Following Up re That Trader. Or Perhaps Not a Trader, but an Ex Trader and Commentator, Rick Santelli.
Corrections first. See above. The man who threw the fit on the trading floor was ex trader, current CNBC commentator, Rick Santelli.
Yes, I have seen the short version of his meltdown, as shown by Chris Matthews as the lead in to an interview with with him. Now as offensive as I find the "Larry Cramer" school of financial reporting, which is to my mind like watching a crack addict while they be high, but worse, and the fact that Santelli is very adept at that sort of insane theatre, that was not the part that caused me to stop the tape. The part was when he started lying.
After running the clip of Santelli's melt down, Matthews ran the clip of WH Press Secy Gibbs inviting Santelli to come one down to the WH and read the plan, and how Gibbs offered to buy him a cup a coffee; decaf, though. And then Santelli got down to the lying. At first he lead off with the delusional bullshit, about how it is not about the (to him, he implies, non existent) details of the plan, but it is a matter of philosophy. (*Editorial Note* At this point I groaned, as I did not know for sure what was coming next, but for it being a lie.) Then he started on some line of shit about how this is America and a card laid is a card played. And then it quickly got to the point where he was lying so obviously that I had to shut that shit off. He stared on some tangent about how contracts are sacrosanct, or some such; that once a contract has be made, that is it. There is no changing the deal.
As I said just before, that was way too much of a lie for me to waste any more of my time listening to that liar. Not only did I take the required basic contract law course, and also the follow up deal making class, but I took two classes in Licensing. I know about contracts and contract law. Here are my all time favorite contract law concepts:
Anticipatory Breach,
Rescission, and naturally
Renegotiation.
Contract law is not a matter of monolithic philosophy or as my one Biz law Prof would say, "Jungle Law." Renegotiating the deal (or getting out of a stinky one) has been part of the custom and practice since the Roman Times, if not earlier. Anyone who says otherwise is not only a damned liar, but likely a bullshit partisan hack and hypocrite. And as punishment for that, they should be forced to listen to taped lectures on the Uniform Commercial Code, for 100 hours.
Maybe that will be enough for the truth to sink in. Of course they will have to take and pass a test on the UCC. And if they fail? Do over. Do the 100 hours of tape again, and take the test again, and again until a passing grade is achieved.
And no. The UCC is not that bad a topic. Actually, is is the core of the law involving sales and ordinary business matters, here in the USA. Being forced to pass a course in it is like being forced to learn anything else useful, like Driver's Ed. But I confess, I passed on taking the specific course called UCC. Instead, I took International Business Transactions. I learned all the key concepts, but not only with the International Trade extras, but the Instructor wasn't a ball breaker. It was a relatively easy B+ for me. But I digress.
Yes, I have seen the short version of his meltdown, as shown by Chris Matthews as the lead in to an interview with with him. Now as offensive as I find the "Larry Cramer" school of financial reporting, which is to my mind like watching a crack addict while they be high, but worse, and the fact that Santelli is very adept at that sort of insane theatre, that was not the part that caused me to stop the tape. The part was when he started lying.
After running the clip of Santelli's melt down, Matthews ran the clip of WH Press Secy Gibbs inviting Santelli to come one down to the WH and read the plan, and how Gibbs offered to buy him a cup a coffee; decaf, though. And then Santelli got down to the lying. At first he lead off with the delusional bullshit, about how it is not about the (to him, he implies, non existent) details of the plan, but it is a matter of philosophy. (*Editorial Note* At this point I groaned, as I did not know for sure what was coming next, but for it being a lie.) Then he started on some line of shit about how this is America and a card laid is a card played. And then it quickly got to the point where he was lying so obviously that I had to shut that shit off. He stared on some tangent about how contracts are sacrosanct, or some such; that once a contract has be made, that is it. There is no changing the deal.
As I said just before, that was way too much of a lie for me to waste any more of my time listening to that liar. Not only did I take the required basic contract law course, and also the follow up deal making class, but I took two classes in Licensing. I know about contracts and contract law. Here are my all time favorite contract law concepts:
Anticipatory Breach,
Rescission, and naturally
Renegotiation.
Contract law is not a matter of monolithic philosophy or as my one Biz law Prof would say, "Jungle Law." Renegotiating the deal (or getting out of a stinky one) has been part of the custom and practice since the Roman Times, if not earlier. Anyone who says otherwise is not only a damned liar, but likely a bullshit partisan hack and hypocrite. And as punishment for that, they should be forced to listen to taped lectures on the Uniform Commercial Code, for 100 hours.
Maybe that will be enough for the truth to sink in. Of course they will have to take and pass a test on the UCC. And if they fail? Do over. Do the 100 hours of tape again, and take the test again, and again until a passing grade is achieved.
And no. The UCC is not that bad a topic. Actually, is is the core of the law involving sales and ordinary business matters, here in the USA. Being forced to pass a course in it is like being forced to learn anything else useful, like Driver's Ed. But I confess, I passed on taking the specific course called UCC. Instead, I took International Business Transactions. I learned all the key concepts, but not only with the International Trade extras, but the Instructor wasn't a ball breaker. It was a relatively easy B+ for me. But I digress.
posted by Abstentus at 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home