Charlie Rose

robphila  10/08/2009 03:20 AM Report

Ricardo A.- I am not an expert an Colombia. However I find it very unlikely that the US is going to invade Colombia. It certainly won't happen under the Obama administration. Secondly, there is an enormous latino population in the US and so politically it would be extremely unpopular. The latinos would march on Washington. I have no idea why there are US military bases in Colombia. I thought it was to fight the FARC and ELN and to make money for the US weapon manufacturers, Raytheon, Lockheed etc... I don't see another reason.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/05/2009 06:41 AM Report

Reply to RobPhila

Sorry for the grammatical errors - I posted what I wrote without editing it and after I posted it I noticed a few grammatical errors. But you still can get the idea of what I am trying to say to you.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/05/2009 06:31 AM Report

Reply to RobPhila

RobPhila: Your remarks are way over the top and full of generalizations. Americans are naive? Which one? There are 300 million of us.

***

Ricardo: Let me clarify for you the best I can what I mean.

I watch CNBC cable on a regular basis, and also Bloomberg TV, I listen to Bloomberg radio when I am driving, and I watch on a regular basis the Charlie Rose Show.

I listen to a bunch of talking heads, and all kinds of spin doctors talking about the US economy, they even came out with a silly green shoots business to spin their non-sense about the US economy.

In my opinion, Americans are naïve if they think that after losing their shirt in the hundreds of billions of US dollars (in sub-prime garbage, and also in listening the advice of American bankers regarding the hedging business in the foreign exchange market – some major Brazilian companies lost almost $ 1 billion dollars because they followed the advice given by these US bankers) foreigners are going to continue to play the game of the major US investment bank houses.

The United States has been able to borrow a very large percentage of global savings year after year. A lot of international investors lost a large chunk of their nest egg when they invested in sub-prime garbage that had been rated AAA by the 3 US investment-rating agencies.

Investors from around the world blame the United States for the international financial meltdown that we had in the last 2 years. And investors from around the world are very angry and they are also suspicious of Wall Street.

I have the impression that many Americans still think that the party is going to continue indefinitely, when in reality the party has been over for a while.

China still going to lend another $ 500 billion dollars to the United States for the year 2009, but for how long more Americans think that China is going to keep lending all this money for the United States.

Don’t you think that there’s something wrong with this picture?

Lender: China – GDP per capita = $6,000 (2008 est.)

Borrower: United States – GDP per capita = $46,900 (2008 est.)

I could go on but I hope you got the picture. I am sure that we are not going to go back to business as usual. The rest of the world is not going to allow the big party in the US to continue for much long.

We have reached the end of the road if Americans want to accept it or not.

***

RobPhila: I have spent a lot of time in Brasil and I have never found Brasilians to be anti-American. Maybe anti-Bush, but not anti-American. Miami and Orlando are full of Brasilian tourists! I think that countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala and Mexico have significantly more distrust of America than does Brasil.

***

Ricardo: I agree with you.

I have been explaining for many years when Americans confuse being anti-Bush with being anti-American.

And the decline of American prestige, and influence in South America including in Brazil has nothing to do with being anti-American – it has to do with the changes in the economic environment that we had in the last 20 years; since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

***

RobPhila: And if Colombia is buying a lot of weapons and military support from the US then the Colombian gov't is also responsible for that.

***

Ricardo: Colombia has been the number 2 recipient of US foreign aid (after Israel) in the last few years - US foreign aid means guns, thanks, military gunships, and all kinds of other military armaments.

I know has nothing to do with the war on drugs, or the civil war that has engulfed Colombia for the last 40 years.

Colombia showed up on the United States radar only when they started finding oil in Ecuador, in areas of Venezuela close to Colombia, and so forth.

And the biggest oil finding of all – the massive amount of oil that they are finding in Brazil. Suddenly the 4th Fleet is revived late in 2008 (it had been deactivated since 1950), and now the US government is signing an agreement that gives the right to the US government to install 7 military bases in Colombia.

