Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/10/2011 02:02 PM Report

A tale of two Scientists . . .

Here is the other: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7463058.html

Russia did not pay their scientists enough to survive so Houston was able to pick up great talent.

Yet we just lost Sir Paul Nurse because the UK gets the importance of funding science. As Paul said, even with the UK's austerity budget science is fully funded because science is best seen as a long term investment. It is the basis of innovation and innovation is the basis of economic growth.

We have to keep our eye on the ball! We lost Paul and our Houston hero (link above) had to offer to work for free before he got anyone's attention.

JohnGelles  03/08/2011 05:17 AM Report

I have just watched David Brooks and CR talk for THE hour. I was in bed. It was from 12 midnight to 1 am. It did not play on my usual Channel 24 (southern California) at 11 pm, so I had to wait the extra hour to see it Channel 50.

Brooks is a fast talker who appears on TV all the time. He is a liberal conservative or conservative liberal. I agree with him most of the time.

I wish the CR show could time the show and the website to allow this comment to be in his page: but he covered ideas not much different than would have fitted neatly into the Nurse discussions.

Anyway, from Amazon I can give you a brief account of his topic this night: "The Social Animal". The SA is the new book by Brooks which as the at the heart of the discussion tonight:

===== begin copied text from Amazon.com =====

[COPYRIGHT NOTE: The text copied by Gelles herein below is presented at the teachable moment for non-commercial purposes. It is from material offered for free on the internet and further circulated here for free. This use is permitted as an exception to any copyright that may be involved. It adds value to the text by bringing attention to it to a wider audience.]

From the Amazon.com Review

Guest Reviewer: Walter Isaacson on The Social Animal

...

David Brooks has written an absolutely fascinating book about how we form our emotions and character. Standing at the intersection of brain science and sociology, and writing with the wry wit of a James Thurber, he explores the unconscious mind and how it shapes the way we eat, love, live, vacation, and relate to other people.

In The Social Animal, he makes the recent revolution in neuroscience understandable, and he applies it to those things we have the most trouble knowing how to teach: What is the best way to build true relationships? How do we instill imaginative thinking? How do we develop our moral intuitions and wisdom and character?

Brooks has always been a keen observer of the way we live. Now he takes us one layer down, to why we live that way.

--above by-- Walter Isaacson

A Letter from Author David Brooks

© Josh Haner, The New York Times

Several years ago I did some reporting on why so many kids drop out of high school, despite all rational incentives.

That took me quickly to studies of early childhood and research on brain formation. Once I started poking around that realm, I found that people who study the mind are giving us an entirely new perspective on who we are and what it takes to flourish.

We’re used to a certain story of success, one that emphasizes getting good grades, getting the right job skills and making the right decisions. But these scientists were peering into the innermost mind and shedding light on the process one level down, in the realm of emotions, intuitions, perceptions, genetic dispositions and unconscious longings.

I’ve spent several years with their work now, and it’s changed my perspective on everything. In this book, I try to take their various findings and weave them together into one story.

This is not a science book. I don’t answer how the brain does things. I try to answer what it all means. I try to explain how these findings about the deepest recesses of our minds should change the way we see ourselves, raise our kids, conduct business, teach, manage our relationships and practice politics.

This story is based on scientific research, but it is really about emotion, character, virtue and love. We’re not rational animals, or laboring animals; we’re social animals. We emerge out of relationships and live to bond with each other and connect to larger ideas.

===== end of copied text from Amazon.com =====

The topic, then is our mind, conscious and unconscious, and how its use explains a lot about who we are and what we do.

I suppose it explains a lot about Nurse and Rose and what they wanted to say and did say to us about science and the struggle to improve our health and manage our institutions. The two CR shows are very complimentary, IMO.

The Brooks show makes me want to buy the book. Not that I'll know more about why individuals and societies fail to perfect this life in America and planet earth at this time. I already know a lot. And the book is not a manual for political activists. It's more a story of many experiments and what we can learn from the work of experimenters.

