Charlie Rose

rojelio  08/29/2010 08:48 PM Report

These "brilliant" Harvard economists never mention our peak oil problem. We can't even wipe our butts in dignity without cheap oil and that supply is obviously starting to contract. And there's never one mention of what we're supposed to be recovering to: buying record amounts of plastic trash on credit from big box stores and driving further out into the suburbs in ever larger vehicles? Why isn't there ever any commentary about how the trillions of dollars that we're debt financing on war might affect our economy? And if these economists are so smart, why don't they ever see these bursting bubbles ahead of time?

ken360  08/10/2010 02:20 PM Report

This chart clearly shows how, historically, Unemployment lags recovery:

http://www.crystalbull.com/stock-market-timing/Unemployment-chart/

NeilMacCallister  08/09/2010 10:37 PM Report

doodah: I'm sure they can keep the unemployment rate below 20%, ..nothing better to do than sit on this here raft and wait, .. and 'hope'.

_____

"Day after day, day after day,

We stuck, nor breath nor motion;

As idle as a painted ship

Upon a painted ocean.

"Water, water, everywhere,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink."

___

Hey, doodah, ..catching any fish?

doodah  08/07/2010 01:09 PM Report

It won't be a 'Great Depression' (25% unemployed). They can keep it lower than that. .It'll be a 'Great Recession' (14-17% unemployed). With all the money out there (even in so few hands), I'm sure they can keep the unemployment rate below 20%. And prices will stay nice and stable (they won't go anywhere). That should be good enough to stimulate the economy. .. Hopefully. . so nothing better to do than sit on this here raft and wait, .. and 'hope' :)

doodah  08/07/2010 09:04 AM Report

"Jobs are the last thing to bounce back coming out of a recession." .. "And construction jobs are the last of all jobs to come back". - That's how it's always been, in the past. Is that how it will continue to be? .. This recession is different then the ones before. .The stench of 'moral hazard' lingers.. in the back of everybodies minds

DavLev  08/07/2010 01:47 AM Report

Who really cares whether China in a few years becomes

the world's leading economic power? They have over 1.4billion people, and will have 2billion within 40 years.

The USA is growing at 1% year..with 400m in 40 years. Our GDP is nearly 15trillion, far above China's. Do the math folks. To equate the US decline with other empires is outrageous. Why should we care if China can provide basics top its population..and some luxuries? They still have over 700 million living in virtual poverty today. Their 2trillion

in savings is thanks partly to their imports, much to US and Walmart, etc. They give us cheap prices..and cheap goods. We give them bonds.

China is now about to test fire a missile which can

penetrate any aircraft carrier up to 900 miles away.

So what! They have 400 nukes..we have 10,000. I don't envision a war between us any time soon.

The economist is simply stretching on this one.

As far as our own economy, training more engineers, scientists, professionals..must be our priority.

The others can work for 10.00 hour at all the fast food

restaurants. Thats 400 week folks.,which aint chump change.

Not everyone can be an engineer, economist or rocket scientist. Our priority must be to get those 30 million now unemployed or underemployed, viable jobs. Our economy

cannot sustain 11million illegals holding jobs which

should be only for legals.

NeilMacCallister  08/06/2010 11:22 PM Report

Golly, Rob, if you're not using "Laissez faire capitalism", how then do you determine where you will eat each night? ..how much you will spend on the dinner? ..and how much you will tip, if you are eating out?

Do you get all those questions answered by reading some "daily planner" someone sticks into your mailbox at midnight?

robdverity  08/06/2010 04:27 PM Report

Neil... - wage-earners? Of course not. I don't equate wage-earners with Republicans. Wage earning is honorable. In fact there's not one wage earner in the top 1%. A Quixotic windmill of your own choosing.

mutex - there's prob. some wisdom in ". . . the rest of the population tries to emulate them." And it's fundamental to capitalism. Also prob true - unfortunately. Capitalism is flawed (gasp, choke) possibly due to too much of this pervasive attitude - one-up-the-Joneses. Gambling fortified with state and federal lotteries leaves a populist grasping for the top the easy way.

But that pales into irrelevancy compared to the real putrefaction, which is the venality and corruption that corrodes all aspects of our system. The most destructive is the pols and congress for sale. Repeal of Glass-Steagall (promoted by Robert Rubin, Citigroup, et al) that helped the sub-prime melt down, just one minor example. Laissez faire capitalism is bogus. Unfair, unlevel playing field, lobby-purchased capitalism is what we have. Ask any MI oligarch with an Af-Pak, Iraq contract (GE, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Xe - aka Blackwater et al). War-for-profit? Why sure. Send your lobbyist over, my campaign coffer is running low, and thank you.

mutex  08/06/2010 11:07 AM Report

@robdverity

A nation can deal with the top 1-10% 'getting theirs'. The problem arises when the rest of the population tries to emulate them. It may not be morally right but this disparity is fundamental to capitalism. To the degree that capitalism is a viable economic philosophy it depends on the willingness of the masses to work hard, sacrifice and put up with this injustice in the hope that they might someday become part of the top 10% themselves.

