Charlie Rose

vongleichent  02/28/2012 08:07 AM Report

Let's hope I all have some time to read his book.

niceguy  03/08/2011 09:57 PM Report

first of all his first book did not predict the "financial crisis" and second of all it was simply incorrect, not to mention he was a piss poor trader

charlizecourriers  03/05/2011 03:13 PM Report

Guest Rule Number One: Thou shall not critize Lady Ben! Guest Rule Number Two: Thou shall not name Lady Ben,Tiny Tim or Loony Larry!! Guest Rule Number Three: Remember you are talking to the Avatar of The Establishment!!! Guest Rule Number Four: Understand that the Host never pays for anything!!!! Guest Rule Number Five: Obeisance precedes competency!!!!! Final Guest Rule:Flat equals Flatulence.

msipos  03/04/2011 04:51 PM Report

A very smart man. No question I agree we need more in reserves and equity in our complex system today. Questions in my mind are how is it he like Europe so much when the banks there are more under capitalized than the US? Basel is a complete failure. Also, if all save then who invests for our future? All debt is not bad debt---but I would agree spending today is more consumption/short term oriented than in the past....

doodah  03/04/2011 09:42 AM Report

Watching this interview a second time, the Professor made a lot more sense to me. And his advise should be heeded.

JohnGelles  03/04/2011 01:56 AM Report

Is it fair to the President who stayed with major decisions of the nation when he was elected and tried to change what had to be changed but not too much -- to tar him for this. I am disappointed that both he and Taleb fail to see the need to put jobs ahead of budgets. But his caution is not to be condemned in wholesale terms.

I will agree that we should have a better President. One who demanded the jobs we need and the protection of our troops with massive industrial output of robotic defensive weapons. I fault him for this. I will vote for a better candidate if one shows up.

His similarity to Bush on many matters is not bad per se. He did reduce foreign animus. And he did avoid a great depression so far.

JohnGelles  03/04/2011 01:07 AM Report

Doodah and MacCallister basically have it right. Nassim Taleb contradicted himself when he praised equity swaps for unpayable debt as early as possible and, simultaneously, approved of belt tightening in the UK when both equity-for-debt swapping must be followed by heavy Keynesian investments (and deliberate protections of currency from inflation that are nowhere being tried.)

Equity is ownership above debt -- if there is a current price for any asset (like a home, a farm, a ship, or any going concern, etc.), that exceeds all that the asset's sale must repay to a lender before the equity owner gets any cash.

By this definition and financial concept, which is an invention of the law (and can be changed by law,) America has full equity in every American property that is pledged to repay dollars: this because dollars are defined as legal tender and not gold, silver or oil, etc. So America has the cash to buy all the equity in sight and not worry about public or private debt.

But the story does not end there.

If America is forced to monetize dollar debt, it will have to be prepared to PRODUCE all its money will have to buy thereafter. This will be relatively easy, because IF it can produce all it needs, (and it can,) all other producing nations will similarly begin to consign debt to its proper role as a means to spread the wealth rationally -- and not in so corrupt and twisted a manner as to render it unpayable -- with the role of being a monkey wrench jammed into the gears of industry.

If we do restart our great production machine, with American know-how, spirit and hard work, and to monetize all unpayable debt, we will be obliged, as well, to prevent any crippling inflation threatening to follow.

This will require inflation protection of dollar savings to encourage that type of rational reduction in spending that Nassim Taleb really meant to praise.

All other spending -- really investing -- in revolutionary new fuel, materials, machines that think, etc., will have to be made by LOOSENING all clothing (even belts) that cannot accommodate our huge new muscles that JOHN HENRY had -- like Abe Lincoln (before lawyer-ing) -- when rails had to be split.

So let us be clear: to minimize wages and maximize short term unearned profit our economic system saw fit to export work and income related to it. That period of job loss and plunder by anti-full employment Keynesian thought, is OVER. We will do our own laundry, design and build our own future. And we will help others learn to do the same.

There was a time when men did it all and machines did not exist. We did not then need a monetary system of production.

Now we do need such systems. But they must serve the needs of all of us -- because machines are fully capable of doing just that.