For all practical purposes when any country has 7 foreign military bases of a foreign country on its soil, as is the case with Colombia – then that country is under foreign military occupation.

***

RobPhila: And given the history of currencies and inflation in Brasil, you should worry about your own currency, not the US dollar.

***

Ricardo: The US dollar is everybody’s concern since the US dollar is the most important foreign exchange reserve of most countries including China and Brazil.

But I am also concerned about the Brazilian currency and over the years I wrote many articles on that subject and you could see the link to most of these articles at:

http://brazzilnews.blogspot.com/

Check this article in particular and you might enjoy reading it.

RGE Monitor – July 9, 2009 - “Brazil, China and the New Asian Currency”

.

robphila  10/04/2009 06:06 AM Report

Ricardo A. --Your remarks are way over the top and full of generalizations. Americans are naive? Which one? There are 300 million of us. Then you say that Brazilians are Anti-American. Which one? There are 200 million. I have spent a lot of time in Brasil and I have never found Brasilians to be anti-American. Maybe anti-Bush, but not anti-American. Miami and Orlando are full of Brasilian tourists! I think that countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala and Mexico have significantly more distrust of America than does Brasil.

I see few parallels between Colombia and Vietnam. Colombia is a western democracy while North Vietnam was communist. The Uribe government has a very good relationship with the US, notwithstanding the impasse over the trade agreement. Uribe went to school in the US. Yes, the drug war is completely stupid, but that doesn't make Colombia another Vietnam. Besides, Obama is anti-war (he voted against invading Iraq). And if Colombia is buying a lot of weapons and military support from the US then the Colombian gov't is also responsible for that.

Regarding China, yes China is modernizing and is a formidable manufacturer(at low cost). There are many reasons for this. The US will have to adjust to this over time; at times it will be difficult, but we will. China has many problems of its own. I wish China well, you should wish America well. And given the history of currencies and inflation in Brasil, you should worry about your own currency, not the US dollar.

gldnglo  10/02/2009 10:04 PM Report

Still having trouble with access the streaming..last week download was fast;this week back to same old-new snail's pace which I don't have time for. Please go back to late summer's fast stream. I'd really like to hear what Paul V. has to say!

Ricardo_Amaral  10/02/2009 05:19 AM Report

Reply to robdverity

I just posted the following to the Elite Trader Economics Forum:

Central Banks and the US dollar

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=07efd93e18b3f239cc2435f8e2288321&threadid=81958&perpag e=6&pagenumber=67

Hits: 49,282

***

October 2, 2009

SouthAmerica: I was finishing reading my copy of “The Economist” magazine dated September 26, 2009 when I came across an article about the US dollar.

The article is on page 86 “The dollar comes under increasing pressure.”

Quoting from the article: “…It is hard to think of a parallel in history. A country heavily in debt to foreigners, with a government deficit it is making little attempt to control, is creating vast amounts of additional currency. Yet it is allowed to get away with very low interest rates. Eventually such an arrangement must surely break down and a new currency system will come into being, just as Bretton Woods emerged in the 1940’s.”

I am aware of all that, but what really called my attention to this article is that in the middle of the article they have a picture of a hand of someone implying the person is on a bathroom sitting on a toilet and that hand is trying to reach for the toilet paper holder and the toilet roll is made up of US dollar bills.

I mentioned many times on this forum that China in the future (or even right now) could use it's skyrocketing pile of US dollar foreign exchange reserves as wall paper, and then I started using Warren Buffet’s catchy word “Confetti” to refer to the US dollar.

But it seems to me “The Economist” magazine thinks that a better use for the US dollar is to use it as toilet paper to wipe your behind.

I guess, following “The Economist” magazine trend of thought the Chinese government have been creating all these years a supply of toilet paper in China large enough to take care of the bathroom needs of the 1.3 billion population of China for the rest of this century – the only thing that it will be different is that the picture of the toilet paper roll that “The Economist” used on its article was a US$ 1.00 bill, and in China they probably will be able to use the toilet rolls of US$ 100.00 bill.

