In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10280
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
vongleichent 04/13/2012 03:20 PM Report
i don't think he is going to have any difficulties finding a job with that type of resume that he has.
decora 01/08/2011 08:57 PM Report
Kashkari: bald
Paulson: bald
Blankfein: bald
Bernanke: bald
Dick Cheney: bald
Ken Lewis: bald spot
Coincidence? Obviously what we have here is a plot, a plan to remove the hair from the head of every American and use it, use to... build hair rocket ships. Think about it folks.
Ricardo_Amaral 05/10/2009 04:48 PM Report
Reply to doodahdaze – Here is some further reality check for you:
USA Today - March 20, 2009
“$ 1 trillion deficits estimated for each of the next 10 years”
…The new Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the administration predicted in its budget just last month.
… Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.
"Deficits in the, let's say, 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters.
Deficits so big put upward pressure on interest rates as the government offers more attractive interest rates to attract borrowers.
"I think deficits of 5% (of GDP) are unsupportable," said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-20-federal-deficit_N.htm
*****
As of Date - US Government Total Public Debt Outstanding
Estimated figures:
09/30/2019 $ 21.3 trillion dollars (estimate) ($12 + 9.3)
09/30/2009 $ 12 trillion dollars (estimated figure)
Actual figures:
05/07/2009 $11,256,266,640,050.20
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/28/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
*****
YEAR – U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
2001 - $ 10.1 trillion dollars
2002 - $ 10.4 trillion dollars
2003 - $ 11.0 trillion dollars
2004 - $ 11.7 trillion dollars
2005 - $ 12.4 trillion dollars
2006 - $ 13.2 trillion dollars
2007 - $ 13.8 trillion dollars
2008 - $ 14.3 trillion dollars
Source: http://www.bea.gov/
Actual figures by Bureau of Economic Analysis
*****
YEAR – U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
2009 - $ 14.1 trillion dollars
2010 - $ 14.6 trillion dollars
2011 - $ 15.2 trillion dollars
2012 - $ 16.0 trillion dollars
2013 - $ 16.7 trillion dollars
2014 - $ 17.4 trillion dollars
2015 - $ 18.1 trillion dollars
2016 - $ 18.9 trillion dollars
2017 - $ 19.6 trillion dollars
2018 - $ 20.4 trillion dollars
2019 - $ 21.2 trillion dollars
Source:
Estimated Figures 2009 – 2019 by Congressional Budget Office as of March 2009
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10014
*****
Note: I want to bring to your attention that the global economy collapsed in 2008 and we had a massive global economic meltdown – but by looking at the official US government statistics for U.S. GDP you would not know that we had such an economic and financial crisis affecting the United States economy.
The above USA Today article said: “"Deficits in the, let's say, 5% of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters.”
And that statement was based on the above Fairy Tale figures for US GDP that are published by the US government.
If you want to learn about truth about the real US GDP then check the following site:
The US economy and the real GDP
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126048
In a Nutshell:
At the end of the day a more realistic figure for the actual GDP for the US economy for 2009 is estimated to be around $ 10 trillion dollars and not the Fairy Tale figure published by the US government of $ 14.1 trillion dollars.
.
doodahdaze 05/10/2009 09:51 AM Report
And not to mention, pretty brown women with big boobies and bubble butts that like to run around naked.
doodahdaze 05/10/2009 09:19 AM Report
LOL Ricardo, just as I suspected, yes you are, quite the little "Tokyo Rose", spewing out your BIG numbers like a neglected nerdy accountant demanding a little respect. You're biggest problem is that you have no concept of anything that you can't see or fit in your narrow little tunnel of headlines and menacing numbers; your understanding of cause and effect is shallow and juvenile at best. For example, you mention in your contemptible words, "how long will foreigners keep funding American defense spending and military adventures around the world?". Which yes, that is a good point. How long will Americans keep sacrificing everything from their money to their own lives to defend the lives of ungrateful, petty foreigners like yourself?... Bet you never thought of it that way cowboy.
Of course, in your narrow, shallow childlike reasoning, you will come back with a, Brazil doesn't need America's help for anything. Which I don't have the time or the care to investigate the validity of that, but I can safely assume that Brazilians enjoy many of the inventions created by Americans, that they wouldn't have otherwise and now take for granted, that much I do know with certainty without making any effort. And then again, it comes down to, What does Brazil offer the rest of the world?, Will Brazil rescue the world from the threat of crazy evil regimes that continuously pop up throughout history?... I'll tell you what Brazil has to offer (for the right price) strip mining of their natural resources. That, and plastic surgery. YeeHaw!!!
