains (c.373g) versus 7000 grains (c.453.59 g). This explains the trick question: Why does an ounce of gold weigh more than an ounce of feathers, yet a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold?… “

  10. missed a part: “..Prior to decimalisation in 1971, British currency was represented by the old English ‘Pounds, Shillings and Pence’ or ‘LSD’.

    The ‘L’ denoted the £ pound-sign; strangely ‘D’ or ‘d’ denoted the pence, and coincidentally ‘S’ denoted shillings, since shilling was not the origin of the S. The £ and L symbols were derived from Latin ‘libra’, like the Zodiac sign of the weighing scales, and literally from ‘libra’ (also shown as ‘librae’) the Latin word meaning a pound weight, from Middle English (weight, as you will see, related closely to monetary value). The penny ‘D’ in LSD, and also lower case ‘d’ more commonly used when pence alone were shown, was from ‘Denarius’ (also shown as ‘denari’ or ‘denarii’), a small and probably the most common silver Roman coin, which loosely equated to one day’s pay for a labourer. S of course was associated with shilling but originally derived from the Roman coin ‘Solidus’ (prior to 1387 in English translations shown as ‘Solidy’, and also shown more recently in English as ‘Solidi’ and ‘Solidii’, being Latin plural versions). The Solidus was originally an Imperial Roman coin introduced by Constantine (c.274-337AD), so called from the full Latin ‘solidus nummus’, meaning solid coin. The symbols of the pre-decimal British money therefore had origins dating back almost two thousand years.

    The development of coinage and money systems was a very gradual process lasting many hundreds of years. Weights and coinage standards were directly linked because coins were valued according to their metal content. ‘Token-based’ money – like today’s, in which value is not dependent on the metal content – did not begin to appear until the 19th century. ” from, above, link

    “The penny ‘D’ in LSD, and also lower case ‘d’ more commonly used when pence alone were shown, was from ‘Denarius’ (also shown as ‘denari’ or ‘denarii’), a small and probably the most common silver Roman coin, which loosely equated to one day’s pay for a labourer.”

    “The penny loosely equated to one day’s pay for a labourer.”

    and with this:
    Dimensions: Diameter: 36 mm yes, 25.4mm=inch

    and the DOWn closing @ 7776.18 maybe we’ll recall that ol’ K. George III was on the throne, the last time we wised up..

  11. Todd says:

    Still couldn’t view it when I searched You tube. Don’t know why. Did you pwn youtube to download it and watch. He was right on.

    @Mannwich. I concur. Generational Theft. Sad thing most won’t view it that way, they just live day to day.

  12. Todd says:

    Meant to say I used pwn youtube to download it.

  13. Bob A says:

    And where was Dylan Ratigan when all the shit that led to these problems was taking place??????????

    I’ll tell you where..


    Just like the rest of the entire CNBC team

  14. barrister999 says:

    CNBC will be losing probably its only true journalist. [ Liseman, Faber & Haynes do ask important questions and attempt to analyze rather than just jabber] Now I have absolutely no reason to watch the channel. For a channel/network that claims to be the ‘go to’ channel for business and stock news, it is truly remarkable how poorly it has reported the most significant stock market/economic event in our lifetime. I don’t know anything about the producer other than she has missed the boat on one of the biggest stories in economic history. Have any of her mediocre staff/cast ever questioned the conclusion of ‘systemic risk’ or questioned who the counterparties to the AIG Credit Default Swaps are and why they might pose such a ‘systemic risk’. Did she ever ask one of her reporters to explain how a CDO works or what a ‘tranch’ is. Of course, do we really think Dennis Kneale or any of the ‘bimbos’ actually know what a counterparty or tranch is? I will miss Dylan . . .

  15. flipspiceland says:

    How he will be able to do his in depth analysis and talk about the perpetrators as he has at CNBC, at ABC , is a puzzle.

    Generally, networks are much less interested (because of their corporate owners) to put up with Truth-telling.