Cinema Rasik
A Cinescopic View of Global Events
Cinema Rasik
Is Kashkari A Chump Or Was Congressman Cummings Abusive?
Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, got roasted by members of Congress when he appeared before a Congressional Committee on Friday, November 14, 2008. Mr. Kashkari oversees the Office of Financial Stability including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the US Bailout program.
Unfortunately for him, the TARP program seems to be in more trouble than the troubled assets it was supposed to buy.
On Wednesday, November 12, Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson changed the objectives and methods of this program again. The result was confusion and consternation. The Dow Jones fell over 400 points that day and overnight all Asian markets declined substantially.
The TARP program has been a public relations disaster and the Congress wanted answers. So, young Neel Kashkari was fed to the congressional lions and they devoured him. Unlike Henry Paulson, Neel Kashkari was a soft target, a perfect punching bag for the Congressmen. They treated him so badly that CNBC titled their clip "Lawmakers slam Kashkari".
CNBC's Dennis Kneale said it best when he remarked that the Congressman were slamming Assistant Secretary Kashkari because they were afraid to attack Secretary Paulson.
We are believers in Harry Truman's dictum "if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Mr. Kashkari was given a very high profile job by his boss. With such a job, comes scrutiny and heat. Mr. Kashkari had to face the heat and he did it with dignity.
But attacks on issues are one thing and personal abuse is another. Click on the clip below and watch Congressman Cummings ask "Is Kashkari a chump?" You be the judge whether the question by Congressman Cummings was a personally derogatory and abusive question.
We suggest that you watch the instantaneous reaction of the man sitting behind Congressman Cummings when he asks "Is Kashkari a chump?" That reaction says it all. (Does his seat directly behind the Congressman suggests that he is a member of the Congressman's staff?).
To be fair to Congressman Cummings, a longer clip on YouTube provides a context to the question posed by Congressman Cummings. That longer clip (see below) also shows Congressman Cummings lecturing to Mr. Kashkari as if he were a child and virtually demeaning his intelligence.
We were outraged by the Congressman's behavior. Try as we could, we were unable to recall any other Congressman ever suggesting that an Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury could be construed as a chump.
So we called the office of the Congressman Cummings and left a message for his Press Secretary. We also followed up with an email. In that email, we asked a factual question "Has the Congressman asked such a question of any other Assistant Secretary of the Treasury or any other government official who was testifying before him? Also, has he asked such a question of any assistant secretary or any other government official in public or private?"
As a member of a small minority in America, we are sensitive to abusive behavior and derogatory questions or comments directed at minorities. We, as all Americans, have a debt of gratitude to the African American community which has patiently and successfully spearheaded the effort to make such behavior unacceptable in American Society. This is why we are pained to see a veteran African American Congressman like Mr. Cummings indulge in such abusive behavior towards another minority.
In our opinion, no white Congressman would ever ask a "chump" question of any black Assistant Secretary of Treasury. In fact, we do not believe any white teacher in any school could ask the "chump" question to any black student without instant and vitriolic condemnation.
Our conjecture is that Congressman Cummings would never ask the "chump" question of any White or Hispanic Assistant Secretary of State. These communities are large and powerful. Their response would be swift and damaging.
But Neel Kashkari is an Indian American. The Indian American community is tiny and inconsequential in a political sense. There is no Indian Anti-Defamation League that would marshal its resources and protest such behavior. So there is no political downside to abusing a young Indian American and no repercussions to worry about.
In addition, Kashkari is an unusual name. If you ask "Is Johnson a chump?" or "Is Smith a chump?", you run the risk of insulting the large number of Johnsons and Smiths. But asking "Is Kashkari a chump?" has no downside. It might even make many of the Congressman's constituents admire his wit.
Of course, these are simply our conjectures and not facts. That is why we reached out to the Congressman's office to ask our question and to find out whether our conjectures were right or wrong.
You see if Congressman Cummings has asked "chump" type questions of other Assistant Secretaries of other races in the past, then that simply means that the Congressman is rude to people who appear before him as a matter of personality. That would be such a relief.
On the other hand, if it turns out that Neel Kashkari and Neel Kashkari alone was asked the "chump" question by Congressman Cummings, then that would raise a lot of questions as to why Mr. Cummings singled out Mr. Kashkari for such a derogatory comment. It could also lend a basis for our conjectures.
We tried to ask our question in a number of ways in an email exchange with the Congressman's Press Secretary but did not get a satisfactory answer. The specific answer we received stated "This is ridiculous. The Congressman
has never asked anyone if he or she were a chump, just as he did not do it today".
We leave it to our readers to judge whether the Congressman did or did not ask the chump question about Mr. Kashkari. They can do this by viewing the clip above or a longer clip of the hearing at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0voDipIvv8E
As far as we are concerned, we still do not know whether our conjectures are valid or invalid. We also leave it to our readers to judge that for themselves.
In the tradition of this blog, we invite Congressman Cummings or his Press Secretary to share their response, if any, with our readers. We will publish their response verbatim. They can either send us an email at editor@cinemarasik.com or simply put up a comment on this blog.
Editor's Note: If any of our readers wish to contact Congressman Cummings directly, they can do so at Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, 2235 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515; Phone (202) 225-4741 and Fax (202) 225-3178.
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com
Unfortunately for him, the TARP program seems to be in more trouble than the troubled assets it was supposed to buy.
On Wednesday, November 12, Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson changed the objectives and methods of this program again. The result was confusion and consternation. The Dow Jones fell over 400 points that day and overnight all Asian markets declined substantially.
The TARP program has been a public relations disaster and the Congress wanted answers. So, young Neel Kashkari was fed to the congressional lions and they devoured him. Unlike Henry Paulson, Neel Kashkari was a soft target, a perfect punching bag for the Congressmen. They treated him so badly that CNBC titled their clip "Lawmakers slam Kashkari".
CNBC's Dennis Kneale said it best when he remarked that the Congressman were slamming Assistant Secretary Kashkari because they were afraid to attack Secretary Paulson.
We are believers in Harry Truman's dictum "if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Mr. Kashkari was given a very high profile job by his boss. With such a job, comes scrutiny and heat. Mr. Kashkari had to face the heat and he did it with dignity.
But attacks on issues are one thing and personal abuse is another. Click on the clip below and watch Congressman Cummings ask "Is Kashkari a chump?" You be the judge whether the question by Congressman Cummings was a personally derogatory and abusive question.
We suggest that you watch the instantaneous reaction of the man sitting behind Congressman Cummings when he asks "Is Kashkari a chump?" That reaction says it all. (Does his seat directly behind the Congressman suggests that he is a member of the Congressman's staff?).
To be fair to Congressman Cummings, a longer clip on YouTube provides a context to the question posed by Congressman Cummings. That longer clip (see below) also shows Congressman Cummings lecturing to Mr. Kashkari as if he were a child and virtually demeaning his intelligence.
We were outraged by the Congressman's behavior. Try as we could, we were unable to recall any other Congressman ever suggesting that an Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury could be construed as a chump.
So we called the office of the Congressman Cummings and left a message for his Press Secretary. We also followed up with an email. In that email, we asked a factual question "Has the Congressman asked such a question of any other Assistant Secretary of the Treasury or any other government official who was testifying before him? Also, has he asked such a question of any assistant secretary or any other government official in public or private?"
As a member of a small minority in America, we are sensitive to abusive behavior and derogatory questions or comments directed at minorities. We, as all Americans, have a debt of gratitude to the African American community which has patiently and successfully spearheaded the effort to make such behavior unacceptable in American Society. This is why we are pained to see a veteran African American Congressman like Mr. Cummings indulge in such abusive behavior towards another minority.
In our opinion, no white Congressman would ever ask a "chump" question of any black Assistant Secretary of Treasury. In fact, we do not believe any white teacher in any school could ask the "chump" question to any black student without instant and vitriolic condemnation.
Our conjecture is that Congressman Cummings would never ask the "chump" question of any White or Hispanic Assistant Secretary of State. These communities are large and powerful. Their response would be swift and damaging.
But Neel Kashkari is an Indian American. The Indian American community is tiny and inconsequential in a political sense. There is no Indian Anti-Defamation League that would marshal its resources and protest such behavior. So there is no political downside to abusing a young Indian American and no repercussions to worry about.
In addition, Kashkari is an unusual name. If you ask "Is Johnson a chump?" or "Is Smith a chump?", you run the risk of insulting the large number of Johnsons and Smiths. But asking "Is Kashkari a chump?" has no downside. It might even make many of the Congressman's constituents admire his wit.
Of course, these are simply our conjectures and not facts. That is why we reached out to the Congressman's office to ask our question and to find out whether our conjectures were right or wrong.
You see if Congressman Cummings has asked "chump" type questions of other Assistant Secretaries of other races in the past, then that simply means that the Congressman is rude to people who appear before him as a matter of personality. That would be such a relief.
On the other hand, if it turns out that Neel Kashkari and Neel Kashkari alone was asked the "chump" question by Congressman Cummings, then that would raise a lot of questions as to why Mr. Cummings singled out Mr. Kashkari for such a derogatory comment. It could also lend a basis for our conjectures.
We tried to ask our question in a number of ways in an email exchange with the Congressman's Press Secretary but did not get a satisfactory answer. The specific answer we received stated "This is ridiculous. The Congressman
has never asked anyone if he or she were a chump, just as he did not do it today".
We leave it to our readers to judge whether the Congressman did or did not ask the chump question about Mr. Kashkari. They can do this by viewing the clip above or a longer clip of the hearing at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0voDipIvv8E
As far as we are concerned, we still do not know whether our conjectures are valid or invalid. We also leave it to our readers to judge that for themselves.
In the tradition of this blog, we invite Congressman Cummings or his Press Secretary to share their response, if any, with our readers. We will publish their response verbatim. They can either send us an email at editor@cinemarasik.com or simply put up a comment on this blog.
Editor's Note: If any of our readers wish to contact Congressman Cummings directly, they can do so at Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, 2235 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515; Phone (202) 225-4741 and Fax (202) 225-3178.
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com
The One Critical Difference Between Bush and Obama
A tremendous amount has been written and discussed about the differences between the personalities, upbringing, politics of George Bush and Barak Obama.
We wish to focus on one critical difference that has not received the scrutiny and debate it deserves. That difference is between the global frame of reference of the two men.
George W. Bush turned the focus of America from Europe towards the new emerging centers of power. This was an enormous change of direction that simply has not received any attention.
Prior to Bush, America was first and foremost Euro-centric. America won its independence from the English in 1776 and since then, the focus of American foreign policy has been Europe. America understands Europe. The greatest foreign policy successes of America have been in Europe.
