1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The human toll of the tsunami - per CNBC's Larry Kudlow

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by poindexter, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Shorting can be a wonderful thing, but typically not for little guys, who may be absolutely right about specific situations -- but if too early, can't stand the gaff when the market moves against them in extreme markets. And time premiums on options are typically excessive, unless you've got awesome (i. e., inside) information. Participating on the speculative edges is a big game for big kids. What would be spectacular would be a BetFair-style market on heavily-traded stocks . . . but of course, good luck seeing anything that would make that much sense made possible, stateside, given who's running the show. Such a structure would squeeze most of the middleman juice out of the markets, thus making them far more inviting.
     
  2. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    His body of work speaks for itself. He's spent so much time with the grifters, he's talked himself into thinking they're fully legit.
     
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    I read Novak's last book, about himself. He was quite candid about many of his multiple shortcomings, and the work was quite entertaining.

    He did (e-? de-)volve into a massive egomaniac, as time went on. That's seldom a pretty sight, and certainly wasn't, in his case.
     
  4. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Google California, Energy and Enron.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Ugh. No need for Google. I lived in Houston at the time and worked across the Street from Enron.

    Meanwhile, my brother was the top lawyer for the California Public Utilities Commission. I'm familiar with the issue.

    Enron & others operated illegally. That's a fact. But the electricity market in California was heavily regulated with few market players. It was not the definition of a free market.

    What I'm trying to explain is that in some kind of disaster, where either supplies are cut or demand is increased, the price is going to change based on conditions (and panic to a degree).

    There's no way to control that. You can't artificially freeze prices. It won't work.

    So, to blame "speculators" or "greed" for the change in price is just silly and ignorant.
     
  6. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    YF, your SportsJournalists.com skills are just horrendous. You start out defending Kudlow. Fine, I get it. But you bounce around, creating several (lame) arguments, all on one thread. You bring up the Republican thing - nothing to do with the thread. That was quickly sniffed out. Then you are on to an ill-fated argument about fixing prices. Your name dropping is bizarre - you worked across the street from Enron? Your brother is the "top" lawyer for the PUC? Nobody gives a flying fuck.

    Seriously, you need to go back to SportsJournalists.com 101.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The "Wall Street" stuff is stupidity. As is the YF, "Larry is a great guy."

    I'll venture to guess I know Larry Kudlow better than YF. And Larry Kudlow is 1) a smart guy, who is also a bit of a charlatan, 2) a guy with a knack for fucking up, and 3) a guy with an amazing ability to reinvent himself.

    He has pretty much been a mess of a person his whole life, but he is gifted enough to keep reinventing himself and getting chances to move on to other things.

    He was a democrat turned republican turned economist -- more an economist by appointment than by achievement. He leveraged political connections into a reputation into a gig with Bear Stearns, where he of course blew it, and I mean that literally, because of course he had the coke problem that got him fired. I never understood his rep for brilliance as a market economist. He was just easy to get on the phone and he was a good quote, so journalists puffed him up as something special. If Arthur Laffer hadn't been waiting in the wings to give him a modicum of credibility again, after he almost snorted away his career, we probably would have never heard from Larry Kudlow again.

    As an economist he's never been anything more than a political hack. He got himself appointed to positions by Republicans who traded the appointments with tacit agreements that they could control him l to get him to project whatever they want projected.

    As a journalist? He's no journalist. He's a personality. And my bet is he is trying to find his next chameleon act. He has explored senate seats in about 35 states. And with his propensity to put his foot him his mouth, he'd probably make a great elected official.
     
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Ragu: We won't always agree, but appreciate your candor in this instance.
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

     
  10. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    “The human toll here,” he declared, “looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that.”

    “I did not mean to say human toll in Japan less important than economic toll,” he wrote. “Talking about markets. I flubbed the line. Sincere apology.”

    Assume he did flub up the line - which I still don't believe, but for argument's sake, assume he did flub.

    What did he MEAN to say? I have tried to insert "markets" into any part of the lines and I can't get it to make sense. But then again, I don't have a personal relationship with him.
     
  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Ha!
     
  12. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    My "defense" of Kudlow was that he was reporting for/to an audience more interested/invested in the economic toll than the human toll. It makes sense that he was taking that tack. People don't watch CNBC for warm and cuddly features.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page