Ricardo_Amaral 05/10/2009 06:02 AM Report
Reply to doodahdaze
Wall Street Journal
May 9, 2009
President Obama unveiled a budget Thursday with a 2010 price tag of $3.5 trillion financed with $1.2 trillion of new debt.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182588013102453.html
*****
Just to put things in perspective:
Brazil’s GDP for 2008 = $ 1.6 trillion dollars.
Debt portion of US government 2010 Budget = $ 1.2 trillion.
.
Ricardo_Amaral 05/10/2009 04:46 AM Report
Reply to doodahdaze – You have been watching too many science-fiction movies.
You said: “But there is a big hole, actually several big holes in your predictions/conclusions/forecasts; and that is, number one, you are confusing today's Russia with yesterday's Soviet Union.”
Russia has been ruled by a KGB-man for many years – and in the last few years the US has taking many actions that have made the Russians very angry and basically we are going back to a new cold war the sequel.
You also said: “For the USA is currently working on the final stages of a new revolutionary weapon that will literally zap enemies against civilization right where they stand (or sit) anywhere in the world, rendering not just all previous weapons obsolete,…”
You can believe anything you want about US new technology, but the reality is in the last few years the United States had trouble even in trying to launch one of its old Shuttles – the most exciting thing about the US space program is for people to watch if NASA will be able to launch the Shuttle in one piece and if the Shuttle can manage a safe re-entry – and most people wonder if the Shuttle will explode on the way up or on re-entry.
By the way, the Shuttle program started during the Nixon administration and everything that NASA has accomplished with that program until today – that goal was to the achieved by 1980. The US space program is 30 years behind schedule.
I can see by your comments that you still believe in Fairy Tales, but I want to remind you that the last 2 world superpowers were not beaten on the battlefield – the English Empire and the Soviet Empire – they died a slow death - massive military over expenditure around the world does it every time.
Today the US government has over $ 11 trillion dollars in cumulative outstanding debt.
And Ben Bernanke has added trillion of dollars in new liabilities and US government guarantees to the US government balance sheet. The debt related to the baby boom generation is finally coming due and they will cost around $ 70 trillion dollars to the US government in the coming years.
*****
It is a very sad state of affairs - Living on borrowed money from foreigners and at the same time thinking that they are very wealthy.
Since George W. Bush became president on January 20, 2001 the US government added to its outstanding debt $ 5 trillion dollars.
It is no coincidence, but as you can see by the enclosed actual figures the total adjusted amount of US defense spending during the 8-years of the Bush administration was over US$ 4 trillion dollar.
My question is: for how many more years do you think foreigners are going to continue funding the defense spending of the United States?
Never mind foreigners funding American military adventures around the world – who is going to fund all the trillions and trillions of dollars of US domestic expenses that are coming due?
***
As of Date - US Government Total Public Debt Outstanding
05/07/2009 $11,256,266,640,050.20
01/16/2009 $10,628,881,485,510.23
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/28/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64
Total public debt outstanding on 01/19/2001 was $5,727,776,738,304.64 and since George W. Bush became president on January 20, 2001 the US government added to its outstanding debt $ 5 trillion dollars.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
******
Year - Interest expense paid by US government on its outstanding debt
2009 $193,437,580,154.01 (Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2009 to the end of April 2009)
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
*****
United States government actual budget figures during the 8-year Bush administration.
United States Government Annual Budget during the Bush administration. Each year, on the first Monday in February, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year:
United States federal budget, 2009 - $3.0 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.6 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.1 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total US government Budget for period year 2001 to year 2008 = US$ 20 trillion.
The cumulative total actual US Government budget for the 8-year period of the Bush administration was US$ 20 trillion dollars.
**************
Here is Bushes’ actual military spending - this does not include ANY costs related to Afghanistan or Iraq as they are all in supplemental spending bills:
For Fiscal Year 2008 it is $481.4 billion
For Fiscal Year 2007 it is $470.0 billion
For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $ 296.0 billion
Note: The Iraq and Afghanistan supplementary spending as of end December 2008 = over $ 650 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Bush administration actual defense spending for 8-year period 2001 to 2008 = US$ 3,898 billion
Plus other supplementary amounts that the government requested the total adjusted amount for defense spending for the 8-years of the Bush administration it will reach over the US$ 4 trillion dollar level.
