Charlie Rose

rd264  10/26/2011 04:30 PM Report

These fellows seem to be basically in agreement with Paul Krugman that there needs to be more stimulus to get demand going, and to do this, we need to get folks back to work through domestic spending in education, infrastructure etc., and that its gonna be hard to do given the rightward drift in the country on either short or long term concerns. No one here seems to know how to get either Congress or the President to agree and act expeditiously on sufficient "intelligent steps" such as noted below by JohnGelles, R. Reich....If I were the President I'd ask these folks and others of course to make recommendations, propose concrete options for action. Maybe Obabma has or is doing so, but I dont see it happening...even now, there is word that the SuperCommittee is floundering.

JohnGelles  07/23/2011 06:57 AM Report

It is now July 23--two weeks+ after the last comment here (on the economy-- and suitable for discussion of "deficit panic" and the Krugman-Brooks discussion of a deal to raise the debt limit before 2 August 2011)".

The most urgent problem considered by Krugman-Brook is jobs and the growth we need for them (which growth is also what such jobs would stimulate).

So we are trapped by "too FEW jobs for growth and too LOW growth for jobs".

The market cannot promote rapid escape from the trap. Only government spending can do that.

Brooks says health care cost is the problem. He ignores the fact that this cost is small in comparison with the means we have to pay it.

Suppose tomorrow we find cures for heart disease and cancer. Assume their cost will double our current dollar health care cost. We could pay it by doubling the output of things that will be bought with the extra money used to cure these two killers. What a bargain!

All that extra business, that the above cost will create, will bring growth and prosperity -- if we have the capacity to produce the things involved.

That is what Brooks should be discussing: How we increase production to pay for solutions to urgent problems.

firefly23  07/07/2011 01:44 AM Report

I often wonder who writes into these comments on the program.

so pompous, so self righteous. So self serving. So few like my own that seem to discuss the incredible depth and insights that are on this show.

They seem to be the kinds of people who if a good idea walked into the room they'd kick it. Only later to find out that idea would have changed their lives. Sharkswithfikinglazars, Chance411, rabunsmith and the rest, whew what incredible hot air.

Charlie Thank you for some great insights! Wish there were more of you!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/17/2011 03:50 AM Report

Robert Reich out does himself in a little more than two minutes:

http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE

Yes, "The Truth About the Economy" is that we are killing the Middle Class.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/17/2011 03:29 AM Report

Robert Reich says it nicely:

"Instead we need to boost demand. For example, exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for the next year. Recreate the WPA to employ the long-term jobless and the Civilian Conservation Corps to give jobs to millions of unemployed young people. Let distressed home owners declare bankruptcy on their primary residence, so they can reorganize their mortgage loans. Call it a second stimulus if you want. Call it chopped liver. It doesn't matter."

I like the chopped liver plan--read more here . . .

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/15/pm-a-second-stimulus-reich-commentary/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/17/2011 03:23 AM Report

Back to Charlie's and Paul Krugman's potholes:

Incredibly Creative Pothole Project . . .

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/incredibly-creative-pothole

Sort of beats a WPA or CCC project.

DrGoose  06/12/2011 10:14 PM Report

Said Krugman, with skeptical wince:

"Employment just doesn't convince;

Though it tumbled off greatly

In 2008, we

Have seen no recovery since."

http://www.limericksecon.com

Chance411  06/11/2011 03:42 AM Report

Wow, David Walker has drunk the coolaid. Type "economy" into youtube and you will see his dire observation of America. Yet here he is begging for more QE and more debt. He is right that it was spend badly, but thats government. Government always spends badly.

Jared Bernstein is an absolute complete idiot. Just yaps and yaps and says nothing. The people listening to this retard can expect no results.

Short term:

The top priority is the mortgage crisis. Whether its a write down or whatever. Find a happy medium and allow capital to flow. The banks and people are crippled as a result of this. Its the number one priority.

No government spending needs to made in infrastructure. That will come with capital flowing to entrepreneurs to get the jobs back.

