Charlie Rose

robdverity  11/07/2010 04:06 PM Report

Shame on you. Feigning incomprehension to make me expose the no-class uncouth soul that I am. But for future ref. when I cite CS you may safely assume I mean CHICKEN SHIT first grade. And you doth intentionally(?) tweak-in-parting yet again, to wit: "Look at the multi-decades long history of terrorism this country tolerated leading up to Nine-Eleven. Nine-Eleven need never have happened."

Are Iraq and Af-Pak examples of non-tolerance? If so I'll take toleration. Multi-decades of terrorism? Relative fly specs. What? USS Kohl(sp?), embassy in Africa?

And nine-Eleven need never have happened. Totally agree, but far from your allusion. Our ME policy is the root cause of terrorism aimed at the US.

Extrapolate the march of history under two premises: one with Israel and one without.

Doomsday will be accelerated with; deferred without.

Our species is overrated obviously or we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. Our propensity to devise a supreme being (someone to blame?) will add to the ultimate chaos. Israel seems to validate my dismay. Consequently, its existence does nothing to enthrall me, quite the opposite; whereas you indeed seem very much so. Adding to the dismay is the fact Zionists are totally content to put the world at logger-heads and its potential doomsday solely for a succinct existence here at the end - into mutual oblivion most likely.

Asking for my response - on our confidential (by now) little white-board - suggests you don't have a life either. So bring on your pugilism and your rationale. Cheers!

BENEZRAA  11/06/2010 10:55 PM Report

CS ?????

Couch Surfer? Computer Scientist? Counter-Strike? Tear Gas? Christian Scientist? C.S. Lewis? None of these? I must admit I am stumped. Thanks for clarifying the humor simultaneous to the fact so that I can and do appreciate it. What's up with the "naturalized citizen" bit? And what's up with the neutrality bit? Chocolate and yogurt can only get you so far, before life or death comes knocking on your door. Turning the cheek is okay the first time around, when one has the luxury of demonstrating strength. Being unprepared for the second strike invites death. Look at the multi-decades long history of terrorism this country tolerated leading up to Nine-Eleven. Nine-Eleven need never have happened. Thanks for un-tweaking our mutual discourse. I look forward to many more. And if you do have a moment, do answer the several questions I asked above, as you piqued my curiosity. Ciao.

robdverity  11/05/2010 01:37 AM Report

Ciao. Your knowledge surpasses mine considerably. Like your style, too bad you're so blatantly wrong consistently. Whoops, that was supposed to be a comic jab, but you've already chastised me for assuming my meaning is obvious.

I am admittedly too dovish to be a naturalized US citizen. I would leave everywhere we have troops - beyond the obvious to include Okinawa, Germany et al as examples. To stop killing you just stop. When we get ravaged a la twin towers, we don't react. Adding to the numerous deaths both sides has proved nothing other than little peoples egos. Christian princples again from an atheist: turn the other friggin cheek. Especially if you're a CS like myself.

If you're tweaked I apologize. Tried to be neutral, just CS. Me - not you.

BENEZRAA  11/05/2010 12:06 AM Report

ROBDVERITY -

I do realize you were trying for a sayonara, but, you yourself did not leave it with a, "To be continued perhaps at another time, another thread, if at all...." You yourself hung some comments in the air that could not be let slip.

There is no bigotry in my view of Israel, nor do I play up victimization; the history is all too real.

Would I swap places with the Pals [Arab Palestinians]? Of course not! I do not envy nor promote their suffering; nor am I blind to what suffering has Israel as proximal and at times even underlying cause. By the same token I do not make excuses for the bloody, extortion politics of such groups as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah. Nor do I make excuses for the surrounding Arab nations, which lost in war after war of attempted genocide against Israel, and which are presently happy to feed Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and all terrorism against Israel -- and to do so to the last Palestinian Arab, all the while praising their martyrdom, and all the while unwilling to actually welcome them into their homes countries or to give them jobs.

I agree with you, that the UN partition was the biggest geopolitical mistake to come out of WW2. It did however have it's precedent during WW1, when the Brits were the occupiers of Palestine, when the Brits first issued the Balfour Declaration, then spilled ink all over it. From the same ink bottle they penned the Versailles Treaty, which brought forth the conditions that caused the Germans to vote for Deutschland Uber Alles, which in turn became the Armageddon of it's time.