The urgent need for selfishness is gone. Excellence, hard work and genius are needed like never before. But they do not have to be bought at the price of poverty, disease and unemployment. They can be bought with common sense, common decency, and common people whose children are just uncommon enough to respond to our best effort -- if we can keep from destroying their curiosity, good nature and talent by a lack of real love and real money for all children not just our own. When in doubt, build more and smaller schools -- where good conduct is the norm and there is no such thing as a pessimistic outlook.

robdverity  03/04/2011 12:20 AM Report

Obama epitomizes the Black Swan phenom. A Demo (in name only) adopted Bush policies in Iraq, Af-Pak and the financial crisis. In short a total asshole (black or white; swan or pigeon). He'll be reelected - but on emotions, not merit.

doodah  03/03/2011 07:59 PM Report

I just had an epiphany, this gentleman would make a great Director of FEMA, provided there are no disasters.

doodah  03/03/2011 07:44 PM Report

This gentleman obviously wasn't reading the Washington Post in the Winter and Spring of 2008. When they were reporting that Paulson, Bernanke AND Geitner were meeting Daily for Lunch! And they all three were on HIGH ALERT (staying in touch regularly with cell phones on bike rides and at baseball games) They KNEW that the inevitable was about to happen and they chose to manage it with a crisis, by throwing a panic party to scare the American public's wealth and/or welfare into the hands of Goldman Sachs & 'Associates' (their kind of people).

I have no idea what this gentleman is talking about; it sounds like meaningless pie in the sky 'deep thoughts'.

JLRmapman  03/03/2011 05:33 PM Report

Charlie should have focused on his new book which is full of very insightful nuggets rather than asking (yawn!) what caused the financial crisis. We all missed out on a much better interview

NeilMacCallister  03/03/2011 05:29 PM Report

Thank you Mr. Rose for these 18 mins of someone other than the usual coterie of Reich, Krugman, Friedman, and Geithner!

I love this author's recommendation that we lash ourselves to the mast of the tried-and-true: Aphorisms such as "Don't spend money you don't have" hold more proven wisdom than all the math-modeled conjectures dusted across Ivory Tower blackboards.

Don't monetize the debt. And please stop concentrating the fate of 300-million-and-growing Americans into the hands of a constantly rotating group of 4-year appointees with a vision de jour. Let the market decide, and let the buyers (..investors!) beware.

REMant? ..if you are saying that banks should retain more of the publics money deposits, rather than loaning out the vast majority, ..then I agree that is a step in the right direction. But especially: Shouldn't investment banks raise the minimum margin requirement far above 50%? Why should an investor get to borrow from my deposit to gamble themselves a portfolio they could not afford if they had to spend their own money?

Isn't that the kind of risk Mr. Taleb is advising against?

Lastly, ..can someone explain the "debt/equity swap" that these gentlemen advocate? What "equity" do we have to trade to China, or other offshore investors, in exchange for the bonds they hold? What "equity" does the Federal Government own??? ..Yosemite? ..the Grand Canyon?? ..Mt. Rushmore??? ..an Alaskan Oil field????

Shouldn't we just not borrow-and-spend so much?

robdverity  03/03/2011 04:10 PM Report

Restore trust by indicting the top 20 of the too-big-to-fail bankers (and Hank Paulson et al). We'll get a 2nd chance later if we don't do it now.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/03/2011 02:18 PM Report

Here's the deal:

There was too much trust. People didn't understand the system but it was making a ton of money so they got on board.

Now the trust is gone and yet the money was given back to those who are no longer trustworthy.

So yes, let's hold our money and keep our two kidneys because the crooks are running the show.

TRUST! Restore trust please!

REMant  03/03/2011 11:15 AM Report

It seems he could use a better acquaintance with monetary economic theory, in particular the difference between the Austrian and Keynesian views. What he is saying. I believe, is that money, because it is credit and somebody's debt, is necessarily risk, and therefore the more there is, the more risk there is. What we actually need is 100% fractional reserves, so that only the entrepreneurial risk remains. The problem with that is the transition will mean a huge price deflation, tho it should vastly increase the purchasing power of savings. Because it is the only way to really turn things and around, we will eventually have to do it anyway, and it doesn't necessarily mean vast unemployment. He's certainly right about Greenspan's and Bernanke's stupid idea of moderation and resilience. That there was a surplus of 3rd world savings, is pure Keynesianism, and China, for the umpteenth time, can only be said to oversave with reference to a theory that defines savings as printing money. If there really had been all those savings lying around, China wouldn't have needed "stimulus." As it is, they have probably mortgaged their future for our benefit for which we could at least appear grateful.