Note: The cumulative total actual US Government budget for the 8-year period of the Bush administration was US$ 20 trillion dollars and the actual defense spending for the 8-years was US$ 4 trillion dollar equal to 20 percent of the total.
.
doodahdaze 05/09/2009 09:52 PM Report
O.K. Ricardo, so you're not a "Tokyo Rose", intentionally spreading propaganda, trying to break the spirit and the will of Americans. And I intend to see that movie someday, I'm sure it will be very entertaining. But there is a big hole, actually several big holes in your predictions/conclusions/forecasts; And that is, number one, you are confusing today's Russia with yesterday's Soviet Union. The USA was fighting against an evil empire against all of humanity including their own citizens. The USA's leadership led resistance to that crime against nature, God, human beings is what freed millions of Russian people from decades of oppression. And now the USA is left to clean up the residual evil left behind by that Soviet Union. The Russian people have a right to flex their Nationalistic muscles with goose stepping and tough talk all they want. But if they were to literally raise a hand against any U.S. Service man or woman, that would be enough to unleash the wrath of God the likes of which the world has never seen in time immemorial being. For the USA is currently working on the final stages of a new revolutionary weapon that will literally zap enemies against civilization right where they stand (or sit) anywhere in the world, rendering not just all previous weapons obsolete, but also thwarting terrorism completely by making it impossible to organize effectively. Like it or not, we are about to embark on a new era of world peace my friend; be patient, you'll see.
Ricardo_Amaral 05/09/2009 07:15 PM Report
Reply to doodahdaze - “Tokyo Rose” was a generic name given by Allied forces in the South Pacific during World War II to any of approximately a dozen English-speaking female broadcasters of Japanese propaganda.
My posting is not about baseless propaganda like in the “Tokyo Rose” case. My posting is based on fact, and Americans are so proud of that information that they even produced a movie on that subject: “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
By the way the movie was very good and you should watch the movie and get better informed. Anyway I enjoyed watching that movie.
I had posted the following on the Elite Trader political forum in September of 2008 after I had watched that movie. I had just come across that DVD on a video store and I decided to watch the movie and then I posted this information because I thought the subject of that movie was interesting. Here is what I posted at that time and had nothing to do with has transpired in Afghanistan since that time and the recent decision of Americans to follow the footsteps of the Soviet Union into the black hole.
*****
September 25, 2008
SouthAmerica: Last night I did watch the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” with Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
They said right in the beginning of the movie that this movie was based on actual facts.
The movie was very entertaining and very well done, but the movie left out completely a very important fact.
Charlie Wilson was instrumental in supplying Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan at that time.
Here is what they left out of the movie:
“In Afghanistan the Mujahideen armed with stinger missiles supplied by the CIA they gave a very hard time to the Soviet army - Bin Laden became a stinger missile expert in this war earning the nom de guerre "The Archer." And people such as Bin Laden became a key in helping the Mujahideen win the war against the Soviet Union.
At the end of the day the CIA provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he became so good that he helped shoot down most of the 89 Russian helicopters in a short period of time. At that time Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war in Afghanistan.”
***
When I was watching that movie I wonder what kind of reaction the Russians would have today if they had the opportunity to watch that movie. I also wonder what kind lesson the Russians would have learnt from this movie that could be replicated today in Afghanistan?
I also wonder if this story is going to have a follow up part 2 and also based on actual facts - and In a few years a Russian filmmaker decides to make a similar movie called “Ivanovich Putin’s War” – how the KGB provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down American helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he once again he became so good that he helped shoot down most of the xxx American helicopters in a short period of time. Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war all over again in Afghanistan.”
Interesting sequel - what goes around comes around…
You also can name the new Russian movie the sequel to the American version - “Afghanistan the graveyard to former Superpowers”.
**********
July 30, 2006
SouthAmerica: The demise of a superpower happens over a long period of time – at least in the past for example the British Empire, the Soviet Empire, and so on….
The Afghanistan war debacle was one of the last nails in the coffin for the Soviets.
You said: “The USSR didn't survive its defeat in Afghanistan but the USA survived its defeat in Vietnam.”
But if you look around; Russia still over there and they did not disappear from the map of the globe. You don’t die completely – the Russians, and the British still around. You have a major decline in economic terms, and you lose your status as a superpower. You lose your clout, and prestige in the eyes of other people. It is a question of perception from where you are looking.
Regarding the US it is clear to me that the United States is declining very fast. Iraq will be very costly for the United States in many ways.