As for forever? Conjecture is one thing, and prophecy is another. I make no claims to prophecy; and I hope (and pray) that your expression of pessimism is also not prophecy. The word "dismay" is an appropriate understated way of expressing the rottenness of world reality. Ciao.

robdverity  11/03/2010 04:32 PM Report

BEN I was trying for a sayonara re this here, but alas you doth tweak. Your victimization of Israel is too bigoted to play well in Poughkeepsie (or here). To back that up would you swap places, conditions with the Pals?

And if your 'real history' is such a viable example there would have been no need for the UN partition. Which btw was the biggest geopolitical mistake since WWII. Real peace lost forever - right into Armageddon. Dismaying no?

BENEZRAA  11/02/2010 11:39 PM Report

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT.

Robdverity, you do err five times in succession in just two lines. My support [for Israel] is not unquestioned; your "babblings" are not impotent; "facts on the ground" are NOT immutable; to be dismayed [towards Israel] is quite popular, and is disproportionately anti-Israel; and your biased disbelief in the face of real history is a matter of your choice. Should you choose to open your eyes, ears, heart, mind, and mouth in favor of liberty, you may just find solid faith in Israel.

robdverity  11/02/2010 05:17 PM Report

Take heart BEN. Your unquestioned support will mean more and go further than my impotent babblings. Shalom! (But I don't believe it. Dismayed you see. Facts on the ground are immutable.)

BENEZRAA  11/02/2010 02:43 AM Report

RE: my own second paragraph, please add:

Or that Muslim states throughout the world will transform themselves, as even post WW2 Germany has transformed itself, to once again allow Jewish life to thrive, let alone to participate as equals? (And why not transform to extend such basic human right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to Christians, Hindus, Bahai, Druse, etc.?)

BENEZRAA  11/02/2010 02:37 AM Report

SANITY?

How is your hatred of Israel in any way sane and a transition to anything positive or constructive towards Middle East peace? When have you ever shown any appreciation for the survival predicament of Israelis, including the two-million Arabs of Israel, who are privileged to live and be citizens in Israel? Take a look on the other side of the Western Wall; in what nations of the 1.3 billion Muslims is it even legal for a Jew to have the privilege to live, let alone vote? Turkey? Iran? For how much longer, given the present tide of history?

Even setting aside worldwide ignorance and denial, that the name 'Palestine' is the name given to Israel by the ancient Roman Occupation and then again by modern British Occupation, does anyone in their right mind even pretend, that dividing Israel into an apartheid of two States, the Jewish State of Israel and an Arab State designated Palestine, will yield a peaceful State adjacent to Israel in which Jews will be granted the right to live and vote and participate in the fabric of a new State of Palestine, as Arabs may do in Israel? Or that that such a Jew-free State will even keep a peace with Israel?

Are you so blind, that you do not see or will not see, that there is a world double standard, that Jews may share and even surrender to the point of State suicide, but Muslims may show no quarter? Are you so deaf, that you do not hear the neo-Inquisition ringing the bells of the Pope's realm, blaming Israel for the current Muslim persecutions of Christians throughout the Middle East? Is your tongue tied in some way, that you may speak no evil of the evil perpetrated against Jews and Israel, be it from any source including but not limited to Palestinian Arabs?

Any diminution of Israel by Israel itself pales in comparison to external diminutions; and if anyone is kicking any puppies, you yourself are kicking the puppy Israel; and you call this puppy Israel your "dismay". Perhaps your dismay is in the unjust, uncalled for kicking that you do. Sanity dictates that you stop kicking the puppy, while it still lives, and that you go to the ends of the earth to aid that puppy to grow and thrive into a healthy adulthood and family. Or is a normal life for Israel -- and for the Arabs, too -- too much to ask of mere humanity?

robdverity  10/29/2010 07:11 PM Report

SMOKING? NOTHING! Israel hating? It's transition for damn sure. Getting it settled - one way or the other - is demeaning the tribe, and brutally. Kill ratio alone plus the dehumanizing of the Pals is not an endearing quality for someone as well heeled and armed as Israel. Settlements like kicking a sick puppy.

