Charlie Rose

AntonGrambihler  06/10/2011 01:54 PM Report

John Gelles - 06/09/2011 04:40 AM comment "The private vultures who make profits by squeezing the poor." In addition to this, the Credit Card Companies take from the Poor and give to the Rich.

Since most Merchants do not give a discount for cash, the Poor who use Food Stamps or Pay Cash are paying the hidden Credit Card fees which are use to pay rewards to the Rich who can afford to pay their bills in full.

a. The prices that Merchants charge include the fees incurred by customers who use Credit Cards; therefore, the poor people who use Food Stamps or cannot get credit cards, are in effect subsidizing the rich.

b. Credit Card companies have Excess Profits and give Rebates to customers for using their Credit Card. These Excess Profits and Rebate Money either comes from inflated fees paid by the Merchants and passed on to the Customer or by inflated interest rates paid by people who cannot afford to pay their bills in full.

In my previous comment I should have stated that a "Too Big To Fail Insurance Corporation" (TBTFIC) needs to be created, instead of a "Too Big To Fail Corporation" (TBTFC).

NeilMacCallister  06/09/2011 06:36 PM Report

FYI: In case you didn't hear, ..Barack was the candidate who refused to put his hand to his heart for the Tom Harkin "Star Spangled Banner",..and who later announced to the TV cameras that he was going to seek "social justice" by "taxing the rich" and giving that money to the Democrat Congress to spend as they choose.

***

I guess that might have appealed to Warren Buffett, ..who rightly figured that gasoline prices would rise with Democrats, ..and his newly purchased Railroad would make a ton of money as truckers predictably went out of business.

Good for Warren!! ..Good for Barack!!!

How are you out there in America doing???

NeilMacCallister  06/09/2011 06:17 PM Report

@Ted Palmer:

Want to have a hoot??

Check where the DOW was when Warren Buffett came on Charlie Rose and announced he was going to support "Hillary or Barack" for President.

Then check the Dow levels as Barack started gathering votes in the primaries, ..and then after he was granted the Democratic nomination.

***

Last weekend, I heard a horrific story of a young lady who fell from the top position at an amusement park ferris wheel.

And today, my son went to another job interview.

America is a WRECK, ..and no one is doing a damn thing about it.

They are all too busy showing their wieners on twitter.

TedPalmer  06/09/2011 05:45 PM Report

The Winter 2011 issue of the Wilson Quarterly has an article titled "Rethinking the Great Recession" by Robert J. Samuelson. The tease says "In embracing a victims-and-villians explanation of the recession, Americans are missing imporant lessons about the future of the U.S. economy." The article is a very interesting and worth while observation as to the causes of this event.

Perhaps I'm just a weak character, but from an anger gratification stand point I prefer the "victims-and-villians explanation" best. I can't put in writing what I would like to do to the despicable scurrilous scum bags that want to treat the preponderance of humanity as disposable creatures like agracultural farm animals because I would make myself a target for investigation for a crime I am not going to commit. I'm not going to ruin my life to gratify my anger.

I hope Charlie will consider having Mr. Samuelson as a guest on his show. He has very good credentials; similar to the credentials of all the guests Charlie has on his show.

Ted Palmer

JohnGelles  06/09/2011 04:40 AM Report

Anton G's suggestion, to collect an insurance premium from TBTF corporations, similar to FDIC premiums paid by licensed banks, might solve the unfairness issues raised by Morgenson and others. These corporations, especially non-bank financial companies, insurance and real estate companies, if they are protected from failure and being split up because they have too many employees, owners or creditors, by government and its tax system, can accumulate capital at lower rates than their competitors. This ought to be stopped before capitalist corporations become socialist monopolies.

So I agree with Anton and believe we may see legislation to do as he suggests.

If the premiums for such TBTF insurance are fair, we might see more players and more competition in the commerce some big operators try to monopolize.

However, too big is not our only problem. There is the too unfair problem, where smaller corporations are united in their unfair offerings to the public -- such as the credit card industry, where both banks and non-banks offer credit cards that charge usurious interest but call the charge a penalty. Also the small loan industry that lends payroll advances to poor people.

These abusive industries will not be stopped by insurance premiums -- they need government operations competing in their markets to set fair standards -- such as a postal credit card and payroll advance.

