Charlie Rose

doodahdaze  02/17/2010 09:09 AM Report

The answer is simple, put back in place the regulations that were put in place to prevent this thing from happening in the first place. AND address the politicians right to interfere with the market as it pertains to unnaturally extending bubbles and making the bust worst, as they did in the current real-estate (Fannie-Freddy Gate). The Democrats were overwhelmingly guilty of that, and they only gave the Financial Industry an 'excuse' to shit on us. With the regulations out of the way it made it very easy for them to do that.

Why isn't McCain calling out these 'Financial-Services' "Industry" schiester-lobbyists interfering with the righting of this wrong? If Obama will address this shit as he should before it's too late, he will have my vote in the next election.

Terence  02/16/2010 12:33 PM Report

What authentic banking changes COULD prevent future debt bubbles from getting this bad? Banking reform from a still hapless, unfocused Congress, or a cultural revolution in finance that at least decries writing debt that cannot reasonably be repaid by the productive real goods sector of the economy i.e., what's left of that sector in the U.S. Does Volcker have any pull with Senator Dodd at this point. Is Keynesian consumption economics fully exposed and tried now...?

REMant  02/15/2010 05:09 PM Report

Of the quotation from the Budget which closed this segment all I can say is I'll believe it when I see it. I don't believe Ms Happy Face believes it since she said nothing about it, which presumably is why Charlie hastened to include it. From the start this admin has sent mixed messages on this question, just as they did on Afghanistan and you could probably add on a few other things. But you can be sure that what she wants to do is exactly wrong, because she is an unequivocal Keynesian, and backs the Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers position, not Paul Volcker. We don't want to add jobs if they aren't paid for, indeed we really can't. Our debts must be paid one way or the other first. If you don't believe that you belong in Greece or Haiti with the rest of the voodoo doctors. That's true whether you think the economy should be reflated or whether you don't, because obviously we're running out of money-creating ability, even with China and such outliers stupidly joining the effort. The attempt to force interest rates lower instead of inducing ppl to spend and invest clearly has the opposite effect in this situation, because the people with money have few needs, and without the enticement of higher returns will be content to just leave money sit, if not actually reduce commitments, and the forcible attempt to wrest the money from them by depreciation is both resented and resisted, resulting in a rush to commodities. If anything this hastens deflation, when we are told they are trying to prevent that. But the reflationists clearly still believe in the Phillips curve, that high prices mean wealth, the higher the interest rate the wealthier we are, and that a stock market rise indicates a healthy economy, none of which are true unless you believe not in productivity, but in living off asset appreciation, or printing money. This process is akin to applying leeches to a sick patient. If left alone the necessary deflationary correction will force investors to shoulder the burden of bad investment, yet the natural interest rate will spur savings and investment, as long as ppl produce, which under this kind of regime they will be forced to. Buying stuff from China, of course, does nothing to help this. That cos have repaid govt loans with money handed to them by the Fed and invested overseas is worthy not of praise but Congressional investigation.

doodahdaze  02/15/2010 09:57 AM Report

EyesOnYou @ 02/13/2010 10:53 PM

Sounds like you have harnessed the cold hard facts. So now we can only 'manage', the problem. We cannot 'fix', it. Because that would 'shrink' things (70%.?.?). So maybe we should keep the rules loose, for the 'managers', so they can steer us through the fog of perverse motivations in the interest of the bottomline. The bottomline being, more money for less value being pumped out of the politically dominated educational system. And passed on values permeate, until they percolate, and the pimple pops.

EyesOnYou  02/13/2010 10:53 PM Report

On the subject of jobs, who are we kidding? In an age when companies are allowed, even encouraged, to seek the lowest costs anywhere in the world, we won't be getting our jobs back. Education blah blah blah. Only if it were so easy. China and India can spit out 200M MBAs and Engineers in no time, that's our entire working population. Globalization benefits the ruling class, period. The results are in and no amount of spinning will change facts.

On the subject of 'the problem wasn't proprietary trading'. Sure it was. Making loans for housing or whatever IS a position on the books of the banks and that position is backed by deposits. SEPARATE IT. People who keep their money in deposit accounts are not out to 'invest' in anything. They want a small return while risking nothing more than inflation. We saved the banks to save our deposits. We saved the banks because every damn pension fund and municipality was invested in the garbage. We are managing the problem, we CANNOT fix it because fixing it would shrink our economy by 70%.

doodahdaze  02/13/2010 02:52 PM Report

This is what happens when we let the 'Aunt Bees' of the world get a college education, more statistics and less homemade apple-pies. Maybe the Taliban is on to something. Andy Griffith is probably rolling over in his grave. I could just see him now, "Aint Beeee!!!"