Schultz Blames Egypt on Food Prices, Bush 41 and Wall Street; No Mention of Clinton Era Deregulation
Ed Schultz on Tuesday spent a great deal of time blaming the crisis in Egypt on rising food prices tying commodity inflation to former President George H.W. Bush and Wall Street speculators.
Not once in over fifteen minutes of air time were the name Bill Clinton or the two bills he signed into law that deregulated the financial services and commodity futures industries mentioned (videos follow with partial transcripts and commentary):
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: It’s not just Egypt and Jordan. Yemen and Tunisia have also had mass protests. They’re all autocratic, majority Muslim nations. But they’re not all oil states. And Tunisia is mostly secular.
So, what else do these countries have in common? One thing is high food prices -- a factor in how all the riots really started and how all of it started. And it’s not a coincidence that all of them have high food prices right now. Food prices have skyrocketed around the world and a big reason for that is Wall Street.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHULTZ (voice-over): It started in 1991 with -- surprise, surprise - - Goldman Sachs. Before then, Wall Street speculators played only a minor role in food prices.
The way it worked, food companies and their suppliers, America’s farmers, wanted to keep their business stable, even if prices spiked for wheat, corn, or other agricultural commodities. So, they’d hedge their bets, signing contracts, futures, to lock in prices for some point in the future. Speculators helped, putting enough money in the system to keep things liquid.
After the Depression, FDR saw that speculators could drive up the price of wheat, corn, whatever, by betting on commodity futures the way Wall Street later bet on dotcoms. Distorting food prices like that could destroy the very stability future contracts were created to provide. So, FDR signed into law what are called position limits -- limits on how much of the total betting could be done by Wall Street.
And what do you know? It worked. For decades, the price of wheat was driven by fundamentals like the weather, and Wall Street couldn’t stand it.
In 1991, Goldman Sachs asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, to give them a waiver on those position limits, so they could bet as much as they wanted. A CFTC appointee for the first President Bush said sure. More than a dozen other firms followed suit.
When the videotape ended, Schultz brought on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan who also pointed a finger at Bush 41:
SCHULTZ: Let’s bring in my colleague, Dylan Ratigan. He’s got his own show right here on MSNBC week days at 4:00, formerly of CNBC and Bloomberg News. Thanks for coming in tonight, Dylan. I appreciate it.
DYLAN RATIGAN, HOST, "THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW": It’s a pleasure.
SCHULTZ: I know that you have talked a lot about speculators and what has happened on Wall Street but this has really been a tsunami in the food world, which has caused a lot of havoc around the world.
Tell us, these price hikes, strictly due to speculation?
RATIGAN: No. First, I want to compliment you on your reporting, Ed. I think you just did an exquisitely good job of describing the contributing factor that financial speculation has been in the spike not just in food prices but also in energy prices.
Unfortunately, there are other factors also in the financial community that are even more sinister. There’s a mathematical certainty, Ed, that is this: all the paper currency in the world, all the money, all the paper, must by definition equal the value of all the commodities, because a commodity is equal to what the value of the currencies are in the world.
In order to cover up the massive bank theft that’s been perpetrated in this country in 2008, the Federal Reserve, under the guidance of first President Bush and now President Obama as you know, Ed, has been printing trillions of new dollars and people, smart financial planners, have been concerned about the debasing effect that has on our currency. Well, as a direct result of the Federal Reserve’s money printing, to cover up our bank theft, that has been an additional factor in causing commodity prices to explode higher.
So, in addition, to the speculative aspects that you describe so well, a by-product of the Federal Reserve and the White House and the Treasury’s decision to go with money printing as a way to prop up our economy, is driving food prices higher.
Notice something missing?
How about the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, both signed into law by former President Bill Clinton?
Not a peep!
After a commercial break, Schultz brought former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) on to continue lambasting everyone except Clinton:
SCHULTZ: Food riots across the Middle East and Wall Street has their fingerprints all over it. And don’t think it can’t happen here. I mean, folks, we did have $4 a gallon gas, didn’t we on speculators?
And it could happen again. The USDA predicts our food prices are going to be going up this year. President Obama campaigned on doing something about this. But we haven’t seen any results as of yet. I know there’s a lot going on. And with Republicans in control of the House, it’s not clear we will get anything done until it’s too late.
