Explain Santelli's Logic (Today's New Comment) To Me

nravo · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from stock_trad3r:

This thread probably doesn't belong in trading.

The banks need to be bailout to improve market & investor confidence. Although this recession pales in comparison to the great depression, the lack of govt. support in the financial system worsened the great depression.

Lack of government support worsened the Great Depression? FRom 1933 to 1937, the government pumped massive amounts of money into the system, the WPA was founded, the New Deal list goes on and on. And what happened, we had another depression -- yes a depression, albeit smaller -- in 1937-38! Only rearmament and World War II pulled us out of it.

ButterMilk · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from dsq:

Santelli is a screaming 2 faced idiot-thats how.
Its the traders like santelli and all their freemarket garbage philosophy that created the exotic dervatives markets like cd swaps and subprime loans and then raped the economy and america.Wall st has always been a con game.Whats happening now is repeated time and again...the dot com implosion,s+l,the depression, the 1907 crisis..all synthetic creations and scams made by the same group and minset of wall st today and yesterday.And it will happen again as long as wall st exists.Wall st is nothing more than a slick sales job selling snake oil 90% of the time.Just read up on livermore.

If Santelli was good at trading or knowledgable of the markets as he thinks he is, he wouldn't be screaming like his buddy, CNBC number one nut case Larry Kudlow... but making tons of money trading!!

stock_trad3r · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from nravo:

Lack of government support worsened the Great Depression? FRom 1933 to 1937, the government pumped massive amounts of money into the system, the WPA was founded, the New Deal list goes on and on. And what happened, we had another depression -- yes a depression, albeit smaller -- in 1937-38! Only rearmament and World War II pulled us out of it.

re-read my post.

"support in the financial system"

dsq · Feb 23, 2009

larry kudlow is an alcoholic and was a coke head then he converted to jesus from moses...he has serious issues and mental retardation....hes a bullshitter a la cramer or santelli...just regular for wall st crew.

nravo · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from ButterMilk:

If Santelli was good at trading or knowledgable of the markets as he thinks he is, he wouldn't be screaming like his buddy, CNBC number one nut case Larry Kudlow... but making tons of money trading!!

Hey, like I said, I understand the libertarian argument, and that's a different debate, but it seems slimy (a new synonym for inconsistent) to be a libertarian toward homeowners but not toward banks.

redzuk · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

If I were a Legislator I doubt I'd be bailout inclined but when I hear Whiner Nation with their insured accounts-the ULTIMATE bailout-I have to laugh at the duplicity.

They took on counterparty risk. SIPC is only going to cover cash, stocks and bonds at IB, right? Its the exchange that covers the counterparty risk of derivative trades. I've read your posts, i know you know this better than i do. Trade otc at your own risk.

In hindsight we know the banks ignored the real risk, they were were wrong. Now if they're insolvent let them fail.

Carl

Random.Capital · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from nravo:

Ok, he's against bailing out home buyers who were dumb, irresponsible, greedy, et cetera. Okay, I get that point of view, philosophy, the Ayn Rand thing.

Was he also opposed to jacking FDIC coverage limits sky high, or he is just another guy who only wants his own bread buttered?

Illum · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from dsq:

he has serious issues and mental retardation....

I snarfed and it hurt

Pa(b)st Prime · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from redzuk:

They took on counterparty risk. SIPC is only going to cover cash, stocks and bonds at IB, right? Its the exchange that covers the counterparty risk of derivative trades. I've read your posts, i know you know this better than i do. Trade otc at your own risk.

In hindsight we know the banks ignored the real risk, they were were wrong. Now if they're insolvent let them fail.

Carl

Carl, What I'm posing is the fact that the SIPC doesn't have the reserves to handle a major, major blow out. They'd need to approach Congress for help. Just like the banks did......

rock34748 · Feb 23, 2009

Quote from redzuk:

...

In hindsight we know the banks ignored the real risk, they were were wrong. Now if they're insolvent let them fail.

Carl

Am I missing something? Does FDIC have a few trillion laying around somewhere just waiting for banks to default? I'm thinking FDIC = taxpayer. Letting banks domino into the abyss can't be a good thing for any of us.

If they get funded (propped up) by us, their board/executives should get replaced by a conservative (fiscal not political) operation who should be free to make money and buy back our (FDIC/taxpayer/TARP...) portion later. If that's not possible up front then certainly stringent regulatory strings must be present. (I guess where we are headed)

Sooner than later, new regulations should/would be in place stating if you want to be an FDIC operation, guess what... follow these transparent conservative policies (regs) or all of you go to jail IF we have to push the FDIC magic button ever again. Real Gitmo type jail, not Madoff house arrest. Sorry... 1st paragraph contains my real point.