I see so many articles about people saying that China and Japan are stuck with their stockpile of trillions of US dollars and here “The Economist” magazine come up with a very good suggestion to China and Japan on how to use their trillions of US dollars.

Thanks to “The Economist “ magazine suggestion we have good news for China and Japan – and now China and Japan has 3 alternatives on how to use it’s trillions of US dollars: 1) Wall paper, 2) Confetti, and 3) Toilet paper.

Thanks to "The Economist" magazine for another insightful article about what is under the foundations and supporting the current international monetary system.

******

You also would enjoy reading the other thread that somebody else posted on the Elite Trader Economic Forum as follows:

Ron Paul Warns of Violence from Pending US Dollar Crisis

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=07efd93e18b3f239cc2435f8e2288321&threadid=177984

Today these are examples of reality checks regarding the United States

.

robdverity  10/01/2009 03:29 PM Report

Unfortunately, I'm disenchanted enough with our arrogance and our MI oligarchic plutocracy that military misadventures anywhere are more conceivable than not. If they can buy a war here and there (preemptive or otherwise), why not? They're paid by the pint you know.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/01/2009 06:03 AM Report

Paul Volcker is one of a handful of American economists that still have a place on my credibility list. I understand the old man can’t really talk about what is on his mind.

I wonder why Americans still continue to be so clueless about what is happening even on their backyard?

For some reason, Americans are very naïve, and they think that the world is going to go back to business as usual. (Americans think that they are dealing with idiots around the world)

In the meantime we are discussing on Brazzil magazine many issues that most Americans have no idea that is going on right now.

About six years ago I mentioned in one of my articles that in the future the United States eventually would turn Colombia and Venezuela into another Vietnam.

South American countries are going crazy right now with the agreement that Colombia is signing with the United States.

We are discussing why the United States is taking over Colombia militarily. The US is building 7 military bases in Colombia right now – that means Colombia is being turned into a country under foreign military occupation.

The US has reactivated the 4th Fleet in the Caribbean that had been deactivated since 1950.

It is scary the arms race that the United States has started in that area of the world.

And most Americans are completely clueless about what is going on.

Americans still are complaining that they don’t understand why Brazilians are so anti-American. They still using that old anti-American rhetoric and they fail to understand that what really happened is that Brazil just moved on instead of crying over spilled milk.

Today the number one market for Brazilian goods is China and not the United States. And I have been documenting for many years this fast decline of prestige and influence of the United States in Brazil and South America.

Even when you spell out in black and white for some reason Americans don’t understand what happened, and it has nothing to do about being anti-American.

Here are some of the articles on that subject and the comments following each article.

There were many more articles similar to these in the last 2 months that were published on Brazzil magazine.

1) US Military Presence in Colombia a Threat to Brazil and the Amazon

http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/208-september-2009/10261-us-military-presence-in-col ombia-athreat-to-brazil-and-the-amazon.html#comments

Comments: 126

***

2) Brazil VS. Venezuela: The Inevitability of Latin American Polarization

http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/207-august-2009/10246-brazil-v-venezuela-the-inevita bility-of-latin-american-polarization-.html

Comments: 241

***

3) The Economist Decides to Teach Brazil and Lula a Few Lessons

http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/208-september-2009/10252-the-economist-decides-to-te ach-brazil-and-lula-a-few-lessons.html#comments

Comments: 80

.

ivangrt  09/30/2009 05:04 PM Report

Paul Volcker is correct about what we need to do. We must increase our manufacturing base (probably to around 30% to 40% of GDP). We can do this hard thing, but it is not going to be easy nor is it going to happen quickly.

Unfortunately he is still thinking about economic systems from the same perspective that got us into the current economic crisis. We can have “immediate economic recovery” (see Digdug’s blog at http://culturalevolutionscience.blogspot.com), and we must implement dramatic economic recovery if we are to avert the looming economic depression that will otherwise inevitably crush our economy.