We have become a nation of too many chiefs and not enough indians. I am convinced that any nation that comes to rely on illegal immigrants to do the dirty work necessary to keep a country running is destined to unravel. People with a sense of entitlement become weak over time...in any endeavor.

NeilMacCallister  08/06/2010 12:26 AM Report

The top 1% of wage-earners are Republicans, Rob?

Do you mean Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, David Rubenstein, Bernard Schwartz, and all of the other "top 1%" that sit here with Mr. Rose?

Is Mr. Rose a Republican, too?

***

You know, if all the top 1% of wage-earners suddenly died, ..we'd still have a top 1% of wage-earners somewhere.

And if that new top 1% all died, ..there would STILL be a top 1% of wage-earners somewhere else!

The only way one could eliminate the possibility of a "top 1% of wage-earners", ..would be to keep eradicating the top 1% of wage-earners until there are less than 100 working Americans in this country!

I do believe that is where President Obama is going.

robdverity  08/05/2010 05:05 PM Report

Here I always attributed "I've-got-mine-where's-yours" to Republicans - a la the top 1% that have acquired most of the wealth (oligarches, big banks, Rubin, Goldfein, Madoff-types, Summers, Paulson, MI CEOS et al) by recruiting unsophisticated NINJA loans on a scale to capsize the world's economy. And no one went to jail - assuring moral hazard sooner than later.

Case in point: Waters and Paulson. Paulson should do real-time for his three-pg heist of the treas. for big bank bailouts (alone). Now as a complicit perp. in the Waters influence peddling, she's vulnerable - he's not. Pure venal BS.

Any and everything is for sale in the good ole USA. Paulson bought the banks with our money, they bought him an island in the Bahamas (doubtless tax-free). ALL TO AVERT A FINANCIAL MELT DOWN! Well wow that sure worked. And we still have to endure the predatory banks.

God hates us. Justifiably!

mutex  08/05/2010 02:15 PM Report

You can tell these economists sense the enormity of the coming crisis even if they are afraid to fully acknowledge its size and scope. Its as if they are analyzing an aging football dynasty and believe we can somehow still win games based on our past glories even though we have long since decided we are 'too good' to do the blocking, tackling and other fundamentals that created this country. The idea that we can simply out-think and out-innovate other countries and leave the hard work to them is preposterous. We are not a nation of geniuses and our citizens are no more innately intelligent than any other nation's. The first step to getting past this crisis is to shed the arrogance and conceit of our 'manifest destiny' and get down to the hard work of rebuilding our manufacturing base in a way that is globally competitive. To the degree that ANY government deficit spending is sane it should be used to promote this ONE goal. Subsidies and grants that allow private businesses to speculate with 'free' money is tantamount to financing the purchase of lottery tickets and will only lead to 100s of boondoggles for every one sustainable company Whatever government assitance there is should only exist to reward businesses that have shown they can be independently successful and only to the extent it allows them to grow and add more employees. GM is definitely NOT a good example. 'Stimulus' that is used to provide handouts to the unemployed or those who are underwater on their mortgages will only lead to increased moral hazard for the masses who already have been raised on the 'something for nothing'. 'I'm going to get mine' philosophies of the past 30+ years. The sooner we get rid of this mentality, the sooner we begin a true recovery.

REMant  08/05/2010 12:35 PM Report

Like most mainstream economists Rogoff sees the debt problem alright, but doesn't want to see the contradiction. I've already said many times that increasing debt in a debt crisis is an absurdity, and the inflation and/or sham "growth" will not be worth the cost. We need to get down to the level of our competition, stop acting like we are above them and thinking we can control human nature by fiat, bribery or sleight-of-hand. The election will certainly mess up the situation as both parties try to give money to their usual constituents. It is my hope that voters see through this and throw them out, right and left. Ppl had been saying there was too much infrastructure in the so-called "stimulus." Since I think it was in no way a stimulus except to inflation, I'm okay with the long-term investment. But recovery is NOT a matter of timidity. Talk like that at this juncture is nauseating. We have unemployment at a level it was thru most of the Depression decade, so I don't see much validity in statements that we avoided a depression.

This is not the right picture, BTW.