The private vultures who make profits by squeezing the poor more than the rich pay for the same service would complain that government is more unfair to them than they are unfair to the poor. My vote would be in favor of the poor -- government needs to serve the poor -- they fight our wars and otherwise do the dirty work too often at non-union wages. Government should also protect the poor from crooked unions with government run unions determined to raise their wages and cut their costs.

In all matters of fairness, we need solutions that stop unfair outcomes wherever possible. That is one of the purposes of civilization and education. There is no excuse for poverty in the richest nation on earth.

AntonGrambihler  06/08/2011 11:47 PM Report

Just like the FDIC which was setup to protect We the People from Bank Failures, there needs to be a “Too Big To Fail Corporation” (TBTFC). Although the FDIC has gone astray with its bailout of more than Deposits for some Banks in Florida with New York connections, it has protected depositors, but also made some Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions bigger in the process.

The TBTFC needs to be created and all Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions will be required to pay into a fund

a. Which will protect We the People from Financial Institution failures and from Bubbles created by their actions. All buyers which paid an excessive price due to these bubbles will be reimbursed the difference between the price paid and the Fair Market value before the Bubble was created.

b. Which will cover the cost of ALL bailouts.

JohnGelles  06/08/2011 10:09 PM Report

Gretchen Morgenson's book "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon", which to a degree sets the stage for the confused opinions expressed in this page of comments, ignores the basic facts of global economics that preceded the current CONTRACTION and seem to be persisting in spite of Bernanke's desire to cure it with debt-free dollar liquidity that his printing press permits.

Many of us blame OBAMA for failing to huddle with Bernanke; private intelligent capitalists like Buffet, Gates (and others with untold wealth, high morals, and proven smarts); private trade union leaders who really protect working people; military logistics general officers; and professional accountants and experienced regulators with profound knowledge of systems theory and practice, etc.

The purpose of such huddles would be to duplicate and improve our WWII experience where dollars ruled the world and paid for the arsenal of democracy.

This time we need an arsenal of economic and political democracy to finance the end of poverty and wars among potential friends.

We may want dollars, AND special drawing rights by a treaty organization (to prevent the charge of hegemonic ambition,) to finance benevolent goals and values.

We know that "sovereign debt", like all debt, is manageable with simple swaps for equity.

We know that we have a zillion times more computational and book-keeping power than we had in WW II.

We know that we need to recall our industrial and scientific heroic leaders of WWII who built from scratch the logistical infrastructure, production and training systems that eventually defeated tyranny around the world -- for at least a little while.

Now we face asymmetrical war -- where a suitcase bomb can conceivably end all life on earth. We must stop fooling around and insulting our American dream and responsibility.

If you do not agree -- NAME and suggest your own solutions OR sit down and shut up.

robdverity  06/08/2011 06:12 PM Report

Neil - was that your example of a 'serious' offering? I'm saving 'serious' to follow Eric Holder version where big bankers are given 'real' slammer time. That would also be a big assist in heading off moral hazard. Nothing like jail time to put you on focus.

tabs  06/08/2011 01:34 PM Report

The US has for decades been using both public and private debt instruments to maintain the illusion of being hegemonic economically. This debt has now become so large and unwieldy that it can no longer be masked and has several ominous potential side effects

1. The US National debt is becoming so large and the US position so central to the world economy that it can destroy the Global economy if and when a debt crisis should occur

2. This debt puts a drag on the US economy and is to the point where it is making the US economic growth moribund. It is only a matter of time before the debt level will be so great that it will make economic growth impossible.

What these debts masked was changing economic conditions for the US economy as the Global economy took root and began to grow. The US to remedy the structural competitive malaise it finds itself in, beyond the problem of debt and deficit is to bring taxes, regulations and wages into line with the rest of the world.

The US has 2 choices one is to move in that direction on its own accord or to have events dictate actions. One should remember that the great US prosperity boom of the post WW2 era was an aberration in history which was not unsustainable as the Global economy began to rebuild itself and grow. The failure of the US was not to understand this phenomenon and make the necessary changes to meet exigencies.

NeilMacCallister  06/08/2011 05:19 AM Report

How about a little "serious" thought, rob?

Why doesn't Pres. Obama hire all the out-of-work construction workers, and the un-collegiate youth, ..and build a "Community HealthCare Center" next to every 7-11 and/or Exxon gas station in America???

