Things just keep getting rougher for average citizens in Europe. Some have faced government seizure of accounts to help fund government operations and requirements that they explain withdrawals to their banks. Now, the European Central Bank (ECB) is imposing a negative interest rate on banks for their deposits. So, you can keep your money under your mattress or put it in a bank where the bank will use it to earn money while charging you for the pleasure. This is of course the central bank which directly relates to individual banks as opposed to individual depositors. Those banks will now pay to park their money and those costs will be passed along to depositors. Banks are likely going to try to hide the fact that the interest rate is now negative through fees and other measures.
The ECB cut the rate on its deposit facility for banks from 0 percent to minus 0.10 percent. It also cut its main interest rate to from 0.25 percent to 0.15 percent as well as cutting the rate on its marginal lending facility by 35 basis points to 0.4 percent from 0.75 percent.
It is an interesting situation where banks will now be treated as solely a safe place for holding your money but you will pay for the service as a fee. Much like the airlines where aspects of what was once viewed as the basic service are being converted into fees, banks will now be treated as akin to a safety deposit box. However, unlike airlines or safety deposit boxes, the banks are making money off the deposits. It is a fundamental change in function of banks.
I have long been critical of the tax increases and measures in Europe that will likely have displacement impacts on investments and movement of citizens and businesses. In this case, I would expect people to look for alternatives from Internet banks to foreign banks.
Bob,
I have enjoyed CBS for that same reason. Charlie Rose is a tremendous asset to any network.
BTW, I have found the CBS Morning show with Charlie Rose, et. al. to be a refreshing change of pace.
Bob, yeah, I like Charlie Rose too. Very interesting interviews because he takes such a long time with them.
Nick: “Al Sharpton having a show is a disgrace. I see no “equal” to him on Fox.”
A disgrace is putting it lightly.
MSNBC = 85% Opinion
A separate analysis of cable in late 2012 finds that, over all, commentary and opinion are far more prevalent on the air throughout the day (63% of the airtime) than straight news reporting (37%). CNN is the only channel to offer more reporting (54%) than opinion (46%), though by a small margin. By far the highest percentage of opinion and commentary is on MSNBC (85% to 15% reporting). Fox was in between at 55% commentary and 45% reporting.
http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/
Stick with CNN and your local news stations.
Bob, Esq wrote: “Fox was in between at 55% commentary and 45% reporting.”
Bob, we need some opinion about the news, but treating opinion on MSNBC and Fox News is like comparing apples and oranges. MSNBC only gives opinion from one perspective. Fox News gives opinion from both sides. That is what makes Fox News so interesting. The entire program called The O’Reilly Factor is a news analysis program, so the entire news program would fall into your opinion category. It is not hard news. However, this does not mean it is bad to watch it. On the contrary, O’Reilly invites guests on both sides of the issue and contrasts opinions about the news of the day. No way you can compare that to the liberal opinion being forced upon you from MSNBC.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/crew-sean-hannity-freedom-concert-freedom-alliance
Sean Hannity’s charity under fire.
Shepard Smith is pretty liberal. I see no person even close to the middle on MSNBC.
Bob, Esq., They are both about equally biased, it ebbs and flows depending upon what is going on politically @ the time. But, Fox News has a real news division, MSNBC relies upon NBC for straight news, as it were. There is no doubt in my mind MSNBC is the Dem spin machine, Fox, the Rep spin machine. Al Sharpton having a show is a disgrace. I see no “equal” to him on Fox.
When I taught a current event class for high school seniors back in the early 2000’s I had students chart the stories covered by the 3 major networks. That was a nightly assignment and the students took turns covering it. They were stunned and amused that often. They got into it and always looked forward to the point in class when the 3 students reported the results. I can’t tell you how many times the top 5 stories were IDENTICAL both in topic and order of presentation. These kids eyes were opened. What Fox nightly news does is cover stories the other venues don’t. Fox News has some bomb throwers as does MSNBC. But, they both have legitimate news reporters. If you’re discriminating you can pick and choose.
David & Nick,
Please don’t tell me you don’t think Fox News isn’t at least as biased as MSNBC.
Bob, Esq – I don’t watch either channel, but I do know that Fox has a more varied political line-up then MSNBC.
Bob, Esq wrote: “Please don’t tell me you don’t think Fox News isn’t at least as biased as MSNBC.”
I don’t think Fox News is anywhere close to being as biased as MSNBC. I cannot stand MSNBC. I can barely tolerate NBC, and CNN is good 70% of the time. Fox News is good about 85% of the time.
There are a few programs on Fox News that I tend to avoid. Sean Hannity is one. He is very biased. Most of the other programs are fair and balanced, IMO.
The absolute best news analysis program is The O’Reilly Factor. If you have never watched it, you should. He can be a bit liberal at times, too controlling for my taste, but he knows how to pick interesting subjects and get guests from both sides of the issue to debate it. Very interesting lineup, IMHO. I wish CNN had something comparable. They try, but O’Reilly is the best hands down. Too bad he is not a conservative.
