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/11162
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
JohnGelles 08/18/2010 02:08 AM Report
Dear Benezraa~
I intend to beg, even plead, with Mr. Rose-- to open his interest to Keynes Without Debt-- as wide as it is to his current mild view of austerity (to repay over-valued debt that will have to be re-structured or re-paid with far cheaper money.)
Yet I hesitate. Mr. Rose runs a business that must anticipate the taste of his audience. Keynes without debt and Functional Finance are not in vogue-- in spite of the fact they are desperately needed.
..... ..... John Cassidy of the New Yorker could persuade Mr. Rose to do his duty. But will Cassidy (or David Remnik, his editor,) ever hear me or others with the same pitch? Most likely not.
All is not lost. Ben Bernanke is DOING exactly what Ron Morrison and others want done. He is injecting debt-free money via QUANTITATIVE EASING. He's doing it with billions. The need is for TRILLIONS.
If you are approximately 56, your fate is at risk-- not mine.
Lazy and stupid they are. But to call them names does not matter. The people in power and people who accept debt as a key constraint for creating all money, are stupid, lazy and cutting their own throat.
Many of them look down their noses at Tea Party flirts like Sarah Palin.
They may be right in judging her to be a pin head.
..... ..... But anyone who does not see the need for federal largess to save our states and jump start our switch from carbon to hydrogen energy storage-- and prefers instead the Ronald Reagan-Maggie Thatcher path to the worship of privatized governance, is as dumb as Sarah P. and not as pretty.
Giving offense to the ignorant who have shunned the Second Bill of Rights is proper. They ought to be given what they have done to the middle class-- a sentence to suffering they never expected.
When you say "engine without fuel" you exhibit a love of language over mechanics. Keynes stands for the fuel of money. Debt stands for the brakes on your car.
Keynes without debt must have brakes (it is vulnerable to racing too fast for the tracks). So, KWOD leaves much debt in place-- in the private for profit sector.
.... ..... And brakes are beefed up to accommodate the prosperous times we will enter when KWOD frees us only from usurious and counter-productive debt.
In all events, I appreciate your comments. Others remain uninterested in the fact that Fareed Zakaria and Charlie Rose failed to side strongly with Krugman-- as they followed the President down the path to the defeat of the American Dream.
I suggest you and I take a look at the interview on China and India last night. It opened the door to our problems as big as the current recession-depression. Our role as supplier of our own needs in the decades ahead is in doubt.
We may become a has-been nation, unable to give up debt in favor of work and manufactured output. We may be like Charlie and Fareed-- all HAT and no intellectual or moral power.
In a nutshell, I want logistical science to get the attention Charlie gives to economic myth. This means we need Lincoln, Grant and Sherman. FDR embraced all three. The President, Clinton and Carter are three of a lesser caliber.
We are poised at the start of a great revolution in the production and distribution of all our needs-- including the need to stop terrorism before it acts. WMD's have made this the fact.
There is no way to do this on the cheap.
BENEZRAA 08/17/2010 02:42 PM Report
DEAR MR. GELLES,
I hope your use of the word "beg" is just a cultural nuance, as I certainly do not beg, and my guess is that neither do you. Posting to the board is not the same thing as sending a direct email to Mr. Rose, which I suggested that you should do yourself, just follow the "Contact" prompt on the site. And why would you alienate other readers, whom you hope will also share your interest in seeing particular persons interviewed, by accusing them of laziness? How much deference do you think people owe you, before they become offended?
It may be that much has offended you, and that you have reached a point where you think it necessary yourself to offend others. Or perhaps again your choice of language is just a cultural nuance in which case I apologize. Do please refer to me, if and when you must, as BENEZRAA. And good luck in your efforts to interest Mr. Rose in "Keynes Without Debt". ("Keynes Without Debt" sounds to me like "Cake Without Icing" or "Once There Was Cake" or "Sex With A Condom" or "Engine Without Fuel" -- but, I am open to hearing the idea discussed, perhaps to learn that it may even be the right idea at the right time... or not.)
JohnGelles 08/17/2010 02:11 AM Report
Should I beg Charlie Rose to ask John Cassidy if America should look seriously into Keynes Without Debt, or into Functional Finance (as redefined by Nell and Forestater last year), both of which are very similar, the answer, of course, is YES !
Benezraa (Aaron Benezra ???) has already done this on this message board. And I (and WE) should all do it again by e-mail.
Ok. And post your email to the board-- to prove you're not too lazy.
JohnGelles 08/17/2010 02:00 AM Report
Admiral Rickover, when asked if we should expect nuclear war before time runs out for Earth, said YES.
When asked what would happen after nuclear war said Earth would start all over again-- not with cockroaches but with single cell life forms. As I recall, he was serious.
I say IF there is such radical spread of death, what survives will be something close to what we are. The survivors will will restart all the systems that we have-- and progress will follow-- not regress back to the day life first first began to evolve.
But it makes far more sense to assume there will be war-- but not one as bad as we can imagine.
BENEZRAA 08/16/2010 11:33 PM Report
HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT USING THE "CONTACT CHARLIE ROSE BY EMAIL" FORMAT TO PROPOSE THAT PROFESSOR RON MORRISON BECOME A GUEST ON THE SHOW? BETTER YET, WHAT ABOUT A THREE-WAY SHOW OFFERING PERSPECTIVES FROM A KEYNESIAN, A FREE-MARKETER, AND MORRISON? OR, BEST, HOW ABOUT PROPOSING A 'CHARLIE ROSE SPECIAL SERIES ON ECONOMICS', COVERING THE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS AND THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT ECONOMIC THEORY INTO THE PRESENT DAY?
Now that you've gotten the idea out there, so that readers of these comments are aware of your economic argument, perhaps you should take it to the next level by proposing that Morrison be one of Charlie's guests. There is no guarantee that it will happen, or, if so, that it will happen right away, but, it's worth a quick email from you to Charlie.
Morrison's solution sounds to me like Obamanomics.
There has been much effort made to compare Obama to FDR. I would argue that the solutions that made sense in FDR's time do not easily fit our times, as the demographics are different and the economic base is different.
Taxation in all forms at all levels cannot be sustained at the current rates, nor can governmental spending at all levels.
But, take heart! Like it or not our smaller, overcrowded world will continue to encroach upon the environment; and mankind will continue to encroach upon his fellows. Warmongers, bankers, investors, hysterical populations, and governments will inevitably bring about war. War will fuel economies until we wipe each other off the face of the earth. The debates about economic theory will still exist in burned out manuscripts until even those are consumed by giant radioactive cockroaches. Or not.
JohnGelles 08/16/2010 04:58 AM Report
Dear Benezraa, Fareed and Charlie Rose~
I will attempt to shorten the essay by Professor Ron Morrison (who resides in the UK) entitled "Keynes Without Debt".
The title itself is a powerful hint at our problem. Keynes, as everyone knows, came on the world scene with a general theory of money aimed at full employment in a democratic system of governance and a monetary system of production.
In 1936 he advised the human race to avoid totalitarian political economy and one of its primary causes-destructive unemployment. He saw the power of money to move men as nothing less than sex and a terrible beating ever had. If we mastered money as a system, he saw solutions to hard times.
.
(As an aside, Abba Lerner, an American economist of the Keynesian "school", saw "PURPOSE" as missing from the laissez faire thought that democratic governance did not need Keynes--or social credit or basic income-- to obey Lincoln's faith in government of, by and for the people.
If debt-free and tax-free aims were added to full employment as the purpose of a monetary system of production, Lerner saw the potential for a technology enabled Utopian defeat of scarcity-- of life's essentials.
Lerner convinced Keynes at the time of this power of fiat money to transcend age old constraints of precious metal money.)
.
Ron Morrison tells the story in terms of improving the quantity of debt-free sovereign fiat money in relation to the quantity of debt-based bank notes (also fiat money) (in America not distinguishable from each other to the naked eye). He wrote the story and I have copied it--hoping anyone who sees economics as a dismal science will wake up: it's not science. It's not dismal.
