Charlie Rose

janebsm  04/16/2011 01:58 PM Report

Seldom have I come across such an amazing set of ideas!

After reading some of the comments on this web site, I can see that what Mr. Ramo wrote about in The Age of the Unthinkable is so clearly true. People really do NOT want to give up their old ways of thinking even when they have repeatedly proven to be ineffective. I read every WORD of this book and will re-read it immediately. The only other books which captivated me in this way were Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom and the one by Basinovich about America's endless path to war. THIS RINGS SO TRUE!!

Cicero  06/01/2009 03:14 AM Report

modern capitolism has driven the gap between the rich and poor wider than it has ever been...really so basically he is implying that Chinese communist party is, through capitalism, leading China toward greater poverty? Does that sound logical?

While I will agree that the top 1%, according to a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119215822413557069.html) , has increased their total wealth in the US to 20% of the total wealth of the country and the bottom 50% of the population have 15%. this ratio almost exactly parallels the economic pattern we achieved right before the last great depression.

Therfore when he states "Worst ever seen" is untrue, and a bit of exaggeration.

The question he should be looking for is this

Somewhere between uncontrolled freemarket and a Sovet era "Gosplan" committee where a controlled market was sought, is a "sweet spot" or moderation where things move quickly. That is to say between the radical extremes is moderation and we should move toward that end. The basic question is How do we move back toward moderation? This guy seems a bit too "Pro China" for my taste and a bit of a entertainer than a real academic. By his use of exaggeration "Worst ever..." and a lack of real insight like "the real question is..." makes him an almost pointless and shallow interview. and so charlie only gave him 16 minutes of air time.

nuff said

ShalomFreedman  05/03/2009 05:12 AM Report

Joshua Ramo knows a great deal about China, and is informative when he speaks about that society. However his generalizations about the processes of history in its overall operation seems to me more problematic. To say that history is unpredictable, and that one element in that unpredictability is sudden disaster is to reiterate the common sense wisdom of a great share of mankind. This seems especially trivial given that we are now living through the largest global economic crisis in eighty years, a crisis very few anticipated. Ramo it does not seem to me to deliver on his book's subtitle , and does not really tell us what can be done about this 'unpredictability'. His few prescriptions here are it seems to me simple formulas which have no great meaning. They do not tell us what to do in any specific case.

Now if he could tell us how we should act as to ensure that China does not become disruptive of U.S. goals throughout the world- or how to stop Iran from spreading its Islamic Revolution through nuclear terror- he might seem more helpful. But telling us to be 'resilient' or to understand that 'military solutions can only be partial' is not I think really that helpful.

ivangrt  05/02/2009 12:20 PM Report

Charlie Rose is one of the few journalists that I make time for. Many of his interviews bring people like Mr. Ramo into the public sphere, and I applaud that.

I generally agree with Mr. Ramo’s assessment of the nature of the problems we face in the world today. What I disagree with is his statement that “…there is no off the book set of answers because we don’t even know what the questions are today.”

I am an anthropologist, and my research is focused on developing a scientific theory that explains cultural evolution and how cultures function. I have been largely successful in this endeavor, and I am currently editing my PhD. Thesis for publication. My theory of cultural (which I call the Complex-Systems Theory of Culture) is useful for both specifying the questions and providing insight into what the answers should look like. This is the fundamental nature of scientific theory! I don’t fault Mr. Ramo for believing that no one knows the questions (let alone the answers) because at this point in time only my students are familiar with my work.

My theory can scientifically demonstrate the validity of Mr. Ramo’s views on our problems, and it can be used to demonstrate the validity of the solutions that I am beginning to propose. Mr. Ramo’s views aren’t un-american, they are absolutely necessary for us to survive and to continue to attempt to achieve the greatness envisioned in the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document of our nation.

Gustav  05/02/2009 04:51 AM Report

outrider52

I spent half a year in China recently. I tried to talk about many issues, what I came to realise is that "no one" cares about politics in China. They might not even know the name of barack obama, nor kim jong II for that matter. The people you are talking about, the educated from US, they are the last people to do anything. They earn a fortune with their degree and have for themselves nothing to complain about. And most people don't really care about others enough to sacrifice themselves. The ones who will bring about a resistance are instead those without such knowledge about our democrazy. It will be the guy who works 20 hours a day, not being able to afford education or not even internet.

tartufe  05/01/2009 11:22 PM Report

"We can't speak honestly about our demands with foreign leaders from vicious and inferior cultures? Killing terrorists is counterproductive?"