Today, America dominates Europe culturally, economically and militarily. The description of the American President as the "Leader of the Free World" is essentially a tribute to American soft hegemony over Europe. On any matter of importance, it is impossible to imagine Europe acting without American leadership. For example, it was President Clinton who finally stepped in to take care of the Serbia-Croatia problem. Patrick Buchanan said it best when he jeered recently "to protect themselves from 140 million Russians, 550 million Europeans run to 300 million Americans".
George W. Bush was the first American President to downgrade Europe and replace it by the new emerging powers as the focus of US Policy. This shift began during the transition period between the election victory and Bush's inaugural under the leadership of Wolfowitz. The events of 9/11 accelerated the shift already underway.
The Bush Administration paid far greater attention to BIC countries, Brazil, India and China than it did to Western Europe. Within, Europe, they paid greater attention to Emerging or Eastern Europe than they did to old Europe of France, Germany and Benelux.
This was a major transformation of the US frame of global reference. It is ironic that a man widely denounced as unintelligent or dumb (Paul Begala called him a moron on CNN) put through such a significant change of direction.
The change was glaringly obvious to any one who cared to look. Bush's policies encouraged the free movement of capital and trade that has galvanized emerging market economies. The Bush Administration accepted China's pegging of the Remnimbi to the dollar and it was the Bush Administration that encouraged free trade with China.
It is remarkable that (self-described) respected journalists like Tom Brokaw, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper did not recognize this change and if they did, paid no attention to it.
Europe on the other hand did. Europeans have a tremendous mental and physical involvement with America and they did not like this change one bit. They felt ignored and slighted.
George Bush and his Administration paid a heavy price for this change of focus. Europeans started describing Bush as a non-consultative President, a cowboy who increased America's isolation from the world. The American media (Brokaw, Mathews, Cooper, Blitzer et al) grew up with Europe as their only frame of reference and look up to Europe as the seat of sophisticated , international thinking. It was to be expected that they would pick up what Europe had begun saying and run with it.
The BIC countries might have come of age economically, but they are midgets in terms of media influence or respect. China does not have a free press and can play no role in global media. Brazil is considered to be a niche player. India has an English language media which positions itself to the left of Europe and tries to ape whatever Europe does. You can still find Indian writers who laughingly repeat Bernard Shaw's line "Americans have not spoken English for years".
Why is this relevant today?
Barak Obama's frame of reference is 180 degrees opposite to that of George Bush. Mr. Obama has declared his express intention to turn America back towards to a focus on Europe. Mr. Obama understands that China, India, South-East Asia and Latin America are important but to him, Europe is paramount.
This is what Obama means when he says that he will be more consultative with the world and that he will be less unilateral in his policies. He envisages a partnership with Europe that will set the course for the world.
The major power lobbies in the Democratic Party and the media (print and TV) are in sync with this mindset and with the way Europe thinks. So Obama will have substantial cover and flank support when he turns America back towards Europe. Unfortunately, this will prove to be a major mistake for Obama and America.
In our opinion, the frame of reference adapted by George Bush is the correct frame for America going forward. The events of the world will be increasingly influenced by events in China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and their neighbors. America's principal focus must be on these regions and countries. That is in America's long term interests.
It seems evident that the world's governments see what we see. Governments around the world have begun to take steps to lean away from America.
Brazil, South Africa and India are refocusing their efforts to strengthen IBSA (an alliance of India, Brazil and South Africa). Qatar, a major American ally and the country that hosts the American Military in the Persian Gulf, has begun discussions for military and economic cooperation with India. So has Oman. China on the other hand has ratcheted up its anti-India rhetoric and threatened to escalate the border disputes with India. Myanmar and Bangladesh are mobilizing forces to protect their own interests from each other. Thailand and Cambodia have moved forces to their borders to defend what each sees as its sovereign territory.
It is our fervent hope that Barak Obama quickly adopts the Bush frame of reference and reassures the new centers of power that his policy will continue the transformation pioneered by George Bush. If he does not, he will see a realignment of global powers that will not be to the benefit of America. He could also usher in a period of global tension and conflict.
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com,
We wish to focus on one critical difference that has not received the scrutiny and debate it deserves. That difference is between the global frame of reference of the two men.
George W. Bush turned the focus of America from Europe towards the new emerging centers of power. This was an enormous change of direction that simply has not received any attention.
Prior to Bush, America was first and foremost Euro-centric. America won its independence from the English in 1776 and since then, the focus of American foreign policy has been Europe. America understands Europe. The greatest foreign policy successes of America have been in Europe.
Today, America dominates Europe culturally, economically and militarily. The description of the American President as the "Leader of the Free World" is essentially a tribute to American soft hegemony over Europe. On any matter of importance, it is impossible to imagine Europe acting without American leadership. For example, it was President Clinton who finally stepped in to take care of the Serbia-Croatia problem. Patrick Buchanan said it best when he jeered recently "to protect themselves from 140 million Russians, 550 million Europeans run to 300 million Americans".
George W. Bush was the first American President to downgrade Europe and replace it by the new emerging powers as the focus of US Policy. This shift began during the transition period between the election victory and Bush's inaugural under the leadership of Wolfowitz. The events of 9/11 accelerated the shift already underway.
The Bush Administration paid far greater attention to BIC countries, Brazil, India and China than it did to Western Europe. Within, Europe, they paid greater attention to Emerging or Eastern Europe than they did to old Europe of France, Germany and Benelux.
This was a major transformation of the US frame of global reference. It is ironic that a man widely denounced as unintelligent or dumb (Paul Begala called him a moron on CNN) put through such a significant change of direction.
The change was glaringly obvious to any one who cared to look. Bush's policies encouraged the free movement of capital and trade that has galvanized emerging market economies. The Bush Administration accepted China's pegging of the Remnimbi to the dollar and it was the Bush Administration that encouraged free trade with China.
It is remarkable that (self-described) respected journalists like Tom Brokaw, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper did not recognize this change and if they did, paid no attention to it.
Europe on the other hand did. Europeans have a tremendous mental and physical involvement with America and they did not like this change one bit. They felt ignored and slighted.
George Bush and his Administration paid a heavy price for this change of focus. Europeans started describing Bush as a non-consultative President, a cowboy who increased America's isolation from the world. The American media (Brokaw, Mathews, Cooper, Blitzer et al) grew up with Europe as their only frame of reference and look up to Europe as the seat of sophisticated , international thinking. It was to be expected that they would pick up what Europe had begun saying and run with it.
The BIC countries might have come of age economically, but they are midgets in terms of media influence or respect. China does not have a free press and can play no role in global media. Brazil is considered to be a niche player. India has an English language media which positions itself to the left of Europe and tries to ape whatever Europe does. You can still find Indian writers who laughingly repeat Bernard Shaw's line "Americans have not spoken English for years".
Why is this relevant today?
Barak Obama's frame of reference is 180 degrees opposite to that of George Bush. Mr. Obama has declared his express intention to turn America back towards to a focus on Europe. Mr. Obama understands that China, India, South-East Asia and Latin America are important but to him, Europe is paramount.
This is what Obama means when he says that he will be more consultative with the world and that he will be less unilateral in his policies. He envisages a partnership with Europe that will set the course for the world.
The major power lobbies in the Democratic Party and the media (print and TV) are in sync with this mindset and with the way Europe thinks. So Obama will have substantial cover and flank support when he turns America back towards Europe. Unfortunately, this will prove to be a major mistake for Obama and America.
In our opinion, the frame of reference adapted by George Bush is the correct frame for America going forward. The events of the world will be increasingly influenced by events in China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and their neighbors. America's principal focus must be on these regions and countries. That is in America's long term interests.
It seems evident that the world's governments see what we see. Governments around the world have begun to take steps to lean away from America.
Brazil, South Africa and India are refocusing their efforts to strengthen IBSA (an alliance of India, Brazil and South Africa). Qatar, a major American ally and the country that hosts the American Military in the Persian Gulf, has begun discussions for military and economic cooperation with India. So has Oman. China on the other hand has ratcheted up its anti-India rhetoric and threatened to escalate the border disputes with India. Myanmar and Bangladesh are mobilizing forces to protect their own interests from each other. Thailand and Cambodia have moved forces to their borders to defend what each sees as its sovereign territory.
It is our fervent hope that Barak Obama quickly adopts the Bush frame of reference and reassures the new centers of power that his policy will continue the transformation pioneered by George Bush. If he does not, he will see a realignment of global powers that will not be to the benefit of America. He could also usher in a period of global tension and conflict.
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com,
Did Income Inequality Rise or Fall in the Bush Administration?
Most people would regard this question as either rhetorical or dumb. After all, many commentators have bemoaned the fact that rich people got richer and the rich-poor gap grew wider during the Bush Administration. The Business Section of the New York Times on November 10 featured articles by luminaries like Robert Shiller, Alan Blinder about the need to correct this inequality in America.
But really, our question is serious and your answer to this question will show you your frame of reference. How President Elect Barak Obama and other World leaders answer our question may decide the fate of global economies over the next several years.
Prior to 2002, the emerging markets or the developing countries suffered far lower level of income than United States and Europe. Post 2002, the incomes of developing countries in Asia, Latin America and East Europe rose dramatically while incomes in US and Europe remained relatively stagnant.
The rapid rise of incomes of the developing countries led to higher growth around the world. Tens of millions of people came out of poverty in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Latin America as well as in East European countries. The total number of people who benefited from the steep rise in income may be greater than 300 million, the entire population of the USA.
The Bush Era,without major speeches or addresses at United Nations or other Global Development Conferences, succeeded in reducing the World's Income Inequality dramatically.
In our opinion, this was probably the greatest single achievement of the Bush Era and may be his true legacy to the world. We do realize that this was probably NOT his objective and it certainly was NOT his stated purpose. Nonetheless, his monetary and trade policies achieved the goal desired by most liberal thinkers around the world - a significant decrease of income inequality between the rich Western Countries and the poor Developing Countries.
While it is true that incomes in China, India and other developing countries rose dramatically, it is also true that the gap between the rich and the poor in every country. The incomes of the wealthy in China and India rose much faster than the incomes of the middle class and the poor in these countries. In other words, while the total income of each developing country increased, the income gap within each country increased.
While economics might be global, politics is totally local. In every country, the rise in income inequality led to rising discontent and frustration. Politicians in every country have been quick to address this frustration. The campaign of President-elect Obama stressed the income inequality theme very effectively. He has promised to work for Main street and not for (rich) Wall Street. He is not alone. The left-leaning parties in India are basing their campaigns on this issue arguing that the economic reforms of Prime Minister Singh's Government are responsible for the rise in income inequality. The Chinese government is equally sensitive to this issue and has begun taking steps to "protect" the interests of the less fortunate.
