Charlie Rose

dmc  02/10/2009 08:20 PM Report

Dr_Ron,

"How do 'we' re-tool to be able to provide what the world needs now?" is, in fact, a market question, one to which some adult and charter school education entities seem to be responding to some degree but one to which our conventional primary, secondary and higher education entities often do not. And, probably the most controversial part of what I'm suggesting is the role of a country's culture as it translates into suggesting what teaching "values" means. Where that cultural imperative fits in “our” education system has a history of decline as we struggle to an ever greater degree to insure that no ones particular values are shoved down anyones throat.

We (here meaning the people of the United States) through our various means from electing local school boards to electing our country's president to being “educators” are both the market and the product. Our country was founded on education being critical to the success of democracy. Our place in the world will be strongly influenced by, not only the degree to which we are responsible citizens, but also by what we as the products of our education are able to provide in goods and services and thereby secure ourselves by the resulting economic return. In that context "what does the world need now?” becomes a critical question on all the levels within the micro-economic to macro-economic spectrum.

I'm not suggesting that it's simple or mono-faceted. I'm only suggesting that it's important for each of us to seek to understand how we can, individually and collectively, best accomplish obtaining and/or providing education that supports the culture in which we live (ostensibly a form of democracy) and responds to what the free market signals as needs.

Dr_Ron  02/08/2009 12:17 AM Report

dmc,

I would agree that the education system of a nation is a key driver of an economy. However, your comment also seems to imply that we as a country are somehow responsible for running the education system (whoever "we" is). That a particular form of indoctrination should manditorily be shoved down anyone's throats (the whole country, the world?), or even offered only to pass on the bill to someone else, again by force, I would say is the wrong approach on both ethical and economic grounds.

In answer to your question, the solution, at least to me, seems very obvious. Education should be provided in the same way that any other service is effectively provided - through the market place. I assure you that we would not only save more money and end up smarter. We would also be freer.

dmc  02/07/2009 03:40 PM Report

An ongoing world for people will ultimately depend on what comes from the hands, knowledge and ideas of those people. The dynamics are a blending of the participation of each individual as an economic unit of the whole. So developing a more sustainable world for people means raising their ability to create exchange for themselves with their hands, their knowledge and their ideas in a way that supports the individual and the sustenance of the world locally, regionally and globally. This implies a need to focus on how people gain an understanding of facts, values and aesthetic views and what is the content of that understanding. Enlivening the appreciation of the individual cultures and advancing education systems within those cultures, both of which shape the development of what individuals can contribute with their hands, their knowledge and their ideas, needs to be a central focus for a brighter future, perhaps for any future at all.

As long as there is a world for people, who will lead it will depend on who does the "best job" in this area. For the moment, if the "economic scorecard" is a measure of the effectiveness of a culture's success, the United States is currently leading, which is why the world currently wants the United States to lead the way out of the current economic crisis. As Tom Friedman and others have pointed out many times, the probability of continuing to lead is not at all as assured as it was in the last half of the last century. For people of the United States to have a future lifestyle anything close to what they would find acceptable today will require a significant increase of the quality of what its citizens in aggregate obtain from its education system. The output of the “education system” (meaning how people obtain their view of the world that is the basis for their participation in their world) will drive the economy on almost any basis, short, medium or long-term, that you want to measure it.

Re-establishing the United States economy and its role in the world economy ultimately depends on the output of the United States people's hands, knowledge, and ideas having value in the world. In the last half of the last century, participation in the space race and the development of information technology were among the drivers of the world economy and were among the things to which the United States and its education system responded. What's next? How do we “re-tool” to be able to provide what the world needs now?

tartufe  02/04/2009 12:29 PM Report

Without being a bit "snarky" why is Obama overpaying the bailed out execs up to $500,000?

That level and above should assure WISDOM. Well the old saw, "past performance is no assurance of the future's" is not true in this scenario. They will UNFORTUNATELY perform as egregiously greedy as in the past with the assurance of perennial bailouts. They will get around the cap with some chicanery like a "Deferred Bonus Swap Offset."

Most of them in an equitable world would be proportionately fined and incarcerated, not further exonerated with a capped salary of a 1/2 million.

They and their ilk are causing - as we speak - untold misery here and abroad. It's a sick system that rewards such behavior - at any level.

Rob a convenient store = 5 - 10 years in the slammer? Pull a Madoff Ponzi scheme = restriction to million dollar townhouse? Engage in totally fatuous and unwise subprime mrtgs solely for the fees that ultimately tips the world into recession = rewards of bailouts without oversight.