View the original on the web at many places-- I offer some at the end.
Keynes Without Debt
[Copyrighted work, if any, reprinted here is for educational non profit purposes --- and at the teachable moment. It was offered free to me on the internet (as a member of a wide audience) and is copied here free to others adding to its value) --- it is fair use of the work.]
Post Autistic Economics Review
Keynes Without Debt
Opinion by Ron Morrison (UK)
As the power of 'free market' Capitalism— or more precisely, the power of money, takes even deeper root in our 21st century, so also does the human vice of greed undermine our societies.
Where once there were standards of behaviour and conduct whereby the democratic process would maintain some crude balance between self-interest and social responsibility, now our governments, ably abetted by a burgeoning 'middle class', seem intent upon dividing the world into 'haves' with even more and 'have-nots' with ever less.
Such injustice is the fellow traveler of discontent, generating terrorism and disruption.
The challenge is to humanise the present style of capitalist system. We must recognise the social cost—not only in the obvious sense of the have-nots becoming poorer, but also the ever higher price being paid by the haves in terms of their own much vaunted lifestyles.
If the wider infrastructure of society continues to deteriorate, there will be no green and pleasant environment to enjoy.
To this end there exists a practical and specific proposal to consider, which might be called Keynes without Debt.
It embraces the economic principles of John Maynard Keynes [and of 'functional finance' as described by Abba Lerner while Keynes lived-- insertion by Gelles].
Currently unfashionable in the rarefied atmosphere of the neo-classical academicians who espouse the euphemistically styled 'free market', it was Keynesian principles which pulled the West out of the depression of the thirties and which helped Europe recover from the ravages of WW2.
As war developed into peace and the targets of full employment were achieved, so also began to grow once again the power of money.
In the 1980's a new economic theory developed— that of deregulating the money business in the expectation that the market place would produce economic equilibrium.
Much faith was invested in Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'—a much misquoted euphemism of the 'I'm alright Jack' fraternity.
Hypnotised by this delightful simplicity, and encouraged by a body of bankers and financiers who were obviously extremely influential and financially successful, the politicians of the era— principally Thatcher and Reagan— committed the West to a world run by money as the prime mover of all other policy.
Not everyone was convinced of the long term effects of this, but the money lobby condemned spiralling taxation and the cost of government borrowing as becoming unsustainable and out of hand.
The pro-Keynes lobby were unable to marshal a counter argument— it was perfectly true that debt— both personal and National, was indeed beginning to spiral and Keynes' theories had never really got to grips with the role of the money system in the economic drama.
Keynes eschewed abstract mathematical theories based on apocryphal assumptions.
He produced more practical theories than any of his fellow economists and he dealt with the real world and its problems.
He firmly believed that government's job was to intervene where the free market broke down in social terms.
However, he never really got down to the nitty-grittys of the money system— government remained obliged to borrow from the banking system in order to intervene effectively; and this implied increased taxation or an escalating National Debt.
Of course Keynes' General Theory was published in 1936 when currencies were still linked to the Gold Standard— indeed the US dollar was still linked to gold up until the early seventies [when Richard Nixon stemmed the outflow of gold in the national interest of the U.S.-- insert by Gelles].
Keynes died in 1946, long before 100% fiat currencies became the norm. At that time half the money supply in the UK was spent into existence debt free by the state and the other half was chequebook credit.
It is not therefore altogether surprising that he felt constrained by traditional monetary theory and found it hard to look beyond bank borrowing to finance public expenditure.
The concept of Keynes without Debt addresses our current domestic crisis of rescuing our obsolete Public Services without increasing taxation or cranking up the National Debt.
Now, fifty years on, bank credit supplies virtually all our everyday means of exchange, and this brings into sharp focus the simple fact that modern money is no longer constrained by outmoded intrinsic values.
It is pure fiat [enforced by law] and simply a glorified accounting system.
Keynes did see money in this light when he conceived his International Payments Union (Bancor). Very briefly this was an international currency unit to be administered by the UN whereby all countries were encouraged to maintain a balance of payments and avoid excessive debt.
Countries in surplus saw their balances reduced by the application of negative interest and those in debt had to pay interest or devalue.
Unfortunately for the developing world the Americans dominated the post war Bretton Woods Conference and were not prepared to permit the mighty dollar to play second fiddle to anyone or anything— no matter how good the logic.
Even then they knew that whoever controlled the world's currencies also controlled the political power. However, the detail is not the point here, what is important is the principle— that money is now an accounting system which can be administered in such a manner as to optimise a declared objective.
Modern monetary reform is about displacing the current economic paradigm of 'what can be afforded' with 'what we have the capacity to undertake'.
It is a unique situation that for governments the term 'affordability' in terms of money is a non-word. All new money emanates from government either as cash or as credit authorised under the Banking Acts.
The value of the money in our pockets and in bank accounts is a function of good government acting responsibly to maintain its value.
Nonetheless, the financial establishment (now over a quarter of the UK GDP) reckons that it knows best how much our government can afford to spend on public services and infrastructure.
Governments have issued debt free finance for donkeys years [a long time] and spent it into circulation interest free. It can be done again, given the political will.
The evolution of credit this past fifty years has expelled this source and replaced our means of exchange with private, interest bearing debt.
If government can issue Gilts [fixed rate] and [other] Bonds they can issue credit to finance the rebuilding of creaking national infrastructures.
When government once again shares the money supply 50/50 with the banks we can reduce the tax burden and finance needed public services.
Nowadays Wall Street and roads in London’s City are not paved with gold but with paper and computer chips. The money supply is all to do with business and maximising shareholder value— nothing to do with benefiting the community.
It is the road out of a mixed economy into a frightening new world order where money buys power, both political and military. We need an alternative route. It's sign posted—Keynes Without Debt.
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Ron Morrison, "Keynes without Debt", post-autistic economics review,
issue no. 39, 1 October 2006, article 6, pp. 51-53,
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue39/Morrison39.htm
=========== end of Morrison' Essay=============
Gelles agrees a fifty-fifty proportion of sovereign debt-free money, (as our silver certificates were,) to banknote debt-based money, is a good idea.
And that another good idea is to aim at garnering support for functional reform from the rich and famous-- by ending all unnecessary taxes and unreadable regulations.
If nations want to maximize employment, green production and prosperity, they should eliminate income, gain, gift and estate taxes, and bring essential simplicity to regulations.
In place of taxes, luxury sales can and will absorb all money circulated that could threaten to inflate the price of necessities.
Profit on luxuries will allow traditional and popular income disparity that cannot cause poverty for individuals or inadequacy of public infrastructure or services.
Production and consumption of necessities would have to be subsidized. Savings would have to be protected from inflation by cost-of living adjustment.
Heaven knows economics can be a dismal pursuit of predictive power doomed to fail. Or it can be a financial adjunct to logistical science that uses money's power to work some magic into everyday chores.
BENEZRAA 08/15/2010 09:45 PM Report
DEAR MR. GELLES,
Your most recent post to this site is much clearer and easier to follow. I'd like to offer you a few thoughts to consider. The first is that perhaps you have allowed yourself to over-identify with Charlie Rose, given some of the coincidental similarities you revealed. The second is that you should reconsider your elitism in using such language as "the common herd". The third is that you missed the point with respect to the railways leading to the concentration camps that should have been bombed by the Allies and were not; a quarter to a third of Europe's Jews could have survived the Holocaust, were the railways and also the camps and ghettoes themselves bombed. It was an evil sin of omission that the Allies failed to do this. The fourth point is that for the most part the economic orientation of the Obama Administration is far more Keynsian than Chicago School. You may want to read Friedrich Hayek on the subject of the socialist roots of totalitarianism. My own thoughts on economics are not academically oriented. They are simplistic, as I am not an economist, nor do I see any evidence that economic theory and practice are anything but rudimentary in their development and discipline. To me, a recession is when you are starving and a depression is when I am starving. In the larger scope of things, I see little evidence that Man has any more control over the gross elements of economic reality any more than Man has control over sunspots, asteroids, comets, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc. If I were to name my own Economic Theory it would be "The Disaster and Miracle Theory". The fundamental theorem would be that most of economic life is a disaster, mitigated by the occasional miracle. You know the old joke about a caucus of two leading to five different political parties? Economics is geometrically more complicated. Lastly, I don't see you as "overly focused on war", another misinterpretation by yourself. But, clearly, your formative life experience during WW2 had a profound impact on you and on your views of the world. I share your disappointment in not finding more comfort from the Charlie Rose Show with respect to the troubled world we are in. But, I never sought comfort from the program, only knowledge and the hope that in time I would hear more good news than bad as a result of the pooling of knowledge from great minds. It may be that at the present time the best we may hope for is to avoid total economic collapse, total environmental collapse, and a third world war that may leave no survivors. Write on....