In my own field of interest, thought experiments are necessary: we cannot establish test nations and planets for economic experiments. We have to imagine situations in which money is super cheap-- and compare them in a consciously expressed idea of their opposite-- where money is rare and frightfully expensive.

But our unconscious mind will be the source for most of the imagined comparison. Without Brooks, I might have ignored this very important fact.

I am generally sore at CR and his guests for ignoring the need for super-cheap money. But I probably should be more sore that they also ignore the impact of the unconscious on all the ideas they express.

I would like to be reborn into a future world where the successor to CR will have every show accompanied by its copy that translates all its ideas into at least two versions: the original show called the conscious version and its unconscious cousin that teases out the truth about all the unintended lies it broadcasts.

Is the CR show all about progress? Or is it all about me. "Me" meaning me, you, him and his guests. The unconscious contrasts with the super-ego in this matter. The latter involves a subjective search for progress. The former cares less for progress. Brooks and Nurse may think cheap money will not mean progress. And they not me may be right. But I don't think so. Why would Brooks write a book whose digital version has a marginal cost of zero cents and price it more than a cent. Why? Because he and CR have not been thinking enough about cheap money.

Instead, they are focused more on the brain than the best way to engage 7 billion brains in the latest knowledge around -- that deserves our attention and action?

blank  03/08/2011 04:15 AM Report

okay sorry i used to get terrified watching doctor who but i was addicted to it it was my favorite tv show that i could remember the first tv show i ever watched but i'll stay off of youtube there was this door and they went in and it was like another planet and there were these alien monsters and they would escape from the room and get into the regular area and would be walking around and nobody would know that they were in there that's what made me the most scared but now i gotta stay away from all sound effects cuz they make me go crazy

the interview above was really cool i really liked it it would be cool if he could have further elaborated on what he's been researching and go with that

in my mind this is like a private room i don't mean to inflict anything on anybody

cancer is a serious issue i think to be free to pursue ideas and to work on them in a substantial way enact in reality what is going on in your head so that your thoughts can move forward and your life interacts with both your thoughts and your actions is the only way to live

otherwise it's death hypothesis or an idea of something in the future it's a cumulative effect with the results starting to occur at around age 35 and why raise the chance even if it were only raising it .1% it isn't just .1% if that results in death it's really 0% or 100% pick one or the other or survive and get totally messed up

and i take it seriously in a sense though i'm completely distracted i was ready to kill the psychiatrists that's all i could think about

my idea is not to push it and take that line it just doesn't make sense to me it's not like a metaphor for something theoretical or emotional it's as literal as it gets talk about going crazy it's like zero relaxation and then to take away prevent anything or any opportunities that take away and lead towards being relaxed just the idea of well at least i did the best i could

it's like everything interacts in a complex way trying to understand it and have a more complete picture doesn't actually help in itself if you can't do anything about it to be able to move yourself into a better position react to it and respond additionally to that which you can't fully comprehend till you get there or even if you could to be required to try to decode morse code of what's going on in somebody else's mind for your whole life instead of really doing anything about it

you can't just have everything theoretical and leave it at that and expect to really get anywhere with that alone

blank  03/08/2011 03:12 AM Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4On0uLqH_I

JohnGelles  03/08/2011 02:57 AM Report

Certainly the commentators on this site are not in the same category as the GUESTS at Charlie's famous table (round, oval or what-shaped--I just can't remember).

The GUESTS are celebrated to some degree. The commentators are self-selected party crashers.

REMant is the most invited. In this day's product he mentioned:

"... labor is cheaper [in China], but it is so only because our monetary policy has inflated wages here, not because our talent commands them. And certainly, if people don't work, they can't innovate."

REMant implies, I believe, that American products would sell in greater numbers here (and abroad) if labor inputs cost in money what they would cost in fact (were money a perfect measure of relative value in the long run of time and wide area of human habitation on Earth).