In Afghanistan the Mujahideen armed with stinger missiles supplied by the CIA they gave a very hard time to the Soviet army - Bin Laden became a stinger missile expert in this war earning the nom de guerre "The Archer." And people such as Bin Laden became a key in helping the Mujahideen win the war against the Soviet Union.
At the end of the day the CIA provided the weapons and training to Osama bin Laden; the Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. The Archer became a stinger missile expert and he became so good that he helped shutdown most of the 89 Russian helicopters in a short period of time. Osama Bin Laden became a Legend and a Hero of war in Afghanistan.
.
doodahdaze 05/09/2009 11:07 AM Report
That would be, Ricardo "Tokyo Rose" Amaral.
Vive Brazil!
doodahdaze 05/09/2009 08:26 AM Report
Whatever you say there, Tokyo Rose.
Ricardo_Amaral 05/09/2009 01:08 AM Report
The mainstream media in the United States can’t connect the dots even to save their lives and Americans make the same old mistakes over and over again, it seems to me that they are immune from learning anything from past experiences and they make the same mistakes over and over again.
Americans learnt nothing from the prior experiences with companies such as Enron, and WorldCom to just mention a few catastrophes.
I thought some people on this forum would contest what I said on my prior posting on this thread such as the above fact, but I guess most of you must agree with me.
Here is another example of how Americans are immune from learning anything from history – Americans learnt nothing about what happened to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. The Soviet army meltdown in Afghanistan snow balled into the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire.
Very soon in 2009 the United States is going to have almost the same number of soldiers located in Afghanistan that the Soviets had when they got their ass kicked in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and resulted in the Soviets having to leave Afghanistan after they got humiliated and lost that war.
In the 1980's the Russians were the bad guys in Afghanistan - the occupiers.
And the United States supplied the weapons to destroy Russian Helicopters - in a short period of time armed with the new Stinger missiles they were able to destroy 89 Russian helicopters.
Basically the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" gives the Russians an idea about how to get even with the United States without having to go to war.
All the Russians need to do today in Afghanistan is to use the same strategy used by the United States against then in the 1980's.
If you look hard enough I will not be surprised that that movie is available on the internet to be downloaded - my posting is about how that movie gives a very bad idea for the Russians to get even with the US since the US army is the one that is occupying the Afghanistan today.
The point of my posting is that the Russians could do to the United States today the same thing that the United States did to the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and the United States would not have a leg to stand and make a public complaint to the rest of the world.
If it were OK for the US to help the rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980’s then it would be OK for the Russians to help the current rebels today against the current occupiers in that country.
And the ironic part of this entire story is that Osama Bin Laden still fighting in that area of the world the current group of occupiers. Maybe “The Archer” will be back in business and this time around the Russians would be the ones to supply the latest versions of Stinger missiles for him to be able to do his job.
The United States was responsible for creating and training Osama Bin Laden and since then their creation has gone completely out of control.
In a Nutshell: That experiment probably defines what the United States has become for the rest of the world: a country with a lot of good ideas about politics, economics, investments that in the surface it seems like a good innovation then these experiments becomes monsters completely out of control.
.
tartufe 05/08/2009 11:02 PM Report
Charlie where the hell are you? Dick Durbin needs your forum.
Would be fresh air compared to the toadies you've had on lately.
Their drumbeats championing the bailouts as saving the whole financial system is based on the unprovable negative that without them the collapse would be worse.
Well unprovable assertions are cheap. Here's one with a moral basis: without retributive repercussions the moral hazards will assuredly recur. It's imperative to remember we are not dealing with adults, but grasping, greedy children. Enough has no meaning. The second billion has no more lasting satisfaction than the first. The endorphins are fleeting (like a runners high).
tartufe 05/08/2009 09:39 PM Report
Obama where the hell are you. Your fellow-state senator needs your loquacious support.
tartufe 05/08/2009 09:36 PM Report
Transferred from Geithner conversation: (The duplicitous pols need incarcerating along with the financial blood suckers.) As always see REMants entry below.
This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) about campaign finance reform and the prospects of Congress passing legislation to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
Against intense opposition from banks and credit unions, Durbin has been working to pass a bill that would empower bankruptcy judges to reduce homeowners’ mortgage debt and help them to stay in their homes. Last week, 12 Democrats joined Senate Republicans to defeat the legislation.
