Charlie Rose

JohnGelles  09/02/2010 11:49 PM Report

Neil MacCallister: "Money is not found, ..it is earned."

Especially Confederate money-- after Appomattox.

.

Brain Science on 2 Sep 2010 was all about the down side of the emotional roller coaster-- to be sad and angry at yourself and others when where you are has little to do with objective facts and all to do with brain chemistry and astrology-- for Neil mostly the latter.

I'm starting a new late night talk show where three or four people at the table, (never less than 3, never more than 4,) take sides on issues that reflect "absolute wealth equality for personal consumption" VERSUS "extreme inequality (again for personal consumption).

At first look and listen, you may say "BORING". But the stories that created the sides would be dramatic and compelling. The show would be a hit. It might even stoop to porn just be sure there were millions were devoted fans.

Now the show would have audience comments-- like this one.

But with a huge difference.

When ever you wrote a comment someone would reply to it. But that someone would NOT be a real person. The reply would come from an Artificial Intelligence programmed to please the real person at whom the reply was aimed. It would make that real target as happy as can be.

This new TV show would soon eclipse all other talk shows. The whole world would soon forget how NOT to smile.

NeilMacCallister  09/02/2010 07:56 PM Report

JOHN GELLES, BARACK OBAMA, TIMOTHY GEITHNER: "I still think the problem is finding money."

REALITY: "Money is not found, ..it is earned."

JohnGelles  09/02/2010 02:22 AM Report

Connect for me. if you will, Brain Science (BrS) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-- WHAT are they ? WHAT is their purpose ?

It seems to me, off the top of my head, we do not need to know all that nature's brain can do before we list the the objectives of AI. We know we want AI to execute logical operations, arithmetical computations and be able to store and retrieve any and all information required to reach objectives.

A main objective of brain science is to be able fix a brain in need of repair.

A main objective of AI is to be able to fix an individual, group, society, nation or world in need of help.

Well some of the above may be useful. Or not.

I still think the problem is finding money -- but fixing busted brains can't hurt. And a little shut-eye might do that.

robdverity  09/01/2010 10:29 PM Report

Sounds like full employment: 1/3rd bloggers, 1/3 editors and 1/3 taggers. Who makes the widgets?

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 09:33 PM Report

Yeah-- another bubu:

"The system organizes thousands of unpaid editors to read all input"

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 09:27 PM Report

My latest brain storm in honor of the Brain Series:

.

The Next Big Thing ought to be a web based vanity publishing system that asks the question:

What is it you want people on the web to read that YOU have written -- THAT IS NEW AND USEFUL to us all?

Readers of this "wiki-social-alternative view" system respond with endless input of "good ideas".

The system kicks them back to every reader-writer unless the new idea submitted is worth becoming an entry in the library of good ideas it outputs from all that input.

The system organizes thousands of editors of unpaid to read all input and write all output of ideas (which are re-statements of input re-done to eliminate duplicates and near-duplicates.)

Restatements all have a TAG -- much like TAGS already in use for similar purposes.

Another batch of volunteer specialists works on TAGS as the first batch works on TEXTS.

Within a few years we will have a social science taxonomy (or several even many of them).

They will permit us get a handle on our problems, solutions and good ideas.

Anyone can start this NEXT BIG THING. It's like that song "STOUT HEARTED MEN" from the musical New Moon. And its very similar to Wikipedia. But there is a huge difference. It does not define the known universe. Rather it defines important problems and solutions.

It is ever changing and everlasting. It converts the noise in cyberspace to a SONG in you heart and on you brain.

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 08:49 PM Report

In last paragraph of preceding post please change:

He;s eve interested on war

to read

He's even interested in war.

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 08:45 PM Report

Rob ~

There is a hard edge of realism in your critique of my rosy scenario-- I see the science of money catching up with the hard sciences of chemistry, biology and physics.

You have a lot of evidence on your side: there has been ample time to catch up. Yet we are where we were in the thirties-- and even that was not new at the time.

You are also right about the brainees. Tonight's discussion of emotion and its biological roots throws much light on WHY progress is so slow when we ask whole nations of millions of people to change their habits of accounting, banking, voting and solving complex social problems.

So I appreciate your point of view. It is the majority view. If I were right on the money, we would have solved these persistent defects in existing political economy around the time of Benjamin Franklin-- or even earlier.