The jobs will come back if the the american entrepreneurial

spirit is allowed to flow and its crippled with the mortgage crap. If this doesn't happen nationalize the these corrupt entities know as banks and allow capital to flow. Oh and break up these black holes of corrupt debt and make banks actually lend money.

Long term:

Education. Don't build roads, build people. People and cities will build those roads eventually as a natural necessity. Evaluate the German educational system and emulate that. They have it setup to basically breed engineers.

Here is the deal with the US. In order:

CUT MILITARY SPENDING: You are not at war with anyone. There are no world wars with any nation right now. The leaders make believe that there is a war are the result of a military complex.

GET MONEY OUT OF GOVERNMENT: The politicians you elect are public servants not kings. Start protesting and bounce people that do not serve your best interests. If a revolution needs to occur, well get on the ball idiots.

I could write a tome of books about America and how bad it is.

Look US, I speak for the rest of the world. I don't really give a @@@@ about your country as I am Canadian, but your currency is the world reserve currency and thats bad for me and the rest of the world.

If this team of economic experts is the future, then lord help us all.

cocornel  06/09/2011 07:30 AM Report

Where can I find transcripts for this interview - or for other interviews in general?

rabunsmith  06/08/2011 05:00 PM Report

Well, John Gelles, that's a whole load of stuff put in one place, some of it relevant, some of it real, but we need to make things simple. Let's not fall for the gobbledigook of the so called economic experts, who are part of the problem.

Top down - the solutions to our renewed glorious future:

No more economic manipulation. Straight-forward cost cutting and focus on what makes flow-down and kick-up employment creation. No more give-aways to anyone.

Then, no more bail-outs. Period. Let too-big-to-fail fail, and let's cut them down to size. Too bad for them. Citicorp has been bailed out three times, already. No more fanny and freddie manipulation of home ownership for those who cannot afford it. That is just an abhorrent mess on the tax payer's back. This is where the real economic problems fester.

Bottoms up we need an economy that has all its wheels and cogs interacting and greased. That's robust. Yes, Harleys for us and for export. The economic machine cannot be fragile toward import and shipping upsets. Cut off the suez ccanal the panama canal, sabotage of foreign supplies, political arm twisting (like the Chinese monopolists cutting off exports of rare earth materials, as they have to Japan, etc.)and you can guess the impacts on the economy. Hi tech stuff, ARPA, DARPA, of course, that's part of the economic machine. But one-sided focus on 'fad' economics winds up disappointingly, very often. 40,000 green jobs and pot hole filling alone won't do for a recovery. And let's be skeptical with all the environmental alarmism, please. But, here's not the forum to discuss this matter.

Keep things economically simple and robust. Plan for the unexpected 'black swans' - read up about it. That's the stuff promoting pre-planning for the unexpected. Our economy, again, is fragile and we need to fire the Krugmans aand others from influence and messing with our beloved country.

JohnGelles  06/08/2011 02:12 AM Report

Within a month the solution had won the logistical war at sea.

Post-send edit would not hurt this software.

JohnGelles  06/08/2011 02:07 AM Report

rabunsmith~

Thanks for reminding us we are all venting--useless gripes full of internal contradiction and, certainly, contradicting each other -- to net out to zero by way useful analysis.

Harley's? Horse-shit! We need to produce a safe clean domestic energy supply that will get us away from planetary ruination and paying money to foreigners who pay the bills for terrorist operations against us. And we need to lead the world in robotics, AI, nano-tech, biotech, and all the hard sciences via learning games and systems that are demonstrably better than the techniques applied in other nations. And the same for softer sciences and the arts which deal with human affairs where all our troubles start.

Self-deceit bubble? Who lives anywhere else? We are all trapped in our own heads -- and only scientific genius can help us escape our own blind ignorance of the how to define and solve problems whose history is nearly as old as time.

In most cases we are short on supply! Supply of clean water, nutritious food, safe cities, etc. Where we have sufficient supply, we lack monetized demand: money enough to buy all needs that are on sale already. Their price is too high for the needy to buy and too low for producers to stay in business. Capitalism can only cure such imbalances with strategic economic systems that define debt and money as effective tools for progress -- not monkey-wrenches looking to clog all gears.

