Don't count me among Henry Blodget's admirers, but he makes an interesting argument in a recent video posted on BusinessInsider.com (see below). Blodget argues that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has a "secret plan" to keep interest rates too low for too long on purpose. Why? To encourage inflation. According to Blodget, Bernanke has two good reasons for doing this:

• Faster economic growth, which leads to more jobs, fewer angry constituents, and a Congress that's happier with Ben Bernanke.
• Faster erosion of the real value of our debts. Consumers and the government are drowning under a massive debt load. One way to make paying off this debt easier is to make the dollars it is denominated in worth less. Bernanke will try to hasten this process as much as possible, taking it right to the point where our creditor China is mad as hell -- but not quite to the point where China actually stops lending to us.

Tim Geithner hasn't been Treasury Secretary for much more than a month, and already Henry Blodget is calling for his head.

Blodget writes that Geithner's ideas and personality have failed to inspire and, most importantly, he has "Refused to revisit or defend his almost certainly inaccurate view that this crisis is merely a temporary price decline caused by a lack of liquidity, rather than a collapse of a debt-driven economy. You can't cure the patient if you're treating the wrong problem."

DealBook reports that Frank Quattrone, the former First Boston high tech banker who spent four years fighting charges of obstruction of justice, is trying to change the role of analysts on Wall Street to make them glorified sales people for small, high-tech company IPOs.

That's what they were for Quattrone and they helped make him wealthy. But thanks to people like former Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) analyst and current Silicon Alley Insider blogger Henry Blodget, who famously trashed companies in e-mails to colleagues while boosting them in his reports, the role of Wall Street analysts has been permanently transformed. They can no longer get paid out of investment banking revenues. Instead, their compensation comes from trading revenues. And analysts are not supposed to talk to bankers unless a lawyer is present.

Quattrone makes two good points though. First, there is no career upside for analysts to cover small companies. That's because only the big companies can generate the trading or banking revenues needed to pay the analysts. Second, the most talented analysts went to work for hedge funds and private equity firms. The result is that individual investors can't get analysis for free. Quattrone fails to point out that the quality of that analysis is worth what individuals pay for it -- nothing directly and a modest sum indirectly (through trading commissions).

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has obtained a draft version of the SEC's report on bond-rating firms and their role in the credit bubble, and some of the stuff is pretty scary.

In one e-mail, a staffer at Standard & Poor's, which is own by McGraw-Hill (NYSE: MHP) told another that "we rate every deal," and that "it could be structured by cows and we would rate it."

Another wrote that "rating agencies continue to create" an "even bigger monster -- the CDO market. Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters. ;O)"

Yes -- complete with the smiley face. If this seems reminiscent of disgraced analyst Henry Blodget's e-mails bashing stocks he was publicly pumping during the dot-com bubble, that's because it's exactly the same. The lesson here, once again, is this: e-mails ever really get deleted permanently and, if you're being shady or doing something unethical, make a phone call, talk with the person in a dark alley, or send them a letter that they can promptly discard. Don't send an e-mail!

Of course, S&P's investment-grade ratings on CDOs stuffed with dodgy loans turned out to be wildly optimistic, and the house of cards has done more than falter -- it's brought down Bear Stearns and wreaked havoc on the economy.

Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) will begin an online technology TV show early next year.

The New York Times writes, "to be called TechTicker, the Web program will report exclusively on technology stocks, offering daily streaming-video segments and blog posts, as well as some live coverage of breaking news, said Brian Nelson, a spokesman for Yahoo." Hosts will include Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider and blogger Paul Kedrosky.

The idea just may work, and it could offer some competition for the likes of CNBC and Fox Business Network. Internet consumers have become used to watching video online, particularly because of the success of YouTube. And, Yahoo! Finance and the portal's technology news section can certainly promote the new video news service by sending it a great deal of traffic.

The plan may also be a financial success. Video ads placed in online content tend to get much higher CPMs than display ads do. If some of the visitors to Yahoo! are willing to watch business and tech news presented in video instead of print, the online giant may be able to improve its ad yield.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Question for Henry Blodget's many detractors: Are you mad that Michael Milken has become respectable?

Blodget and Milken symbolized the excesses of their internet bubble and 1980s respectively. Both were punished for their misdeeds. Milken, who went to prison, now devotes his time to his philanthropic work and an economic think tank. Blodget received a lifetime ban from the securities industry, a punishment he deserved.

Now pundits including MarketWatch's David Weidner and my colleague Zac Bissonnette say they are outraged that Blodget's writing is published in leading news outlets including the New York Times. What about Milken? Bloomberg News just interviewed him about the housing crisis. Should my former employer have killed the story given Milken's notorious past? Of course not.