ShalomFreedman 08/15/2010 09:00 AM Report
I was surprised by Fareed Zakaria saying that the conflict between the Islamic world centers on the appeal or lack of appeal to non- Islamic peoples for conversion.
This is ridiculous.
Islamic forces are involved in violent conflict against others in many places in the world. Islam does not have the idea of 'peaceful conversion' as the way of winning the world. Has Zakaria forgotten about the concept of 'jihad?'
As for the Mosque issue. If the Islamic community were truly considerate of the victims and their families they would not build a mosque on ground - zero. Like it or not the mosque is traditionally a symbol of Islamic conquest.
The forcing the mosque at ground - zero against the wishes of so many of the family members is simply adding cruelty to cruelty.
JohnGelles 08/15/2010 06:33 AM Report
I have been a devoted fan of Charlie Rose for many years. He has always covered business, technology, popular literature, politics and other interests aimed at a high brow audience not the common herd-- not aimed at the sports, celebrity, paparazzi-like addicts only.
Many of my dear friends, attached to each other by neighborhood, tennis in the park, and happenstance, never watch him. I always felt they were missing his guests in favor of the more commonplace. They did not care for Charlie's passion for architecture. I did.
Then two big things happened:
..... The Islamo fascists succeeded in burning down the World Trade Center, murdering more than 3000 innocent people, and getting the attention they never deserved for their perverted sense of entitlement to more of the Ottoman legacy than our century of war had left them. And--
..... Las Vegas on Wall Street blew up in our face. What was a semi-system for investment and development of productive capacity for 7 billion earthlings stopped on a dime-- because debt that would have been reorganized if smaller, caused the American economy to stumble badly and to wreck ten million lives.
These two events changed my expectations for Charlie Rose.
On 25 June 2002, Charlie Rose had had heart valve surgery in France. A year before that, I had had quintuple heart bypass surgery in California.
I never expected to die from the event. The doctor said what he would do to repair my arterial condition offered a 98% chance for recovery. I did expect Charlie to die from his reported situation.
In all events, I missed only one month of park tennis. Charlie came back on the air quickly as well. By the time the American economy had to be bailed out, our hearts were forgotten by me, (I take no medicine and eat what I like.)
But I looked differently at Charlie and his guests: too many of them were in high enough places in our government and competitive business markets, for me to stomach their lack of Keynesian zeal.
Martin Wolf of the Financial Times was often an answer to my emotional view of the facts. Many others were not.
But several things remained constant: Charlie Rose and the New Yorker were often the sources I looked to for comfort in my belief that America was a world leader.
Somehow, however, we are caught in a trap I could accept for Japan-- but not for my country. And I blame Barack Obama and Charlie Rose.
Crazy I know. Obama-- for sure. He took on the job and has not done it-- yet.
Charlie? He didn't die. Ken Galbraith and Bill Buckley did. Charlie goes on about deficits-- but he never mentions Vickrey. He is a disappointment to me.
During all this time I've been writing to various forums at least to hear myself think. I have developed a theory of compromise between capital and labor that satisfies me if nobody else.
Charlie and the President go with the flow. I listen to one and voted for the other-- and feel they have both let me down.
Benezraa is a decent coach. He is also susceptible to harboring models in his head that may have no merit at all.
The tragedy of the German War against the Jews, where murder in a field with a pit dug by you before you die was later augmented by death camps, by a people gone evil to the core, is seen as rail lines that might have been targeted. The model is nonsense. But nonsense happens.
Benezraa never invented the foolish model. Others talked it up and it's not relevant to recovery today from debt in need of reorganization and demand in need of management. So I should not be mentioning it. It's just that B. is my coach, and I felt like coaching back.
As to the thought that the immense number of comments, that flow through cyberspace to nowhere, should (any of them) be collected by their authors or anyone else? Probably they should not.
Like our thoughts when we're alone, they are nature's gift to our species. Google may some day sell a preservation machine that will regurgitate your intellectual development even if there's not enough time to review more than a tiny portion of it.
Am I still mad a Charlie? Of course I am. He owes us the side of the story written by the school of "post autistic economics".
One of their number, not the leader, named Ron Morrison, (whom I believe is a professor of physics) wrote "Keynes Without Debt" a few years ago. Google will find the original. A copy is at http://www.t2bor.info/kwod
If the link fails try http://www.ustaxreform.us/kwod
Keynes Without Debt tells the President and Charlie Rose how to employ all out of work overnight.
Benezraa sees me as overly focused on war. Morrison never once mentions that terrible habit of people around us and in the mirror.
BENEZRAA 08/15/2010 02:05 AM Report
DEAR MR. GELLES,
Your emotional writing is a good thing to a degree and in context, that context being that you are letting loose stuff going back to WW2. I hope you are keeping a copy of everything you write, so that once you have vented, you may return to the overall collection of your thoughts, organize them, and, where appropriate do a re-write that is succinct, clear, and focused, rather than rambling all over the place. If you haven't already, you may want to consider blogging via Google Blogger. There is no charge, you can say all you want about whatever you want, and it is easy to edit, even after the fact of posting an entry.
With respect to your ideas on WW2 and the production-based economic successes, please forgive me, I cannot date myself back to WW2 in age, only as far as the War in Viet Nam, which still was horrible enough. But, I must draw a parallel in that military production was a fundamental part of the economy on both occasions. You rightly point out that in net, the result of WW2 was that good won out over evil, and production was indeed a big part of it. I would argue as well that evil won out in the form of the Versailles Treaty in WW1, causing the conditions that led to Hitler's Germany, and that "good" could have done far better during WW2, had the Allies seen fit to bomb the railways leading Jews to the horrors of the concentration camps.
Production is always paramount in war, and the Victor enjoys the spoils -- for a while; the Defeated are on their knees for decades; millions are dead or maimed; banks and arms manufacturers do very well; laborers may be worked to death, voluntarily or involuntarily (America was an exception during WW2 only because of it's special status as essentially an island continent beyond harms reach). As the world stands on the verge of WW3, which likely will make WW2 seem like a picnic, you may once again see the economy flourish -- if anyone survives and there is any economy that my be regarded as Victor.
You seem to think that Charlie Rose has a strong idea (which you disagree with) as to what makes sense in the economy. You may be right, but, I see him interview so many people with so many different viewpoints, that his role to me is the simple and demanding role of facilitating and eliciting the viewpoints of diverse persons so that the public may hear them. Other programs do the same thing in their own unique ways.
With respect to your writing, as a fellow contributor to this "Comment" gallery, I hope my thoughts are helpful to you. I'd like to offer one more: take the time to quote accurately and precisely. If you must paraphrase, state that you are offering a paraphrase. If you are editing, make sure to be specific as to what you are editing, and then quote the original. I must say, I was not happy to see you "edit" something I wrote, altering the meaning of my words. In the context of discussing the value of this "Comment" gallery, I never said, "... just think how pleased you, myself, Charlie and our world would be for the form and substance of the CR Show with which you have found so poor compared (in your imagination) to its potential." Why did you twist my words, attributing to me an entirely different and insulting statement? Is this related to your statement, "I want opinions -- not facts?" Presumably, sound opinions are founded on solid facts!