Does he really want us to have access, or what??? ??? ???

robdverity  06/08/2011 12:34 AM Report

How's this for a whimsical morality play: they (FBI?) arrest, indict Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, Lloyd Blankfein, and the Harvard scumbag in O's admin (?). Tell the remaining too-big-to-fail thieves, they're next if they don't divest, downsize. Maybe make them live under a bridge for the duration of the downturn they caused.

robdverity  06/07/2011 11:58 PM Report

Lev - you out did yourself. No laws were broken as they bought the enabling laws before hand (Glass-Stegall for one), complicit rating agencies, SEC malfeasance, too-clever-by-half wise-guy bankers leveraging CDOs etc into profits now being paid by a savaged ec. thru the burst housing bubble.

I'm sure moral hazard will give you more opportunities to laud your unindicted scumbags. Money buys morality in our wonderful system. Just don't get caught on the wrong side of it - like being jobless too long.

DavLev  06/07/2011 09:37 PM Report

Again and again, lots of allegations of wrong doing

by Wall Streeters, yet no prosecutions or even indictments.

What is going on? Either laws were broken or they weren't?

These authoris, including the interviewee, have no say in the finances of anything, except perhaps their own...they

want to sell their books, and will say most anything.

I personally know several people who bought homes prior to the bubble bursting..and made lots of denaro. They bought homes in California, sold for huge profits, and purchased

much cheaper residences in Las Vegas.

It was routine to buy homes..live in them for years, and sell for huge profits ( first 250,000 or 500,000 were tax

exempt as I recall).

I am reminded of an acquaintence who purchased a 3 bedroom apartment in a large housing project for almost -0-. It is now, years later, worth over 1m dollars. He is not complaining, and has the sales price proceeds in his will.

The banks were eager to lend money..and came up with all kinds of ingenious devices..no interest, little interest,

APRs, reverse mortgages..no down, little down, etc.

They made the loans..and made profits, huge profits.

The Freddies participated in aiding low to middle income

borrowers..by guaranteeing the bank loans..and allowing more loans. So what!

20% of our economy is based on housing.

I also remember the miserable living conditions created

when low rent housing (projects) were in vogue..crime laden, deteriorating, cess pools. Entire housingp projects

were destroyed due to the conditions..to be replaced by

better living environments.

The figure we hear is that the Presidents and Congress wanted more people to own homes..it being a good investment. The alternative is to rent, which gives nothing

back after the tenant moves out, cept for rental receipts.

Okay, so Wall Street used the homes bundled as a casion..( not exactly like the stock market or Las Vegas). At every level, people made money. So what! There were no crimes committed. In the end, foreign money gamblers, were hit hard. So what!

Wall Street vs Main Street seems to be the bete nois of the interviewee. But, w/o Wall Street investment banks, and

just your regular bank..there would be no main street.

Remember that the Feds do guarantee loans up to 250,000.

She decries huge executive salaries and bonuses. I suppose

she took a polll of thousands of executives..and asked, "why are you in this business, for profit or power"?

Did she? And what is wrong with making money.

As one President said years ago, the business of the US is business.

We are all in it to make money..except non-profits..which

btw, do make money, if not profits.

Again, Charlie questions who was responsible? I ask,

if no laws were broken, who cares really.

There was no fraud committed..perhaps some moral crimes however. But one mans meat is anothers poison.

Derivatives and credit swaps in fact aided all kinds of

transactions...making the risks smaller. So what!

In fact, the real fraud in this country is with the tax structure..who pays and who doesnt.

51% of our population pay no income tax...many employees

get a tax credit ( paid for by you and me).

True, 401Ks lost value..as did homes. But no one is guaranteed that these so-called investments will go up in value. A home is a place to live in..not to use as equity.

You contribute to a stock, bond or pension plan..at your own risk.