Barak Obama and the Democratic Congress have promised substantial changes to ensure reduction of income inequality in the USA. China will take similar actions because of fear of social unrest. India, at heart still a socialist country, will follow in these footsteps.
The key question is whether the steps taken to increase income fairness domestically in each country end up changing the global trade and capital-movement dynamics that created the global prosperity of the 2002-2007 years.
We are not sanguine. Just think back a few months to the "global food crisis" of the first half of 2008. We saw countries practice ridiculously protectionist policies with rice exporting countries banning exports to first feed their own populations. These steps made the food crisis far worse than it needed to be. After all, the global inventories of rice were more than sufficient but the "protect your home even if it beggars thy neighbor" policies turned a problem in to a major crisis.
We are concerned that the natural tendencies of Obama-Pelosi-Reed, combined with the unrelenting pressure of American trade unions, will lead to policies that may create the illusion of income fairness while causing serious harm to that engine of global income generation - free movement of capital and trade.
We believe that such steps will be matched by China and the Chinese Government will use its massive reserves to provide relief for its population at the expense of its neighbors. India does not have China's reserves, but it has a hyperactive political system that will curtail or roll back the reforms that allowed India to participate in global trade.
Through out history, governments have demonstrated their lack of ability to reduce poverty or to raise incomes of the less fortunate. However, governments of every type, democratic, oligarchic, dictatorial and communist have proven, without any shade of doubt, that they know how to make the rich less rich and the poor even more poor.
Making every one poorer would be the time honored governmental way to reduce income inequality. It is our fear that governments around the world may end up following this path.
What would be the consequences? While income inequality within each country might go down, the income inequality between US- Europe and the Developing world might rise again, perhaps to levels that create global political and strategic tensions.
To answer our own question, we say that global income inequality was dramatically reduced in the Bush Era and that reduction was the single most important reason for global stability and prosperity during the past 5 years.
Therefore, we ask President elect Obama to:
Mr. Obama has shown that he is a better speaker than Mr. Clinton. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama is as mentally flexible and as clever an obfuscater as Mr. Clinton was. That may determine the course of global prosperity.
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
But really, our question is serious and your answer to this question will show you your frame of reference. How President Elect Barak Obama and other World leaders answer our question may decide the fate of global economies over the next several years.
Prior to 2002, the emerging markets or the developing countries suffered far lower level of income than United States and Europe. Post 2002, the incomes of developing countries in Asia, Latin America and East Europe rose dramatically while incomes in US and Europe remained relatively stagnant.
The rapid rise of incomes of the developing countries led to higher growth around the world. Tens of millions of people came out of poverty in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Latin America as well as in East European countries. The total number of people who benefited from the steep rise in income may be greater than 300 million, the entire population of the USA.
The Bush Era,without major speeches or addresses at United Nations or other Global Development Conferences, succeeded in reducing the World's Income Inequality dramatically.
In our opinion, this was probably the greatest single achievement of the Bush Era and may be his true legacy to the world. We do realize that this was probably NOT his objective and it certainly was NOT his stated purpose. Nonetheless, his monetary and trade policies achieved the goal desired by most liberal thinkers around the world - a significant decrease of income inequality between the rich Western Countries and the poor Developing Countries.
While it is true that incomes in China, India and other developing countries rose dramatically, it is also true that the gap between the rich and the poor in every country. The incomes of the wealthy in China and India rose much faster than the incomes of the middle class and the poor in these countries. In other words, while the total income of each developing country increased, the income gap within each country increased.
While economics might be global, politics is totally local. In every country, the rise in income inequality led to rising discontent and frustration. Politicians in every country have been quick to address this frustration. The campaign of President-elect Obama stressed the income inequality theme very effectively. He has promised to work for Main street and not for (rich) Wall Street. He is not alone. The left-leaning parties in India are basing their campaigns on this issue arguing that the economic reforms of Prime Minister Singh's Government are responsible for the rise in income inequality. The Chinese government is equally sensitive to this issue and has begun taking steps to "protect" the interests of the less fortunate.
Barak Obama and the Democratic Congress have promised substantial changes to ensure reduction of income inequality in the USA. China will take similar actions because of fear of social unrest. India, at heart still a socialist country, will follow in these footsteps.
The key question is whether the steps taken to increase income fairness domestically in each country end up changing the global trade and capital-movement dynamics that created the global prosperity of the 2002-2007 years.
We are not sanguine. Just think back a few months to the "global food crisis" of the first half of 2008. We saw countries practice ridiculously protectionist policies with rice exporting countries banning exports to first feed their own populations. These steps made the food crisis far worse than it needed to be. After all, the global inventories of rice were more than sufficient but the "protect your home even if it beggars thy neighbor" policies turned a problem in to a major crisis.
We are concerned that the natural tendencies of Obama-Pelosi-Reed, combined with the unrelenting pressure of American trade unions, will lead to policies that may create the illusion of income fairness while causing serious harm to that engine of global income generation - free movement of capital and trade.
We believe that such steps will be matched by China and the Chinese Government will use its massive reserves to provide relief for its population at the expense of its neighbors. India does not have China's reserves, but it has a hyperactive political system that will curtail or roll back the reforms that allowed India to participate in global trade.
Through out history, governments have demonstrated their lack of ability to reduce poverty or to raise incomes of the less fortunate. However, governments of every type, democratic, oligarchic, dictatorial and communist have proven, without any shade of doubt, that they know how to make the rich less rich and the poor even more poor.
Making every one poorer would be the time honored governmental way to reduce income inequality. It is our fear that governments around the world may end up following this path.
What would be the consequences? While income inequality within each country might go down, the income inequality between US- Europe and the Developing world might rise again, perhaps to levels that create global political and strategic tensions.
To answer our own question, we say that global income inequality was dramatically reduced in the Bush Era and that reduction was the single most important reason for global stability and prosperity during the past 5 years.
Therefore, we ask President elect Obama to:
- talk a great game to please his left-leaning supporters but
- maintain the policies of free trade & global capital policies of the Bush Administration.
Mr. Obama has shown that he is a better speaker than Mr. Clinton. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama is as mentally flexible and as clever an obfuscater as Mr. Clinton was. That may determine the course of global prosperity.
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Did CNBC's Fast Money give us an Investment Signal?
Editor's Note: This is an article about financial television and financial media in general. It is not an investment article and no one should base any investing decisions or conclusions based on anything written in or inferred from this article. Investing is a serious matter and all investment decisions that should only be taken after a detailed discussion with your investment advisor and should be subject to your objectives, suitability requirements and risk tolerances. .
It is a tenet of investing folklore that the Business Press usually proves to be a reliable contrarian signal. For example, in 1982, the cover of BusinessWeek asked whether equities were dead, just as a 30 year bull market in equities was emerging.
Today, CNBC represents mainstream business media for the financial markets. In our earlier articles, we asked on two separate occasions whether specific actions of CNBC Management or the behavior of CNBC Anchors gave us actionable market signals. In both cases, we were able to demonstrate later that these actions did do so.
This week CNBC did a dramatic 180 degree turn in their approach to markets. Since we began watching CNBC, their basic mantra has been "buy stocks and hold them for the long term". Their gospel was that holding stocks for the long term was the best way to meet your long term objectives. The vast majority of money managers they trot out on their network also chant the same mantra. CNBC realized long ago that viewers who sold stocks stopped watching CNBC. So the buy and hold approach was also a ratings protection approach.
But 2008 has been a disaster for this approach. US Indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 are down almost 40% this year. The Emerging Markets championed by GLG2 cheerleader (Global Liquidity Global Growth), Maria Bartiromo are down more 50%-60% as a group. So clearly buy and hold has been a bust.
So this week, CNBC changed its tune and proclaimed the Death of Buy & Hold approach. Maria Bartiromo herself began using this phrase. The culmination of this transformation came on Friday, November 14 on CNBC's Fast Money when they released an entire segment titled "Death To Buy & Hold".
Watch this clip at www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=928611012&play=1
Notice the aggressive "To" in the title "Death To Buy & Hold". Rest of CNBC is content to be conservative and use the "Death of " phrase but NOT Fast Money. In its take no prisoners style, Fast Money wants to put the mentality of buy and hold "To" death. The only missing touch is Dylan Ratigan thumping his desk like Al Capone did in his rant in Untouchables "I want him dead, I want his family dead".
We enjoy watching Fast Money and hope that Dylan Ratigan & his team do not mind us poking fun at them. Besides the frolic, we actually have a serious investment question.
We know today that the 1982 BusinessWeek cover "Death of Equities" turned out to be totally wrong and a great contrarian investment signal to buy equities.
We wonder whether the Fast Money chant of "Death To Buy & Hold" (after a 40%-60% decline in equity markets) will prove to be a reliable investment signal to Buy & Hold high quality stocks for the long term.
Readers might be interested to know that, according to Richard Bernstein of Merrill Lynch, during the decline on Thursday, November 13, the intra-day dividend yield on the S&P 500 (3.74%) was briefly greater than the yield the 10-Year Treasury Note (3.71%), something that has not happened since 1958. So, despite what Fast Money says, we are not in the early stages of a decline in markets. Bernstein also argues that a secular period of conservative, high quality investing might emerge from the current bear market.
When it actually emerges is any one's guess. But wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Fast Money "Death To Buy & Hold" exhortation actually ends up being a great signal to begin a Buy & Hold approach?
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com
It is a tenet of investing folklore that the Business Press usually proves to be a reliable contrarian signal. For example, in 1982, the cover of BusinessWeek asked whether equities were dead, just as a 30 year bull market in equities was emerging.
Today, CNBC represents mainstream business media for the financial markets. In our earlier articles, we asked on two separate occasions whether specific actions of CNBC Management or the behavior of CNBC Anchors gave us actionable market signals. In both cases, we were able to demonstrate later that these actions did do so.
This week CNBC did a dramatic 180 degree turn in their approach to markets. Since we began watching CNBC, their basic mantra has been "buy stocks and hold them for the long term". Their gospel was that holding stocks for the long term was the best way to meet your long term objectives. The vast majority of money managers they trot out on their network also chant the same mantra. CNBC realized long ago that viewers who sold stocks stopped watching CNBC. So the buy and hold approach was also a ratings protection approach.
But 2008 has been a disaster for this approach. US Indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 are down almost 40% this year. The Emerging Markets championed by GLG2 cheerleader (Global Liquidity Global Growth), Maria Bartiromo are down more 50%-60% as a group. So clearly buy and hold has been a bust.
So this week, CNBC changed its tune and proclaimed the Death of Buy & Hold approach. Maria Bartiromo herself began using this phrase. The culmination of this transformation came on Friday, November 14 on CNBC's Fast Money when they released an entire segment titled "Death To Buy & Hold".