Returning to the subject of your views on economics, what first sounded like a call for the unbounded printing of money, now sounds like a call for WW3 and worldwide enslavement of menial labor! Yet, you call for an end to world hunger and luxury for all! There is a tendency as we get older to remember "the good old days." Usually, the good old days weren't so good, yet, they may be remembered with rose colored glasses. Surely you do want to see an end to worldwide hunger, and surely you do want to see everyone enjoy some luxury in life! Surely, you do not want to see WW3 or worldwide slavery!
In the meantime I hope you will create a blog and be sure to write everything you can about your experiences and recollections of WW2, of persons you knew, etc. I am sure a way can be found via this "Comment" gallery for you inform interested persons, such as myself, about your blog, once you create it. Good luck!
JohnGelles 08/14/2010 07:40 PM Report
To some extent, the problems at hand are "the clash of civilizations"-- can Islamic envy energize a religious reformation before it spawns religious war; and "global trade and power"-- will the economic rise of Asia be the seed for peace plenty not prelude to another Cold War-- or worse?
I would like inventors like Ray Kurzweil and Dean Kamen to be in on the study of the question. They know that technology promises outcomes magnitudes beyond the dreams of yester-year.
The persistence of poverty and pollution is an obvious problem to be solved. It can be solved with money-- but only if the money can buy the things we need. I assume it will. And technology will make it possible.
The persistence of sibling rivalry, and its potential to become the root for war, is the second front on which we're compelled to struggle now-- and forever.
Can technology solve this curse too? Assume it can and it will? Maybe.
Sometimes, to ask a question is to answer it. I want to pretend this possibility is real and appropriate to these times.
JohnGelles 08/14/2010 05:55 PM Report
I hate to see this Zakaria disposition to know all-- end up being an argument over a Muslim 92nd Street YMHA built close to Ground Zero, in the aftermath of 911.
Te global issue that comes first is reorganization of debt to support our money systems-- no matter what they are.
At the moment, China is just making stuff for Wal-Mart in every nation including its own. In a very brief instant they will be building a blue water Navy and then a heavy military footprint in space and cyberspace.
We have got to guide this process to never end in war.
That's what Charlie Rose is all about-- and Fareed Zakaria is one his best interviewees.
Islamist evil may be very important to turn around. But how about first turning around the nature of commercial rivalry to get out of hand-- because it's never understood.
I say we can make a grand alliance between the haves and the have-nots by turning the revolutions in technology into money-machines for curing bitter poverty before it's just too late.
Noga 08/14/2010 12:47 PM Report
Fareed Zakaria tries to explain his sorry ass choice to humiliate, of all peoples and organizations, the Jewish Human rights organization, ADL.
Here he is in his full glory:
"But American democracy is not just about mob rule, it is not just
about the tyranny of the majority. It is about fundamental rights that we
believe in. That is what the Bill of Rights was about. The Bill of Rights
is an anti-democratic document. It says no matter what the majority
thinks, these rights are sacrosanct and the first of those rights, the
first amendment is freedom of religion.
So for me it actually was as for Mike Bloomberg a very fundamental
test of American democracy. ...
Well, 100 Muslims died in 9/11 or something like
that. I can’t imagine it is offensive to them....
I have been trying to think about what an analogy would be, and it
would be like saying that you should never build a cross anywhere because
the Ku Klux Klan used crosses, you know. It is to concede an argument that
really is about what the extremist argue that."
What do you think? Is it an apt analogy? Has anybody at all suggested that you should never build a mosque anywhere because the Islamists were the 9/11 terrorists? Isn't there a mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero predating 9/11 which had not come to any harm at all after the event? Aren't there mosques everywhere in New York? Would there have been as much protest had the proposed mosque was just a regular sized mosque dedicated to serving believers and not purporting to teach tolerance and democratic values to Americans?
So Zakaria lies twice, once, when he says "American democracy is not just about mob rule, it is not just about the tyranny of the majority." Can a genuine democracy ever be a mob rule and tyranny of the majority? By saying ""American democracy is not just about..” he is implying that American democracy is mostly "about mob rule and tyranny of the majority". Does he even pause to consider what he is asserting here?
And the second lie is when he claims that the protesters' intention is to prevent mosques everywhere.
I haven’t listened to the rest of interview.
JohnGelles 08/14/2010 11:53 AM Report
Recently posted here:
--the silence of the representatives of Muslim organizations and the Muslim community at large, is deafening.--
To which I comment as follows:
They are not silent. They demand from democracies all the rights and privileges of civilized society. They are silent only to their own terrorists whose cruelty and craziness they fear.
What would it take for an Islamist Gary Cooper or Henry Fonda movie character-like White Hats to out-draw and out-shoot their Black Hatted goon-masters and volunteer homicide-bombers?
My guess is there are very few terrorist leaders and loyal followers-- but a huge number of fearful ordinary Muslims.
Other ethnic crazies have been murderous goons before. They wanted radical change (nothing bad about that), but they were willing to torture and murder innocents in their quest for absolute political power.
It is this streak of terror-madness that keeps reasonable majorities silent-- in my opinion.
I have no evidence for this theory. Some in-depth reporting would be helpful to find answers.
Most Muslims might not admit (even to themselves) that fear kept them open to the idea of NOT being a Cooper or Fonda character-- and teaching their worst co-religionists to quit the terrorist game and play politics in the open.
There is a breed of fanatical Muslims, driven by pride and prejudice of an extreme nature, that would rather kill than be what they really are-- nothing special.
..... ..... They see other ethnic groups who have put them down in fact or put them down only inside their own head. They see them-- and what they see keeps them silent-- or even opens them a little to siding with terror against America.
People like Fareed Zakaria see time on the side of American values.
People like Newt Gingrich think time needs our help-- with a two-by-four to the side of the head of all good Muslims, to make them more like Irshad Manji than stay at home moms.
..... ..... (The New York Times describes Irshad Manji as "Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare." Oprah's magazine has given Irshad the first annual Chutzpah Award for "audacity, nerve, boldness and conviction." Irshad takes both as compliments.)
Where do I stand? Where do you? The last time I looked into this I believe (if memory serves) Irshad needed body guards like Salman Rushdie did back before Osama.
It is possible we need both-- the Zakaria defense of our tradition and the Gingrich attack on the fear that grips us all when goons are near at hand or we think they are.
There are no drones yet that can take out the goon next door. But there may come the day when democracies will have to find the facts to lock up homicide bombers and their handlers before they do anything. I would prefer that to locking up people who fool with marijuana.
sophies 08/14/2010 10:38 AM Report
considering that all the perpetrators claimed to speak for Islam, the time to show America where the muslims in this country stand was right after the attack. Except for individual voices heard here and there, the silence of the representatives of muslim organizations and the muslim community at large, was deafening.
JohnGelles 08/14/2010 04:21 AM Report
I left out a few words you will have to fill in for me. If we had a post-send edit capability, I could do it myself. I know I should not have sent so fast. I'm used to doing this on the Amazon.com software. It's my fault. I know. A little patience would have gone a long way. Let me list a few of the words where I screwed up:
CR show WHICH you have found ... we have NO alternative, yet the limits of debt deceived no nation ... earned TEN dollars cash a month ... say WE could not catch up ...
Schwartz KNEW the score as well as Ferguson.
My tone is over the top. But if you watched the PBS News Hour and the people out of work and out of money-- about a week ago, in their examination of how our timidity can drive good men to suicide, you will find over the top is not high enough in the rage department.
JohnGelles 08/14/2010 03:54 AM Report
Fareed Zakaria, the CR Show, and the "really big picture" ~
Benezraa wrote (in response to my heartburn over the show, the comments and CR and FZ):
..... ..... It is not a question of "how many eyeballs" so much as "whose eyeballs". The present system of commentary is simple, intuitive, open, and democratic.
..... There is an opportunity for your ideas, my ideas, or anyone's ideas to become a part of the conversations (that Mr. Rose has earned and shared with us)-- with heads of state, leaders of the military, great business leaders, leaders in science and in the arts, etc.