Let’s bring in North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, just recently out of the Senate who sat on the commerce committee among others, comes from a farm state and predicted more than 10 years ago what deregulation was going to mean to this country. Senator, thanks for staying with us tonight. I appreciate your time. How did this all happen? If you can just pin it down for us -- how did this all happen?
FMR. SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: Well, you know, the Congress, the government gave a green light to the big financial firms in this country and said, do what you want to do. We won’t look. We’ll put regulators who are willfully blind in place and you do whatever you want to do. The result has been unbelievable speculation in the commodities. We’ve seen oil go to $147 a barrel on day trading. It had nothing to do with supply and demand, had everything to do with greed and speculation. Same is true now with food.
And the interesting thing is we now understand that what lights the fuse in some of these countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Yemen, is the price of food sparks the protests. It has people in the streets. Yes, there’s a passion for freedom, but they’re in the streets driven at least in part by this increase in food prices and now as you say we see fingerprints from Wall Street all over this, with unbelievable excess speculation. It has to stop.
SCHULTZ: And we know that the Republicans are not about regulation. They’re about deregulation. And we could see more of the same. I mean, I don’t see anything stopping this freight train coming. Do you?
Yes, Ed, but where were the Democrats in 1999 and 2000 when the real pieces of legislation that ushered in massive commodity speculation and the financial crisis were enacted?
Well, they were for both bills, as FSMA in November 1999 passed in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and 362 to 57 in the House. This is what completely deregulated banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies to invest in anything they wanted including commodities.
Compounding matters further, CFMA greatly added to commodities speculation the following year by not only completely deregulating derivatives, but also claiming the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had little to no oversight of overseas electronic exchanges such as Britain's InterContinental Exchange.
As a result, there are no position limits on trades made on such exchanges, and practically no reporting requirements thereby allowing traders to buy and sell as much as they want with virtually no restrictions.
But Schultz, Ratigan, and Dorgan nicely ignored these bills and their consequences because Democrats are tied to them.
CFMA cleared the legislative process by initially passing with almost unanimous support. In fact, the final vote cast in the House on October 19, 2000, was 377-4.
180 Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), voted in favor of this bill.
Months later, this legislation became part of a larger, end of the year consolidated appropriations act which passed the House by a vote of 292 to 60. Only nine Democrats voted against it.
The bill was later approved with a voice vote by the Senate - without objection - and signed into law by President Clinton on December 21.
Any wonder this was all totally ignored in over 15 minutes of discussion about commodities futures speculation on MSNBC Tuesday evening?
I guess it would have invalidated Schultz's absurd notion that the crisis in Egypt is all caused by rising food prices if it could in any way be tied to Clinton and Democrats.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Maybe if his buddy Algore
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:06pm.
Maybe if his buddy Algore hadn't convinced the world we need ethynol, perhaps much of that corn could have been used to feed people instead of pipe-dreams.
→ Schultz excretes more stupidity
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:13pm.
Not a chance, Ed, that 40% of America's (subsidized) corn crop going into (subsidized) ethanol, to fuel selected (subsidized) vehicles, has anything at all to do with the price of food?
Ed, perhaps you should get that lower blockage fixed, because if there was near as much excrement coming out or your south end as there is from the north end, you'd be as skinny as Barry O.
ca
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:24pm.
I was thinking the same thing: government price controls --- taxpayer subsidies. Correlation there?
→ In a big way, Keyser
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:31pm.
If overpopulation wasn't subsidized, the inner cities wouldn't be such showcases of human squalor.
It occurs to me that while I'm at work, I'm not having sex. Pretty sure most of my coworkers aren't either. Some of them complain they're getting screwed, true, but it's not the same.
The government takes Maslowe's Heierarchy of Needs pretty seriously. They know if they can satisfy the hunger level, they can raise voters like rabbits.
Jeebus
Submitted by donabernathy on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:17pm.
This is like watch'n 2 year olds try'n to pinch a loaf in their Pampers.
roflmao
Classic!
Submitted by sam12663 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 3:25pm.
Well said.
No doubt Jeebus! :-)
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:22pm.