Watch this clip at www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=928611012&play=1
Notice the aggressive "To" in the title "Death To Buy & Hold". Rest of CNBC is content to be conservative and use the "Death of " phrase but NOT Fast Money. In its take no prisoners style, Fast Money wants to put the mentality of buy and hold "To" death. The only missing touch is Dylan Ratigan thumping his desk like Al Capone did in his rant in Untouchables "I want him dead, I want his family dead".
We enjoy watching Fast Money and hope that Dylan Ratigan & his team do not mind us poking fun at them. Besides the frolic, we actually have a serious investment question.
We know today that the 1982 BusinessWeek cover "Death of Equities" turned out to be totally wrong and a great contrarian investment signal to buy equities.
We wonder whether the Fast Money chant of "Death To Buy & Hold" (after a 40%-60% decline in equity markets) will prove to be a reliable investment signal to Buy & Hold high quality stocks for the long term.
Readers might be interested to know that, according to Richard Bernstein of Merrill Lynch, during the decline on Thursday, November 13, the intra-day dividend yield on the S&P 500 (3.74%) was briefly greater than the yield the 10-Year Treasury Note (3.71%), something that has not happened since 1958. So, despite what Fast Money says, we are not in the early stages of a decline in markets. Bernstein also argues that a secular period of conservative, high quality investing might emerge from the current bear market.
When it actually emerges is any one's guess. But wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Fast Money "Death To Buy & Hold" exhortation actually ends up being a great signal to begin a Buy & Hold approach?
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com
Chinese Slowdown - Revenge of the Austrians?
On October 4, 2008 we wrote an article titled "Are The Wheels Coming Off Global growth? - Dubai and China" - cinemarasik.com/2008/10/04/are-the-wheels-coming-of-global-growth--dubai-and-china.aspx
Dubai and China represented the Promethean dream of unfettered global growth and we implied in our article that the economic gods were about to punish them just as the Greek gods punished Prometheus. This punishment seems to be meted out with alacrity and intensity.
Dubai is in trouble. Just ask James Chanos, a noted Hedge Fund Manager, who suggested recently that investors sell short the contractors, steel companies, commodity processors etc that depend on Dubai's business. Dubai's problems may create difficulties for companies that sell to Dubai but these are not of great consequence to the world.
China of course is an entirely different story. Chinese economy seems to be cascading down faster than most experts thought possible. The economic data released by China is bleak and getting bleaker. The NY Business press has now caught on to the scale of the problem. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article titled that "China's 4% Fall in Electricity Output May portend Worse Economic Slump".
The most disturbing article of all is the one in the New York Times titled "Factories Shut, Workers Are Suffering" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=china&st=cse&oref=slogin ). This article is a must read if you want to understand the seriousness of China's problems.
Just a week ago, China announced an enormous stimulus program to help the economy and its people. As a percentage of Chinese GDP, this $563 billion program is 4-5 times larger than the US stimulus program. The world's markets rallied hard on this news and the US market rallied 200 points in the morning before selling off.
Perhaps after the initial euphoria, the markets asked, as we do here, whether the huge size of the stimulus is actually an indication that the scale of China's problems is far greater than any one outside China understands.
Voracious and unrelenting Chinese demand created much of the global boom in capital spending and prompted rise in global equity markets in the last 5 years. Most people assumed that the great Chinese growth was due to the vast uniqueness of China. They should have listened to the Austrians or more specifically to the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles. Though the Austrian theory has fallen in popularity, we should remember that Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, the two founders of the Austrian School, correctly predicted the Great Depression in the USA.
Revenge of the Austrians
We have argued for about two years that the Chinese growth was directly due to the vast amounts of money pouring in to China from America and Europe. The money flow was so unprecedented that China fell into the classic liquidity bubble trap. Chinese property markets went sky high and China built factory after factory to create jobs for the millions of people who were migrating from rural and far flung areas. This was a textbook case of an overcapacity binge.
The slowdown in America and Europe has crushed demand for Chinese goods. Consequently tens of thousands of small and mid-size factories in China have shut down.
This is exactly what the Austrian Business Cycle Theory predicts. In short, the theory argues that:
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Dubai and China represented the Promethean dream of unfettered global growth and we implied in our article that the economic gods were about to punish them just as the Greek gods punished Prometheus. This punishment seems to be meted out with alacrity and intensity.
Dubai is in trouble. Just ask James Chanos, a noted Hedge Fund Manager, who suggested recently that investors sell short the contractors, steel companies, commodity processors etc that depend on Dubai's business. Dubai's problems may create difficulties for companies that sell to Dubai but these are not of great consequence to the world.
China of course is an entirely different story. Chinese economy seems to be cascading down faster than most experts thought possible. The economic data released by China is bleak and getting bleaker. The NY Business press has now caught on to the scale of the problem. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article titled that "China's 4% Fall in Electricity Output May portend Worse Economic Slump".
The most disturbing article of all is the one in the New York Times titled "Factories Shut, Workers Are Suffering" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/asia/14china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=china&st=cse&oref=slogin ). This article is a must read if you want to understand the seriousness of China's problems.
Just a week ago, China announced an enormous stimulus program to help the economy and its people. As a percentage of Chinese GDP, this $563 billion program is 4-5 times larger than the US stimulus program. The world's markets rallied hard on this news and the US market rallied 200 points in the morning before selling off.
Perhaps after the initial euphoria, the markets asked, as we do here, whether the huge size of the stimulus is actually an indication that the scale of China's problems is far greater than any one outside China understands.
Voracious and unrelenting Chinese demand created much of the global boom in capital spending and prompted rise in global equity markets in the last 5 years. Most people assumed that the great Chinese growth was due to the vast uniqueness of China. They should have listened to the Austrians or more specifically to the Austrian Theory of Business Cycles. Though the Austrian theory has fallen in popularity, we should remember that Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, the two founders of the Austrian School, correctly predicted the Great Depression in the USA.
Revenge of the Austrians
We have argued for about two years that the Chinese growth was directly due to the vast amounts of money pouring in to China from America and Europe. The money flow was so unprecedented that China fell into the classic liquidity bubble trap. Chinese property markets went sky high and China built factory after factory to create jobs for the millions of people who were migrating from rural and far flung areas. This was a textbook case of an overcapacity binge.
The slowdown in America and Europe has crushed demand for Chinese goods. Consequently tens of thousands of small and mid-size factories in China have shut down.
This is exactly what the Austrian Business Cycle Theory predicts. In short, the theory argues that:
- Low interest rates stimulate borrowing from the real and shadow banking systems;
- This expansion of credit (borrowing) leads to an unsustainable monetary boom;
- The monetary boom causes capital to be misallocated to areas that would ordinarily not receive such capital;
- This misallocation leads to significant levels of overcapacity;
- A credit crunch or a bust occurs when credit creation (excess borrowing) cannot be sustained;
- The overcapacity gets rung out during the bust.
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Go and See "Slumdog Millionaire" this weekend - We Will
On September 6, we wrote a brief article titled "Slumdog Millionaire - A discovery from the Telluride Film Festival" - cinemarasik.com/2008/09/05/slumdog-millionaire--a-discovery-from-the-telluride-film-festival.aspx.
That story was brought to our attention by Raj Mundhe, our old friend and a noted investment advisor in metro Boston. This morning Raj alerted us to the review of Slumdog Millionaire by Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal.
As we wrote earlier, the Wall Street Journal is not where we would go for a film review. But then, the review by Joe Morgenstern is not your typical film review (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122661670370126131.html).
He begins his review by writing " Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece.".
He ends it by writing "I've never seen anything like "Slumdog Millionaire," and I welcomed the spectacle with open eyes. In these worsening times for feature films, timidity and mediocrity often vie for bottom honors at the multiplex. "Slumdog" breaks through to the top."
He has sold us and we will see Slumdog Millionaire this weekend. With a review like this, you should see it too.
Editor's Note: The picture above shows Churchgate station in Mumbai, a station we visited everyday during our college days. We have spent a great deal of time in the local trains in Mumbai and we still enjoy that experience. Standing at the door with one hand and one leg out of the train's compartment with the blowing wind in your face as the train races on the tracks is a classically Mumbai experience. As long as we can do that, we know we remain young at heart. So, we cannot resist the temptation to bring you the clip of a recent remix of the Shammi Kapoor - Helen hit from the 1960s. This remix brings to you the magic of Mumbai's local train stations to the words and tunes of an evergreen song.
(Oh Hasina Zulfon Wali from Dil Vil Pyar Vyar)
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
That story was brought to our attention by Raj Mundhe, our old friend and a noted investment advisor in metro Boston. This morning Raj alerted us to the review of Slumdog Millionaire by Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal.
As we wrote earlier, the Wall Street Journal is not where we would go for a film review. But then, the review by Joe Morgenstern is not your typical film review (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122661670370126131.html).
He begins his review by writing " Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece.".
He ends it by writing "I've never seen anything like "Slumdog Millionaire," and I welcomed the spectacle with open eyes. In these worsening times for feature films, timidity and mediocrity often vie for bottom honors at the multiplex. "Slumdog" breaks through to the top."
He has sold us and we will see Slumdog Millionaire this weekend. With a review like this, you should see it too.
Editor's Note: The picture above shows Churchgate station in Mumbai, a station we visited everyday during our college days. We have spent a great deal of time in the local trains in Mumbai and we still enjoy that experience. Standing at the door with one hand and one leg out of the train's compartment with the blowing wind in your face as the train races on the tracks is a classically Mumbai experience. As long as we can do that, we know we remain young at heart. So, we cannot resist the temptation to bring you the clip of a recent remix of the Shammi Kapoor - Helen hit from the 1960s. This remix brings to you the magic of Mumbai's local train stations to the words and tunes of an evergreen song.
(Oh Hasina Zulfon Wali from Dil Vil Pyar Vyar)
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
This Blog's 10 Most Popular Articles
This is our monthly update of our list of 10 Most Popular Articles (in terms of viewer hits) as of Friday, November 7, 2008.
1. Shabana Azmi on "Indian Democracy is unfair to Muslims" - Our views and the Relevance to America - August 23, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/19/shabana-azmi-on-indian-democracy-is-unfair-to-muslims--our-views-and-the-relevance-to-america.aspx
2. The Greatest Publishing Project of Recent Years - Conceived and Implemented in America - June 28, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/06/21/the-greatest-publishing-project-of-recent-years--conceived-and-implemented-in-america.aspx
3. India & Greece - A long, deep and ancient relationship - May 31, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/31/india--greek--an-long-deep-and-ancient-relationship.aspx
4. New York Times vs. Washington Post - June 28, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/06/27/new-york-times-vs-washington-post.aspx
5. Iraq & Tibet - Strategic Will of The American and Chinese People - July 26, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/25/iraq--tibet--strategic-will-of-americans-and-chinese.aspx
6. Snoop Dogg in Bollywood - In Akshay Kumar's new film "Singh is Kingg" - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/30/snoop-dogg-in-bollywood--guest-apperance-in-akshay-kumars-new-film-singh-is-kingg.aspx
7. Recent Terrorist Attacks in India & Their Relevance to America - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/30/recent-terrorist-attacks-in-india--their-relevance-to-america.aspx
The next four articles are clustered closely together in terms of viewer hits.