Durbin said that banks caused the current recession and are now working against government policy that would help solve the economic crisis:
“It was clear to me that even though the mortgage foreclosure crisis is getting progressively worse in this country and is, I think, at the heart of our economic weakness, that the banks were unwilling to step in and really participate in finding a solution... Here we are in a recession brought on by these financial institutions [with] some very bad decisions that they’d made causing great pain and suffering for a lot of workers and businesses and homeowners across America. And yet when you sit down and talk about some fundamental reform of these financial institutions, so that people have a fighting chance when it comes to their credit cards, so that folks facing mortgage foreclosure have a final chance to maybe save their homes, basically the banks are gonna have the last word. It’s counterintuitive – the people who brought this crisis to us are the ones that are dictating policy.”
Some argue that well-intentioned but misguided government policies are partly to blame for the mortgage crisis and that further federal intervention in the housing market could make things worse. Steven Malanga of CITY JOURNAL wrote:
“Nearly a century of Washington’s efforts to promote homeownership has produced one calamity after another... As Washington grapples with the current mortgage crisis, advocates from both parties are already warning the feds not to relax their commitment to expanding homeownership – even if that means reviving the very kinds of programs and institutions that got us into trouble... Our praiseworthy initial efforts – to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home – were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes... Political meddling in this vast marketplace has wreaked havoc time and again, and will continue to do so – if we let it.”
REMant 05/08/2009 04:56 PM Report
How, if he believes (correctly I think,) that house prices needed a necessary correction, does he also believe that there was a necessity to keep credit flowing? In what does he believe credit to consist? Credit he says is the lifeblood of our economy. Not savings? Not labor? Not production? Credit. If credit is that, then you print more money. Money = credit. That has the effect of raising prices. And later he agrees with the monetarist-Keynesian line being taken which imagines that demand creates supply and credit creates savings. But why then talk about equity? Are you not thereby actually confessing that you must force ppl, as the financial types like to say, "take a haircut?" Are you not admitting that work and savings are the real lifeblood? Why would you not instead have forced these institutions into receivership, as required by law, so that they alone take the "haircut" and perhaps also a shave? Why assume to get back to your metaphor that the patient needed a transfusion, instead of an appendectomy, or maybe a lobotomy? More sensible ppl, even some Nobelists, and I am sure the vast majority of the American public, believe that supply creates the possibility of buying, and that savings creates the opportunity for credit. But what do they know of the "complexities" of such things?
If only experts can make these decisions, I certainly wouldn't want Mr Kashkari among them, because I doubt sincerely his impartiality, and it is clear from this that as the WSJ wrote he is a sycophant, the good soldier. He even hides behind slogans like national security and support the troops. I imagine he agreed with Greenspan after 9-11, too. So he expects all these programs to be sucessful in doing what, blowing up all the bubbles again? I would expect him to turn up as a vice president, or even vice chairman with responsibilities in the area of "public-private partnership."
It may be as he says that Geithner understands all these nuances very well, given his performance the day before, but, what is also apparent is that, like a young man writing his first research paper, he has not so far been able to draw the correct conclusions.
winter 05/08/2009 04:39 PM Report
Mr Kashkari managed to sidestep Charlie's most probing questions like the suggestion that wall street types posing as civil servants might not be what we need. I love his answer though, that "its a healthy mix". That reminds me of a scene where Susan Sarandon playing Doris Duke when asked by her accountant, "how do you think the alcohol rehabilitation charities would feel if they found out they were getting money from a drunk" and she responds after a pause, "....ironic!" And the question, "wheres the money" and he responds, "its complicated" and serves up the analogy that performs jiu jitsu on the question. Maybe it would have been more revealing to interview someone 5 tiers lower on the accountability ladder. It seems an entire standup routine could be composed from the meltdown. "We don't save enough, we don't spend enough", "the company would be bankrupt save for taxpayers bailing them out but there are bonuses". "the unemployment rate gets deeper with every announcement but the market is coming back" The $64,000. question came at the end any answer to which of course Mr Kashkari will not be available for since his apprenticeship like so many others has been served. I thought Obama made restrictions to the revolving door, maybe thats what the 7 months is for.
cody 05/08/2009 06:56 AM Report
@ Sugarland: Yes, those things look true to me too. But, against fraud:
1) you need to have a regulator (checker) who deserves our trust
and 2) people need to spread their investments, so that they don't lose it all when there's a fraud.
But, I also think there are a few problems with capitalism now (and strangely, they all have to do with China):
1) in China, they save too much and spend too little. One of the problems with that is that now more and more people get a job in China, but there aren't more products sold. Therefore the unemployment rate of the world in a whole becomes much worse.