Such greater imagined sales volume would contribute to greater economic stability -- an outcome desired by people who have to eat and would appreciate food and other necessities in exchange for their time on the job.

All of this may be true. And I think Nurse and Rose should have developed solutions to the problem of price and long term effect of price in our current economic crises.

Health will forever be an issue. But if we do not solve problems of employment and global trade, we will soon have cause to worry that war, crime and corruption will do us in before disease and accident can take their toll of innocent lives.

There is much to be said for growing old -- all of it bad. Tomorrow Ray Kurzweil may develop some of it. As friendly and wise as Nurse was, I come away empty despite all their smiling talk. What was great about Nurse and Rose? Nothing. But there was the hint that given enough time they might have had something to say. Oh yes: "a good leader is not bossy -- he tends to bring out the creative powers of those he leads at work."

blank  03/08/2011 02:42 AM Report

http://www.vevo.com/watch/kylie-minogue/askreply/GB0401100010

RegularViewer  03/08/2011 01:52 AM Report

Again .... just the best hour on TV. Paul Nurse .... what an amazing man, and such a great conversation. Thanks, Charlie.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/07/2011 10:02 PM Report

Loved this:

SIR PAUL NURSE:

'Life is an information management machine. It’s managing all this information. And that’s the best way we can think about what life is in defining life.

DNA, the structure of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, beautiful structure, but actually what’s really beautiful about it is when you recognize it’s actually a digital memory device. That’s what it actually is.'

My response is one word: Watson. IBM will make his children or his grandchildren our information management machine--but with facts and only with a great probability of correctness--we will still need experts for nuance. Much of life is theory and the facts can be cherry picked. The data should be challenged and made less or more secure. If you challenge and challenge a theory it should get better and better if it survives.

We still have so much "truthiness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness to sort and will probably need snopes.com to help us for decades.

blank  03/07/2011 08:00 PM Report

i think it's important not to underestimate the seriousness of the cancer issue

REMant  03/07/2011 10:54 AM Report

The birth certificate story is a riot. And yes, it is very "Victorian." I read or saw a murder mystery with a plot like that not long ago, but can't put my finger on it. Ruth Rendell, I believe.

A smart board of university trustees, IMHO, would put a good teacher in charge of undergrads, and a good researcher of the grad school, not expect faculty to be good at both, and try as much as possible to relieve them of logistical worries. Good management is not ordering ppl around, but enabling them to do their jobs, as he said. It's almost axiomatic, however, that the best teachers and scholars shirk university management positions, and the worst seek them out.

Not all institutions of higher education are much like Rockefeller University, a preeminent research organization. Nor, it must be said, are many professors the kind of self-questioning individuals he mentions. Far too many of them never question anything, much less the discipline's presuppositions for fear of damaging their careers - there's a reason why they call them disciplines - and never read or know anything outside of it. Every now and then someone comes along who borrows or re-invents something from another field and is hailed by the ignoramuses as a great innovator, which should be funny, if in fact, there were ppl in a position to realize it.

I would not characterize life as an information management machine, but simply an information machine. It is not designed to do anything; it is design itself. The idea is not new tho, the Stoics developed it, and the division between skeptical-materialist-voluntarist-Catholic-monarchical views and Platonic-Stoic-Muslim-Protestant-republican ones long-standing. The idea of a separate mover, like Newton's God, who does things, is one of the former, Bergson's elan vital, one of the latter. You find the same division between mercantilists and free-traders.