No doubt Jeebus! :-)
This isn't a (D) or (R) thing - it's a government thing.
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:23pm.
Removing restraints on speculation isn't the problem. Lack of accountability for the speculators themselves is. No government "regulation" will afford them their due accountability. Indeed, all that accomplishes is a way to point at government action or inaction as the one to blame.
Food prices today are a product of government controlling (trying to control) production and distribution with subsidy and "regulation". I despise the term "deregulation" because it is wholly misleading. "Regulated" foodstuff remain and so too does the futures market.
Only when the market is truly free, truly deregulated, does "deregulated" actually apply. Central planning is what it is and has always been - Epic Fail.
AHH the simplicity of the
Submitted by wahappened on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:29pm.
AHH the simplicity of the simpleminded. Take any issue you want and guarenteed they'll be on the wrong side of it.
Bush and the spread of democracy
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:47pm.
Let's look at recent history and the media.
In helping to create and nurture a stable democratic Iraq, President Bush expressed the hope that democracy and the thirst for freedom would spread across the Middle East.
The media and the pundits mocked this notion, citing the differences in cultures and history and the foolishness in thinking freedom and democracy were for everyone.
Now, they say, democracy is (allegedly) taking hold and the "universal" desire for freedom and self-determination is being expressed.
You'd think the media would be falling all over themselves apologizing for their backward thinking and admitting Bush was right!
Right?
call to prayer echoing down a street near you 5 times a day
Submitted by wedapeople on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 1:48pm.
The Messiah and his Regime have lost Egypt.
His speeches have fallen FLAT. Even though with every paragraph he has reminded his subjects
that it is he, The Titular head of THE REGIME, that it is he, The One, who is calling the shots. Every other paragraph is my administration (Regime) has done this.... I have called for this.
The Messiah is taking ownership of his Regime and thins are going to the $#!tter alll aroiund him !
Currency war?
Submitted by Vic138 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 3:38pm.
I think the nations all around the world are trying to lower the value of their currencies. The dollar is being smashed because of TARP/TALF/QE1/QE2/QE3, the health care bill, DEBT...
The theory is to force the chinese to raise the value of their currency by creating inflation (by weakening the dollar.) Egypt, west africa, europe, etc are just caught in the crossfire. This is all happening under Obama's watch. Its Obama's fault. In fact, as a community organizer he forced banks to make subprime loans which ended up blowing up the united states economy in 2008. On top of that, none of that mess has been cleaned up. Obama has been ignoring a ton of problems for the last 2 years and letting the bankers run wild.
Repealing glass-steagal under clinton was a huge mistake. Treas. Sec. Snow (under bush) tried several times to get derivatives regulated. He was replaced by Paulson and then we know what happened.
Look up Brooksey Born (sp?). She tried to get derivativees regulated in the late 90's (Clinton) as head of CFTC and was quickly fired by Greenspan and Larry Summers (clinton's treas sec and for the last 2 years head of Obama's economic team.)
Bernanke is going all in and Obama is stupid for letting him; unless that is what he wants...
The answer isn't in government, it is in personal responsibility
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:08pm.
Regulating derivatives isn't the answer - making it absolutely clear that no taxpayer funded bailouts will ever come to pass if such an animal fails will though. If free people want to take risks, they have that right. So too do they have the right to fail. What comes along with that is the responsibility for failure.
There is no way to micromanage, legislate away, risk. For evey legislated code there are five or ten more ways to run the same risk and complicating it all with endless departments, agencies and government "officials" only serves to muddy the waters of actual responsibility. This is where corruption breeds unabated.
I understand
Submitted by Vic138 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 8:39pm.
Derivatives spread risk to parties that can better manage that risk. I understand. What I was trying to point out is that there has been a concerted effort to keep derivatives unregulated despite the party in power. Bush even admitted recently he didn't say much in 2008 about the financial crisis because he didn't understand what was going on.
For ed shultz to blame this on republicans is just plain stupid.
No mention of last year's POTY?
Submitted by Vonu on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 2:10pm.
Bubbles Bernake?
Can someone end this
Submitted by sam12663 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 3:27pm.
experiment of liberal talkshows?
The methane gas coming from NBC News is the real culprit of global warming.
So doubling the printed money
Submitted by Thoreau on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 3:43pm.