Vicious and inferior culures?: line up the nations of the world by number killed since inception either outright or per capita the US will be at the top. Many preemptive.

"Killing terrorists is counterproductive?" The way we do it in Pakistan is particularly counterproductive, using drone-fired missiles on mud-hut villages to kill 10-100 civilians for one terrorists. Recruiting Taliban and al Qaeda both. When we finally (declare victory and) leave, we will leave MORE enemies than when we arrived.

Our laissez faire capitalism is not to be decried because the Romans were worse (before subprime?) is a 'ludicrous' stretch.

Our corroded corruption (in the name of unbridled - unregulated capitalism) is anathema. The system is rancid via venality and lobbyist procurement of the best govt money can buy.

The two controlling oligarchys that are the real capitalism (and coopted government) are the M-I and financial profiteers. Murder and abject misery are merely facts of life - of others - that are merely prices god would have for the ultimate benefit of the elite meritocracy, a la those of Citigroup et al, Raytheon etc.

Being anti-American is the only natural and most patriotic attitude for anyone - especially for Americans.

When most of the influential captians of industry are so callous and hardened for any rapacious and predatory advantage to confiscate via foreclosures and limited bankruptcy and purchased enabling legislation, anarchy would be easily imaginable. Our own brought down the world's financial system. Do you wanr accolades for that? Likewise we've taken out more humans than most. Do you want applause?

John Wayne is dead. Hollywood perceptions of US as well.

REMant  05/01/2009 10:56 PM Report

While I agree with his some of his perspective, I think this book is probably designed more to exploit current issues like Freidman and Zakaria, than to delineate and solve them, but now having written this sentence as the show is airing, I see I am not alone in this. It appears too that he is making the rounds of the talk shows. A book by a Boston University prof named Andrew Bacevich, The Limits of Power, which Moyers likes and seems to be very similar to my own thinking, might be a better alternative. And I also think all of this has happened before, many times over, and that there are equilibria. There seem to be enthusiasts who believe things are always getting progressively better and those who are sure things are always getting progressively worse. They are both wrong, they are both enthusiasts, and they are very often the same people, flip-flopping back and forth, bulls one moment, bears the next, manic-depressive. With respect to China I think there are undoubtedly Chinese who will take on the arrogance of the Japanese a century ago as the country prospers. Our best approach to this is to encourage trade in increasingly higher order goods, so that neither becomes dependent on the other.

outrider52  05/01/2009 10:25 PM Report

free markets + free society = Progress. The Chinese Communist Party will eventually collapse because when people become self-empowered through capitalism they no longer need to rely on a benevolent government to provide them the means of living. The internet allows the Chinese to access a world of ideas, and an entire generation of young Chinese people have been either educated in the U.S. or strongly influenced by western culture. the enormous trade ties between U.S. and China will mean that they will never go to war. And U.S. and China are inherent allies. We both are idealistic but pragmatic people.

Cotton  05/01/2009 03:49 PM Report

Come on Charlie! Why didn't you stick up for America while this guy is telling us how to kow-tow to the Chinese, and how to reconcile ourselves to the decline of our civilization. As a long time member of your audience, I was really disappointed in this interview. The sum of this man's advice is totally, and I mean totally anti-American, a fact little concealed by his slick Davos manners and pseudo-scientific analogies: We have to "learn to give away power?" We can't speak honestly about our demands with foreign leaders from vicious and inferior cultures? Killing terrorists is counterproductive? Then the ludicrous claim that capitalism is the most inequal wealth-distribution system in world history (I could tell you about some big time slave owners in the Ancient Roman empire, providing evidence to the contrary). And don't his loyalties come into question, when you see how his eyes just light up when discussing his wonderful, super-intelligent contacts in the Chinese communist party.

Let me be clear, in calling Ramo anti-American, I'm not accusing him of open hostility, and certainly not on account of what appears to be his half-Asian ethnic background. All I'm saying is that he's an empty shell of a human being, of the self-promoting kind who thrives on trendy prognastication, and he's clearly well prepared to ride America's decline for all its worth, rather than say something substantial, like how we might actually overcome China in the long run. Charlie, I sincerly believe you failed to probe this man's countless groundless assumptions.