Charlie Rose

djh  06/15/2009 05:47 PM Report

Peter Schiff is an extremist, who views people lining up in bread lines, and living on the streets as a casualty of having the system "self-correct." His prescriptions are rubbish. Anytime an economist gives a simple prescription like his, i.e. just let the market work itself out, you know he can't be taken seriously.

I think Peter Schiff should be the one doing more investigation, and look at the Great Depression. What pulled us out of that one? Was it WWII? Yes. Was WWII a giant spending spree? Yes it was. Case closed.

dirklatex  06/13/2009 02:58 PM Report

Charlie you keep asking all these Keynesian economists "who saw this [financial meltdown] coming?" From their answers it's apparent they didn't. I thought you were a journalist. Why don't you do some investigative work and ask somebody like Peter Schiff ("Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse") or Thomas Woods ("Meltdown") or Ron Paul?

hrc  06/12/2009 12:18 AM Report

The "sea of red ink" is equivalent to the sea of blood being spilt in the name of military economic progress abroad. If we could reel that in, and use the same might in the form of infrastructural development there might again be support for the government that is now simply otherwise mislaid. What is America about anyway. AIG, GM, Wall Street and the banking system, the healthcare abyss, only the military industrial complex remains strong. Is that the business of America, that and ready to drink bottled fluids industry. America is a great country, a great sea of opportunity squandered abroad.

REMant  06/12/2009 12:13 AM Report

Health care costs, BTW, are a symptom of, not a cause of problems with our economy, just as speculators are not the cause of assets bubbles, but a symptom of a lack of productivity. It is the vast increase in the price of assets brought about by this country's production of more money than stuff, that is the root cause of the increase in the price of all things not amenable to mass production, or production overseas where labor prices are lower. If we were to right this disparity we would no doubt bring them into balance with incomes here, and we should be able to continue with a free market system. This would also bring the insurance companies, which are as much financial wheelers and dealers as any Wall St financial operation, to heel. Redistribution, ie, tax increases on the wealthy, will help increase productivity I believe, in the same way as printing more money, but without the inflation, however in the end the public goods we really want have, like healthcare, have to come from greater physical efficiency, or not at all, and we certainly can't afford to do the sort of thing we usually do to get them passed - making them benefit the wealthy more than the rest.

REMant  06/12/2009 12:11 AM Report

No one was talking about deficits a few months ago, because it was assumed they would "stimulate" "growth." Money is already flowing back out of the US increasing interest rates. Some ppl expect Bernanke to print a bunch more money again to prevent that from happening, but these things increase debt (since money IS debt) just as much as if the govt were able to borrow. Budget deficits or Federal Reserve deficits, if they do not issue in increased productivity WILL create inflation, which means that the purchasing power of the money will be less. That is the real deficit; that our money is worth less. The question is whether the additional debt does increase productivity, or whether it in fact hinders it. Keynesians and, I suppose monetarists in this case, argue the former, Austrians and other traditional economists the latter. Their argument is that too much debt caused misinvestment and malinvestment, which increased the price of assets without increasing productivity causing a debt or credit crisis issuing in a necessary corrective deflation in which unsustainable enterprises are ended. But there is no downward spiral as the Keynesians believe, nor is hoarding considered to be a factor, since they do not believe in a so-called liquidity trap. Instead when prices decline sufficiently business picks up. Some businesses will, of course, be bankrupted, but the argument is that they were unsustainable without too easy credit in the first place. The attempt to maintain inflated price levels is an attempt to continue unprofitable activities. If foreigners pull out of the dollar it should be helpful, because instead of more "stimulus" it would force us to be virtuous and thrifty, which is what we really need. There is no paradox of thrift, because clearly it is a matter of productivity, like interest rates. Interest rates decline naturally when productivity increases and less input is required to make more output. At the same time less thrift (or saving) is required. But undercapitalized nations require savings, and to assume that they do not is to assume that they don't require capital, which flies in the face of all human understanding.

IRISH  06/11/2009 11:20 PM Report

It is my belief that neither the American taxpayer nor Congress have the fortitude to do what is needed as the guests outline. America is living beyond the means to pay for what they get. Simple !!

JohnGelles  06/11/2009 06:43 PM Report

Your discussion of the deficit never mentioned anything real, like skilled care providers to deliver future health to the nation, farmers for food, factories for stuff, etc.

There was a financial deficit and a real economy without a deficit in products or potential production to support all people and the nation as well.

Imagine if these guys were planning to defend America in reality: they would call for real economic output. Money, which is no more than monetized elements for accounting purposes, would mirror our real performance.

I am disappointed that you never have on your show anyone who understands how real people make real things. And how we must redesign money to help with production and not to confuse all issues.

tartufe  06/11/2009 04:40 PM Report

Boy spot on cello10. Particularly applaud #4) Reducing military spending. VICTORIOUS RETREATS (a la Vietnam) are long overdue from Iraq and Af-Pak, which in turn, long term will reduce need for homeland security spending.

cello10  06/11/2009 02:44 PM Report

Despite the impressive credentials of your guests, no one brought up obvious alternatives such as: 1) Raising the corporate tax rate 2) Raising the capital gains tax 3) Imposing a Carbon Tax on imports to help spur domestic manufacturing and reduce both green house gas emissions and imports. 4) Reducing military and homeland security spending. Our experts have been so conditioned to accept free market/free trade/conservative assumptions about our economy that the obvious solutions now lie well outside of the box. Very disappointing.