..... If even one idea from this "comment" gallery proves worthwhile to even one of Charlie's guests-- or perhaps to world peace or to advancement in science-- just think how pleased you, myself, Charlie and our world would be for the form and substance of the CR Show with which you have found so poor compared (in your imagination) to its potential.
..... We ourselves may make a pure contribution, free of mundane concerns such as technical web use expertise. All we need is a keyboard, a computer, and the interest to listen and participate."
==========================================
Benezraa, above, lightly edited. Gelles, below, late at night:
==========================================
Ben, you make valid points and offer fair thanks for the show and comments in their current state.
But you are dead wrong when it comes to Zakaria and CR offering to America their smug nonsense about the appropriate rate of recovery and the really big picture of history unfolding 65 years after WW II.
We went from nowhere, relative to capital and income, and relative to ships, planes, tanks, guns, divisions, fighting men and great generals, to VICTORY over the baddest, toughest, most disgusting villains in human history.
Financially and industrially-- we paid for it with work, sweat and genius-- not with a finite pile of money that had a chance of running out.
The so called limits of debt, that FZ declared-- and smiled through-- as people listening in were told to wait patiently in their despair for them to ease, do not exist.
FZ, CR, that idiot Niall Ferguson, and virtually all of CR's guests agreed, we have alternative, yet it deceived no nation in WW II-- even Germany was producing more output near the end than at the beginning. Certainly America and the allies used money to its maximum utility and put debt in its proper place by agreement between treasuries and central banks.
When we run out of people, sand, ocean water, carbon, sun and wind, we will run out of money-- and not before.
Why does my blood boil? Because I saw it all happen. I knew mechanics who in 1940 earned tn dollars cash a month, and lived on subsistence farms, take over armament production and pay for it with money that financed a post war boom that would have lasted until now if people like CR and his crowd knew what they were talking about.
China today builds cities like New York in the time CR and FZ take to mull things over.
Think of Henry Kaizer and the millions of business men, engineers, mechanics and ordinary people who heard Hitler say could not catch up with his up and running war machine. Think of what money really is, and how debt is law, not made of iron, and you will know that Krugman makes some sense and Keynes and Abba Lerner made even more.
We are missing leadership. And CR has chosen to talk to leaders. And CR really has nothing to say. There are voices like Mathew Forstater, Randal Wray, and countless other heterodox economists and business men whom CR ought to support. Thank God he did invite Bernard Schwartz to say his piece. But CR never believed Schwartz know the score as well Ferguson.
You, Benezraa, made a remark about infinite money printing. Did you ever stop to ask how the arsenal of democracy is built by men of vision-- and not by smiling fools who can laugh as Rome is burning?
LSEL 08/13/2010 07:58 PM Report
Dear Mr. Rose,
Thank you for having Fareed Zakaria on the show. May I suggest that the next time you have him on you have him for the full hour. One of the advantages of this is that he and you can finish your sentences and thoughts without interruption.
JohnGelles 08/13/2010 06:42 PM Report
Dear CR and Fans-- especially Ben,
Reference: BENEZRAA 08/13/2010 02:50 PM
1. I do not suggest any more money (to be saved or circulated) than PRODUCTION of life's necessities and luxuries requires. Near-infinite amounts of money will destroy its use. Savings, if they were COLA'd like social security and TIPS bonds, does invite a great deal of money-- so much in fact-- that our system might get away from debt completely, and ordinary people might never need to borrow any money at all. This sort of system works well for some rich people-- it would work even better for you and me.
2. My particular gift to the money-crank world or social credit, debt-free money, tax-free money, citizens dividend, basic income, etc., is the idea that such logical reforms will dovetail nicely with reform in favor of the very rich.
Such VR people would pay no taxes whatsoever, they would pass on great wealth to their dependent children (likely to be less aggressive than their stinking VR parents). Because there were no taxes, the have's would possibly understand that the formerly have-nots were receiving decent incomes from thinking machines that do the work the poor and desperate often did in the past.
Huge income would be pouring into government from voluntary purchases by average income people and VR people.
Such people would purchase luxuries whose private sector and government owned producers paid for government services in a mixed economy that included planning and innovation in an appropriate balance. Such luxury sales would be sold at a high profit to help fund government and to allow innovative entrepreneurial types to invent just how to PRODUCE OUR WAY to riches for average people.
Today's DO-NOTHING conservative political ideologues exist because the VR have shifted taxes and interest payments on to the backs of people ordinary people. These OP hate government for it. They hate the taxes and elect Republican politicians who have tricked them. The Democrats they elect are not much better.
3. Your desire to give CR a pass because his programs are very good was more valid years ago-- before the system came to grief for failure to base money on PRODUCTION and not pre-production DEBT.
4. In addition to my money system reform, I want wiki reform too. Wiki's try to formulate consensus too soon. They collaborate on a single version of the facts.
I want opinion more than facts. And I want separate wiki opinions with consensus developing as each writer copies what he thinks is good from other writers-- as well as from the thoughts that swim around in his own mind.
Think about, money that seeks to expand until there is no shortage. Ideas that seek to be condensed until there is no glut.
BENEZRAA 08/13/2010 02:50 PM Report
ATTN: JOHN GELLES
re #1: Critics of the Bloomberg Mosque, protective of the First Ammendment and in defense of our nation from the prospect of Muslim Tyranny harbingered by Nine-Eleven, do have faith in the First Ammendment -- as well as the Second and the Third, etc. (even though some do interpret the First Ammendment to mean "Freedom of [Christian] Religion."
re #2 & #3: This section might better be edited and directly tied in to section #5, which itself needs much clearer and careful explanation. The "smug" and "guilty of major crimes" accusations you apply to Charlie and Fareed are a bit over the top, as you tacitly admit in the first sentence of section #3 in which your refer to yourself as "smugger." Eliminate such over the top expressions and instead of being called "Smugger", you might become known as "Slugger" (a great hitter in the game of baseball).
re #6 & #7: Thanks for the compliment to my person, I appreciate it, you as well. As far as your comment and suggestion related to "zero eyeballs", consider this:
It is not a question of "how many eyeballs" so much as "whose eyeballs". The present system of commentary is simple, intuitive, open, and democratic. There is an opportunity for your ideas, my ideas, or anyone's ideas to become a part of the conversations (that Mr. Rose has earned and shared with us the privilege to have) with heads of state, leaders of the military, great business leaders, leaders in science and in the arts, etc. If even one idea from this "Comment" gallery proves worthwhile to even one of Charlie's guests or perhaps even to world peace or to advancement in science, just think how privileged we are to have such an opportunity. We ourselves may make a pure contribution, free of mundane concerns such as technical web use expertise. All we need is a keyboard, a computer, and the interest to listen and participate.
As far as your economic ideas go, I'd like to hear more from you, when you sort out your ideas and explanations more cautiously, clearly, and without invective. So far it sounds like you are a believer in printing money ad infinitum. If this is the wrong impression, please correct me. I will save any criticisms until I am sure I understand what your economic arguments may be.
By the way, if you use an Apple/Mac computer, try composing your comments using "Text Edit" or even "Simple Text". Then it is easy to highlight, click, and drag the entire composed comment into the "Comment" box on this website and in fact on many websites. Write on!
BENEZRAA 08/13/2010 01:51 PM Report
EDITORIAL CORRECTION TO "DEAR SAMEH" POSTING BELOW:
Paragraph 2, sentence 2, second clause should read:
"... who were caused to wander...."
BENEZRAA 08/13/2010 01:46 PM Report
DEAR SAMEH,
Even though I often disagree with the opinions of Fareed Zakaria, I enjoy his intellect and his contributions to the national and international analyses of various issues, and I wish him a long and successful career. Respectfully, it was Rich Armitage, whose opinion (as paraphrased by Charlie Rose) is that in some things President Obama is much "like Bush with compassion." Fareed Zakaria (rightly or wrongly) likened President Obama to Henry Kissinger. I think this is an interesting, if questionable, idea that should be flossed out in greater detail. In speaking of former President George W. Bush, Fareed Zakaria spoke quite eloquently about his very real compassion "from the heart." He also stated that George W. may have been an "incompetent President" and a "liberal imperialist" (the former is debatable according to the issues, the latter is probably an exaggeration, even should W. believe about it himself).