If we have age old problems, you may be sure we're not looking at them through intelligent eyes and brains.

WW II set the example for pragmatic can do attitudes. Among other things, we had a better balance between capital, labor and political interests require to focus on problem solving and idiocy avoidance.

Operations research was big in WW II. It brought new trained minds to old issues so that past failure to see how to escape error might possibly be skirted. It's most celebrated success was convoy strategy: biologists advised the Navy to maximize the size of convoys. As the perimeter grew by 6 x the radius the inside number of ships grew by the radius x the radius. Thus the escort anti-submarine destroyers at the perimeter became far more effective when two or three convoys were merged to form one. Within a money the solution had won the logistical war at sea.

rabunsmith  06/07/2011 06:08 PM Report

I really could not believe what this 'esteemed' assembly of experts spewed out. Just a rehash of old unworkable policies; apparently these gentlemen live in a self-deceipt bubble. We need a consumption tax? QE-3? (no that has nothing to do with the passenger ship named after Queen Elizabeth). Another stimulus package? Money for more pot hole fixes? The infrastructure outlays being more capital than labor intensive? No kidding! More ways of revenue generation (did they ever hear of the word 'taxes'?)??

Nobel prize recipients and supposedly smart folks on this panel? I could not believe this crowd.

Here is what to do - from a retired engineer's limited mind:

Start working on a robust economy, not give-aways to non-productive population segments like teachers, policemen and rfiremen. They certainly serve their purpose but they don't pump uup production of anything. Build Harleys. Identify American made stuff and let people pick. Keep a strategic full-spectrum eeconomy, including dirty steel production and home grown electronics, etc. If need be, restrict imports. I just learned China is buying all of a specific Appalachian coal mine production. Our natural resources. And yes, learn about the fair tax and implement it. The present 40,000 page tax code is mostly convoluted tax favoritism written down. Get rid of it. A typical corporation can easier gain 5% tax advantage than from economizing production. It just takes a K-street guy with the right connections. And lastly, nobody ever mentioned the 42% borrowing of every dollar spent, presently, as an issue in our dilemma. Hello??? And the same pattern to continue for another decade???

How real are these so-called experts?

Thanks for letting me vent...

jzb40  06/07/2011 03:37 PM Report

Jared Bernstein discredits himself every time he says "I".

He referred to himself too much throughout that interview.

Was like a child in a classroom trying to grab attention.

JohnGelles  06/07/2011 08:54 AM Report

OPEN MSG TO DARPA

Money as a Military Matter

Monday, June 6, 2011 3:20 PM

To: publicaffairsoffice@darpa.mil

1. We know that wartime money in the American Revolution, Civil War, WW II and today’s wars, includes fiat money backed by a favorable outcome of struggles between our enemies and ourselves.

2. We know too that such money may be seen as a weapons system.

3. We know too that money representing bonded debt was not enough in said earlier times to win the war in progress.

4. It is also known that there is no agreement on what money is ahead of its use in war or peace.

5. It may be incumbent on DARPA to invent a money for our time that will successfully finance victory and the re-industrialization of America.

6. There is money that represents profit and loss accounting’s criteria for commercial wealth and its accumulation.

7. There is also WW II type money that represents cost accounting’s criteria for logistical success in battle.

8. There may be other agencies trying to invent our way to industrial leadership in this century. Conceivably, DARPA would be inventing on their turf (which is OK).

..... PLEASE add engineered money to defend the nation to your list of unmet inventive needs.

JohnGelles  06/07/2011 08:24 AM Report

1. All fixes start with work -- done by humans or robots (getting smarter every day).

2. Money motivates work.

3. If the fix holds, the money is worth its promise.

4. So all the money shortage amounts to is WORK yet to be done.

5. That is KEYNES. All the rest is nonsense.

doodah  06/07/2011 05:27 AM Report

I'm going to do my part, and start turning up the UFO chatter. Maybe even build one, and start flying it around, scare people into printing, and spending, and saving, and hiring, and cutting, and blah blah blah, and so on. And killing, politicians, Lobbyists, extremists, radicals, idiots

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/07/2011 03:14 AM Report

Meanwhile over on C-SPAN, Paul Ryan is at the "Faith and Freedom Coalition" saying that all we are doing is playing politics and we must cut spending NOW! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bcf_1307312494&jwp_version=4

Charlie, your panel does not seem to address Paul.