No sarcasm here. A genuine feeling. Hate? Dismay more like it. Heaping the rationale for their actions makes it the more unpalatable. On a par with my dismay with our MI oligarches, who have it all rationalized as well. Too many get-off on killing. US leads the world in outright killing in this century. Israel doubtless in 2nd place. Bibi's spike in the eye re peace will assure more of the same.

So yes, I'm predictably negative, sarcastic, and pessimistic. Sanity dictates as much - at a minimum.

BENEZRAA  10/28/2010 10:38 PM Report

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING, ROBDVERITY"

There is no hysteria in me, just humor -- or did you miss that? I find it hillarious (but, not hysterically so) that you avow atheism, are predictably negative, sarcastic, and pessimistic, and that you cite the Bible to bolster yourself. As to the use of capitals, I habitually commence a post with a word or statement as something of an headline, and at times to signify non-English phrase or to emphasize a word or a title. Your sarcasm is not obvious. Writing is a very different media than sound and sight, where intonation and body language complete a larger picture. Perhaps, if I review some of your writing from the perspective of sarcasm, then I will find that you are not the Israel hating broken record I have thought you to be.... Or that indeed you are! In this media it is not clear and obvious, where you say what you mean, and where you are being sarcastic -- which you may perhaps regard as a triumph.

robdverity  10/28/2010 02:26 AM Report

You're sounding hysterical Ben. My citation of the bible was duly attributed - hence not my own - indeed sarcasm is in there somewhere. Capitalized ACTIONS to avoid just such confusion. Alas.

BENEZRAA  10/27/2010 09:34 PM Report

SO... AS AN ATHEIST PROMOTING PESSIMISM, YOU CITE BIBLICAL PESSIMISM TO BOLSTER YOUR PROMOTION OF PESSIMISM?

There's gotta be a joke there somewhere! Sounds like a form of ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM combined with ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM, which for the sake of brevity may be called ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM AD HOMINEMINEMINEMINEMINEM... (oops).

robdverity  10/27/2010 12:47 AM Report

Ahh Ben, such an idealist. Those in the know cite its very Biblicality as proof of its inevitability. As an atheist mankinds ACTIONS are more of a credible prophet re its inevitability.

BENEZRAA  10/26/2010 08:11 PM Report

ARMAGEDDON IS NOT INEVITABLE

Man has the free will to transform the world for good or for evil. Prophecy is never written in stone, and even stone is temporary. Never give up, not to blind optimism, not to blind pessimism. By all means, do bring children into even this world!

robdverity  10/26/2010 05:35 PM Report

Our children, theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs and theirs . . . ad infinitum till the self-fulfilling Armageddon arrives. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

BENEZRAA  10/25/2010 09:36 PM Report

WHO REINSURES THE GOVERNMENT, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENT, HAVING REINSURED THE PRIVATE SECTOR?

This is the elephant in the economic room, and I offer no answer, only the question.

BENEZRAA  10/25/2010 09:34 PM Report

STEEPED IN DOGMA...

...Robdverity, you limit your thinking and you prohibit your transcendent capabilities. When it comes to Democrats and Republicans, think less in terms of 'either/or' and think more in terms of 'either/and'. You may enjoy the melting away of rote dogmatic reaction as well as the melting away of much unnecessary anger as you may see things more clearly, for better and for worse.

robdverity  10/25/2010 05:55 PM Report

Point re Rubin, but he has the ideology of a Republican, being instrumental in repealing Glass-Steagall, which helped propel the Big-Boy gluttony; which sorely needs some significant incarcerations. Starting with Rubin and all of Citigroup front office for last decades. They're all scumbags - and that's just for openers.

A culture that spawns and supports the destruction of the world's financial system with impunity deserves what it is obviously getting. And will doubtless last for decades. The foreclosure mess rumbles on.

Anarchy is overdue. Venality and corruption are too ingrained for the laws and the courts to work. Particularly with this pro-bus. court. Open class warfare would be refreshing compared to the status quo.

BENEZRAA  10/24/2010 08:38 PM Report

POLITICAL PARTIES AND CAPITALISM

Robert Rubin is a Democrat. Wall Street supports Democrats and Republicans. Wealthy people need protections from the poor as much as poor people need protection from the rich. This is no solace to a poor, powerless person or family in real time. Not all of life is a Tulip craze. But, there are those, who may never smell roses, let alone tiptoe thru the tulips, and they will be both Democrats and Republicans.

robdverity  10/24/2010 04:53 PM Report

CATASTOPHIC HUMAN INCLINATIONS

Economics is inevitable. It will operate based on the influences impinged on its natural reaction to these influences. In this and other bubbles from the Tulip craze on down, egregious greed is the prime generator. And egregious greed is why regulations are needed.

