http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Remember when Tina Fey repeated Palin's comments word for word and it was hysterical? Well watch the Faux News team here make their economic forecasts, and belittle the guy who turned out to be right in the process.

Fair and balanced. Of course it is, and financial were a bargain, like Ben Stein says. And people fall for this. How sad.

The tough part is Schiff doesn't see an economic recovery for several years.

It always amazes me that clueless "journalists" (more like prompter readers) are disrespecful enough to make fun of a guest.

The first clip was from CNBC. The Fox Business News clips had non-Fox employees who were guest commentators expressing their own views, just like Peter Schiff was expressing his views. I didn't see any disrespect from Fox Business News or CNBC employees/journalists. There are other videos when Schiff appeared on CNN and got similar treatments from guest commentators that CNN had on.

Since neither of you guys know anything about business or business news shows (they have people with opposing views arguing 24/7 on these shows), I don't think you are in a situation to pass judgment. You can pass judgment on the guests they had on their show, but if you knew what was going to happen, then you could have shorted the market and you would be a multi-millionaire by now.

I think it is a testament to both CNBC and Fox that Peter Schiff was invited to appear on their shows and expressed his opinions.

Towards the end, the comment about Santa Claus. And interrupting a speaker is disrespectful.

Actually the real impressive thing is showing up for Faux knowing what's coming.

7min and 46 seconds, the host says : "I know you want to continue that expose on Santa Claus"
That to me, this is a little disrespectful comming from a host that really doesn't say much.


Since you don't know anything about us, I don't think you are able to pass judgment about us either. This is just another useless attack that doesn't help you make your point.


Sure. I don't personnaly own stock because I think that the value of stocks stopped representing the real value of all those companies a long time ago.
I have my account with a local bank. However, I'm not blind to the reality of facts. I know my bank has my money invested in the stock market or in some obscure money-making schemes that they cannot control. As soon as the bank gets my paycheck, it goes in the system. And then, not even God know where is goes.


A testament of fairness and balanceness I guess

Not in every case. If show is ending in 20 seconds, then you have to interrupt the speaker, like it or not. And some people really like to hear their own voice and would like to talk 10 hours in 5 minute segment .

Faugusztin you are correct, but on Faux there are a staggering number of interruptions that are not in that category.

There are several kinds of interruptions:

1. Initiated by the moderator (host) for commercial break or when a segment is ending.

2. Initiated by the moderator to make sure that everyone with opposing views is able to respond or get their own point across. These shows deliberately get people with opposing views to argue with each other, but sometimes the host needs to moderate the discussion, and that means cutting some people off.

3. Interruptions by the guests themselves trying to get their point across.

I did not see any inappropriate behavior by the hosts. You will see more interruptions on shows that are fair and balanced, because they have credible guests with opposing views that get into heated arguments.

Some of you need to get a life and quit dredging up ridiculously minor things from 3 years ago. If you want to go after someone, go after the people and government institutions that caused the financial crisis, and not a bunch of people who do nothing but try and predict what will happen in the future (and have no control themselves as to what actually happens).

BTW, there is no political relationship between those who predicted the financial crisis and those who did not. In other words, the claim that liberals predicted the crash and conservatives said it would not happen is completely and totally false. The primary cause of the real-estate bust was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two government-backed agencies that bought up questionable mortgages, and who encouraged sub-prime borrowing by poor people who could not pay back loans), which are the brainchilds and pet projects of the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe you misunderstood what I said, but if you really knew that stocks were over-valued, then it is very easy to bet against the stock market by selling short, buying put options, or buying mutual funds that do one or both of these.

The fact is that you didn't know. Mr Schiff seems to have known, and I know that some people got very rich betting against the market the last few years (60 Minutes did a show on some of them).


Generally speaking, the banks take your money and loan it to others. They don't keep it in cash or liquid assets (only about 20% is required to be in liquid assets like cash and marketable securities). In addition to God, most people who have business knowledge know that.