Ryan's four points:

$6.2 trillion of spending cuts pays off the National Debt.

Welfare reform to create self-sufficiency (still on welfare reform?).

Health and retirement security like the system that Congress has (benefits based upon income/wealth).

GROW THE ECONOMY (Paul says Washington does not create jobs--the private sector creates jobs. He says uncertainty is why private companies won't hire.)

Social Democracy? The idea of America--are we an opportunity society or are we on the path Paul says we are on now--dependent on the government. Equal outcomes--NO! Equal opportunity--YES! Grow opportunity.

So have we dismissed Paul Ryan guys? So then we don't need a program to hire folks to fill in Paul Krugman's potholes. All we need to do is to cut government spending so companies have enough confidence to fill them in themselves?

tdot  06/07/2011 01:25 AM Report

Paul (aka Central Planning Czar) - when we realize there are no aliens coming, then what happens to the economy? Maybe you should read about what happened to the Soviet Union. And the only reason interest rates are low is noone knows where to hide things are so distorted by government now. You're nutty ideas about spending don't work after we get to the place of maximum debt that we're at.

Charlie - why not have a sane person on? Everyone in the actual economy that hires and invests is scared to death of the size of government and the debt. Noone on your panel has ever been in the actual economy.

Ken - great book - why not point out that noone with debt to GDP of 90% ever gets out of it? Ours is much higher when you do the NPV of entitlements.

Jared - at least you didn't mention the spending multiplier. The $800B went to buying votes mainly.

When you can print your own money the collapse can happen in a week.

aj617  06/06/2011 11:04 PM Report

I would like to broach a couple of important points that really should be

included in any comprehensive discussion about jobs in our ecomony.

First of all, how can the largely negative effects of the exponential growth

of tax-free internet transactions upon employment during the past decade be

ignored? The internet can be likened in this regard to a predatory weed run

amok in a fragile economic ecology, probably killing ten jobs for every one it

created, and all the while it has been nurtured with special incentives it has

damaged the viability of countless traditional bricks-and-mortar businesses.

It was not merely the efficiency and convenience of the internet that led to its

ascendency; tax policy made it doubly worthwhile to wreak a large swathe of

destruction in many job categories.Perhaps real people might once again have

some work to do once the playing field is leveled with some stiff taxes. The

current "free" status of the internet has been very expensive indeed in terms of

lost jobs.

My second point involves corporate governance regulations. It seems a bit

anomalous in this land where democratic attitudes are so extolled that most

corporations are thinly disguised dictatorships run by plenipotentiaries. They

can and do ship jobs out of this country not merely out of necessity but for

any reason whatever, be it whim, fad or even studied malice. Perhaps

empowered shareholders could reign in the worst abuses in this area and

make it a corporate priority to keep the jobs here at home if at all possible.

doodah  06/06/2011 09:41 PM Report

THIS, was a Most Excellent Charlie Rose Show. It's comforting to know there is Intelligence out there.

So WHO are the politicians listening too?.

tabs  06/06/2011 09:10 PM Report

And they argued as they stood on the deck of the Titanic. Meanwhile the water came up to their ankles. The smell of myopia was strong in the room, filling the nostrils.

Let us look to 3 inflection points in the recent epoch of American history.

1. August 6TH 1945. The dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima was the day that America became hegemonic in the world militarily, economically and technologically. America became invincible in all things.

2. July 20, 1969 was the high water mark of America as a world power. It took 8 years from the date that the goal was set to what only a few years before seemed impossible. To land a man on the Moon. Now we could do it all. America could have Guns and Butter without consequence.