Republicans condemn the poor for wanting something for nothing such as unemployment compensation, are geometrically times more guilty for wanting few to no regulations. They thrive in tulips, savings&loans, sub-primes, mine disasters, oil-spills, and wars. People die, suffer and become evicted; tsk, tsk not down here in yacht island in tax haven heaven. Wave at Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin et al (and your money) as they glide luxuriously by.

BENEZRAA  10/24/2010 09:20 AM Report

CATASTROPHIC ECONOMICS

When blind wise men explore an elephant in order to describe it, even the best descriptions are partial, and the question is, does the elephant enjoy the process?

None of us may step outside the universe and see the "elephant" objectively. On the other hand, wise or stupid, we blind men are condemned to do our best to do the impossible. So I add my own violation of the elephant to these comments, all of which I have so far found to be interesting and meritorious, even when in apparent contradiction to each other.

If there is no school of economics based on a fundamental concept of economic catastrophe, there should be. More often than not and certainly in our time, real economics appears to be catastrophe-driven. It doesn't matter whether or not one is piled higher and deeper in degrees and certifications, or merely a graduate or even a student in the "school of hard knocks" -- a tidal wave is a tidal wave, a hurricane is a hurricane, an oil spill is an oil spill, a war is a war, etc. Either one suffers directly or one suffers indirectly -- and some may yet profit and prosper.

Whether operated by the private sector or by the government sector or by both, insurance is insurance, is a social contract only as good as the moral fiber and integrity of it's participants, and is only as good as the reasonableness of it's balance of premiums to payout of benefits and claims. Printing money may have limited value at some times on some occasions; as a habit it destroys the social contract and may be a moral hazard as destructive as occasionally failing to print money or as destructive as other forms of moral hazard, be they at the highest or the lowest level on the socioeconomic totem pole.

If there is an "elephant in the room" in the public conversation about economic policy, that elephant may be the spectre of deflation and war [civil or international] or even overt totalitarian takeover of government ["covernment", if I may invent a word here]. How much stress from how many stressors can our system tolerate before it implodes? How much foreign policy and making of foreign friends can we afford to conduct by contracting for overseas production at domestic expense? How much squirreling away of financial resources overseas by the mega-wealthy can we afford to fail to uncover and tax? How much distribution of taxes from the shrinking pool of working class and middle class taxpayers can we afford to maintain in order to cover our military costs, educational costs, law enforcement costs, and social welfare costs? How much fertile farm and forest land can we continue to rape in favor of the building of McMansions, as our cities explode outward, analogous to the implosion at the center and then the expanding shockwave of nuclear mushroom clouds? How much talk and no real ameliorative action can we survive?

Tune in again same time same channel....

robdverity  10/23/2010 04:56 PM Report

John your fourth paragraph belies the first three. Plus minimum acceptable sounds pretty draconian. Lloyd Blankfein, CEO Too-clever-by-half, inc. has already set the minimum. It's called unemployment.

JohnGelles  10/22/2010 11:15 PM Report

Liberals generally want greater economic equality and less "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest", natural capitalism -- without powerful middle and working classes, effective unions and bona fide help for those in need.

Conservatives think there is a free market system that will result in maximum attainable average advantage. This result is the best we can achieve. If liberals upset the free market, everyone will be cheated.

America has an overabundance of both liberals and conservatives. You and I on this forum have a duty to find a compromise that avoids the worst outcomes-- such as the one we have had from 2007 until this moment.

One helping thought I offer is to forget average income and wealth statistics and FOCUS on the minimum acceptable standard of living and the maximum degree of certainty that everyone has a decent job that offers personal identity and claim on our time to keep us away from despair and antisocial acts.

Is the above a "Nanny State"? Not if we can make it a democracy worth your own approval.

robdverity  10/22/2010 07:16 PM Report

Capitalism skewed the wealth to the top 1%. What so admirable about that? Egregious greed makes regs mandatory in capitalism elst (im)moral hazard a certainty. Socialism (gasp, choke) might blunt the knee-jerk against them, knowing they're there to check the predatory exploitations of the gun-slinging capitalists. If socialism ever becomes fashionable in the US, it will be because of the abuse by capitalists themseves.