8. Flagrant Foul on Mark Haines and Erin Burnett - Their conversation about India's regard for "sacred cows" - May 16, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/16/flagrant-foul-on-mark-haines-and-erin-burnett--their-conversation-about-sacred-cows-in-india.aspx
9. Afghanistan-Pakistan - Will the Sins of England be visited Upon America? - August 9, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/07/afghanistanpakistan--will-the-sins-of-england-be-visited-on-america.aspx
10. Erin Burnett's One Hour Special on India - Truly Must Watch TV on CNBC - May 16, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/16/erin-burnetts-one-hour-special-on-india--must-watch-tv-on-cnbc.aspx
11. Jim Cramer on Ben Bernanke - Fair in August 2007 and Unfair in August 2008 - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/01/jim-cramer-on-ben-bernanke---fair-in-august-2007-and-unfair-in-august-2008.aspx
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
1. Shabana Azmi on "Indian Democracy is unfair to Muslims" - Our views and the Relevance to America - August 23, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/19/shabana-azmi-on-indian-democracy-is-unfair-to-muslims--our-views-and-the-relevance-to-america.aspx
2. The Greatest Publishing Project of Recent Years - Conceived and Implemented in America - June 28, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/06/21/the-greatest-publishing-project-of-recent-years--conceived-and-implemented-in-america.aspx
3. India & Greece - A long, deep and ancient relationship - May 31, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/31/india--greek--an-long-deep-and-ancient-relationship.aspx
4. New York Times vs. Washington Post - June 28, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/06/27/new-york-times-vs-washington-post.aspx
5. Iraq & Tibet - Strategic Will of The American and Chinese People - July 26, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/25/iraq--tibet--strategic-will-of-americans-and-chinese.aspx
6. Snoop Dogg in Bollywood - In Akshay Kumar's new film "Singh is Kingg" - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/30/snoop-dogg-in-bollywood--guest-apperance-in-akshay-kumars-new-film-singh-is-kingg.aspx
7. Recent Terrorist Attacks in India & Their Relevance to America - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/07/30/recent-terrorist-attacks-in-india--their-relevance-to-america.aspx
The next four articles are clustered closely together in terms of viewer hits.
8. Flagrant Foul on Mark Haines and Erin Burnett - Their conversation about India's regard for "sacred cows" - May 16, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/16/flagrant-foul-on-mark-haines-and-erin-burnett--their-conversation-about-sacred-cows-in-india.aspx
9. Afghanistan-Pakistan - Will the Sins of England be visited Upon America? - August 9, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/07/afghanistanpakistan--will-the-sins-of-england-be-visited-on-america.aspx
10. Erin Burnett's One Hour Special on India - Truly Must Watch TV on CNBC - May 16, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/05/16/erin-burnetts-one-hour-special-on-india--must-watch-tv-on-cnbc.aspx
11. Jim Cramer on Ben Bernanke - Fair in August 2007 and Unfair in August 2008 - August 2, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/01/jim-cramer-on-ben-bernanke---fair-in-august-2007-and-unfair-in-august-2008.aspx
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Best Long Flight I have Ever Taken - 10 "WoW"s
We began this blog by asking "Are Bollywood Interpretations Better Than Their Hollywood Originals?". I grew up hearing the plaintive cry "why can't India make films like Hollywood". A few years ago, I began noticing that, Bollywood interpretations were turning out to be better than their Hollywood originals - more gripping, more innovative, more chic and more enjoyable.
A couple of weeks ago, I experienced a similar awakening. This awakening is so astonishing that I simply have to share it with our readers.
I had to fly to Mumbai literally at a moment's notice. My travel agent recommended the non-stop Air India flight (about 15 hours) from New York JFK to Mumbai. I had heard positive feedback about this flight but old feelings die hard. But, given the necessity but with some trepidation, I got an economy class ticket to Mumbai on this long, non-stop Air India flight.
Any one who has taken a flight recently knows that air travel has become an exercise in frustration - disinterested and uncaring airport agents, frustrated and rude in flight crews, delayed flights - a series of experiences that scream to you "stay at home". I have given up flying in America and told all my friends that they should come to the great, wonderful city of New York and stay with us but not expect me to fly to their locales.
Against this backdrop, the non-stop Air India flight was an joyous awakening. My first positive experience was right here at New York's JFK airport. When I reached the counter, there was a line ahead of me. In a few minutes, a smiling Air India lady came to us and escorted a group of us to the First Class/Executive Class counters for faster and a courteous check-in. It was my first "wow" experience of this flight.
Air India was smart enough to begin boarding early and all the passengers were on board and in their seats well before the departure time. This is was another "wow" because my experience is that boarding a full flight is a painful experience filled with delays. The flight left the gate on time, again a relatively rare event in air travel.
Air India uses its new 777 airliner for the non-stop NYC-Mumbai flight. This was my third "wow" of the flight. These are gorgeous planes with decent legroom in economy and with deep, wide bins for hand bags. Unlike Delta and Continental, the decor is sunny, cordial and cheerful. It does create a festive mood, characteristic of the friendly Indian travel scene (recall the many Bollywood hit songs in trains and buses).
Our flight did not have a Shah Rukh Khan type entertainer and no one burst into a song on the flight. They did not have to. The on-board entertainment system was a marvel - the absolute best I have EVER seen on any flight and in any class. This was a huge "wow".
On other flights (Delta, Continental and British Airways), the system plays a number of movies and TV show episodes at determined intervals. The timing and the pace is determined by the Flight. In contrast, the Air India system is like a DVR. You can play any movie or episode at any time; you can rewind, pause or fast forward at any time. The choice and the flexibility is yours.
Then the selection - that was another "wow". Check out the Delta and Continental flights to India. The vast majority of the passengers are "desis" or global Indians. Yet, the in flight entertainment systems on these flights are overwhelmingly Hollywood in its offerings with a couple of Bollywood movies.
The Air India in flight entertainment system is on a different planet compared to Delta and Continental. The diversity and the number of offerings is astounding. In every language category, it gives you a choice of new or classic films. I was thrilled to see my old favorite "Rio Bravo" (John Wayne and Dean Martin) among the classic Hollywood offerings. The choice of classic Hindi films included evergreen hits like Shammi Kapoor's "Brahmachari" and Rajesh Khanna's "Anand" to name just a couple.
The Air India system provides a rich and diverse choice of "regional" entertainment with Marathi, Gujarati, Panjabi, Tamil, Telugu films and TV shows. I enjoyed watching Marathi films and serials on my flights. There is so much entertainment that you could not watch all of it in 4-5 fifteen hour flights.
I expected the food to be much better than on Delta and it was. Since I expected this, I do not give the food a special "wow". But, I have to give a couple of "wow"s to the in flight service. The stewardesses were superb, friendly, caring and attentive to needs of every passenger. The in flight service in economy class on this Air India flight was far superior to what I have experienced in Delta, Continental and British Airways Business Class Sections.
Air India Management must be given full credit for this standard of in flight service. After all, Delta and Continental have Indian staff in their flight crews as well, but these Indian crew members do not come close to the standards of Air India in flight staff's friendliness, courtesy and efficiency.
Then the utter "wow". The flight landed in Mumbai about 30 minutes ahead of schedule. This is not a miracle. I have heard that arriving a little early is a fairly regular experience for passengers on this flight. Despite an economy seat, I was able to get off the plane and clear immigration in less than 20 minutes. Another "wow".
I do not exaggerate when I say that this was the BEST flight I have ever taken in my life. I speak as a jaded traveler with a long history of flying on Delta, Continental, British Airways. Air France and occasionally Alitalia, Jet Airways and Kingfisher.
I say this to every reader, try the non-stop NYC-Mumbai Air India flight on your next trip to India. You will love it.
From what I am told, Air India Management has designated this as their flagship flight. It has a separate management that has been segregated from the rest of Air India and this management is committed to making this flight as the standard of a new flying experience from Air India. From this traveler's viewpoint, they have succeeded. This deserves a special "wow" to Air India Management for creating this flagship experience.
So, forget about what you may have heard about Air India in the past or on other sectors. Try the New and Shining Air India Non-Stop NYC-Mumbai flight.
Editor's Note: The return flight from Mumbai to JFK was just as nice. The ground staff at Mumbai was even more friendly and helpful as Air India's staff at JFK. For those who follow the bigwigs, Anil Ambhani and his wife were on the same Air India flight from Mumbai to New York (based on the welcome signs at the jetway at JFK).
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
A couple of weeks ago, I experienced a similar awakening. This awakening is so astonishing that I simply have to share it with our readers.
I had to fly to Mumbai literally at a moment's notice. My travel agent recommended the non-stop Air India flight (about 15 hours) from New York JFK to Mumbai. I had heard positive feedback about this flight but old feelings die hard. But, given the necessity but with some trepidation, I got an economy class ticket to Mumbai on this long, non-stop Air India flight.
Any one who has taken a flight recently knows that air travel has become an exercise in frustration - disinterested and uncaring airport agents, frustrated and rude in flight crews, delayed flights - a series of experiences that scream to you "stay at home". I have given up flying in America and told all my friends that they should come to the great, wonderful city of New York and stay with us but not expect me to fly to their locales.
Against this backdrop, the non-stop Air India flight was an joyous awakening. My first positive experience was right here at New York's JFK airport. When I reached the counter, there was a line ahead of me. In a few minutes, a smiling Air India lady came to us and escorted a group of us to the First Class/Executive Class counters for faster and a courteous check-in. It was my first "wow" experience of this flight.
Air India was smart enough to begin boarding early and all the passengers were on board and in their seats well before the departure time. This is was another "wow" because my experience is that boarding a full flight is a painful experience filled with delays. The flight left the gate on time, again a relatively rare event in air travel.
Air India uses its new 777 airliner for the non-stop NYC-Mumbai flight. This was my third "wow" of the flight. These are gorgeous planes with decent legroom in economy and with deep, wide bins for hand bags. Unlike Delta and Continental, the decor is sunny, cordial and cheerful. It does create a festive mood, characteristic of the friendly Indian travel scene (recall the many Bollywood hit songs in trains and buses).