2) capitalism is making the biggest inequality between the rich and the poor ever. They are the working poor (see what the anti-globalization movement calls: "race to the bottom"). Best example you see in China. The solution for this could be: international standards (certanly standards in China) for minimum wages and worker rights, i.e. make the labor unions more important.
3)copying products of brands and sell it for a low price. Then brands can't make the money to pay the inventors of those products, so those jobs also will get lost. So there needs to be a regulation for patents in China.
doodahdaze 05/08/2009 06:11 AM Report
There is something to be said of "political realities" and "subtle nuances" in a person's work, that cannot be easily conveyed to the angry mobs and their starving children. Well, if you want to keep your job, that is... How long will the crying over spilled milk put a damper on the economy? Why can't we mop-up this mess that the "Wall Street Vampires" made with the help of the "word on the street"(main street) herds... Having said that, Mr. Geitner and this bright young fellow seem to be truly pleased with the results of this first artificial, yet symbolic "stress test". If this guy doesn't get jaded, by letting the Vampires (I get the impression, they owe him.) corrupt him, then he is a future leader. That could save his generation from the baby-boomer vampires (blood suckers).
Sugarland 05/08/2009 04:07 AM Report
Thanks Charlie Rose for the best insight into what the government is doing. The interviews with Mr. Geithner and Mr.Kashkeri were substantial.
What we saw was two very intelligent, hard working mechanics working on a complicated system. A system so complicated though, that they cannot explain it, and it's nuances,to equally intelligent, hard working Nobel economists.
Mr. Geithner states that we will not return to the system of the last decade, but his plan does just that. The system failed because it did not direct savings (ours and the worlds) into their most productive use. His plan lets the un-elected few on Wall Street remain in control and directing where investments are made. This does not build the all important confidence he talks about.
There is more than enough private investment money, about $6 T's, to resusitate the economy. However, investors can not be expected to put their money into a system that does not effectively direct their savings to the most productive capital investments. They are even more reluctant if they have previously lost money with that system. Particularly, they will not trust a system that is perceived to be susceptible to fraud.
How long before the middleclass forces the necessary creative destruction of the financial system?
Ricardo_Amaral 05/08/2009 03:36 AM Report
American capitalism has died a sudden death in 2008. Just God knows what kind of economic system we have today in the United States.
Today the US government controls 90 percent of the mortgage market in the US. The US government also controls a large chunk of the banking system in the US. The US government was forced to nationalize the largest insurance company in the United States.
The estimated U.S. GDP for 2009 is estimated to be around $ 13.5 trillion dollars.
In April 2008 I started a thread at the Elite Trader Economic Forum - The US economy and the real GDP – And in that thread I explain why my friend and I believe that after you adjust the US government fairy tale figure the real GDP of the US economy might be on the range of US$ 9 to US$ 10 trillion – the difference between these figures are all the meaningless adjustments that they make to inflate the GDP figures calculated by the US government to show a better performance and a larger economy than the reality.
Let’s be conservative and after we estimate the real GDP of the US economy for 2009 after the number is adjusted for the meaningless information that they add to the GDP figures on a regular basis, and on top of that we take in consideration the economic and financial implosion that we had in the US economy because of a deep recession plus massive deleveraging with record high foreclosures, exploding unemployment, massive financial losses of all kinds – we are lucky if the US GDP still in the range of $ 9 to $ 10 trillion dollars in 2009.
As I mentioned above the US government controls a very large portion of the financial area of the US economy. And the US government budget for 2010 is estimated to be around $ 3.5 trillion dollars – That’s a very large percentage of the United States GDP.
It is just a matter of time for Zombie banks such as Citigroup, and Bank of America, plus the US auto industry to be fully nationalized.
Without massive US government intervention the rest of the US economy would have spanned completely out of control in a downward spiral.
For all practical purposes today we have an artificial economy and financial system in the United States that can’t survive without massive US government intervention in the financial and other markets to keep the US economy from sinking into the abyss.
The mainstream media in the United States can’t connect the dots even to save their lives and Americans make the same old mistakes over and over again, it seems to me that they are immune from learning anything from past experiences and they make the same mistakes over and over again.
Americans learnt nothing from the prior experiences with companies such as Enron, and WorldCom to just mention a few catastrophes.
The US government is trying to do everything they can by artificial means to keep the US financial markets from falling into the Abyss.