Time may answer those questions more fully. In my humble opinion President Bush had to work with a Congress more contentious than the Ancient Israelites, when they were caused to wander in the Sinai Wilderness for 40 years before inheriting the Land. (May it be that, if this analogy is at all applicable to the USA today, that in 40 years the USA be reborn to it's own heritage with great spirit and great vigor and with the blessings of God.)
With respect to your own comments about Israeli "forceful expansion", you are so far off the present and historical marks, that your attention must be drawn to reality. Firstly, on every rational basis the history of Israel's enemies, ancient and present, has been an history of forceful expansion. The history of Islam is an history of forceful expansion such that a fifth or more of the world's geography is Muslim. Yet in the majority Muslims begrudge Israel even half the space of it's ancient homeland, a space barely half the size of Sinai. Even more than merely begrudging Israel it's existence, repeated wars of aggression to utterly annihilate Israel were launched in unison by all the surrounding Arab nations. If these wars backfired on those nations and caused Israel to expand in self-defense to it's present military boundaries, how then do these imperial nations justify that still today they deny Israel's real existence, it's existential right, and it's Land? The only explanation is that at best they take no Responsibility for the consequences of their actions and that they have no Honor.
Also, with respect to your comment about the tripartite agreement between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil: it gives no solace to foes of nuclear expansion to see that Iran may be a source of nuclear materials to other nations. You may quibble that Israel has a nuclear capability (which means that Israel suffers all the blessings and curses of nuclear power, such as nuclear pollution); has it ever occurred to you that, if the nations of Islam were to truly accept Israel and welcome Israel into the neighborhood instead of threatening Israel with annihilation, that Israel could be a source of technological and trade and educational advancement right there at the Mediterranean beachfront center of the neighborhood? Has it ever occurred to you that instead of spending trillions of dollars on militarism, the entire Middle East could spend that money on infrastructure, desalinization of water, and agriculture? Is a fifth or more of the Globe not enough for you, that you begrudge tiny Israel it's Life?
Also, when you think "Israel", think "Palestine", as "Palestine" is the degrading name given to the Land of Israel by first the ancient Roman Occupiers, then again in the early 20th Century by the modern British Occupiers. If the Arab nations were to unconditionally recognize Israel and inspire the persons of Fatah, Hamas, and even Hezbollah to put down their swords and remove their masks, peace could break out in the Middle East overnight. It would even be a victory for Iran; the only loser would be Ahmadinijad.
sameh 08/13/2010 06:44 AM Report
I like this interview as it has shed light on a bit of everything in today’s political and business world in just less than half hour. I wish though to add that I especially agree with what RIchard Armitage (in another interview) and Fareed Zakaria stated that Obama is just a Bush but with some compassion.
First, on the issue of Israeli settlements although we have seen Obama in the beginning of his tenure paying good attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict, being tough on Bibi and has refused utterly and completely building or expansion of Israeli settlements on 1967 borders, we have seen this situation to have eased immensely afterwards. The American president unfortunately has failed so far to bring both parties to the negotiating table, and foremost has failed to pressure Israel to relinquish forceful expansion and unjust settlement. I think Zakaria should have been invited to comment on this.
Second, Obama has rallied after UN Security Council sanctions against Iran despite the tripartite agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil where significant amount of enriched uranium will be carried away from Iran to calm the west anxiety that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. Again I think the interview should have covered this point as well more deeply.
JohnGelles 08/13/2010 01:29 AM Report
Thanks Ben Ezra A and the CR Show~
1. The Zakaria Interview may be remembered for its expression of faith in our 1st Amendment, and for critics of that faith-- who found a "Bloomberg Mosque" in their support for Newt Gingrich and his hostility toward Islamist murderers.
2. But I will ignore all that stuff about Islam-- because Zakaria and Rose are guilty of major crimes against reason and rescue of the American and global economy. They support slowpoke growth because they have theirs and their family's not hungry. They just can't imagine being a victim and NOT being mostly at fault.
Rose and Zakaria are smug about their sure knowledge of the limits to Nixon-Keynesian investment by democratic government in growth aimed at permanent stability of civilized society (which they "know" is less powerful than growth based on consumer preference for buying sneakers instead of saving their money.)
3. I am smugger than they are. I know that we are talking about WORK and PRODUCTION of the things that money buys-- NOT about a measurable pile of money that runs out when you spend your last dollar. You never run out of work in a wartime economy-- until you're defeated by an occupying enemy as happened in WW II.
4. So when Zakaria and Rose believe we're not in a wartime economy-- you have got to ask: "What's missing? The war? Or the economy?" Maybe our deficit doves Vickrey, Chaney and Krugman, are not all war mongers. But they can add 2 and 2. If you want progressives in power and jobs NOW for all in need, then you have to bite the bullet and say consumer spending is not magic. Government spending and plans can work miracles if they do not so centralize strategic and operational decision-making that the charge of hardening of the systems' arteries is being invited by our incompetent leaders. That is the charge we levied at the USSR at the height of the Cold War-- even though we wanted them to quit and become more open like we were.
5. Why should Rose quit-- and join those money system reformers who call for Lincoln's greenbacks to prevent more debt and taxes? Because greenbacks make sense and Obama does not. Because the issue of taxes has made all the voters hate government-- even if they are the government.
6. Ben Ezra A~ you seem a nice guy. Let me ask you this:
..... IF discussion groups create text in abundance with zero strength in eyeballs-- because they never close in on successively improved versions of "what to do", THEN what should replace them ASAP?
7. My answer to question posed to Ben Ezra A, above:
..... Discussions like this one should be replaced by discussion wiki nets (DWN's).
What is a DWN ? It is NOT a single serial conversation. Because such serial encounters do not build to a compromise agenda. They create serial contradiction.
DW-Networks are sets of separate websites owned by participating discussants.
Each is privileged to copy any and all of their collaborators or opponents websites that has been placed in the public domain. Every site owner copies the best of every others' thought and actual words. Differences converge on the best of all participants' contributions -- and without attribution-- except for stylistic effect, not required by law.
BENEZRAA 08/12/2010 11:36 PM Report
ATTN: JOHN GELLES
John, I enjoyed reading your comments, which were clear. Everyone fails at times to do a perfect proof of their own writing. It would be nice to have access to editorial help, though it may likely be impractical for websites such as this to provide dedicated editorial assistance to every comment author. There is much forgiveness in this medium for typos and such, and most readers are quite capable of figuring out what they are and getting the meaning. So a re-write is a good idea, if it truly clarifies intended meaning and avoids major gaffs. The one criticism I offer is that since the transcript is readily available to everyone, it may not be ideal to reproduce transcript content in the way you did. Most writers pick one or two points to quote, paraphrase when relevant, and then make their own points. What I will remember from your combined posts is the exchange between Rose and Zakaria, not your actual comment; and after all, the "raison d'etre" of the "Comment" opportunity is your comment! I don't mind the repeat of the program, which I did listen to carefully and with additional access to the transcript. But the extent of the repeat truly distracted from full attention to your words. That said, "Write on!" Until next time....
JohnGelles 08/12/2010 06:53 PM Report
I get an F for failure to proof what should have read as follows (please add editors to straighten out what addicted writers contribute):
Zakaria and Rose have substantially decided to go with the deficit hawks. It seems reasonable to them to fear to use wartime financing today BECAUSE we do not have the leadership skills or intellectual power to put people to work at once.
That is a disgusting shame. These two TV stars would have been the first to decide with Mariner Eccles, Henry Morgenthau and FDR to spend the money, defeat the depression, prevent inflation, and save democracy from itself and its enemies.