Our flight did not have a Shah Rukh Khan type entertainer and no one burst into a song on the flight. They did not have to. The on-board entertainment system was a marvel - the absolute best I have EVER seen on any flight and in any class. This was a huge "wow".
On other flights (Delta, Continental and British Airways), the system plays a number of movies and TV show episodes at determined intervals. The timing and the pace is determined by the Flight. In contrast, the Air India system is like a DVR. You can play any movie or episode at any time; you can rewind, pause or fast forward at any time. The choice and the flexibility is yours.
Then the selection - that was another "wow". Check out the Delta and Continental flights to India. The vast majority of the passengers are "desis" or global Indians. Yet, the in flight entertainment systems on these flights are overwhelmingly Hollywood in its offerings with a couple of Bollywood movies.
The Air India in flight entertainment system is on a different planet compared to Delta and Continental. The diversity and the number of offerings is astounding. In every language category, it gives you a choice of new or classic films. I was thrilled to see my old favorite "Rio Bravo" (John Wayne and Dean Martin) among the classic Hollywood offerings. The choice of classic Hindi films included evergreen hits like Shammi Kapoor's "Brahmachari" and Rajesh Khanna's "Anand" to name just a couple.
The Air India system provides a rich and diverse choice of "regional" entertainment with Marathi, Gujarati, Panjabi, Tamil, Telugu films and TV shows. I enjoyed watching Marathi films and serials on my flights. There is so much entertainment that you could not watch all of it in 4-5 fifteen hour flights.
I expected the food to be much better than on Delta and it was. Since I expected this, I do not give the food a special "wow". But, I have to give a couple of "wow"s to the in flight service. The stewardesses were superb, friendly, caring and attentive to needs of every passenger. The in flight service in economy class on this Air India flight was far superior to what I have experienced in Delta, Continental and British Airways Business Class Sections.
Air India Management must be given full credit for this standard of in flight service. After all, Delta and Continental have Indian staff in their flight crews as well, but these Indian crew members do not come close to the standards of Air India in flight staff's friendliness, courtesy and efficiency.
Then the utter "wow". The flight landed in Mumbai about 30 minutes ahead of schedule. This is not a miracle. I have heard that arriving a little early is a fairly regular experience for passengers on this flight. Despite an economy seat, I was able to get off the plane and clear immigration in less than 20 minutes. Another "wow".
I do not exaggerate when I say that this was the BEST flight I have ever taken in my life. I speak as a jaded traveler with a long history of flying on Delta, Continental, British Airways. Air France and occasionally Alitalia, Jet Airways and Kingfisher.
I say this to every reader, try the non-stop NYC-Mumbai Air India flight on your next trip to India. You will love it.
From what I am told, Air India Management has designated this as their flagship flight. It has a separate management that has been segregated from the rest of Air India and this management is committed to making this flight as the standard of a new flying experience from Air India. From this traveler's viewpoint, they have succeeded. This deserves a special "wow" to Air India Management for creating this flagship experience.
So, forget about what you may have heard about Air India in the past or on other sectors. Try the New and Shining Air India Non-Stop NYC-Mumbai flight.
Editor's Note: The return flight from Mumbai to JFK was just as nice. The ground staff at Mumbai was even more friendly and helpful as Air India's staff at JFK. For those who follow the bigwigs, Anil Ambhani and his wife were on the same Air India flight from Mumbai to New York (based on the welcome signs at the jetway at JFK).
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Waqt (1965) - First, Evergreen, Evergreat
The Bollywood movie is Waqt. This the greatest and the simplest tribute we can pay to an evergreen and evergreat film which was a pioneering film when released in 1965. Waqt is one of our all-time favorite films.
By writing about Waqt today, we wish to pay homage to the legendary Bollywood moviemaker, B.R. Chopra. Mr. Chopra passed away this week on November 5, 2008 at the age of 94. His career was truly great in its span, in the collection of terrific films he directed and produced and in the number of today's Bollywood greats that he inspired, including his younger brother, Yash Raj Chopra. He also made the TV serial Maha-Bharat which became of the most successful TV serials in Indian Television History. Mr. Yash Raj Chopra went on to become a great director, producer and his company Yash Raj Films is probably the greatest banner in Bollywood today.
Mr. B.R. Chopra produced Waqt and he selected his younger brother Yash Raj Chopra to direct the film. The rest, as they say is history. Waqt pioneered the concept of films with multiple stars with Sunil Dutt, Raj Kumar, Balraj Sahani and Shashi Kapoor as male stars and Sadhana, Sharmila Tagore and Achala Sachdev as female stars. Waqt also pioneered the formula of lost and reunited brothers which became the staple plot of Bollywood for years to come.
The production and direction of Waqt is superb. It is an extraordinarily elegant film. You can watch it today (& we strongly suggest you do) and feel that the story is as fresh and current today as it was in 1965. The final Court Room scenes and the cross examination by Sunil Dutt are gripping.
Waqt took the top Box-office honors in 1965 and won several awards:
- Filmfare Best Director Award - Yash Chopra
- Filmfare Best Supporting Actor Award - Raj Kumar
- Filmfare Best Story Award - Akhtar Mirza
- Filmfare Best Dialogue Award - Akhtar-ul-Uman
- Filmfare Best Cinematographer Award for a Colour Film - Dharam Chopra
- Filmfare Nomination for Best Film
- Filmfare Nomination for Best Actress- Sadhana
The music of Waqt is simply awesome. All the songs became hits and have remained hits even after 43 years. We simply have to share our 5 favorites with you.
Waqt was and is the absolute pinnacle of its genre. Regardless of your nationality, ethnicity and language, get a DVD of the original Waqt (1965)*, and watch it.
The opening qawali of Waqt is an all-time classic.
The last song of the film is an elegant song at a party thrown to celebrate the launch of Sunil Dutt and the disclosure of his lineage.
The first private meeting between Raj Kumar and Sadhana.
An exquisite song that shows the romance between Sunil Dutt and Sadhana.
Sadhana expressing her feelings upon her engagement with Sunil Dutt.
Send your feedback to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Kashmir - Ah Kashmir
"If there is a Heaven on earth, It is here, It is here, It is here" - Jehangir.
Rarely have truer words been spoken. The heavenly vale of Kashmir has been an integral part of Indian Culture, History and Tradition since time immemorial.
Indian religious and spiritual texts can be broadly divided into three categories:
Rarely have truer words been spoken. The heavenly vale of Kashmir has been an integral part of Indian Culture, History and Tradition since time immemorial.
Indian religious and spiritual texts can be broadly divided into three categories:
- The Ved (4 original texts that lay out the perspectives of Indian Dharma);
- The Upanishads (treatises that interpret the Ved) and
- The many Purans, collection of preachings, stories and anecdotes that bring the Indian Dharma to the common reader (this structure can be seen in the Bible which was written centuries after the Purans).
This supports the Vedic legend about the great Sage Kashyap who established his Ashram in the valley. According to the legend, the valley of Kashmir was once a lake called Satisar. The sage Kashyap is credited with the draining of the lake by cutting the gap in the hills of Baramulla (originally Varah-Mula). Therefore the valley became known as Kashyap-Meru or Kashyap-Mir, the mountain or sea of Kashyap.
Indian culture was created by a number of great Sages or Rishis who entered India and formed Ashrams for education and research. Kashyap was one of the original sages. He was the son of Marichi, who was considered as the son of Brahma, the creator of the world. 
(Ancient Martand Temple in Kashmir) (Buddhist Stupa near Baramulla) (Muslim Tomb from a Hindu Temple)
The tradition established by Rishi Kashyap endured through centuries and Kashmir became a great center of education. The entire land of North India from today's Pakistan to Kashmir and onwards to today's Tibet became the greatest center of scholarship and education in the world. One of the greatest temples in India, Survana-Pitha (or Sharada Peeth as it is called today) is in Kashmir. The Rishi tradition has been preserved and practiced by the Pandits of Kashmir.
Emperor Ashok, one of the greatest emperors in world history, is credited to have founded the city of Sri-Nagar, the capital of today's Kashmir. Ashok adapted Buddhism and under his sponsorship, Buddhism spread from India to all areas of Asia, across China all the way to Japan and Korea and through out today's South-East Asia.
Due to the influence of Ashok, Kashmir became a center of Buddhist scholarship and scholars from all over the world came to Kashmir to study.
Adi Shankar-Acharya, the most celebrated, modern era scholar-reformer in Indian History, reestablished the historical role of Indian Dharma through out India by defeating the greatest Buddhist scholars in debates. Beginning in South India, Shankar-Acharya traveled all over India and finally entered the great Survana-Peeth temple in Kashmir.
According to legend, this temple had four doors for scholars from the four directions. The southern door (representing South India) had never been opened, indicating that no scholar from South India had ever entered Suvarna-Peeth. When Shankar-Acharya defeated all the scholars gathered there in all the scholastic disciplines including Mimamsa, Vedanta, the southern door of Suvarna-Peeth opened automatically and Shankar-Acharya entered the throne of Transcendent wisdom.
With the Uzbek conquest of Kashmir, Muslim rule became established in Kashmir in 1349. Akbar, the great Mogul ruler of Delhi conquered Kashmir in 1548 and it stayed under Mogul rule until Sikhs under Rana Ranjit Singh captured it in 1780.
Akbar's son Jehangir fell in love with Kashmir. Not only did Jehangir speak about his love for Kashmir, but he left monuments to his love for eternity.
The glory of Sri-Nagar is the Dal Lake. Jehangir built exquisite gardens named Nishat and Shalimar that lead to Dal Lake. From the edge of Dal Lake, Nishat Bagh (garden) rises through 12 terraces along a broad central canal toward the nearby mountains. Chadars, sloping chutes, funnel water through each terrace to rectangular pools studded with fountain jets.
Bollywood has always loved Kashmir from its early days. Below we present monuments of Bollywood's love for Kashmir. Most of these are tales of young men who visit Kashmir only to fall in love with a beautiful young Kashmiri woman. The first shows Nishat Bagh in its glory in the classic from "Arzoo".
(Rajendra Kumar, Sadhana in Nishat Bagh - Arzoo)
Kashmir is the valley for romance. You can sit in a shikhara (a covered gondola) and float on the gentle waters of Dal Lake. It takes about 3 hours to see the entire lake. The next song provides glimpses of this magic in the evergreen film "Kashmir ki Kali" (the flower of Kashmir).
(Shammi Kapoor and Sharmila Tagore - Kashmir Ki Kali)
The roads of Kashmir are lined by gorgeous chinar trees on both sides. Watch such a road and a classic Bollywood courtship from "Mere Sanam".