1) They are pumping trillions of US dollars (real money and US government guarantees) to keep assets in the US artificially higher than they would be under normal free market circumstances.
2) They are changing accounting rules (mark to market) to keep massive losses from being booked into the P&L – and to keep investors who invested in banks and other financial institutions in the dark.
In December 2007 I posted the following on the Elite Trader economics forum regarding the US pension funds system:
A few years ago the Bush administration came up with a great idea about how to fix the pension system in the United States. Now talking about a complete lack of common sense that eventually it will cost trillions of US dollars and it will have a major impact in the future of retirement in the United States – some moronic people changed the rules regarding pension funds a few years ago and they started letting the pension funds invest US government insured money in hedge funds as a quick fixer up to the pension funds that were underfunded to start with.
These fools let the pension funds invest in hedge funds in the illusion that these hedge funds above average returns would save the day for the pension funds. (The people involved in that kind of rescue plan for the pension plans are a bunch of morons who will cause the pension funds to lose even more money and be even in worse shape than before.)
I will not be surprised to find out that the hedge funds lost a fortune in new pension money that were gambled in the current sub prime mess – I am saying new pension money because the pension plans lost 2 trillion dollars during the last telecom and dot.com meltdown.
I wonder how much government insured pension money has been lost by the hedge funds in the current sub prime scandal?
I used to believe that the free market and Wall Street were the best vehicles for allocating scarce resources – but today I know that all that it was just a bunch of bullshit - and all I have to do is look around and remember a few fiascos that have cost trillions of US dollars of mostly pension money that disappeared forever here in the US such as: the savings and loans debacle of the 1980’s, the telecom and dot.com meltdown of the year 2000 and the complete lack of common sense related to the latest sub prime scandal.
There is one thing I know for sure these trillions of US dollar that have melted away are moneys that millions of Americans who still are working today are counting on that money in the future as part of the pension money to survive and they think that their money have been invested in a safe place.
Millions of Americans are going to have a nasty surprise regarding their pension money in the coming years.
Wall Street lost trillions in the dot.com fiasco, then they moved on and they raided the pension system of Americans. Then they took people from around the world for a ride with the sub prime scandal. Then they moved on and took the Foreign Sovereign Investment Funds for a ride. Then Wall Street started running out of suckers to take them for a ride and in the last year Wall Street finally started setting up its next victim to milk it to the bone – the US government.
Instead of nationalizing the Zombie banks immediately and cleaning up the balance sheet of these institutions of the toxic assets over a period of time at a considerable expense for the US taxpayer the Geithner plan is going to cost the taxpayer many times over the current losses since the hedge funds, private equity firms and other bottom feeders are going to take the US government for a ride and they are going to leverage the losses many times over and the US taxpayer is going to be left holding the bag for these scoundrels.
The Geithner toxic assets plan is a plan to screw the US taxpayer to the tune of trillions of US dollars and the hedge funds, private equity firms and other bottom feeders are going to laugh all the way to the bank and they will make a ton of money at the expense of these fools who are running these US government money give way programs.
The swindlers in Wall Street set their eyes on their next victim – the US taxpayer – and in the process they managed to get the US government to give more casino chips for them to continue their game through trillions of US dollars in new US government guarantees of all kinds, massive bailouts, and a transfer of trillions of dollars of toxic assets to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.
.
tartufe 05/08/2009 02:50 AM Report
Hear, hear! Lets hear it for the americanmale!
tartufe 05/08/2009 02:39 AM Report
It's too easy. The oft repeated (to be) axiom(?), that had the heroes done nothing the financial collapse would have been worse, is ipso facto becoming the conventional wisdom, the accepted orthodoxy, the wisdom of the seers.
Then simultaneously out of the other side of their collective mouths they estimate 3-5 years to come out of the crisis - even with their Herculean, heroic efforts. So what's so sterling about that? Doing nothing could fare just as well in that time line, WITHOUT THE MORAL HAZARD INEVITABILITY. WHICH THE BAILOUTS WILL ASSURE. REMEMBER WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH ADULTS HERE. I'd take an estimate of say 4-6 yrs or more without bailouts anytime.
Also, he kept citing we're a country of laws. PUKE!!! What a CS reference. The lobbyists repealed and enacted any laws the wise-guys wanted (to buy) to get us in this mess.
The system is broken. They broke it. They should pay. Justice is doubtless the first victim of a declining empire.