3. September 24TH, 2008. The day that President GW Bush came on TV and said the American financial system was in crisis and was melting down. That was the day that the perception of American invincibility in the world CRACKED. Not only have Americans lost their sense of well being, but the world now looks at America in a different light. At that moment the world changed from anything that most Americans who were alive had ever known before. Risk that had once only had been an abstract notion had become a reality.

Andy Grove said a few scant years before that "America was living on its reputation and would soon have to start proving it once again."

JohnGelles  06/06/2011 08:40 PM Report

1. We have to reform the law to put equity in charge and legalese in the dust bin.

2. Reform savings accounts to index them for inflation.

3. Reform the budget to achieve planned full employment.

4. De-regulate all that be be left to common sense and re-regulate all that will otherwise corrupt even an honest man.

5. Educate with games not boredom.

6. Pay high wages for tough and dangerous work.

7. Automate everything and use people where their minds and hands are absolutely necessary for the tasks.

8. Take advantage of Obama and Huntsman as two public servants with the skill and luck to win.

9. Pick our top leaders from among our optimists with a smile and a will of iron who never heard of failure by Americans when roused.

IRISH  06/06/2011 06:19 PM Report

Despite the last contributor, all four economists charged with planning and designing an economic plan going forward would be able to agree on basic strategies and tactical directions. The problem is politicians and interest groups and ideological foundations would negate all of it. USA is similar to a swimmer drowning, ie: dangerous to those attempting to save them. As well, there is in America a disposition alien toward those who have experience and knowledge of economic affairs that does not coincide with your particular ideology and political bent. As a consequence the circle is never closed on direction to alleviate the millions unemployed and much else.

charlizecourriers  06/06/2011 05:18 PM Report

The Audacious Amateur seems to think that he can stall-take no action-and still get reelected. His minions seem to think that there are economic levers that can be pulled now and get the Audacious Amateur reelected. Both strategies are false. Come the CRISIS the solution will be to remove the political dictatorship in Washington,D.C. QE3 would be nothing more than a Fed campaign contribution to the Obama presidential campaign, ala the John Edwards diversion. The Obama recesssion is already underway. And that's the fact that matters. The final farce: we need to get this ecomomy borrowing again-Krugman's money shot!

JohnGelles  06/06/2011 03:44 PM Report

[should read hyperinflation, deflation]

[should read WW III type war]

[should read the income tax "system" is not a "system",]

[should read cannot fill out all tax forms]

agreement continued:

2. Productivity is vital to our success. We should achieve it with robots and automation so that higher populations (above our own) will be of no advantage to foreign exporters.

3. WW II productivity proved we could self-finance anything our engineers could accomplish.

ACCORDINGLY -- REMant and Gelles ought to have a following that seeks WW II financing to prevent recession and WW III.

JohnGelles  06/06/2011 03:30 PM Report

The fact that these professionals differed with each other on major themes in dispute -- such as, full employment, middle class economic security, inflation-hyperinflation-deflation, national defense-deterring WW III war, homeland security, public investment, quantitative easing, income tax reform, and other irrationalities in our "system" of political economy,-- explains to some degree why REMant and Gelles see so many things that mean the opposite of each other's visions of reality.

Rather than spell out our difference, I will try to establish our agreement:

1. The income system is no "system", costs more than its worth, is unfair, and ought to be scrapped for a system every lawmaker who votes for it can understand. To prove this, each affirmative vote ought to be disqualified if the lawmaker cannot pass a fair test on law itself and/or cannot fill our all tax forms by himself. (Female lawmakers the same.)

[Next item on next posting by me. This will prevent costly crash of my system and allow me to correct some errors already posted.]]