I accuse Zakaria, Rose (and some of you in this forum) of not being the equal of Eccles, Morgenthau and Roosevelt. You do not deserve what they left you. You deserve what you've got.
You do not deserve that Nixon gave you the gift that not even FDR had. A completely rational money based on production-- not the mining of gold in your own back yard.
Even such mining eventually must be matched by production. Get this straight: we do not run out of money; we run low on production of the necessities of life for people in need.
JohnGelles 08/12/2010 06:41 PM Report
Zakaria and Rose have substantially decided to go with the deficit hawks. It seems reasonable to them that fear to use wartime financing today does not have the leadership of intellectual power to put people to work at once.
That is a disgusting shame. These two would have been the first to decide with Mariner Eccles, Henry Morgenthau and FDR to spend the money, defeat the depression, defeat deflation, prevent inflation, and save democracy from itself and its enemies.
I accuse Zakaria, Rose and some of you in this forum or not being the equal of Eccles, Morgenthau and Roosevelt. You do not deserve what they left you. You deserve what you've got. But Nixon gave you the gift that not even FDR had. A completely rational money based on production not the mining of gold in your own back yard.
JohnGelles 08/12/2010 06:14 PM Report
===========begin transcript========
FAREED ZAKARIA:
... Obama is now presiding over America which is more strapped for cash, so he is going to be looking stingy. I
mean this is going to be a big theme of American foreign policy for the next ten years -- we are going to be very constrained fiscally, because of what is happening at home domestically.
I think that the growth numbers, the projections the administration has made, are likely to be quite rosy.
.
CHARLIE ROSE:
To put it another way is how do you create growth without adding overwhelmingly to the deficit?
.
FAREED ZAKARIA:
Right. And how long can you do it? There is this debate that keeps taking place between the deficit hawks and the stimulus people. Let’s say you do another stimulus, let’s say Paul Krugman is right and we need a larger stimulus, he wanted a stimulus that is about $400 billion.
.
CHARLIE ROSE: He probably was right at the beginning.
.
FAREED ZAKARIA: He may have been right, but here is the question, Charlie -- suppose you spend that money now, suppose you spend it then. Then what? At some point the money runs out and the private sector has to start investing and hiring. The government can’t just keep spending this money --
====== end transcript begin Gelles' comment =====
Government cannot be strapped for cash. It can only fear
the inflationary effect of creating it.
Some say that is the same thing. They forget Nixon closed the gold window and put us on a floating fiat money system because cash money spending is better than nothing at all.
If we spend on projects that add productive power to our economy, we will be able to produce more of what we think we need. The Nixon system ever runs out of money. We use it always in time of war. We ought to use it to preserve the peace.
If because we think government is flush out of money, we can put real people out of work and they will not only have no money, they will produce nothing at all. This is an invitation to tyranny and mob rule. No one should favor it.
JohnGelles 08/12/2010 05:55 PM Report
Please erase or ignore my preceding post. I did not know I would have to re-format a copy of the transcript.
JohnGelles 08/12/2010 05:53 PM Report
Re-read this BRIEF EXCERPT from transcript of this discussion. My comment will pertain to its gross error. I will have to separate such comment from this post because we lose all if a finger slips.
FAREED ZAKARIA: Malaria, right. Obama is now presiding over America
which is more strapped for cash, so he is going to be looking stingy. I
mean this is going to be a big theme of American foreign policy for the
next ten years -- we are going to be very constrained fiscally, because of
what is happening at home domestically.
I think that the growth numbers, the projections the administration
has made, are likely to be quite rosy.
CHARLIE ROSE: To put it another way is how do you create growth
without adding overwhelmingly to the deficit?
FAREED ZAKARIA: Right. And how long can you do it? There is this
debate that keeps taking place between the deficit hawks and the stimulus
people. Let’s say you do another stimulus, let’s say Paul Krugman is right
and we need a larger stimulus, he wanted a stimulus that is about $400
billion.
CHARLIE ROSE: He probably was right at the beginning.
FAREED ZAKARIA: He may have been right, but here is the question,
Charlie -- suppose you spend that money now, suppose you spend it then.
Then what? At some point the money runs out and the private sector has to
start investing and hiring. The government can’t just keep spending this
money --
CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think they haven’t starting investing in
hiring?
FAREED ZAKARIA: The first reason they are not investing is because
there is no demand for products and certainly no demand for products that
would require them to build new factories. In other words, they could was
the existing factories to produce. So no businessman is going to pass up
an opportunity to make money because he doesn’t like Barack Obama. But it
is certainly true --
CHARLIE ROSE: No, but you are a making an investment because you make
a judgment about the future.
FAREED ZAKARIA: Right. And that’s where I was getting to. So in the
longer term, exactly, there is the sense of unease where we are going with
the debt, with healthcare reform, with financial regulatory reform.
And I think that the Obama people have not thought that stuff through,
because you can’t -- when you do the stimulus, what you are almost saying -
- to answer your fundamental question why, you know, why are we not getting
the kind of growth we want, there is a certain sense in which we are trying
to pump back the economy to get back to where it was 2006, 2007.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
FAREED ZAKARIA: But that was an economy fueled by absolutely
unsustainable credit expansion. People were maxed out on their credit
cards, they were maxed out on their mortgages.
So Edmund Phelps the Nobel Prize winning economist had a very good
piece in the times. You can’t bump back this economy to where it was.
There is going to be a fallow period while more than anything else
individuals work out their balance sheets, you know. They cannot get back
to those debt levels.
CHARLIE ROSE: And how long is the fallow period likely to be?
FAREED ZAKARIA: It is an interesting question.
CHARLIE ROSE: And what electoral cycle will it coincide with?
FAREED ZAKARIA: It will not coincide with the next midterms. I think
we are going to have a longer period of sluggish growth than people
realize, but mainly because of that. You just can’t -- you can’t get back
to where we were because where we were was unsustainable.
BENEZRAA 08/12/2010 12:08 PM Report
MINORITY TYRANNY ( re-posted with editorial corrections to typographical errors and clarity)
Mr. Zakaria,
Majority Rule is not by definition "mob rule", nor is it necessarily a tyranny. What you propose is a tyranny by your own minority, not traditional majority rule with respect for and protection of minority rights.
Neither is your insult to Newt Gingrich, by deliberate rhetorical misinterpretation of his commentary, in any way constructive to resolving the controversy pertaining to the proposed Bloomberg Mosque. Newt Gingrich, contrary to your spin, was not proposing that America model itself after Saudi Arabia. Newt Gingrich was pointing out that Islamic Law, Religion, and Society are antithetical to American Law, Religion, and Society; and, that when push comes to shove, the most relevant symbol of Islamism in America is Ground Zero. Newt Gingrich rightly points out that America is at war with Islamic Terrorism (as is much of the world) and that Ground Zero is hallowed ground of that war, a war which is not going away any time soon.
America is no longer the relative "island unto [itself]" (John Donne) that until now America has largely been able to be. Religious freedom has had some success in America; and, transcending religious war is a profound ideal that America has had a storied history in accomplishing. The current war bodes ill for that freedom.
Once the Memorial Tower and the proposed Bloomberg Mosque are completed -- within easy sight of each other -- a single hand-held rocket from one may destroy the other, to be determined only by whichever extremist from whichever camp should fire first. At present, most of America sees itself on the receiving end of such rocket fire, be it literal or figurative, be it from the mosque next door or be it from the Bloomberg Mosque. At present America does not identify Islamism as being American in any way, shape, or form, no matter how American the membership of any mosque may be, no matter how patriotic or loving, caring, or generous.
America seeks to navigate the waters between between freedom of religion or tyranny by religion, including the possibility of tyranny by non-religion. At present, Islam promises religious tyranny.
The idealism and challenge and practical considerations of making religious freedom work in America and in the World have never been easy, never will be easy, and the building of this Bloomberg Mosque, should it occur, may signal for America either the victory of American religious freedom or the victory of Islamic Tyranny. None of us has a crystal ball to see the future; but, the rising tide of worldwide religious warfare already is clearly very far from successful containment.