I don't believe playing with money is right. So I don't own stocks or any crap like that. However, I do have money in a bank, no choice, and therefore I know my money is invested somewhere in something (whatever it is).


And like you, there are a lot more things I don't know about !!! Finance is not my job, I don't have time for it, and I don't care for it. It's as simple as that.


Good for them, I hope they enjoy their money, and I hope that made their lives that much more interesting.


I really wish you were my banker. I'm serious !! If only my banker could tell me exactly where my money really is... (whether it's stocks, funds or loans to a company or to peple, or to another bank...) Walk into a bank, ask the bank manager were your money is invested : he has no clue !! He'll give you a bunch of complicated sounding vocab and that's it. No names.

On the subject of having money in the bank. I have my savings in JAK. It's a members bank with no interest rate. Perhaps theres a French or US equivalent? International information here:
- http://jak.aventus.nu/968.php

There are many non-profit "member" banks in the US called Credit Unions.

I don't know exactly what they told you, but it is basically as I explained, which means that there is no direct relationship between your demand deposit account and the assets that back that up (loans made to others or securities the purchase). All the money is pooled. As I explained previously, the banks only have to keep about 20% of your money as liquid assets in reserve, and can loan out the other 80% (this is called Fractional Reserve Banking.

Here is an explanation (pop quiz tomorrow):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

If this bothers you, then you should get a safety deposit box at the bank and keep your currency there (so you can look at it whenever you want).

Actually the main issue here is not the interruptions but the sad state of affairs of the Faux team's forecasts. The markets did collapse as Schiff predicted and those cheap financial stocks are now way way down from the wonderful buying prices.

People with strong arguments have no need to interrupt others on this channel or any other, so one should weigh such behavior accordingly. Also there is some Jerry Springer logic of having a shouting match to attract those kinds of viewers, and stations control wether or not they will use such tactics.

As stated in another thread the tactics used by Faux are clear to any viewer by doing the following:

1. Rent "Outfoxed"
2. Ignore all the "liberal" commentary.
3. Watch and listen only to the Fox segments themselves.
4. As yourself if fair and balanced is in play.
5. Worth noting - the phrase "Some say...." is not a valid journalist tactic. I can come along and state, "Some say the earth will be invaded by little green men from Mars." What of it? How does "Some say..." lend any credibility to the question?

I don't mind not seing it, it just bothers me that I don't know what my bank is doing with my money, that's all I understand it's put in a big pot, and then the bank does whatever it wants with it so that when the money comes back, there is (supposed to be) more It's really about the transparency of the investments (read transparency of the system).


Darn, I suck at those....

Am I looking at an announced pop quiz?

There are many ways to view that. If left in a mattress inflation over decades will make the money worthless, and that's no game.

Everything is a balance of risk versus reward:
What you eat
Work
Just going to work
Your education
Your health
Marriage
The next intersection you drive through
Even kids

As we learned in The Karate Kid - Go find the balance!

What really rich people do besides stock and real estate is to buy insurance that will guarantee them a fixed income for life at a certain age. It may not return much but that's the offset to a guaranteed income stream. It's good for heirs too, controlled spending.

Some policies and companies pay more than others. Most pay rather poorly. I have such a policy.


So here you are "investing" without much on the up side. Think there is not much down side? Look at how many banks default each year. Yes FDIC and all that, but.....

If your bank is a company that is publicly traded on a stock exchange in the US, then they must disclose their material investments each year in reports to the SEC. You should probably start with the 10K report and see if that satisfies you. These are available on-line for almost all publicly traded companies.

But the banks don't usually make much money on their investments, they make most of their money on loans, such as car loans, business loans, home mortgage loans, etc. Obviously you are not going to be able to see the detail of each individual loan.

But you don't need to worry about it too much since your demand deposit account funds are insured by the FDIC up to $250,000 per person per bank at more than 7000 FDIC insured banks in the US. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money funds, and safety deposit box contents are not insured by the FDIC.