Objectivity is slipperier, I think, than he makes out, and I believe the global warming critics have made a lot of points eluding the scientists. Most of these are historical, philosophical and matters of interpretation, which, as I said, are not academics' strong points. For myself, I think the critics are wrong, but it doesn't negate the fact that there was a rush to judgment, even some fiddled results, nor does it answer the question of the value of climate equilibrium, the main argument against it being that the Bible says "Go forth and multiply," a distinctly voluntarist view, and only justifiable by the notion that it is the business of God to have ideas, if there are such, not men. My own idea is that the earth tends toward an increasingly stable equilibrium, but that our species has probably set things back some, however, I'm thinking it may recover all by itself, through increased volcanic and other seismic activity triggered by the warming of the earth's crust and melting of the ice caps. But I'm not sure we will like that very much.

The Chinese, of course, point to their discovery of porcelain, gunpowder, paper and printing, compass, and so forth - Marco Polo still makes absorbing reading - but that may just be a function of time. (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions) On the other hand, I doubt science can be driven exclusively by desire or profit. There are a lot of ppl tho who think America was never really any good at it, and that we have relied in that regard largely on immigration and espionage. We were once better at applied science and engineering, I think, than we are now, but still I'd have to say our strength has always lain there, which, I believe, tho has followed the growth of the market. The difference, however, between research and application, I don't think lies in the idea that the former is somehow undirected or merely speculative as is often said, but that it requires synthesis to come up with new ideas, which, while application provides the fodder for it, engineers, etc, are not often in a very good position to accomplish. While it is always best to have single individuals do both if possible, as in politics and trade, the issue of size and scope is important in R & D, which brings us back to the question of interdisciplinary arrangements. In any case, the main reason we buy from China, is, of course, because labor is cheaper there, but it is so only because our monetary policy has inflated wages here, not because our talent commands them. And certainly, if ppl don't work, they can't innovate.

CarolJ  03/07/2011 10:53 AM Report

1. I believe you can purchase a CR program on Amazon.com, also check CR website, there use to be a buy button.

2. When the program is completely on the website you can view by clicking on the picture or go to the right and a little below and click on the text of that episode.

3. I noticed if CR has 2 or more interviews in 1 program, the last interview is usually on the site before previous interviews of the evening.

doodah  03/07/2011 08:21 AM Report

JohnG -

If I'm starting to understand this right, in order for your 'full employment with price stability' to work, the nation MUST adopt a WAR-like mentality/Motivation. Which probably CAN be done without starting a real war with the use of NanoTechnology, for example, we could possibly install NanoChips into the brains of our 'Sanitation Engineers' so that they feel a sense of Euphoria everytime they pick up somebody's garbage. They will enjoy the sensation so much (more than sex and food), they will end up competing with each other so much (Donald Trump will love this) They will end up paying you or I to pick up our garbage.

That may be an exaggeration, because the desire levels can be tweaked, which will have to be, it would be inhuman to have them fight and kill to win the prize (pick up garbage).

This is all in the beginning developing phase which offers great hope and opportunity for the future. (esp. if you're paying for donald trump's exorbitant rents).

doodah  03/07/2011 07:29 AM Report

"Niall Ferguson -- the dumbest of the bunch." - Yeah, he's a Scatter-Brain Buffoon. A poor excuse for 'Academia'.

"Matthew Forstater", I never heard of this dude. Charlie Rose should interview him.

doodah  03/07/2011 07:29 AM Report

"Niall Ferguson -- the dumbest of the bunch." - Yeah, he's a Scatter-Brain Buffoon. A poor excuse for 'Academia'.

"Matthew Forstater", I never heard of this dude. Charlie Rose should interview him.

JohnGelles  03/07/2011 01:11 AM Report

Dear Blank,

Sorry you missed Nurse. You will be able to see him on Bloomberg TV all next week.

Anyway you missed nothing.

Fareed Zakaria tried to tell America how to solve its problems tonight on CNN GPS show.

You again missed nothing.

The problem is people know that only work (on the job for decent pay) can produce the goods and services we need now to beat poverty and scarcity and our propensity for war.

Only if we do the work can we in the future have the automated systems to let machines do the work while we enjoy the fruits of such a situation.