Its that simple. I have no sorry for anyone who lost money

or whose home is under water. Dont like it, next time rent

and lose everything.

tabs  06/07/2011 05:32 PM Report

What in essence happened on September 24, 2008 was that the dsyfunctionality of the US financial and economic system of trying to maintaining the illusion of America being a wealthy nation shattered like Humpty Dumpty. No longer could America hide the dsyfunctionality of its being overleveraged, whether it was through CDO's, home mortgages via Freddy and Fanny ,hiding deficit spending by using the accounting gimmick of making the SS Trust an accounts payable instead of a debt, state debt or national debts. Since Government debts affects the monetary system which is the very foundation of any economy, everyday that goes by that the National debt climbs makes the US economy that much more of a precarious situation. Since the USD is the Reserve Currency and the US economy the largest in the world, the question then becomes who is large enough to backstop the US government in case of a debt crisis? The answwer is that there is no one large enough to backstop the US and thus there is no place to run as the world economy will fail also. Thus there is good reason why people would rather live in denial

ruthann817  06/07/2011 05:10 PM Report

Charlie, really...I'm a long-time viewer, but I am shocked that you had to ask what happened to the populist rhetoric about wall street having been bailed out and not mainstreet. I think you had better start interviewing more "main street" people. We're smart and talented, too, you know, and apparently you could use the education. Or maybe we mainstreet people should begin filling your e-mail inbox as Gretchen's is being filled.

Other than that, I love your show!!

charlizecourriers  06/07/2011 05:07 PM Report

So Clinton has a noble idea, except his karma totally corrupted the reality. Sounds just like Clinton, as in interns, volunteers and other vulnerable women. It's even corrupted the aide to his wife. Gretchen is a coverup artist of high merit. As in "everyone does that." And "hugely respected BY ALL." Let's allow the failures to fail. With a million new immigrants entering the U.S.A each year, the excess supply will soon be purchased. "It's a fiction" that much of this country is worth its retail price. The "music" is to allow time to solve this corrupt government fantasy. Wall street is only in good shape because of Bernanke's egregious programs, part of the reelect Obmama campaign. When Obama goes, Bernanke goes! Let's allow democracy to work and let the voters decide if people too poor to buy a house should be "bailed out." The houses won't disappear and can be purchased as the economy recovers. P.S. Don't be reckless with your money and buy this 'made for Charlie Rose Show Book' with a ghost writer not even on the show!

tabs  06/07/2011 04:31 PM Report

Not only has President Obama and his Democrat Party not realized a new paradigm has been established they want to continue on with a living better through a bigger and better government program as if nothing has changed. All of which is and has created a huge ticking time bomb of Sovereign Debt.

tabs  06/07/2011 04:10 PM Report

September 24TH 2008 was the day that the perception of American invincibility and illusion of being wealthy "cracked." Americans lost their sense of well being and the world looks at America in a different light since that day. The US had two choices to make at that point in the crisis.

1. Let the financial system and by default the economy of the US and world to crash and burn.

2. Try and bail out the system with the hope that it could be jump started and thus be resuscitated. Since this later course of action was the lessor of two evils it was the course adopted.

What happened in essence is that the private sector debt was assumed by the public sector which combined with the existing public sector debt has created the MOTHER OF ALL BUBBLES the Sovereign Debt Bubble. The efforts of the US government, Federal Reserve, various European governments and banks have all been aimed at putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. The jury is still out on whether the US economy can sustain it self without a Quantitative Easing program. Further it might be said that the US economy being a behemoth is not easily killed and would of on its own hook have recovered some sort of equilibrium.

What is not understood is that this new equilibrium is in essence a new paradigm. This is something that most people don't understand as they want to continue to apply governmental and Federal Reserve supports to go back to the illusion of being wealthy that was broken on September 24TH 2008. This is where President Obama has been found particularly wanting and shows that his sagacity quotient is practically non existent as he has never realized that a new paradigm was at work since September 24TH 2008. This becomes evident with his statement, "That it is a shame that there are 45 million people without HC insurance in a rich nation like America."

tabs  06/07/2011 03:18 PM Report

The Great RE Bubble was another means of maintaining the illusion that Americans were wealthy. Wall Street got caught up in the GREED after they found a way to capitalize on the Great Run up in values. What Wall Street failed to appreciate is the fact that their ABSTRACT only understanding of RISK had real life consequences.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/07/2011 03:06 PM Report

Gretchen did very well answering Lawyer Charlie. The questions were very quick and pointed this time and she kept focused and congenial. Great interview!

So then we should call for a Constitutional Convention to limit corporate power (BANKS!) in our government--especially at Goldman Sachs which seems to be the fourth branch.

JohnGelles  06/07/2011 02:47 PM Report

"...the root cause [of the economic contraction following the crash in home prices and loss of millions of jobs] was too much unearned money, the result of subsidization by foreign countries and investors, compounded by the idea that borrowing should be as easy as possible, as if the desideratum in life should be giving and getting rather than producing anything. ..."