So doubling the total of printed money by the Federal Reserve, and the resultant inflation and International devaluation of the dollar has nothing to do with an increase in prices.
I'm so glad he set us straight with unicorns, moderate muslims, and other mythical creatures as the cause.
Ed Shultz, mental
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 3:56pm.
Ed Shultz, mental defective.
"There's something wrong about that boy." -- Hank Hill
Can Ed get anything right?
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:27pm.
Apparently not.
I’ll try this joke just one more time (maybe more): "Look, we already know that Egypt is a Nation steeped in the traditions of Denial."
Ed is also in a state of denial, he cannot bring himself to place the blame for the crisis in Egypt on the incompetence of the administration of the Chairman or on the policies and utter failures of the former Democrat led Congress with regard to foreign policy… or on the internal war against those agencies (CIA-DoD –etc.) responsible for gathering information and making “non-politically correct” assessments.
Of course there is a bit of special blame to be considered… the lack of competent reporting by the media and a desire to blame all the woes of the Middle East and Muslim Mediterranean countries mostly on the USA, but also on Israel. Had the media reported the “facts” instead of the UN spin and liberal talking points, our nation might have been better prepared to handle these multi-country crises adequately... instead of just reacting again to another.
Not surprised not one bit.
Submitted by scarebear83 on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:36pm.
Not surprised not one bit. Almost every night it's nothing but blame and bash the republicans (and George Bush or Sarah Palin or Bachmann) whenever the opportunity arrives.
QE2-3 Is driving up commodities in the WORLD FOOD MARKET
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:41pm.
Inflation in the USA of food, which feeds the world is driving food prices up. Think what you do when 50% or more of your income goes to food ...
The stupid ethanol crap, which produces 2.5X the co2 that 100% gasoline does, accroding to the CARB ... the cold holding down crop yeilds ... does the rest.
Haven't you notied food prices escalating?
The Middle East
Submitted by Thunder Lizard on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 4:43pm.
The Middle East is a far more complex place than most American media can imagine, especially someone like Schultz. There are religious factions, tribal factions, economic problems, class warfare, despotism, ethnic rivalries and finally the political parties. The cultural nuances and worldviews are radically different from anything that is traditional to the West. A relative who lived three years in Morrocco and Egypt told me that trying to deal with a Muslim nation like we would deal with France, Italy or even Russia is doomed to failure. Stability in these countires has existed only because of secular tyrants or religous tyrants have been in power.
Some things we can influence there, but a lot of it we cannot. Some past policies of European nations have had some unintended consequences - for example creating nations, that are not really nations in any sense of the word. However, for guys like Schultz to simply "blame Bush" or blame the US or Israel for the current powderekeg is not only naive, it is dangerous because it ignores the CULTURAL MORES rooted in 3,000 years of conflict and history. Islam of course is not that old, but it did adopt and codify customs that existed in the Arab world. Those folks over there are responsible for what they do.
Granted Mubarak is not a good guy and needs to go. However, despite the current "optimism" expressed in our media, I seriously doubt we will see a Jefferson Republic emerge. These folks have not gone the cultural or religous type of expereince in which a Democratic Republic can survive, let alone be born. And for sure, the Muslim Brotherood is ready to act and in fact are already hip deep in the current situaton. I think within the year, we will see a radical religious regime emerge on the oder of Iran.
The Dangerous Solution is the Best
Submitted by BrianBarkley on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 5:03pm.
Technology is the root cause of the Egyptian revolt.
Authoritarian regimes are doomed.
Modern success is dependant upon the quick exchange of material, people and information.
All the things that strike at the heart of top down control.
Flexibility is the key and Authoritarians are not trusting enough to allow flexibility they can't take credit for or control of, so they tolerate very little flexibility.
Life is too dynamic to be completely controlled.
Freedom will win in the end.
Islam is facing problems Christians faced centuries ago
Submitted by BrianBarkley on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 5:19pm.
If we can't convince most of Islam that the wants and needs of a religion are not the same as the wants and needs of a government we will lose. Faith can't be forced and good governance must serve the people, not the religious leaders. Christianity had that message pounded into us repeatedly and even now we struggle with it. I hope Islam fairs better than we have.