REMant  06/06/2011 11:48 AM Report

This panel was divided between Keynesians (and Democrats) Krugman and Bernstein, and not-so Keynesians Rogoff and Walker. But aside from consideration now of the huge amount of additional indebtedness the Congrsss and Fed have added since 2008, there was nothing new in the discussion. Indeed it left a lot out, or showed no new understanding of WHY we have this problem, without which it would seem to me to be rather fruitless. I, too, have to agree with Prof Krugman: the "recovery" isn't faltering, we had little actual recovery to begin with, altho unlike any of the discussants, I think that's due in large part to its suppression by the Fed's disregard for real interest rates, and the govt for not straightening out the mortgage situation, not for any lack of credit. The Keynesian idea of an economy is basically an inflationary pyramid scheme, whose primary objective is full-employment, regardless of supply and demand, which, BTW, is a lot higher than 9% and in the Depression range. But our basic problem is that we cannot compete with China and the developing world, and we have debt hanging over us that was acquired during a time when its value could be supported without the kind of productivity needed before the rug was pulled out from under us. We have two choices, either try to reflate in accordance with the Keynesian view, which is basically saving the debt's owners by depreciating the currency and robbing the public's savings, or let prices deflate, and make mostly the owners of it pay the cost. You could also tax it from them, but going down the road of "tax and spend" is not really the way to help anyone except the bureaucracy and the president's re-election chances. Keynesians believe deflation will throw ppl out of work, but I doubt it, since you can't eat gold or most other commodities, which is where the debt's owners will look to preserve their position if the banking system will not do it. Whenever the price of oil and metals, etc have gone up, they have always come down due to this simple fact. The most reflation (which tho it figured largely in Keynes has become the property mostly of those who call themselves monetarists, like Bernanke, and was, if not in so many words, the reason for the Fed's creation) could accomplish is to so lower the dollar that it puts the American worker's wages on a par with the Chinese et al, tho, of course, those who advocate it don't expect anything like that to happen. They would have their cake and eat it, too. The main problem with borrowing the money from China, is that it simply transfers the problem to them, producing mounting resentment, and probably ultimately their collapse, as well.

Like many homeowners, the US as a nation is underwater, and we really have no alternative but to break out the snorkel gear, tho I'm sure that makes mortgagors unhappy. The public seems to have figured most of this out far sooner than any of the Keynesian-types, (esp those like Prof Krugman, whom I think will never figure anything out, and Mr Bernstein, whose degrees incidentally are in music, social work and welfare), or the politicians. They were right that the actions taken were biased towards the wealthy, because the attempt was to restart that old asset appreciation game, and that we instead needed to become more efficient, i.e., save and/or become more productive, and they have accordingly annoyed the "liberal" pundits as well by doing just that. As with their attitude towards Arab youth, the latter believe our problems are due only to tyrants and killjoys, who should be made to pay for their cupidity and nastiness, which they do with extreme irony by sustaining them, and the policies giving rise to them. After all, how can you stick the rich, if they aren't rich?

Despite the impression given by a Whiggish reading of the period, all of the things proposed here were tried in the 1930's, and failed, save war, which succeeded only by enforcing austerity at home, increasing personal savings, training, plant and equipment, cohesion and the sense of accomplishment, while destroying a good part of the rest of the world, and with it, our competition. The China's did not figure. In addition, a great number of would-be unemployed were diverted into education. Not even Keynes, who had given warnings about inflation even before war broke out and devised plans to keep it in check during the conflict, foresaw the result, tho we did, nevertheless, experience considerable price rise due to excessive demand. And it did matter that in digging out the Europeans and Japanese did not just put the rubble back.

Income tax reform is essential not only for reasons of simple equity and because the tax code has become a model of scholasticism run amok, but also to restore confidence in the American political system, and remove the many things in the code that have created imbalances in the economy. Like defense contracting, it has also become a way to get things by the public without notice and debate, and provides a fine example of corporate and professional welfare. We need a broader tax base, too, if we are going to pay our bills, but a flatter tax need not hurt the lower and middle-classes if it increases their income by balancing the budget, even if it does not, as it should, lower the percentage they pay since most of the loopholes are used by the wealthy. A sales tax, on the other hand, has problems of regressiveness and potential abuse, which I have no doubt that like their European counterparts the Keynesians here would dearly love to abuse. As I've said maybe a dozen times, swapping a flat tax for a decently controlled single-payer healthcare system seems to me not only do-able but would be a step forward in restoring some sense of responsibility in this country. I expect, however, for that reason, it will never be floated