Obviously there is a down side to banks loaning money to others. A certain percentage of people will default on their loans. If no one ever defaulted, interest rates would be lower.

Since the FDIC was created in 1933, no one with an insured demand deposit or savings account (the limit was $100,000 until recently, and not sure what it was n 1933) has ever lost any money at an FDIC insured bank. Tens of thousands of banks have gone under in that time period. Even in good times, there are banks that go under.

I am not sure what you mean by "without much on the up side"? Are you feeling sorry for the banks? They can make plenty of money on loans, especially since the source of money they loan out is very cheap or free.

Nonsense. You obviously don't listen to CNBC, CNN Business News. or Fox Business News much. All these business news networks invite people of many different views on their show, and since Fox invited Schiff on their show then how can you say that he is not a member of the team? Schiff got pretty hostile treatment from the other network guest commentators also (CNN and CNBC). This is nothing but a witch-hunt.

I have to admit I watch Fox the same way I watch Comedy central, mainly O'Reilly versus Colbert It's quite entertaining !!

O'Reilly is not a news show and he is not a journalist. It is as you suggested, entertainment. The other cable networks like CNN and CNBC have their own highly opinionated talk shows, even more blatantly ridiculous than O'reilly.

O'Reilly has reeled himself back in quite a bit in the past few years. I think it was when his editor booked him on Colbert for a book launch that started it. He certainly is opinionated conservatively, but he has moved his show far more towards the center in the last 18 months or so.

I had a grandpa (RIP) say that when I was a boy...he was talking to my dad about trucking. I was always ears up, because, well, he was a ww2 god.

at least 30 years ago...

"too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and savings"

he said it when american steel took a turn.

And he has said so himself. And yet, isn't he on the Faux News Channel?

http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/various%20p ... 20News.jpg

Do you even get cable channels? There are similar opinionated talk shows on CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC. Even CNN Headline News Channel has given up on showing news all the time and they now have opinionated talk shows.

Here are some of the hosts that now have shows on CNN Headline News:
- Nancy Grace
- The Joy Behar Show
- Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell

The first two are well known for non-journalistic talk shows, and here is the description of the last show above:

"Jane Velez-Mitchell takes a stand on the ISSUES -- issues of the day and issues from across the country. From regular workers caught up in the economic storm to crime victims ignored by the mainstream media, Jane stands up for the powerless, and speaks for those who don't have a voice."

Doesn't sound like journalism to me.

Actually though, the talk shows tend to me more balanced, because they thrive on conflict and they often have 2 or more guests on with opposing views (or the guest has opposing views from the host). Many times this is more objective than listening to one "so-called" journalist who supposedly synthesizes both sides himself/herself, and tells us the "objective" end result. Sometimes I would rather hear both sides tell their own story.

FOX is a propaganda outlet catering to single minded males who are...you guest it people. single.
They spew venom 24/7...

isn't faux news the only talk show home for glenn beck? he is a nut case, complete with onion rubdowns to make him cry on air.

i'm lol'ing at a neocon who voted for bush, out here trying to defend faux news

I don't watch TV news or talks shows very much, but I do defend the right of free speech, support for which is sadly lacking by the hypocritical left wing. I rarely watch Fox News, but I do occasionally watch Fox Business News, which was the original subject of this thread. Fox Business News always has people of opposing views on their show.

Never seen Glen Beck, but Nancy Grace on HLN is a little out of control even though she doesn't even deal with partisan politics (she talks about "legal" issues such as missing kids, Lindsay Lohan, etc.

Keith Olbermann (arch enemy of Oreilly) on MSNBC is a complete lunatic IMO. He doesn't seem to have many guests, and certainly none that disagree with him. He just spends his entire show ranting about Oreilly (I think it is mostly a ratings thing).

Well yes, but I also recall someone recently reminded me 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, Nancy Grace has been great for me. Years ago I heard her say something so outrageous and unprofessional that since then I've completely dismissed everything and anything CNN. I will point out it wasn't a political statement.