First the grubbing little children, not able to grasp the meaning of enough, have to exploit every human frailty imaginable (with CS enabling, duplicitous legislation), thru CC usury, subprime mtgs (NINJA etc). Their compensation is their line of concern. They'd keep the bailout money without that restriction. Which mocks the whole bailout process. WE'RE BEING SCAMMED - BIG TIME!
If Madoff can go to jail how about some wise-guy CEOs. They're equally culpable and amoral.
Back to my own orthodoxy: banks should be allowed to fail, large or small. But maybe especially the large ones, as they are doubtless more responsible as their very size is as good a measure as any of their greed and thus their desire for leveraged instruments. Regular banking too dull for these wise-guy laissez faire capitalists.
If the fourth estate weren't so useless, a list of the banking CEOs with yachts docked in tax-free havens would be a validating chuckle.
Screw em all but six.
americanmale 05/08/2009 02:28 AM Report
Charlie gave Mr. Kashkari plenty of opportunity to address what he would have done differently. I was dismayed that Kashkari stood pat on his actions.
Mr. Kashkari should have said that he wished he would have exploited the bank's need for their drug of choice (money) a bit better. Instead of throwing all sorts of money at the banks via TARP, he should have injected just enough capital such that their balance sheets were just slightly underwater. Getting the banks to this state would have then forced the banks to continue to do business (loans, mortgage modifications, etc.) with the american public because after all, the banks need their money drug and they would have made any deal possible just so they can stay afloat and get that oh so satisfying money drug.....just like a hopeless addict.
Now however, banks do not have to do anything....They have an unlimited supply of the money drug courtesy of the friendliest drug dealer of all, the US Treasury. And to boot, they have all the money they need to continue foreclosing haphazardly...paying lawyers, constables, loan servicers, auctioneers, etc...ie recapturing assets.
Secondly, Mr. Kashkari should have stated that when they began to notice things going awry way back in 2007, he would have put in place procedures to immediately begin means testing (what we know today as stress testing) such that they could have known the "waterlines" of the various financial institutions. Knowing the waterlines could have allowed the "exploitation" of the "money drug" strategy as stated in the previous paragraph.
Third, Mr Kashkari should have admitted that shoring up AIG/Fannie/Freddie was a big waste of time. Let's be honest, Mr Kashkari wanted to honor the credit default swaps (Bond Guarantees) all in hopes that "Joe Saudi and Jen China" would continue to provide private capital to our financial system...even though they (Joe Saudi and Jen China) lost half of their previous investments in the toxic Mortgage Backed Securities. The "Hey, We did the best we could, will you still invest" beggary strategy didn't work. Private capital is still not flowing in to our system. It should have been admitted that the only liquidity occuring is that which was provided by the billions the Federal Reserve has injected into the system.
Fourth, Mr. Kashkari should have admitted that he miscalculated on the viability of bankruptcy of the various financial institutions. This was due to his misconception that America is a credit based society. The reality is that America has been a cash based society for the last 3 years. The average american's credit cards are all at their limits. The average american pays their minimum due....and then makes credit purchases totalling the amount they paid the previous month. This in essence, is a cash based operation with the credit card company being the middle man. The only time credit is absolutely necessary is for big ticket item purchases (cars and housing).
Kashkari's analysis that bankruptcy would be fatal to the economic system because credit would evaporate is wrong. Consumer spending drives 70% of the economy. if credit evaporated during an organized bankruptcy, the worst that would happen is that consumers would not purchase cars and houses.....which is the same thing that is happening today even with the so called remedies. Yes bankruptcy would have caused layoffs, but they are occuring anyways. Bankruptcy judges could order a moratorium on any foreclosures until the banks emerge from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would have afforded clarity.
Fifth, Mr Kashkari should have admitted that he has concerns about federal government having ownership in private business (ie socialism). The government is issuing debt to finance purchase of equity stakes in public corporations. When no one buys the treasuries, the government prints the money to purchase the positions. This in effect decreases the value of the currency and leads to future rampant inflation. This is a bad deal for the taxpayer. So what if the price of GM is currently at $1.82. When you factor in pending inflation, that share might be actually $21.82...hardly a deal.
And lastly, i was dismayed that Mr. Rose did not pursue questioning on "Wave 2" of this crisis. Unemployment checks should stop flowing in about 9 months for the laid off workers. With 14+ percent (including those off the books) of the workforce out, how many "loan defaults" will occur then. Remember, only 6% of the loans in "Wave 1" were subprime. If 4% to 5% of "prime" loans go bad in the near future......i shudder to think.