Lastly, NPR just announced the SEC were repeatedly warned about Madoff as far back as 2000. Why isn't such duplicity punishable by law? SEC officials - along with Madoff?

The conspiracy required for these financial gymnastics between government hacks and financial wise-guys is criminal and should be treated as such. Both government and financial participants need to be tried. Grand theft, crimes against humanity, treason, sedition, something?

Don't reward them. Their sense of entitlement is too overweaned as it is.

ShalomFreedman  02/04/2009 02:40 AM Report

What is perhaps not surprising but is nontheless striking is that every economic expert Charlie Rose brings underlines the severity of the situation, suggests certain kinds of rememdies(They are pretty much similar to each other ; Stimulus , Mortgage restructuring, Bank Recapitalization, Freeing up the Credit markets)but no one gives a picture of how a restructured global economy is going to work in terms of various nations contributions in production and consumption. The crisis happened in some extent because the U.S. became 'debtor to the world'. Now Americans are receiving contradictory advice in regard to Spending and Savings. It is urgent that they spend more now to get the Economy going again but it is also important that they save more since their reliance on credit helped bring on the problem. Many have spoken about the danger of trade- wars but no one has suggested the kind of picture of a new world which will emerge. Energy, Environment, Health Care all too are issues and problems which need addressing, and which the Obama Administration intends to address. But I have not seen one forecast of how the next Brave New World is going to fit together.

Perhaps Charlie should invite Zvengali to the next show.

tartufe  02/03/2009 10:51 PM Report

Could it be that the best long term action re the bad banks is no action? Let TRUE (laissez faire) capitalism exact its natural laws. That would mete out the consequences where due.

That should reduce the remaining banking to commerce. Letters of credit associated with the movement of goods. The gimmicky stuff like credit default swaps etc would sort itself out on a sink or swim basis. If none is left standing is probably so much the better. Citigroup in particular.

Their bailouts merely assure the moral hazard syndrome of a repeat bubble downstream. Their "gimmickry financial instrumentation" should be punished NOT REWARDED. In fact fines and jail time for many in both finance and government would go along way in restoring confidence.

The complicitous / duplicitous collusion this collapse required between government and financial wise-guys was outright criminal. And they're not only getting away with it, they're being rewarded with bailouts on the backs of our children's children.

REMant  02/03/2009 02:17 PM Report

I haven't ever read Wolf's columns, tho I think I have seen him on TV somewhere previously, but the main arguments here I am no stranger to, of course: 1. that the economic system which relies on the consumption of just a few countries like the US is fundamentally flawed; 2. that the mortgages need to be restructured and by direct intervention if necessary; and, 3. that house (and other) prices probably still need to fall to bring them into line with what ppl can afford. On the last I do wish Schiller would spend more time talking about that than on how we are lacking in confidence, making it sound as if it were all a matter of ideology. I would not, however, argue that the developing world should buy into the present model, tho I acknowledge that if we are all going to continue down the inflationary road, they must. The problem has been that we have been taking up all the credit, instead of sending it back to them, or they haven't in some notable cases done anything useful with the money. If China, the OPECi's, etc want to spend it now or buy up more of our debt with it, then it certainly would help the entire situation. You can't figure cheapness btw without figuring it for the entire economic flow, not just the govt budget. Business types are given to think of govt as a parasite, and have the wrong idea of parasites at that, for nearly all such relationships are symbiotic, as I'm sure this one is. Still it might be more efficient for the private sector to handle funding a lot of what has been proposed, rather than the govt. The question is whether they would, as most of these things fall into the category of public goods, and of course, whether it is reasonable to suppose that we can get the system up and running again without doing some of what is in the "stimulus" bill. In my view what is needed is that we pay off our debts, and that we improve our productivity. The bill before Congress addresses some of the latter, but none of the former, but leaving it to the private sector will likely do little about either.

Of course the present problem has been generated by being over our heads in debt, and the main issue is how best to deal with that debt. If nothing is done about it, not only will debtors starve, but creditors' paper will become worthless. What needs to be accomplished is to decide who can afford to bear what portion of the burden involved in getting the debt paid. What plans to issue more debt involve is an attempt to dilute the present debt as a means of refinancing, but it is one that will be inflationary, and it is not clear to me that its inflationary aspect will not overbalance any good it may do. Refinancing, if it is in the creditors' power, is, of course, in their interest, but it may not be in their power. For the rest it will be necessary for debtors to scrimp and save, which is, of course, what they are doing. The Congress and admin should be considering seriously what should be done to prevent creating this much debt again.