The Kelly File is creeping up on him though. She is a lawyer and does a good program too. I just added her to my DVR recordings when I saw that she was going to interview the soldiers who served with Sergeant Bergdahl. Very interesting program. I did not find CNN doing that, but I could have missed it. I don’t really watch a lot of tv.
It’s corporate news media…that often kowtows to the Powers That Be in Washington–both Republican and Democrat.
*****
Encouraging Words of Regret From Dean Baquet and Weasel Words From James Clapper
By Glenn Greenwald
6 Jun 2014
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/06/encouraging-words-dean-baquet-weasel-words-james-clapper/
Excerpt:
NPR’s David Folkenflik has a revealing new look at what I have long believed is one of the most important journalistic stories of the last decade: The New York Times‘ 2004 decision, at the behest of George W. Bush himself, to suppress for 15 months (through Bush’s re-election) its reporters’ discovery that the NSA was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Folkenflik’s NPR story confirms what has long been clear: The only reason the Times eventually published that article was because one of its reporters, James Risen, had become so frustrated that he wrote a book that was about to break the story, leaving the paper with no choice (Risen’s co-reporter, Eric Lichtblau, is quoted this way: “‘He had a gun to their head,’ Lichtblau told Frontline. ‘They are really being forced to reconsider: The paper is going to look pretty bad’ if Risen’s book disclosed the wiretapping program before the Times“).
As Folkenflik notes, this episode was one significant reason Edward Snowden purposely excluded the Times from his massive trove of documents. In an interview with Folkenflik, the paper’s new executive editor, Dean Baquet, describes the paper’s exclusion from the Snowden story as “really painful.” But, as I documented in my book and in recent interviews, Baquet has his own checkered history in suppressing plainly newsworthy stories at the government’s request, including a particularly inexcusable 2007 decision, when he was the managing editor of The Los Angeles Times, to kill a story based on AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein’s revelations that the NSA had built secret rooms at AT&T to siphon massive amounts of domestic telephone traffic.
David, Come on!! Fox News watchers are stupid, racist, homophobes. MSNBC watchers are smart, and enlightened racially and sexually. LOL! What is amazing is many people who spew that nonsense actually believe it.
Professor Turley also appears on CNN and used to be on MSNBC quite often. “Only” smart people appear on Fox? If you say so.
Hopefully David people at Fox actually listen to him. I disagree with your premise that only the smartest watch fox. If that were the case more Fox News watchers would have graduated from at least high school. I don’t be need to told what to think, some do.
Mr Keebler wrote: “I disagree with your premise that only the smartest watch fox.”
No, no, no. I did not say that. I was talking about those who APPEAR on the factor as guest commentators. Only smart people who can hold their own, like our host here, Professor Turley, will accept an invitation to appear on Fox News. I came here because I was looking him up after seeing him on Fox News a few times.
There are some people who will not appear on Fox News, such intellectual lightweights like Hillary Clinton. Oh, they would love to talk to her about Benghazi. It will never happen.
I will say one other thing too. I have noticed that stupid people do not go on Fox News to express their opinion. They are too fearful of being exposed. Only smart people like Professor Turley go on Fox News.
Sorry, David, not Paul.
For some reason you conveniently pass over how Nixon fired Ailes for being honest about his own opinion. How much of a propagandist is Ailes if the person who hires him fires him for his “propaganda”?
You guys point fingers at the agendas of people like you have uncovered some great secret. You apparently are unaware that everybody in television has an agenda, especially the liberally biased media. I’ve done television production myself. It is totally about presenting perspective to people in the most powerful way you can. If you are not doing that, then the show will be boring and you will not succeed.
No Paul, Ailes was speaking in general regarding ALL TV news watchers. I asserted that Fox News watchers are lazy minded. Fox depends on the stupidity of its watchers. My opinion, you don’t have to agree.
Annie wrote: “Fox depends on the stupidity of its watchers. My opinion, you don’t have to agree.”
Of course I don’t agree. Your position is an elitist position embraced by oligarchs. Fox News is the most popular news channel, meaning it is the news network of the populace. It might make you feel good to think you are smarter than everyone else in America, but you being smart and everyone else being stupid is not what makes Fox News so popular with mainstream America.
david said:
“When Ailes talked about the lazy minded, he was talking about people listening to the liberally biased media, NOT Fox News.”
*****
Ailes was talking about people preferring to sit in front of the television to watch the news rather than to spend their time reading a newspaper.
Elaine M wrote: “Ailes was talking about people preferring to sit in front of the television to watch the news rather than to spend their time reading a newspaper.”
Right, and he saw how television censored information and slanted it toward the left. Not liking their slant, he proposed doing television that would work toward Nixon’s benefit. Remember that Nixon got clobbered by television in his debate with JFK, not because of substance, but because of how television portrayed him.
Elaine, wow, well there you have it. Fox News the source for the lazy minded.
Annie wrote: “Elaine, wow, well there you have it. Fox News the source for the lazy minded.”
Did you even read what Elaine posted? When Ailes talked about the lazy minded, he was talking about people listening to the liberally biased media, NOT Fox News. This was from 40 years ago, long before Fox News ever existed. Ailes saw that people were being brainwashed by the existing liberally biased media and unaware of how censored the information was.
Roger Ailes’ Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint for Fox News