Still, you and I are not President of the USA. We are mere members of the Rose audience. If we were President, or even Rose himself, we would owe it to our country to make my vision the law and your recognition of reality the object of reform.

So, please join me in ragging on Charlie. He wants to know the next big thing. It is the application of computer science, logistical science, political science, and even brain science-- to the matter of money.

The world responds to words, money and war (tiny, small, medium and large). Charlie is full of words. He;s eve interested on war. But he has really ignored money. And money is the cheapest way to go-- if your goal is the Second Bill of Rights and Global Peace and Prosperity.

NeilMacCallister  09/01/2010 03:42 PM Report

Ah! ..Good ol' rob! ..and your tics are back!!

I guess the medication got too expensive???

robdverity  09/01/2010 03:04 PM Report

You two incomprehensible economists are beyond boorish or boring into befuddling long-winded nonsensical comments.

The wealth has already been redistributed to our beloved (and my vocal tic - I liked that!) MI oligarchs. In Obama's Iraq's exit speech its commentary revealed that real ests of the cost is as high as $3.0 trillion. So John you're right we have unlimited print edition money when it's destined to the RIGHT upper 1%. But they beat us all to the trough. The Republicans don't / can't let us print more money now as it will devalue (inflate) the war-for-profit blood money already accumulated along with the financial predators loot. Our grandkids can keep the Lloyd Blankfeins in yachts and Post Toasties to validate the Bush-Paulson bailout. Where were the TEA partiers when they would have been more valid - during the Bush years?

Lastly, of all our ills, to bash the brain series people is puerile and silly. Because of govt relationships? Govt for killing agree is bad; for saving better, a la needed regulations a la subprime mess, gulf oil, now salmonella. Corporate greed (laissez faire capitalism) needs checking. It doesn't happen automatically.

NeilMacCallister  09/01/2010 02:02 PM Report

I'm sorry john, ..go ahead, ..rage on.

My disagreement with you is with your continued propounding that theory of "ever expanding pie", ..and that "We can all be rich if the government just spends enough money".

My own belief is that for large segments of time, it is exactly a "zero-sum game", ..and there is a dispersal of net value within society which can be read exactly like one of these many-colored brain activity scans.

That net value can be alloted out by individual decisions of what and where to spend and invest our earned money, or we can elect someone to make those decisions for us.

I don't like the government controlling every individual's pocketbook. Did you know the government charges us $4 dollars for every $1 it takes from Peter to pay Paul? "Redisdribution of wealth" redistributes wealth only to the government, ..and to the friends of the government.

Are these doctors and researchers friends of the government?

Wal-Mart sells blood pressure medication for $4 dollars. But each 60-day prescription costs $2,000 from the doctors.

So I just ride my bike.

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 01:34 PM Report

On the left: we are all created equal.

On the right: we ought to pursue happiness thru virtue.

When the center holds, both sentiments prevail.

Thanks, Neil

Thank God u r not Niall

NeilMacCallister  09/01/2010 12:15 PM Report

The river John once again overflows its banks, its torrent slamming timbers into buildings on the left and right.

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 07:04 AM Report

By the way-- this Brain Series said the other day that as we age we ought to exercise our brain.

Charlie ought to exercise his on the question -- WHAT THE HELL IS MONEY.

In case he hasn't noticed, his damn show takes money. Jobs take money. We got money (virtually unlimited amounts at full mobilization to protect democracy from failure).

WHAT IS HIS PROBLEM ???

He flirts with Niall Ferguson's fear of inflation-- and is afraid to get full bore behind Paul Krugman.

..... .....(Not boring or boor -- but to the greatest degree or extent; at full speed, with the greatest power or effort, etc.: a factory running full-bore. adjective)

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 06:51 AM Report

Neil and Rob ~

I posted the comment below to the Presidents own system Organizing for America.

It's nice of we three to try to keep the current CR Show board alive. Its lack of chronological structure makes this difficult.

Rob, you may be right that I am a crashing bore (not boor).

I try my best to be interesting. You are, on the other hand, a minor boor (a person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement). I say "minor" boor, because you are not that rude and unrefined to merit the full "boor" insult.

It would not hurt your performance here if instead of calling be a crashing bore to offer constructive criticism of my rant: I am mad as hell at American reluctance to pay money directly to the victim's of Wall Street's criminal conduct in 2007. People are out of work who have skill and good work habits. To leave them without a good job or a good business hurts the whole nation.