So how do you get people to do the work NOW. You pay them good money and they salt it away in savings accounts until all shelves are full and prices are right. The accounts must be protected from inflation by COLA's.

So why don't we do it?

Because conservatives (and even some liberals) won't print the money to start things off.

These idiots think money cannot be used to win a war against poverty. So they keep us unemployed and poor and fighting with each other.

Or you can blame ordinary voters. They allow the rich to buy the law to keep us poor.

Or you can blame Charlie Rose.

As between Zakaria and Rose, who is worst? Both.

They love Niall Ferguson -- the dumbest of the bunch.

Only Matthew Forstater knows the truth. We must create, manage, spend and save the money. It will procure the hands-on work.

The work will make the products.

The products will solve the problems of infrastructure, energy, education, innovation, etc.

In due course what was saved can be spent by workers.

Thereafter we will need an economy managed by logistical engineers not crooked lawyers and bankers.

There can be many variations on the themes above. But there cannot be government afraid to manage full employment budgets. In due course, most work will be automated and jobs will be more like playing ball in the park than working your fingers to the bone.

Keynes had it right. Manage the money and at least there will be no idle time. Never expect the money to manage itself. It has no mind or will of its own. It's only a product of the law which is a product of human reason.

Without reason and purpose money causes nothing but trouble. Nurse spoke little about money and mostly about science and curiosity. But all that was his error. He did say that money drove the apparatus once curiosity was aroused. And, no matter what he said, everyone knows that the curiosity of genius is precious. And that once that curiosity produces answers, the products common people need for use as tools and for income to workers will be constrained by the monetary system of production voters keep around.

We had a near perfect system in use to win WW II. Republicans gutted it in favor of non-systems that do not work. We will return to purposeful government or be done in by events. And you do not need You Tube to know that.

blank  03/06/2011 09:46 PM Report

http://www.slate.com/id/2286010/

the internet makes this a lot harder if not next to impossible

blank  03/06/2011 09:00 PM Report

i'm pretty much going to eliminate youtube from my life i quit for about a month and things improved a lot i'm just going to tune out and go into some other place i'm just going to watch the charlie rose show i feel stupid for not watching this episode when i had the chance i'm going to fix my life

http://www.adventureswithinreach.com/

hiking has been pretty fun i want to go on adventures by biking too i like being out in nice places

blank  03/06/2011 05:46 PM Report

i can't watch this it doesn't play on any of my browsers (safari, firefox, chrome, opera) originally it would start playing on the intro page only www.charlierose.com and i was just going to watch it there but then it stopped working there too it just stays like this forever now

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5982/screenshot20110306at309.png

with the circle thing next to the Ready... rotating

it used to work on the intro page (earlier this morning) so i'll try a different internet connection somewhere else later though i can look at youtube and other stuff with this internet connection right now and that stuff works

it never worked here with the google player

there are other times in the somewhat recent past i couldn't get shows to play when it was the google player

also the other flowplayer shows play fine right now with this internet connection

JohnGelles  03/06/2011 04:30 PM Report

As usual, I've got typos.

Charlie had in mind that the world IS at the beginning ...

I left out the IS.

And CR show software left out post-send editing -- at least for 24 hours.

JohnGelles  03/06/2011 04:27 PM Report

Marv commented:

..... I can hardly imagine a better way to spend an hour. A truly fascinating conversation that touched on SO MANY topics in a truly engaging way. Awesome program!

Gelles was not satisfied:

SO MANY TOPICS -- yes, too many yet not enough.

Charlie had in mind that the world at the beginning of something different. American money is under stress. And its leadership in science and industry is seriously threatened. Its native born PHD pool may be insufficient to prove the effectiveness of our culture. In fact, our culture may be our problem: too much corruption, too much anti-intellectual power on K Street and holding office, too many lawyers and crooked bankers, too few Keynesian believers to put our money where our muscle still can work.