As long as the culprits (bankers, realtors et al) of the world-wide fiscal decimation are not imprisoned, fiduciary operations will continue to falter for years if not decades. Madoff needs company.

Without real jail terms it becomes a defacto cultural acceptance. Making the next bubble well deserved. Or even an overt move towards socialistic effects.

And you know they're all Republicans.

DavLev  10/22/2010 05:23 PM Report

I majored in economics in a major universtiy. I did receive my degree..and had 24 units of business administration. My career was in accounting, and enforcement. I know something when I see it. He is a socialist, pure and simple. He, is nothing more than a sociologist..desquised in economic theories. The federal budget is 4.5 trillion, with a 1.5t dollar deficit. The US population owes itself 13t. Our GDP is 14.5 trillion. Do tha math and make the comarisons..public and private. In California, one-third of the GDP is from the government.

Not all of us warrant or deserve the salaries of professional ( who require years of schooling), sports figures (the few), or successful CEOs like Whitman and Fiorina. Some people should only earn the minimum wage.

So what? They can get food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing and free medical care. We have fulfilled our obligations.

I wanted to be a major league baseball player at one time.

I didnt have the talent. I turned to tennis, but failed there similarly. Finally I got the message, I aint Derek

Jeter.

Anyway you look at it, we are ina socialistic state.

And to rub salt, now we have to support everyone with medical benefits. The past Presidents wre correct about health..our Obama is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Rich people have an obligation to support everyone else?

Why? They are already taxed at 35% and going to 40# of their income. Add the state..city, hidden...why work?

If they wantto save, that's their business. Eventually their assets will be converted..by beneficiaries. So savings are never permanent. There are no pockets in heaven guys.

Who got murdered in the economic fiasco, the righ.

They lost trillions in net worth. People who purchaed homes for 500,000, making 30,009 year, gambled. Some lost.

What we need is less government,but more efficient government. I mean, who supports the Democrats, the unions, and why? They know who butters their bread..huge pension benefits and lack of transparency , impossible to fire,

and quick to hire.

If I had my way, I would tax professors of economics

a surtax...lest say 25\ and increase the capital gains

tax on their novel profits.

Speakking of capital gains, does anyone know of anyone

who made tremendous profits on the sale of their condo,

townhouse, etc., while we were still in the bubble?

Last I looked, 500,000 is exempt.

REMant  10/22/2010 04:25 PM Report

Publish or perish, I guess, but you'd think he'd have made up his mind before he wrote the first book. It is simply not possible for an economy to be successful in the long run that does not have a balanced distribution of wealth, as I've said several times in the past 2-3 years. One stumbling block is the creation of credit not supported by savings, ie, inflation, which increases the wealth of those owning things, but another is the tendency for govt to give ppl money they do not deserve. We do both with alacrity, and we mistake ownership for wealth. Commodities and real estate as we discovered recently depend on the use to which they can be put. Owners can be as nasty as they want, but they won't get very far if banks don't manufacture money. They'll have to pay their workers enough to buy their products. The workers therefore will be in a stronger position politically. Which is why, to be honest, I think the neocon types like monetarism so much. I'm sure Messr's Bernanke, Yellen and company would protest, but they are deceiving themselves, and just as they did in the past decade, and the inflationists did in the 1930's.

The Clinton years were relatively successful, because Greenspan persuaded him to balance the budget, and because Rubin persuaded him to maintain a strong dollar. It had nothing at all to do with Mr Keynes. Of course, we also had some products ppl wanted around the globe. The world's "largest" economy notwithstanding, our exports have not kept pace with our imports, and our financial and service sector do not make up for it. To be sure the Chinese are helping labor, even by exploding the American real estate mkt, much as it did the PC mkt, but, as a laid-off worker once remarked on TV: "What am I supposed to do, move to China?" The answer is no, we need to move China here.

We need precisely - despite Krugman's animosity - "tough love." I have no idea myself why Obama has not put it across. He seems to have started out that way. But the bank bailouts and the healthcare sausage certainly sent the wrong msg. Not only that, but they exacerbate the problem with the wealth and income gap, working against the very thing we need to be doing for workers.