I am sure YOU see this. You ought to just plain back me up or shut up. Either way its "UP ....." if you don't.

..... Those dots connected spell a flame this board may not allow.

Flame suppression rules are generally good. But they help make me boring -- instead of just plain mean (short for meaningful).

JohnGelles  09/01/2010 06:26 AM Report

Finding the Money to Reduce Outstanding Threats to Our Nation and to Science

COPY of Charlie Rose Show comment board for 9-1-2010:

JohnGelles 09/01/2010 05:50 AM

On Monday, August 30, 2010 and the next day, the Brain Series was repeated on Los Angeles Channel 28. The great work in medicine and science reported and explained in the series was inspiring to the whole audience.

On Tuesday, August 31, before the Series continued, the audience if they cared was treated to President Obama, speaking from the Oval Office.

I found the President's speech every bit as good as this great Series. But the pundits I listened to after it, were far less enthusiastic.

I do not know what the pundits wanted. The President explained the "steel" in the national spine supplied by our armed forces protected us as he spoke and, impliedly, as our science establishment, featured on Charlie Rose, sought to know more and more about the origins of thought and intellectual power.

The President mentioned favorably his previous president, Bush and General Petraeus, who has served them both.

The President mentioned favorably our economic foundation on which both General Petraeus and our steel spine, and science (the most powerful tool in our national treasure), were aligned to produce a future in which American leadership would be both needed and tested.

The pundits were critical of the speech and doubtful of our leadership. We had fallen behind economically, intellectually and morally, in the nine years that followed the attack on New York and Washington by Al-Quaeda on 9-11-2001.

China and Iran had moved ahead in the same period: China in manufacturing, Iran in pursuit of evil possession of WMD's.

The President appeared to be aware of whatever threat was posed by our falling behind and others moving ahead.

Or not?

Maybe that was why the pundits were uneasy. They knew brain science was making progress. Economics and reduction in the threat of WMD's showed no progress.

There is a connection between economics and the threat of WMD's. We cannot reduce the threat without spending trillions of dollars for that purpose.

We have the money, in the form of unused and underdeveloped capacity to prevent ownership of the worst weapons by the worst nations and non-state actors.

But we do not have that money in any other form.

The President and Charlie Rose seem not to know enough about this last sentence.

Because without putting that money to work, we risk Obama's being our last elected president (democracy will never survive a successful WMD attack). And without democracy, brain science will be put to evil use.

NeilMacCallister  08/31/2010 10:24 PM Report

Gee rob, ..and you have come to sophisticate this table with what exactly?

Is there something more than just your usual vocal "tics"? (e.g., "venality and corruption", "moral hazard", "Military-Industrial oligarchs", "the greedy jews", "Af-Pak quagmire")

What's on your mind this evening???

robdverity  08/31/2010 08:53 PM Report

Two crashing boors racing to the bottom.

NeilMacCallister  08/31/2010 07:06 PM Report

BTW: Since this episode is directed at "Mental Health", ..does not the 'modern liberal' approach extrapolated below lead directly to a seperation or schizophrenia of the individual??

No one is capable of turning over their own survival to an anonymous and intractable bureaucracy, and remaining sane.

And I don't care how many electron microscopes they will parade up and down the PBS channel as if they were nuclear missles paraded in Red Square.

Make our own money, ..hold on to it as best you can, ..and don't let some gold-and-pearl academic tell you they need that money in order to determine whether a male mouse's hypocanthus is stimulated when he is shown a picture of a shaved female mouse in a brazilian bikini.

..Sheesh!!!

NeilMacCallister  08/31/2010 06:36 PM Report

JOHN GELLES (modern liberal): "The answer is to take every penny from anyone who has ever earned anything of value in the United States, and give it all to the government employed to distribute as they see fit."

NEIL MACCALLISTER (free marketer): "Let the people in the neighborhood houses keep their money, so that they might still have $10 dollars in their pocket when I come by offering to mow their lawn."

JohnGelles  08/30/2010 05:49 PM Report

Ny rant reads as follows:

JohnGelles 08/30/2010 05:08 PM

I am one of Charlie's older fans. Fan? Yes. I may accuse him of egomaniacal "chiming in" during an interview when he contributes "nothing" and the interviewee knows a lot-- AND in the audience at home REAL people know REAL stuff that never gets on the air.

But that does not mean I'm a disloyal fan. All it means is th charlie is an idiot -- and who is not these days?