Rockefeller University is no match for China, Russia, India and Brazil. It is not even for match European industry and science. It was among the best of institutions of its kind. But, unless these fountains of PHD thought can inform lawmakers and our executive authorities of how to think about government and private investments when things are not going our way, they become a major part of the problem as solutions are not even surfaced.

Here is what Nurse should have said, when instead he claimed he was no economist:

..... "You know Charlie many of our brightest lawmakers and leaders in engineering, industry and the sciences (both academics and entrepreneurs) believe -- if we borrow from China and other lenders we are looking for trouble -- and if we don't, we're already in more trouble than we can handle.

"Now they never say, 'You know when they lend us back our money (spent to buy their stuff) they expect us to sell them stuff in the future to clear the debt.'

"Instead they say, 'We're going to bankrupt our posterity.'

"Now that is unfair to everyone who hears it. THEY MUST BE EXPECTING TO BUY OUR STUFF WITH THE MONEY WE OWE THEM. And the only question to ask is, will the price be fair when they buy it and we're mo longer in debt.

"Certainly they will want to buy that stuff and not just get paper dollars.

"Certainly they will buy that stuff and not get just NOTHING AT ALL.

"So the whole pile of baloney about austerity NOW, that Nurse and Rose left hanging unanswered, amounts to WILL THE WORLD'S PRODUCERS REFUSE TO SELL US STUFF FOR OUR MONEY?

"This in turn means no more than WILL WE BE PREPARED TO BUY ALL WE NEED AT HOME.

.

Why did Nurse and Rose fail us in this urgent matter? Are they unsure of how to answer the questions we pay them for knowing the sure answers?

You say we pay them nothing? You say their underwriters pay their bills? Baloney. We pay CR all he has. Only we don't know it. We are as stupid as stupid gets. But we're smart enough to watch when we should be sleeping. Pardon me while I take gas and go to visit Galbraith and Buckley in HELL for leaving us too soon.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/05/2011 06:32 PM Report

Emmy for the interview! Thirty minutes longer and Best Picture nomination--quite the story arc.

Why did you let him get away? He is the perfect example of an immigrant who we need in America.

Green card? He should have had the "Golden Ticket".

vlavion55  03/05/2011 04:48 PM Report

Hi, Charley, last night's interview with Sir Paul Nurse was the best. Where can I get a DVD copy of it? And why can I see all other interfviews but this one?..

Oh, those scientists! They can only accept things they can measure and register. They are the people who are standing closer to God than the rest of the by Him (or by Her?)created world. And they ask questions like, where does all that energy come from? Is it not clear? You (the researchers)know it already. The only thing is you have to see the source. Not by means of a man made device, look into you, there only you can find it. And you know it. Just admit it... Worms could live longer, 500-year-old could play tennis. Of course they could, and they will. It'll take a while. Guys, please, just pull up a little bit and look out of the box. Good luck!

Sir Paul, I love you.

JohnGelles  03/05/2011 04:32 PM Report

Taleb, Iger and Nurse discussed philosophy; digitization of news, work and study; and science projects that forecast better individual and collective health.

Charlie has us in as deep as anyone wants to get. On the surface we need jobs in America, allies for the rebels in Libya, and better connections between audiences and the facts and opinions affecting their prospects -- that they want to make from a TV attached to a universe of digitized entries that will converse with each of them as they speak to it as they would to a friend.

So why do we not yet have that TV? Is Iger, Jobs or Obama accountable for what we have that falls short of the above?

I asked for financial mobilization a moment ago. What would that do? It would redefine money from the opposite of debt to the opposite of idleness. It would demand full employment and full satisfaction of supply requirements attached to peace and prosperity (both in fact and as the purpose of budgeting.)

What is our excuse -- considering that we have the means to visit the moon and extinguish any and all hostile populations there and on earth.

We did not have that power when our current beliefs about business and labor were formed. Why do we hesitate to end poverty for the threat to the work ethic such an end may have implied in the past?