-- So says REMant here and now.

The REM added:

"...

... Charlie, I have to say, STILL does not appear to understand any of this and apparently wants the Ponzi scheme back, indeed, believes it is back, either that, or he has a considerable capacity for compartmentalization."

.

The key ignorant phrase in the REMarks is:

..... ..... too much UNEARNED money

REM should think back to the gold discoveries that allowed the New World (in N. and S. America) to grow to preeminence by buying technology from Europe and borrowing the enlightenment to create the roots of a world without scarcity that will develop before our eyes if we can ignore the REM's of this world.

Gold was unearned money -- and inflation was PART of its reward. The other part of its delivered promise was MOTIVATION -- without the tyrannies of entrenched power and wealth. Of course slavery and wage slavery persisted and persist -- because scarcity persists.

What is EARNED MONEY? Certainly not the payoffs in Las Vegas, the skimming by owners, lawyers, and others whose authority permits earnings that do not represent hard work or delivered value to other people.

Real earned money would be money to buy their needs earned by teams and national populations whose PRODUCTION was affordable by all such populations (excluding true felons and similar persons headed for or now in Hell).

When REM talks of productivity he makes sense. But, of course, productivity of supply must be matched by wages and benefits that comprise demand that clears the market and keeps up the virtuous business cycle (loop) that cannot be permitted to contract.

Avoiding contraction when gold was discovered in abundance required saving and investment in new assets and enterprises. The same is true for fiat money which must be managed to as effective as if it were newly discovered gold.

In war we must know that immediately -- or lose the war (to any enemy capable of a real fight). We are now at war with scarcity and tyranny -- and must conquer both. This means we need all the money there is and then some more.

Until shelves are full and needs are met extra money must and will be saved. Government, as the money monopoly, must plan and execute this effort in the public interest.

To the extent that the minimum standard of living is not rising as productivity rises, corruption and incompetence will be the reasons. Government will be full of these weevils unless its audit and inspection functions minimize their effect.

Now, libertarian desires for decentralization can be effective and should be implemented as far as they remain less corrupt and incompetent than government. Where the opposite is true, we will need government to represent the public interest.

In all events, we need money enough to go around. And that means work enough to back the money. And that means freedom and innovation enough to improve productivity and living standards, hand in hand, all the time -- not just for the few but for everybody whose life we would save if he were drowning.

REMant  06/07/2011 11:28 AM Report

As I've said several times regarding her thesis, it may not be an act of God, but it wasn't an act of any particular individuals either. It began centuries ago, and in earnest in this country in 1913 with the creation of the Fed. The real estate game just follows the money and has been part of every such market run-up and crash. As with all of these, the root cause was too much unearned money, the result of subsidization by foreign countries and investors, compounded by the idea that borrowing should be as easy as possible, as if the desideratum in life should be giving and getting rather than producing anything. This kind of thing is no noble idea, rather more of a political mechanism used first by kings, and in this country, particularly Democrats, and their Neocon kin, to promote hegemony. It, however, has not been inconsequential even leaving all the recessions and depressions aside. For instance, Medicare "costs," I understand, have risen an avg of 9% per yr since 1970. I'd imagine that is approximately the rate of monetary inflation as measured by real estate. Computed like compound interest it would approx double in the first decade and in 38 yrs would be 30 times the original. A house bought then for $40,000 would be $1.2 mill in 2008, which seems close to correct in wealthier parts of the country. (It may be true, incidentally, that they are of an higher quality than those built four decades ago, but not to any significant extent, and in some senses, for instance timber, less, and anyway quality is not measured by higher price; that's the fallacy the CPI ppl fell into.) Bulldozing empty houses, wouldn't help anymore than the AAA's destroying crops in the '30s, but it is surely indicative of the Wall St attitude. Writing the mortgages down is, of course, what I advocated here in 2008, and which Feldstein and other Republicans also urged, but about which virtually nothing concrete has been done and it is not hard to guess why. What was attempted was such an abject failure as to, I believe, have been shut down. For the rest read what I wrote yesterday about Friday's show. Charlie, I have to say, STILL does not appear to understand any of this and apparently wants the Ponzi scheme back, indeed, believes it is back, either that, or he has a considerable capacity for compartmentalization.