I'm 85. And I remember EVERYTHING.

I remember that I learned that money is nothing more than a system of accounting for price in a world where supply and demand for REAL food, clothing and shelter, is EVERYTHING.

And that Nixon freed us from calls on our gold reserves.

So there is no rhyme or reason for Obama to be afraid of Congress. He promised us responsible effective government AND NOW HE CHICKENS OUT.

He does not demand in a public rhetorical contest that the REPUBLICANS state their demands to obtain their votes in the Senate for law to protect work and the middle class!

If they did, the demand would be for tax breaks for the RICH.

TO WHICH ANY SANE PRESIDENT AND SANE INTERVIEWER IN CHARGE OF THE CHARLIE ROSE EDUCATIONAL PLATFORM would answer with a resounding YES!

After all, Keynes and his demand-side theories never had any use for taxes. They had no use for debt. They wanted monetized demand to absorb mass production and maintain full employment!

I blame the Democratic Party for the weakness of our economy at this moment. We -- including old brains like mine-- elected them because McCain confessed he knew no economics.

By default, we elected Keynesians because THEY KNEW ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS.

What's to know when you own your own mint and central bank. To "know" is to have the list of projects and programs Obama promised to put the nation to work on-- and after you got elected-- DO IT.

It is all spelled out in our experience as THE ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY AT WAR.

All you have to do is tweak it a bit and become THE ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY FOR PEACE THAT AVOIDS WAR AND FIGHTS NATURAL DISASTERS AND MAN-MAN MADE PROBLEMS.

Money? If we have unused capacity-- WE HAVE THE MONEY that will buy the production we can summon at full capacity-- to be devoted to the goals of Lincoln and FDR.

Where is Obama's challenge to the people who elected him (and elected both houses to support him,) to enact FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

In that Second Bill there is no right to free trade that will destroy our industrial skills and power!

TO CHARLIE ROSE AND ALL THOSE BRAIN-DEAD BRAIN SCHOLARS: You need money for research, training new scholars and scientists, and treating all those patients? THEN HOW ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT MONEY IS !!!!!

I many be older than a lot of you. But I'm not as stupid as you are.

===================================

JohnGelles 08/30/2010 05:23 PM

Forgive the typos. But not the temper.

You all stink in spades--if you can't see our opportunity in the decades ahead to protect democracy with economic democracy-- where education starts at birth and never stops.

..... ..... Where the USA Inc. does not expect the private sector to BOTH lead the nation, businesswise, and give taxes away that are what it will take to even follow a great leader.

Taxes have one purpose only -- to prevent hyperinflation. They do not fund government. Congress funds government -- and if it does not, the President must give it a tongue lashing until it does.

Paul Krugman has been right all along. Bernanke talked a good game but is reluctant to lead -- he is not president, Obama is.

And Charlie Rose has the best audience on TV. USE IT! Let's get Krugman, Forstater and Wray on one side and Ferguson, Geithner and Volker on the other. Let them explain how Lincoln would lead today, how FDR, Morgenthau and Eccles, would follow Lincoln's lead and make government for the people work and government for no purpose disappear .

JohnGelles  08/30/2010 05:46 PM Report

http://www.ustaxreform.us/83010.htm

Above has my rant on this series and the whole shebang.

NeilMacCallister  08/30/2010 12:23 AM Report

I look at today's "Recent Guest" list, and I see the last 16 faces belong to healthcare workers, ..with 5 more scheduled to appear tomorrow!

Isn't it wonderful! ..The crisp white labcoats, ..the large scanning machines that go snap, crackle, and pop! ..the gels, the pipettes, the microscopes!!

The philanthropies! ..the Federal Grants! ..the student tuitions!

***

But we get better health care, don't we??

I wouldn't know, I can't afford health care or dental insurance. I have a hole in a second molar large enough to allow the eraser-end of a pencil inside, ..yet my being able to generate a steady $11 an hour here in the California construction market makes me "too wealthy" for services from my local Medi-Cal office.

I just paid $180 for one of my daughter's textbooks at our local junior-college bookstore (..then I found out that Barnes and Noble sells the same book at the publisher's suggested retail price of $149.)

BTW, ..her instructor is one of the textbook's authors!

***

But these researchers! ..these laboratories!! ..these publishings and patents!!!

Isn't it just so wonderful, ..and beneficial to us all?