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/10723
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
REMant 01/12/2010 07:18 PM Report
Obama's the first Muslim, Pacific president. But who cares about winning and losing? If we have to see things this way, we will all be losers. I have a feeling that the Chinese are far more creative than he thinks, and certainly far better students. So therefore we will all have to become totalitarians now? That's what Krugman wants, isn't it? But isn't it a non sequitur? Shall we all put on Star-of-David armbands and march in the streets? I guess not, he's angry with the settlements. I'm glad he finally sees the point I've been making about the import of our financial policies. While I agree with his position on Afghanistan, too, they don't have the money without opium to take responsibility for themselves. We lack the country for a large gasoline tax I'm afraid, being bigger and far less densely populated than the European countries or Japan and Korea. The same would apply to an electric tax such as Germany has. But I like the expression "we'll be gone." It's a good way to describe externalities, and the Ponzi-like nature of our economy.
NB- Mercantilism refers to a wide variety of economic attitudes, which need to be straightened out. It has been widely used in reference to bullionism, but also against saving of all kinds by ppl like Simon Patten and his Keynesian progeny, yet clearly mercantilists were also behind the policies of Hamilton, which consisted not only of tariffs and bounties, etc, but also of the establishment of banks founded on public debt. It should not come as a surprise that such policies have created a disincentive to save and reduced it nearly to zero, as well as, creating social welfare and other spending programs that depend on the promise of ever greater returns to get funded, and end up either in taking the money from the poor overseas depriving them of the means to improvement, in asset bubbles and chicanery, and eventually in wars and totalitarianism as individual productivity and responsibility decline. That this was not due to free trade and sound money policies you can plainly see by comparing the 20th with the 19th century, where the Napoleonic and American Civil wars, are the exceptions that prove the rule. We now have to realize that they have also issued in environmental disaster. I have been thinking for a few months now that whoever picks out that word of the year, should this year make it "sustainable."
His sub-optimal legislating, BTW, is borrowed from public choice economics, and has been taught to undergraduates for many years now.
npiesco 01/09/2010 09:49 AM Report
Don't miss this one. Tom is on the mark!