Maybe the big shots don't want to censor her because it would seem heavy-handed ... essentially controlling the conversation based on personal interest. It would make them seem less than transparent if the news got out that they told one of their anchors what they could and couldn't talk about. Also, they probably realize that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, so they figure why not let the stupid idiot blabber about it if it's not really going to hurt them. A smarter anchor would know not to keep bringing it up, but they figure she's clueless and won't really cause much damage anyways. That's my guess.
Maybe she is already saying what the big shots want her to say, which is what they pay her for in the first place.
I highly doubt it. I can't see any good reason why CNBC would support this tax. Their viewership is all retail traders, not the insitutional pros. If this tax passes, 80% of their viewers will disappear. They can't possibly want that.
Yeah, it would pretty much kill them. CNBC only exists because a lot of small retail traders are trying to manage their own finances by actively trading during the day. If this tax makes that impossible and makes the average retail guy trade once a month, what the heck do you need a news network for? Nobody will be watching it. The big guys know this - the only reason they are letting her blab is because they're not worried.
This makes a lot of sense, of course. I'm speculating about her content being from higher up only because it's the producer in the control room, not the infobabe on your screen, who has the final say about what goes out on air. Are they going to let one employee risk an inadvertent crash-and-burn for the entire network? Seems implausible, but who knows what is really going on here.
Well, that's the point. She's not really risking anything for them, because they know that this thing will never pass. They are probably a lot smarter and a lot more connected than she is, and know how hard this would be to actually sign into law. Also, she does genuinely seem interested in discussing the topic - I am pretty sure that it is her that is pushing for it on air, not her producer. I don't have a problem believing that she's an idiot, but I do have a problem believing that her producer is.
I didn't catch all of it, but did you see that moron over at "Real Money" who said something like "A real trader wouldn't be concerned about a 0.25% tax..."? I can't believe that someone who is "professional" would say that! I think Rev Shark and others tried to set the dumbass straight. Here is a note, just in case he checks out ET: 0.25% per trade = 0.5% per RT. If the trade is a futs contract worth $50K (or whatever) then ya get $50K X 0.5% = $250 per RT. Do you get it now, you stupid f#ck? Trading just 1 ES will cost $250 per round trip, with "only" a 1/4% tax. Try to make a living with that obamanation...
That will never, ever, ever, ever happen. $250 per RT is just way out. Even the morons proposing the tax aren't that stupid, and are saying that futures would get a break. Think more like $5-$20 per RT. That's still ridiculous and they still won't end up doing it anyways, but $250 per RT would put the CME out of business immediately. It's 100% impossible.
Why would futures get a break? In what sense they are different from stocks? Position size that what counts for your PnL as well as for the government's PnL. Why should the government be concerned with your leverage? They won't.