(Vishwajit and Asha Parekh - Mere Sanam)
An exquisite poem in the vale of Kashmir, the tale of a young woman falling in love for the first time. Asha Parekh describes the charms of her love to her friends in "Phir Wohi Dil Laya Hoon".
The clip below is from a black and white classic "Ek Musafir Ek Haseena" (A traveler & a lovely lass). The beauty of Kashmir may be a bit hard to see but you can see the romance between Joy Mukherjee and Sadhana.
Editor's Note; The source of the pictures and the historical background is Wikipedia.
Send you comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Dylan Ratigan of CNBC - He Doth Protest Too Much
Dylan Ratigan, the anchor of Fast Money and more CNBC shows than we can keep track of, has been a temperate, thoughtful reporter who takes pains to show a genial, good-natured side to his viewers.
But, this week, Dylan Ratigan underwent a radical transformation of personality and recast himself as a financial reincarnation of CNN's Lou-Dobbs. It was sudden, hard and jarring on the senses.
Like an avenging Lou Dobbs, Dylan Ratigan ranted all week against the bad guys on Wall Street, the Wall Street CEOs who leveraged their firms to an unheard of ratio of 40:1 and caused indescribable harm to America and the American people.
On Friday, October 17, Dylan repeated this performance during the Fast Money show. In his opening segment*, Dylan waxed eloquent like a class-action lawyer would in before a jury. After this performance, CNBC should get Dylan the $400 haircut made famous by John Edwards, ex-senator and successful lawyer. Mr. Ratigan deserves it.
Dylan blamed a "few individuals" on Wall Street for assuming risks that were so huge that they had to be passed on ultimately to the "rest of us". While Dylan spoke, CNBC put a banner under his picture that read "Was The SEC Asleep While Wall St. Leveraged Itself To The Hilt?".
Dylan's main exhibit was a portion of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's testimony to the US Congress on February 29, 2000 (yes 2000) when he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Mr. Paulson told the Congress (in that testimony) that, to compete with their foreign-based competitors, Wall Street needed to use higher leverage. Dylan waved this testimony on camera with the flair of a flamboyant lawyer in front of a jury.
Dylan ended his argument with "Here is a question for you?" It was not a question but an exhortation to the "few individuals" to return the huge bonuses. Then he passed his moral judgment calling it "utterly unconscionable". His loyal and obedient cohorts, Joe Terranova and Karen Finerman dutifully joined the chorus by repeating the "unconscionable" phrase. (As an aside, we ask ourselves, would honest Jeff Macke have joined this chorus or would he have pointed out what we are about to point out ourselves.)
This was a performance that Lou Dobbs would have been proud of. But there is a huge difference between Lou Dobbs and Dylan Ratigan. Lou Dobbs, like his views or not, has been honest and totally consistent in his views. In contrast, Dylan Ratigan reinvented himself to fit today's mood.
Those of you who watch Fast Money, think back to 2007 and before. You will recall that Dylan Ratigan and his trader team have been the loudest and most loyal cheerleaders of Wall Street Firms; recall how many times these people exhorted you to buy Goldman Sachs. That was their champion stock; they celebrated the earnings and stock performance of Goldman Sachs so often that you could have renamed the show "Dylan loves Goldman Sachs". Fast Money also promoted stocks of other brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman.
Dylan and his trader team knew fully well that all these firms used heavy leverage. They also knew that high leverage was the steroid that pumped up profits on Wall Street. They knew that issuance of highly leveraged loans (the type that have gone bad, very bad) was the engine behind the Private Equity boom of 2007. Yet, they kept exhorting their viewers to follow what the ultimate smart money (Private Equity Firms) was doing.
This cheerleading was critical to the ratings of Mr. Ratigan's show. You know these networks, ratings are everything and they hype whatever the audience wants to hear.
If Dylan Ratigan and CNBC want to restore trust in financial journalism, they need to come clean and apologize to their viewers for their cheerleading role during boom times. These guys hyped the product and sold it to their viewers. Remember, Wall Street Firms used leverage for their own proprietary profits and these firms are very secretive about their techniques. It is CNBC and the financial media that took this toxic potion and injected it in the consciousness of their viewers.
The compensation of Dylan Ratigan, his Fast Money team and that of his colleagues at CNBC are not disclosed to the public. We suspect it runs into many, many millions of dollars. CNBC itself earned multiples of this amount from advertising revenues while Dylan and his colleagues were cheerleading Wall Street leverage.
To use Mr. Ratigan's words, we find this "utterly unconscionable".
So let us ask Dylan Ratigan and his colleagues in Dylan's own words, " Is it appropriate for you to assume these huge salaries with the knowledge now that your promotion and cheerleading of these practices have come back to hurt every tax payer in America?"
We await Mr. Ratigan's response.
Editor's Note: Besides the theatrics and the brimstone, Mr. Ratigan did an injustice to Secretary Paulson and Wall Street. He knows (or he should ask his colleague David Faber) that British Banks and European Banks use leverage ratios that are much higher (40:1 to 70:1) than the leverage ratios used by Wall Street Firms. So Mr. Paulson was right in 2000 that Wall Street firms needed higher limits to compete with European banks. Mr. Ratigan never mentioned this fact perhaps because it would have lessened the effect of his fire and brimstone. The higher leverage is why European Banks are in far worse trouble than US Banks. The real difference is that UK and Europe protect their Banks while Mr. Paulson refused to protect Lehman. The bankruptcy of Lehman was the explosion that precipitated the global financial avalanche.
* You can view Mr. Ratigan's comments at www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=894113288&play=1 - the comments begin at 16:12 minute of the 21 minute clip.
Send your comments to cinemarasik.com.
But, this week, Dylan Ratigan underwent a radical transformation of personality and recast himself as a financial reincarnation of CNN's Lou-Dobbs. It was sudden, hard and jarring on the senses.
Like an avenging Lou Dobbs, Dylan Ratigan ranted all week against the bad guys on Wall Street, the Wall Street CEOs who leveraged their firms to an unheard of ratio of 40:1 and caused indescribable harm to America and the American people.
On Friday, October 17, Dylan repeated this performance during the Fast Money show. In his opening segment*, Dylan waxed eloquent like a class-action lawyer would in before a jury. After this performance, CNBC should get Dylan the $400 haircut made famous by John Edwards, ex-senator and successful lawyer. Mr. Ratigan deserves it.
Dylan blamed a "few individuals" on Wall Street for assuming risks that were so huge that they had to be passed on ultimately to the "rest of us". While Dylan spoke, CNBC put a banner under his picture that read "Was The SEC Asleep While Wall St. Leveraged Itself To The Hilt?".
Dylan's main exhibit was a portion of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's testimony to the US Congress on February 29, 2000 (yes 2000) when he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Mr. Paulson told the Congress (in that testimony) that, to compete with their foreign-based competitors, Wall Street needed to use higher leverage. Dylan waved this testimony on camera with the flair of a flamboyant lawyer in front of a jury.
Dylan ended his argument with "Here is a question for you?" It was not a question but an exhortation to the "few individuals" to return the huge bonuses. Then he passed his moral judgment calling it "utterly unconscionable". His loyal and obedient cohorts, Joe Terranova and Karen Finerman dutifully joined the chorus by repeating the "unconscionable" phrase. (As an aside, we ask ourselves, would honest Jeff Macke have joined this chorus or would he have pointed out what we are about to point out ourselves.)
This was a performance that Lou Dobbs would have been proud of. But there is a huge difference between Lou Dobbs and Dylan Ratigan. Lou Dobbs, like his views or not, has been honest and totally consistent in his views. In contrast, Dylan Ratigan reinvented himself to fit today's mood.
Those of you who watch Fast Money, think back to 2007 and before. You will recall that Dylan Ratigan and his trader team have been the loudest and most loyal cheerleaders of Wall Street Firms; recall how many times these people exhorted you to buy Goldman Sachs. That was their champion stock; they celebrated the earnings and stock performance of Goldman Sachs so often that you could have renamed the show "Dylan loves Goldman Sachs". Fast Money also promoted stocks of other brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman.
Dylan and his trader team knew fully well that all these firms used heavy leverage. They also knew that high leverage was the steroid that pumped up profits on Wall Street. They knew that issuance of highly leveraged loans (the type that have gone bad, very bad) was the engine behind the Private Equity boom of 2007. Yet, they kept exhorting their viewers to follow what the ultimate smart money (Private Equity Firms) was doing.
This cheerleading was critical to the ratings of Mr. Ratigan's show. You know these networks, ratings are everything and they hype whatever the audience wants to hear.
If Dylan Ratigan and CNBC want to restore trust in financial journalism, they need to come clean and apologize to their viewers for their cheerleading role during boom times. These guys hyped the product and sold it to their viewers. Remember, Wall Street Firms used leverage for their own proprietary profits and these firms are very secretive about their techniques. It is CNBC and the financial media that took this toxic potion and injected it in the consciousness of their viewers.
The compensation of Dylan Ratigan, his Fast Money team and that of his colleagues at CNBC are not disclosed to the public. We suspect it runs into many, many millions of dollars. CNBC itself earned multiples of this amount from advertising revenues while Dylan and his colleagues were cheerleading Wall Street leverage.
To use Mr. Ratigan's words, we find this "utterly unconscionable".
So let us ask Dylan Ratigan and his colleagues in Dylan's own words, " Is it appropriate for you to assume these huge salaries with the knowledge now that your promotion and cheerleading of these practices have come back to hurt every tax payer in America?"
We await Mr. Ratigan's response.
Editor's Note: Besides the theatrics and the brimstone, Mr. Ratigan did an injustice to Secretary Paulson and Wall Street. He knows (or he should ask his colleague David Faber) that British Banks and European Banks use leverage ratios that are much higher (40:1 to 70:1) than the leverage ratios used by Wall Street Firms. So Mr. Paulson was right in 2000 that Wall Street firms needed higher limits to compete with European banks. Mr. Ratigan never mentioned this fact perhaps because it would have lessened the effect of his fire and brimstone. The higher leverage is why European Banks are in far worse trouble than US Banks. The real difference is that UK and Europe protect their Banks while Mr. Paulson refused to protect Lehman. The bankruptcy of Lehman was the explosion that precipitated the global financial avalanche.
* You can view Mr. Ratigan's comments at www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=894113288&play=1 - the comments begin at 16:12 minute of the 21 minute clip.
Send your comments to cinemarasik.com.
What Warren Buffet Wrote and How CNBC "Spun" It?
Editor's Note: It is our belief that all financial networks share the biases we describe in this article. We mention CNBC specifically because it is the leader in market coverage, because we have watched CNBC for years and watch it every day. We do switch channels from time to time to watch Fox Business and view the interviews on Bloomberg.com. As far as we can tell, these two networks share the same coverage characteristics we attribute to CNBC in this article .