Now is not the time to worry about regulation. Now is the time to save our economy from a devastating depression so that we can rebuild our manufacturing base from a functional economy.

robdverity  09/30/2009 04:17 PM Report

Well, against the popular grain here I'm sure, but I inherently am disenchanted with Volcker. He has a Dick Cheney delivery about him, which is not endearing - for me. His eloquence is used to obfuscate rather than elucidate. Rambles to no worthwhile conclusion. He is too much a member-of-the-club to say anything too unorthodox or critical about the handling of the current crisis. The moral hazard issue is taken way too lightly, and will bite again-and-again under the that's-just-the-way-it-is blase attitude.

The absurdity of not imprisoning any of the financial wise-guys, despite the abject misery they caused world-wide, and exacerbating it by paying them obscene bonuses assures the moral hazard they (and Volcker supposedly abhor).

We as a nation produce paper (CDOs, CDSs, yadda), not products. Yet the Bahamas are full of yachts - made elsewhere. (See abc's report on yachts sales increase since crisis.)

Two nites of Volcker are one-and-a-half too many. He'll smooth talk on-and-on and say nothing substantial.

angus3333  09/30/2009 02:53 PM Report

I enjoy Charlie Rose for the intelligence and knowledge of his guests. However I wish Charlie would just learn to listen to his guests more. He just does not seem to know when to shut up.

I was flabergasted to hear him talk over Mr. Volker and recite to him basic economic concepts !!!!. My god, the man was chairman of the Federal Reserve!

Please Charlie... Listen and challenge the answers of your guests. Stop trying to upstage them.

REMant  09/30/2009 11:08 AM Report

BTW, if we can't come to some sort of agreement on a single-payer health care system, or on the monetary and trade issues that have led to the unaffordability of care, then I would suggest requiring catastrophic coverage through a govt program and expanding Medicaid to include ppl with a higher level of income and the unemployed.

REMant  09/30/2009 11:07 AM Report

Possibly government intervention stemmed panic, but I'm still not sure it was necessary, tho I think we agree that it does pose major problems for the recovery of a sound economic system, because it is holding up necessary structural and regulatory change. To make an omelet you have to break some eggs. The paradox, if you will, of prices is that the lower they are the wealthier we are, not vice versa. So I am not sure the stability of, anymore than the rise in prices, particularly of what we don't benefit from, is good, in fact, I think that not only is a recession supposed to be curative (I think that's the word he used), but also that it is supposed to redistribute wealth and/or power from unproductive sectors to productive ones. The previous decade(s) saw not only excess, but a decline in real productivity in the majority of the population, with a commensurate decline in their incomes. It was as if the wealthy decided the middle- and working-classes in this country could take a hike and hooked up with China and other emerging industrial areas where goods were cheaper and investments more lucrative. While I do think we can't stand in the way of 3rd world development, I don't think we have to manufacture credit for the wealthy to make a killing on it, and if we don't, they just might have to rely on the productivity of labor for whatever little projects they have mind. The best regulation then is a full reserve requirement, which would mean money would no longer be an IOU, but a certificate of deposit, and since debt always causes asset inflation, which transfers wealth from labor to equity, it would stem the growing disparity in this area, as well as promote employment and productivity. Altho a lot of this "leveraging" now occurs in banks, there was an enormous amount of it in other financial institutions, and I'm not sure therefore that just dealing with banks in this regard at least would be sufficient. We have seen in the past generation or so the development of a mindset that holding assets rather than productivity is wealth and that the higher the price of them, the better, so the reasoning goes the more debt we can create the more such assets we can acquire and the better off we are. This is the real legacy of Keynes. In any case, Keynesians, as much as monetarists and Wall St enthusiasts, ignore the moral hazards, and structural and distributional aspects. See this piece written by Krugman in 1998, two busts ago: The Hangover Theory: Are recessions the inevitable payback for good times? http://www.slate.com/id/9593 It seems to me, BTW, that 82 or 83, Mr Volcker's mind is a sharp as ever and he makes more sense in fewer words than most anyone else on the scene.