As yet there is no united public movement in Islam calling for the excision of such passages from the Koran as those identifying Jews and Christians as "pigs, dogs, and monkeys." Neither is there call in Islam for any freedom of religion other than the questionable second class status as "Dhimmi" for "People of The Book" (Jews and Christians). Nor is there a call for equal rights for all, be it for persons of non-Muslim Faiths, be it for persons of different nationalities, or be it for women. There are small and somewhat successful movements for these things in Islam; but, in the largest part, there is no united figure of Mohammed's stature leading and motivating profound change. There is still a clarion call for Muslims to win the world by infiltration and by Jihad in the "Holy War" sense of meaning of the word Jihad.
Perhaps you yourself and others may commence to create a profound and new teleology for Islam. America and the World would welcome it. It should be loud and clear, unambiguous, and if necessary, there should be a civil war within Islam resolving Islamic internal and external relations. At Islam's internal level, Isn't it time there was a resolution to the Sunni-Shia divide? Or should the world leave the resolution to Ahmadinijad?
Perhaps it is time for a new face of Islam to build itself in Medina and work it's way to Mecca, as Mohammed once did, establishing a righted legacy of Islam that the world at large need not defend itself from.
UpTooLate 08/11/2010 04:58 PM Report
The Klan and Crosses -- In attempting to come up with an acceptable analogy, Mr. Zakaria suggested that just because the Klan burns crosses, we should not object to someone placing a cross in public. If this were a comparable situation, then fair enough. But that misses the point here. Imam Feisal Rauf does not want to call terrorists "terrorists", demurring that he doesn't want to get into that sort of "political": determination. For your analogy to be accurate, Mr. Zakaria, then say that someone wants to put up a cross, who does not want to say that the Klan is a terrorist organization. Say that someone who enjoys the support of the Klan wants to put up a cross. While he may say that he condemns Al-Qaeda, he certainly enjoys associating himself with those who associate with terrorists.
BENEZRAA 08/11/2010 04:24 PM Report
MINORITY TYRANNY
Mr. Zakaria,
Majority Rule is not by definition "mob rule", nor is it necessarily a tyranny. What you propose is a tyranny by your own minority, not traditional majority rule with respect for and protection of minority rights.
Neither is your insult to Newt Gingrich by deliberate rhetorical misinterpretation of his commentary in any way constructive to resolving the controversy pertaining to the proposed Bloomberg Mosque. Newt Gingrich, contrary to your spin, was not proposing that America model itself after Saudi Arabia. Newt Gingrich was pointing out that Islamic Law, Religion, and Society are antithetical to American Law, Religion, and Society, and that when push comes to shove, the most relevant symbol of Islamism in America is Ground Zero. Newt Gingrich rightly pointed out that America is at war with Islamic Terrorism (as is much of the world) and that Ground Zero is hallowed ground of that war, a war which is not going away any time soon.
America is no longer the relative "island unto [itself]" (John Donne) that until now America has largely been able to be. Religious freedom has had some success in America, and transcending religious war is a profound ideal that America has had a storied history in accomplishing. The current war bodes ill for that freedom. Once the Memorial Tower and the proposed Bloomberg Mosque are completed within easy sight of each other, a single hand-held rocket from one may destroy the other, to be determined only by whichever extremist from whichever camp should fire first. At present, most of America sees itself on the receiving end of such a rocket first, be it literal or figurative, be it from the next door or be it from the Bloomberg Mosque. At present America does not identify Islamism as being American in any way, shape, or form, no matter how American the membership of any mosque may be, no matter how patriotic nor loving, caring, or generous.
America seeks to navigate the waters between between freedom of religion and tyranny by the same, including the possible tyranny of non-religion. At present Islam promises religious tyranny.
The idealism and challenge and practical considerations of making religious freedom work in America and in the World have never been easy, never will be, and the building of this Bloomberg Mosque, should it occur, may signal either the victory of American religious freedom or the victory of Islamic Tyranny in America. None of us has a crystal ball to see the future; but, the rising tide of worldwide religious warfare already is clearly far from successful containment.
As yet there is no united public movement in Islam calling for the excision of such passages from the Koran as those identifying Jews and Christians as "pigs, dogs, and monkeys." Neither is there call in Islam for any freedom of religion other than the questionable second class status as "Dhimmi" for "People of The Book" (Jews and Christians). Nor is there a call for equal rights for all, be it for persons of non-Muslim Faiths, be it for persons of different nationalities, or be it for women. There are small and somewhat successful movements for these things in Islam; but, in the largest part, there is no united figure of Mohammed's stature leading and motivating profound change. There is still a clarion call for Muslims to win the world by infiltration and by Jihad.
Perhaps you yourself and others may commence to create a profound and new teleology for Islam. America and the World would welcome it. It should be loud and clear, unambiguous, and if necessary, there should be a civil war within Islam resolving Islamic internal and external relations. At Islam's internal level, Isn't it time there was a resolution to the Sunni-Shia divide? Or should the world leave the resolution to Ahmadinijad?
Perhaps it is time for a new face of Islam to build itself in Medina and work it's way to Mecca, as Mohammed once did, establishing a righted legacy of Islam that the world at large need not defend itself from.
robdverity 08/11/2010 03:31 PM Report
A Mosques 2 blks or 2k miles away ironically is not what created 9/11, but Zionist temples in the ME (whatever that distance is) as Patraeus intimated. Which mocks the Af-Pak effort big time. Even if we declare victory and leave the ME root cause will still be there, begging for a moral hazard - an encore, a repeat a la the financial fiasco. When it's broke and you don't fix it, well DUH it still wont work. Ask Patraeus, he gets it. Course he can't be too candid - the Zionists will jerk his short hairs. And he is ambitious - saw his name as an O opponent in 2012.
REMant 08/11/2010 03:03 PM Report
I don't see what a mosque has to do with anything that happened on Sept 11, 2001, or any time since, or, in fact, what a building has to do with a religion. There is a clash, but it is not between Arabs and Westerners per se. I have a strong feeling the battle within Islam is one we are quite familiar with in our own culture and religious wars and so to that extent Huntington got it right. I don't see right now how American foreign policy is going to get out of the Near East, until Israel gets out of it. I think they may accept Jews, but not Zionism, nor liberal imperialism. I'll buy that Bush was more that than an apocalyptic fundamentalist. And I agree about Afghanistan. The negatives far outweigh the positives. I think the world would be much better off leaving them alone or doing what it can to help the region develop economically, and it may be that all this flooding will prove a blessing.
I think he has the economy right now, too. I was surprised to see even The Post editorialize against Romer's teacher bill, tho I think the desire to print money is far from dead.
As his thesis hypothesized, Europe fought Germany, American and European colonialism, Japan. The Anglo-American alliance owes a debt of gratitude to Dean Tucker and Adam Smith who convinced the Tories that they could do as well or better holding on to America's trade as its territory. On the other side we benefited throughout the 19th c from their protection, and the North in the Civil War. Unfortunately, we let that relationship drag us into two world wars in the 20th. But I am sure we would benefit more from a similar relationship with China, as we did with postwar Germany and Japan, than by fighting them, and so far we have. Of course we have to pay attention to our own productivity and not allow ourselves to fall into the malaise Britain did, tho that was in large part the result of its colonial involvement and wars, not its US relationship.
robdverity 08/11/2010 02:47 PM Report
Hafta agree. Many of us suffer from belligerence fatigue. His post-American concept provides some hope. As others rise to our level perhaps our constant and boorish triumphalism will subside accordingly. But then again, as too many bullies require, we prob wont adjust fast enuff to being other than what we want, as opposed to what we are.
When we finally depart our current wars (to longingly look to future potential MI conflicts) we will have a net gain in enmity and hatred. But it's an ill wind ...., as we will be closer to financial collapse; and internal strife more attention grabbing than even the MI oligarches lobbying prowess and money. (Term limits must be the scariest two words in a pols night mares.)