On the left it is believed that the rich have kept popular all the mistakes we now make that keep them rich. But I question this. Are the rich not victims of the political majority who refuse to make economic security for all palatable to the few who would want protection of more than an equal share of our current wealth?

Well, is that really so unreasonable? If we had financial mobilization we could triple our output in no time. This would allow us to grandfather much of the wealth of the rich and eliminate poverty overnight,

anne4444  03/05/2011 04:11 PM Report

Thank you, Charlie.

This conversation is just too short.

JohnGelles  03/05/2011 12:04 PM Report

Paul Nurse brings to the table (Charlie's famous table--where the elite meet to eat--old joke--not to eat-- but to beat the problem of survival or, better, winning, to death,) more honors, ideas and credentials than any other living person.

He does not bring a hair-do, and may make you squirm from the humility in his voice and manner. How can one so great a man, intellectually and by virtue of his offices, be so friendly to an audience and his interlocutor? In part it may be that he fears no rival and loves all equal or beneath him in the prestige that comes from doing right and knowing how.

Now I do have very small bone to pick with him. At a key point in the conversation he resisted being taken for an economist. Yet he acknowledged the stages of innovative progress include substantial funding that do not always come from heaven as their needed.

Before giant corporation sponsorship, and nearly unlimited government financial help (to prevent malaria, link the oceans, create nuclear power, pack billions of binary switches close enough to create a better if different brain), etc., genius could commonly self-finance. Now it is rare that progress will arrive that way.

So Nurse must play the economist like it or not. And I have a feeling neither he nor Charlie Rose has done their duty in that direction.

At the current hearing on the bank bailout, too big to fail and Bush-Obama financial deal started by Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner and continued by the current administration, a wise lawmaker commented: our problems are jobs, un-payable mortgages, too little new lending, too little great investment programs and spending, and too timid leadership in a world with too much hurt. All of these are our problems and we in Congress are addressing only the small potatoes of why big institutions lost their moral compasses.

This comment in Congress is addressed also to Nurse and Rose. Nixon said we are all Keynesians now. It wasn't and isn't exactly true. But we are all economists now. Or we shall never be able to address our real problems.

If it's jobs we need, it's jobs we must pay for. The same for green investments that only China seems to address. If giant R&D and far greater downstream investment are necessary, we at Charlie's table and in the audience have got to rise to the occasion and do what the bankers and Geithner balk at: FINANCIAL MOBILIZATION is on the table. LET'S DO IT!

MarvMO  03/05/2011 11:28 AM Report

I can hardly imagine a better way to spend an hour. A truly fascinating conversation that touched on so many topics in a truly engaging way. Awesome program!

Data  03/05/2011 10:29 AM Report

My supervisor has been watching Charlie Rose for tens of years. He thought last night's interview was the best. Where can I get a DVD copy of it? Thanks!

doodah  03/05/2011 09:47 AM Report

His GrandMother and GrandFather raised him as his Mother and Father, and he knew his paternal mom as his sister, and his uncles as his brothers. He doesn't know who his paternal father is, except that he may have been an American Service Man or a Roman Soldier. That's why I think we may be related.

Prudy  03/05/2011 09:29 AM Report

I loved the show last night What a wonderful, modest man

and with a sense of humor. I was a little confused as to

his mother, etc. Kinda mixed up past, but it didn't seem

to bother him. The world is so lucky to have him in the

science field.

Could someone clear up who his mother, sister, are?

THank you.

doodah  03/05/2011 09:01 AM Report

I had an Uncle stationed in Great Briton, it's possible we could be related.

doodah  03/05/2011 09:01 AM Report

I had an Uncle stationed in Great Briton, it's possible we could be related.

doodah  03/05/2011 08:18 AM Report

I could RESPECT, and therefore really work for a Boss like this. Unfortunately for society, most Bosses have their heads up their asses, and so their worlds are pretty much all about that. So sad