Warren Buffet, the great investor who is called the "Oracle of Omaha" wrote an important opinion article* in the New York Times on Friday, October 17, 2008.
In this article, Mr. Buffet disclosed that he has been buying American Stocks during this awful decline for his personal account. He also disclosed that he only owned United States government bonds in his personal account until he started buying American stocks in this decline. Then he wrote, "If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will be 100% in United States equities. " (emphasis ours)
We emphasized the conditional clause "If prices keep looking attractive" because that is the one of the two most significant clauses of this article. Rebecca Quick of CNBC, to her credit, pointed out several times on Friday that Mr. Buffet bought stocks during the decline on Thursday, October 16, but stopped buying when stock prices rallied Thursday afternoon.
In other words, Mr. Buffet, in his own words, seems to be stating clearly that he is a buyer only if stocks keep declining or stay at the levels they were on Thursday morning. The explanation by Ms. Quick seems to be a clear admonition to CNBC viewers to NOT chase stocks as they run higher.
Unfortunately, Ms. Quick was among the very few at CNBC who stated what Mr. Buffet meant. CNBC as a network seemed to proclaim Mr. Buffet's article as a sign that stocks should be bought.
The other significant sentence in Mr. Buffet's article is the statement that until recently, he did NOT own any stocks in his personal account, only US Govt. Bonds. In other words, Mr. Buffet totally avoided this year horrific decline of 40% in the US market.
This is very different from the condition of the average investor. Most investors, we suspect, have invested a significant portion of their net worth in the stock market. The pain suffered by these investors has to be massive and heart-breaking. Mr. Buffet, in our opinion, is not suggesting that these investors double-up on their equity holdings. If the markets go up, then these investors will benefit because their losses will be reduced. But, if these investors add to their stock holdings and as Mr. Buffet warns, he proves to be wrong in the near-term, then stock markets would go down further and these investors would lose even more money than they have already lost.
As we wrote earlier, CNBC, as a network, promoted the Buffet article as a signal that stocks were cheap and should be bought. In our opinion, CNBC's Power Lunch show (noon to 2:00 pm) behaved in the most egregious manner. This show hyped the Buffet letter and made it the cornerstone of their campaign to urge their viewers to buy stocks.
While we dislike such behavior, we feel that frankly, viewers need to exercise caution when they watch CNBC or other financial networks.
The primary mission of a television network as a business is to make money. It does so by a single minded devotion to keeping its ratings high by ensuring its viewers continue to watch the network.
Every financial network understands that when people get out of stocks, they stop watching financial shows. This is why financial networks preach the gospel of being a long term investor in stocks**. This is why they trot out their contingent of large equity managers who keep advising viewers to stay fully invested in stocks.
This is why CNBC only trumpeted the portion of Buffet's article that announces that he has been buying US stocks.
If this does not suggest, "Caveat Viewer", what will?
* You can read the article by Warren Buffet at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
** This is why we give kudos to Jim Cramer for suggesting to viewers that they take a portion of their money out of the stock market. This was a courageous act and such acts are very rarely seen on Television.
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Warren Buffet, the great investor who is called the "Oracle of Omaha" wrote an important opinion article* in the New York Times on Friday, October 17, 2008.
In this article, Mr. Buffet disclosed that he has been buying American Stocks during this awful decline for his personal account. He also disclosed that he only owned United States government bonds in his personal account until he started buying American stocks in this decline. Then he wrote, "If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will be 100% in United States equities. " (emphasis ours)
We emphasized the conditional clause "If prices keep looking attractive" because that is the one of the two most significant clauses of this article. Rebecca Quick of CNBC, to her credit, pointed out several times on Friday that Mr. Buffet bought stocks during the decline on Thursday, October 16, but stopped buying when stock prices rallied Thursday afternoon.
In other words, Mr. Buffet, in his own words, seems to be stating clearly that he is a buyer only if stocks keep declining or stay at the levels they were on Thursday morning. The explanation by Ms. Quick seems to be a clear admonition to CNBC viewers to NOT chase stocks as they run higher.
Unfortunately, Ms. Quick was among the very few at CNBC who stated what Mr. Buffet meant. CNBC as a network seemed to proclaim Mr. Buffet's article as a sign that stocks should be bought.
The other significant sentence in Mr. Buffet's article is the statement that until recently, he did NOT own any stocks in his personal account, only US Govt. Bonds. In other words, Mr. Buffet totally avoided this year horrific decline of 40% in the US market.
This is very different from the condition of the average investor. Most investors, we suspect, have invested a significant portion of their net worth in the stock market. The pain suffered by these investors has to be massive and heart-breaking. Mr. Buffet, in our opinion, is not suggesting that these investors double-up on their equity holdings. If the markets go up, then these investors will benefit because their losses will be reduced. But, if these investors add to their stock holdings and as Mr. Buffet warns, he proves to be wrong in the near-term, then stock markets would go down further and these investors would lose even more money than they have already lost.
As we wrote earlier, CNBC, as a network, promoted the Buffet article as a signal that stocks were cheap and should be bought. In our opinion, CNBC's Power Lunch show (noon to 2:00 pm) behaved in the most egregious manner. This show hyped the Buffet letter and made it the cornerstone of their campaign to urge their viewers to buy stocks.
While we dislike such behavior, we feel that frankly, viewers need to exercise caution when they watch CNBC or other financial networks.
The primary mission of a television network as a business is to make money. It does so by a single minded devotion to keeping its ratings high by ensuring its viewers continue to watch the network.
Every financial network understands that when people get out of stocks, they stop watching financial shows. This is why financial networks preach the gospel of being a long term investor in stocks**. This is why they trot out their contingent of large equity managers who keep advising viewers to stay fully invested in stocks.
This is why CNBC only trumpeted the portion of Buffet's article that announces that he has been buying US stocks.
If this does not suggest, "Caveat Viewer", what will?
* You can read the article by Warren Buffet at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
** This is why we give kudos to Jim Cramer for suggesting to viewers that they take a portion of their money out of the stock market. This was a courageous act and such acts are very rarely seen on Television.
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com.
Pakistan's Minister Concurs With CinemaRasik?
The American Television and Print Media have portrayed the Taliban as a group of militants operating in the mountainous area on the border of Pakistan and their conflict as a battle between Islamic terrorists and the America-led Coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Our view has been very different. In our opinion, the Taliban is far more dangerous than a group of militants hiding in caves along the line of control between today's Afghanistan and Pakistan. We view the Taliban as an organized fighting machine that has established its sway over the province of Pashtunistan (or South Afghanistan) and now looks to take over Pakistan itself.
This is an ethnic battle between the Pashtun and the Panjabi, the repeat of the battles of a thousand years ago, when the organized Pashtuns and Uzbek's swept down from the mountains of Afghanistan and conquered the plains of Panjab.
We described our views in a series of articles:
Afghanistan - Pakistan - Will the Sins of England be Visited Upon America? - August 9, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/07/afghanistanpakistan--will-the-sins-of-england-be-visited-on-america.aspx
Attock - If you have not heard of Attock, Read This Article - August 9, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/06/democracy--a-terribly-misleading-word--a-trap-for-america.aspx
Why are they called Stans and why is Pak-i-Stan Unique? - August 9, 2008 - cinemarasik.com/2008/08/06/what-are-the-stans-and-why-is-pakistan-unique.aspx
Ms. Rahman went on to say that the Taliban, who are trying to oust the Pakistan government, also had links with their Afghan counterparts and groups operating in Kashmir.
According to an article in the Times of India*, Taliban have been making inroads into the urban areas and cities of Pakistan. The leader of the MQM party (essentially comprised of immigrants from India), Altaf Hussein has made a statement that more than 40,000 Taliban men had infiltrated Karachi, the capital of the southern Sindh province. The article also reported that a number of Taliban posters had been put up in Karachi promising a better government in Sindh. The Pakistani media recently carried reports about the Taliban warning traders in Lahore not to sell "immoral" stuff. These are not border areas. This is the heartland of Pakistan.
As we have argued in our articles, this is a civil war for supremacy of Pakistan by the Pashtuns. They see before them:
Their only obstacle is the Panjabi core ruled commanded by the Secular Generals of the Pakistan Army. But, the Panjabi Generals are complacent in their belief that the Taliban is still their vassal and continue to dream of competing with India while moving their personal wealth outside Pakistan.
They should remember that the first acts of the Taliban was to execute the secular leadership of Afghanistan after they took over Kabul.
* Taliban, Qaida trying to take over Pakistan - October 15, 2008 - timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Taliban_Qaida_trying_to_take_over_Pakistan/articleshow/3596429.cms
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com
Our view has been very different. In our opinion, the Taliban is far more dangerous than a group of militants hiding in caves along the line of control between today's Afghanistan and Pakistan. We view the Taliban as an organized fighting machine that has established its sway over the province of Pashtunistan (or South Afghanistan) and now looks to take over Pakistan itself.
This is an ethnic battle between the Pashtun and the Panjabi, the repeat of the battles of a thousand years ago, when the organized Pashtuns and Uzbek's swept down from the mountains of Afghanistan and conquered the plains of Panjab.
We described our views in a series of articles:
- Pakistan - Beginning of the End Game
Ms. Rahman went on to say that the Taliban, who are trying to oust the Pakistan government, also had links with their Afghan counterparts and groups operating in Kashmir.
According to an article in the Times of India*, Taliban have been making inroads into the urban areas and cities of Pakistan. The leader of the MQM party (essentially comprised of immigrants from India), Altaf Hussein has made a statement that more than 40,000 Taliban men had infiltrated Karachi, the capital of the southern Sindh province. The article also reported that a number of Taliban posters had been put up in Karachi promising a better government in Sindh. The Pakistani media recently carried reports about the Taliban warning traders in Lahore not to sell "immoral" stuff. These are not border areas. This is the heartland of Pakistan.
As we have argued in our articles, this is a civil war for supremacy of Pakistan by the Pashtuns. They see before them:
- A country without any real leadership,
- Politicians that battle each other for power,
- An economy that is virtually bankrupt,
- A society that has lost all hope and
- An army has does nothing for the country except dream of competing with India.
Their only obstacle is the Panjabi core ruled commanded by the Secular Generals of the Pakistan Army. But, the Panjabi Generals are complacent in their belief that the Taliban is still their vassal and continue to dream of competing with India while moving their personal wealth outside Pakistan.
They should remember that the first acts of the Taliban was to execute the secular leadership of Afghanistan after they took over Kabul.
* Taliban, Qaida trying to take over Pakistan - October 15, 2008 - timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Taliban_Qaida_trying_to_take_over_Pakistan/articleshow/3596429.cms
Send your comments to editor@cinemarasik.com