Bigger than Enron-CNBC

CNBC's editorial staff seemed to have awakened from its eight-year slumber just in time to realize that it was Democrats who wrecked the economy. Indeed, according to CNBC's money guru and his radical "wealth destruction" rhetoric, stocks had been hammered, on perhaps an unprecedented level, since Obama took office.

Except, of course, that they hadn't. At least not compared to the stock drops suffered under President Bush. For instance, in the less than six weeks between September 19, 2008, and October 27, 2008, the Dow lost 3,055 points. And between October 10, 2007, and November 20, 2008, the Dow lost a staggering 6,526 points on Bush's watch. By contrast, between January 21 and March 3, when Cramer lobbed his false claim against Obama, the Dow had lost 1,223 points.
Did an extraordinary amount of wealth get destroyed via the stock markets during Bush's tenure? Absolutely. Yet CNBC's Cramer only appeared on Today to blame Obama by name for comparatively modest Dow declines. (And speaking of wealth destruction, if you followed Cramer's "buy" and "sell" stock tips between May 2008 and December 2008, you would have lost 35 percent on your investment.)

And on and on the attacks came from Cramer. As Media Matters previously noted, Cramer this year repeatedly characterized Obama and congressional Democrats as Russian communists, claiming Obama is "taking cues from Lenin" and using terms such as "Bolshevik," "Marx," "comrades," "Soviet," "Winter Palace," and "Politburo" to describe Democrats.

And it hasn't just been Cramer. CNBC's Maria Bartiromo falsely suggested that Obama has proposed taxing small-business revenue. CNBC news anchor Melissa Francis announced she wouldn't vote for Obama's stimulus package. Host Joe Kernen mocked Obama as having been "hijacked by those -- the crazy -- by [Nancy] Pelosi, by [Harry] Reid" and described Obama's budget as "far left." During the same segment, reporter Carl Quintanilla said of Obama's budget, "There is some social engineering going on." Kernen also falsely claimed that Obama had promised to eliminate earmarks.

CNBC host Erin Burnett announced there were "interesting" and "serious" ideas in an op-ed Rush Limbaugh wrote for The Wall Street Journal about how he'd fix the economy. (His remedy: slash capital gains taxes. No, really.) In the op-ed, Limbaugh suggested that if the government did nothing, this recession would pretty much fix itself. That's the column Burnett heralded as "interesting" and "serious."

And now we've suddenly got a showcase CNBC host reportedly eyeing public office in Connecticut as a Republican while bashing away at the new Democratic administration each night, and even criticizing -- on-air -- the Connecticut pol the host wants to unseat.

And did we mention the idiotic Santelli episode? In terms of newsroom standards, it's like Fox News run amok over at CNBC.

And that, Jeff Zucker, is the real problem.

Economic Pear Harbor

CNBC great show? Well let us look at John Stewart's clip showing us how GREAT CNBC is!
IDIOTS!


N.Y. Times, 'CNBC Thrives as Hosts Deliver News With Attitude,' by Brian Stelter and Tim Arango: 'One month shy of its 20th anniversary, CNBC is being jokingly called 'the recession network' within the halls of its headquarters in New Jersey. After it achieved record ratings last fall, the network's audience remains above its annual average. But CNBC's executives and hosts seem well aware that their ratings have traditionally stagnated in down times for the Dow. 'People do not want to come to a show each night and hear how poor they are,' ['Mad Money' host Jim] Cramer said. But in a change from previous downturns, CNBC is now a place for politics, to borrow a phrase from its sister channel MSNBC. The network's journalists have been encouraged to speak their minds, making the line between reporter and commentator almost indistinguishable at times. ... With economic attention focused on Washington, the network is spending less time on bullish stock picks and more time assessing the government's actions. In recent weeks some have perceived the network to be leading the campaign against President Obama's economic agenda. ... Just as the first cable news channel, CNN, rose to prominence during the gulf war in 1991, and another one, the Fox News Channel, became a ratings leader in the period before the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003, CNBC is on a war footing. ... CNBC is a boon to NBC Universal's bottom line; it has posted record profits for at least the last three years.'

John Stewart, where are you?

Talk about the fox watching the Hen House

Talk about the fox watching the Hen House....

Specifically as to J.P. Morgan Chase, the Commission's allegations stem from J.P. Morgan Chase's participation in so-called prepay transactions with Enron which were loans disguised as commodity trades to achieve Enron's reporting and accounting objectives.

J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup engaged in, and indeed helped their clients design, complex structured finance transactions. The structural complexity of these transactions had no business purpose aside from masking the fact that, in substance, they were loans. As alleged in the charging documents, by engaging in certain structural contortions, these financial institutions helped their clients: (1) inflate reported cash flow from operating activities; (2) underreport cash flow from financing activities; and (3) underreport debt. As a result, Enron and Dynegy presented false and misleading pictures of their financial health and results of operations. Significantly, with respect to Enron, both financial institutions knew that Enron engaged in these transactions specifically to allay investor, analyst, and rating agency concerns about its cash flow from operating activities and outstanding debt. Citigroup knew that Dynegy had similar motives for its structured finance transaction.

Citigroup (C Quote - Cramer on C - Stock Picks) said Wachovia (WB Quote - Cramer on WB - Stock Picks) would have failed last Tuesday if Citi had not heeded the federal government's request to step in and buy much of the ailing bank.
The New York bank made the claim Monday in a statement announcing it had filed a $60 billion lawsuit against Wachovia and Wells Fargo (WFC Quote - Cramer on WFC - Stock Picks) for breaching an exclusivity agreement by trumping its $2.16 billion deal struck Monday with a $15.1 billion agreement reached Friday. Citi said Wells Fargo "walked away" from a deal before federal authorities called on Citi to help.

Citi's purchase was contingent on help from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Citi was assuming responsibility for up to $42 billion of losses on $312 billion of Wachovia loans identified as potentially troubling. The FDIC would backstop the rest. Citi also was not buying Wachovia's securities and asset management units. Wells Fargo's offer was for the full company and included no help from the federal government.

"This was always a deal Citi wanted rather than one we needed," Citi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "We were and remain very excited about this transaction and how it will benefit the clients and shareholders of Citi and Wachovia, as well as help preserve the stability of the financial system. The Citi/Wachovia transaction would have been signed and announced on Friday, Oct. 3 if it had not been subverted by the unlawful conduct of Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and their officers and directors and outside advisors."

Citi reiterated that it had been providing liquidity support to Wachovia since its deal was announced.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10440812/1/citi-sues-wells-fargo-wachovia-for-60-billion.html?puc=_htmlbooyah