CNBC Gets Roasted

[Dardedar]

DAR
I have long thought CNBC should be called the non sequitur (does not follow) channel. All day long they watch the market go up down and then they make up stories as to what caused it to go up and down. They might be right, they are probably usually wrong but no one could ever know. And they constantly pretend like they know and pretend as if they are peddling something verifiable. It's all a game of trying to figure out cause and effect but with very little feedback or anything that can be verified. And they are usually yelling because, as everyone knows, the loudest person is much more likely to be right. As O'Reilly.

A bunch of righties are trying to make the case that Obama has been in office a month and a half now, the stock market has gone down, therefore it is his actions that have caused it. Considering they way it was trending, why couldn't it be the case that the stock market would be down even further if he hadn't taken those actions? No one knows. Here is a line of cause and effect I think we can certainly draw: if you are president for eight years and the market goes UP 330% (Clinton), it's probably safe to say your actions/policies were beneficial. If you were in office for eight years and the market went down over 20% (GW Bush), it's probably safe to say your actions/policies were not beneficial.

I was so glad to see The Daily show tackle this one. They really knocked this one out of the park and made the yammering nabobs at CNBC look like a bunch of ignorant fools.

Jon Stewart Eviscerates CNBC and Rick Santelli



Oh, and the Colbert Report was exceptional that same evening. I know religious people who love Glen Beck because he constantly goes on about the end of the world. Colbert roasts him to a crisp:

Colbert outguns Beck: Welcome to the 'Doom Bunker'

[L.Wood]

.

THANK YOU DAR.

That was one of Daily's BEST and the only one I missed last week.

.

[Dardedar]

Robert Reich at Salon:

The argument that Obama is somehow responsible for the collapse of Wall Street is absurd. First, every major policy that led to this collapse occurred under George W.'s watch (or, more accurately, his failure to watch). The housing and financial bubbles were created under Bush and exploded under Bush. The stock market began to collapse under Bush.

Second, it's inevitable that stocks, led by the bloated financial sector, would lose their remaining hot air as the new administration begins "stress-testing" the big banks, many of which are technically insolvent. After all, their share prices were built on a tissue of lies and dreams. Other sectors whose values were similarly distorted and distended by years of financial deception and regulatory disregard, such as housing and insurance, will also have to return to the real world before they can recover. Which could mean more stock losses."

Link