Milken did his time and paid his fines. He's a brilliant man who still has plenty of interesting things to say. Same goes for Blodget. To be clear, investors shouldn't forgive or forget them for what they did. As far as I know Blodget has stayed out of legal trouble since he was banned from the securities industry. In 1998, Milken agreed to pay a $47 million fine to settle an SEC complaint that he violated his lifetime ban.

Peter Cohan, my colleague here at BloggingStocks, recently wrote about Henry Blodget's latest prediction: Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) is going to $2,000! Cohan summed up my reaction nicely: "Is this achievable? Who knows. But one thing's for sure, I am one sucker who took the bait to write about Blodget's call. So while the SEC has banned Blodget from providing investment advice, he remains as media savvy as ever."

After he agreed to a lifetime ban from the securities industry for his role in promoting internet companies (while trashing them in private emails), Blodget has managed to stay in the spotlight. He wrote a terrible book called The Wall Street Self-Defense Manual, which leads me to the thing I dislike most about Blodget. I would love for Mr. Blodget to be a great redemption story but the sad fact is, this man doesn't really seem to take responsibility for what he did. Consider this snippet from his book:

If missing the top had been my only mistake, I would have survived . . . I also made a more serious mistake, however, which was to write a lot of emotional unprofessional e-mails, especially during the heat of the crash. Later, amid the wreckage, when the press, public, and regulators began calling for blood, my emails did me in . . . I was accused by New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer of having made remarks in e-mails that were "inconsistent" with my research (popular translation: "privately trashing stocks he was public recommending"). Along with others, I agreed to pay a humongous fine and be barred from the industry. (Bold added by me)

Henry Blodget, who was banned from the securities industry due to his dishonest analyst work, predicts in AlleyInsider that Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) will hit $2,000 -- his biggest ever boost boast.

Blodget's fame soared in December 1998 when he predicted that Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) would hit $400 when it traded at $243 -- a 65% boost. After his call, which proved accurate, Amazon soared to peak at $630 in April 1999. It now trades at $552 on a comparable basis (six times the currently quoted price since Amazon split 3:1 in January 1999 and 2:1 in August 1999). Blodget was later hired by Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) where e-mails which trashed the companies he was publicly boosting landed him a life ban from the securities industry.

What is Blodget's logic for Google's $750 billion market cap (at $2,000 a share, which is 242% above its current $585)? "Assuming a 25x free cash flow multiple (generous), it would take free cash flow of $30 billion. That is one heck of a lot of free cash flow, especially considering that Google's free cash flow next year will be about $4 billion."

Is this achievable? Who knows. But one thing's for sure, I am one sucker who took the bait to write about Blodget's call. So while the SEC has banned Blodget from providing investment advice, he remains as media savvy as ever.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

On Friday my colleague Jonathan Berr posted Henry Blodget blasts Mary Meeker's Google (GOOG) math. In this story he outlined a slight difference of opinion. Actually a 1000%, regarding the potential revenue and earnings of YouTube. Since my own attempts at guessing what Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) is worth (Serious Money: What IS Google worth? One year later...) proved more accurate than either of them, and since total stock value is of more importance, I had to comment.

Here are some real important numbers: If Google earns $18 per share over the next twelve months, its forward P/E is around 28. If they continue to make any progress with YouTube revenue at somewhere in between our battling pundits and hold market share, Google might be worth $600 in 12 months. Not the stuff investors are dreaming of but pretty darn good.

If Google gains market share, adds any new revenue streams or improves its margins, it could reach 5% to10% above these figures. I do not believe this will happen because Google will not be able to achieve a return on investment for new business equal to that of its original idea. In addition, any new acquisitions, and there will be some, will not improve margins either.

To verify my track record, including bad calls, read Chasing Value and Serious Money.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm.

When Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) veteran Internet analyst Mary Meeker estimated that overlay ads on YouTube could immediately add $4.8 billion in gross revenue and $720 million in net revenue to Google's Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), her one-time competitor Henry Blodget was puzzled.

Her figures were dramatically bigger than his estimate of $12 million to $360 million of gross revenue. As Blodget discusses in his Silcon Alley Insider blog, Meeker made a huge mathematical blunder. She didn't calculate her estimates using cost per thousands (CPM), the common measurement used in selling advertising. She just forgot to divide by a thousand. So instead of $4.8 billion, Meeker really meant to say $4.8 million and $720 million becomes $720,000.

These ads are insignificant to Google's bottom line.

Blodget, who is turning out to be more honest as a blogger than he was as an analyst, clearly is delighting in jabbing the Internet Queen Meeker. It's odd that no one on her team caught this mistake before it was published.

Investors need to remember that analysts often are wrong. When they guess too low, as Wall Street often has with Google, it's called an "upside surprise" and when they guess too high it's called a "disappointment." This is a game that Blodget knows very well.