In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11720
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
theGuyFromMakiki 12/06/2011 02:55 AM Report
Ben Bernanke looks like a cool guy.
JohnGelles 06/13/2011 12:59 AM Report
The money that circulates within a national economy to pay wages and buy the GDP for as long as possible may have been borrowed or not, the GDP does not subtract from market value of product any penalty for borrowing or government use of its means to add money to circulation that avoids borrowing -- like coining it, taxing it away from owners, or creating it by law. The money is not an issue when your counting GDP and assigning it a unit price based on market -- not book -- value.
What did you have in mind, Gustav? Suppose GDP was adjusted to exclude some lawful money of which you did not approve? According to Wikipedia growing the GDP may mean we have raised the average standard of living. But it may NOT, as well. I would prefer to know the actual minimum and median standards of living, corrected to eliminate lows unrelated to possible possible corrective action.
You sound like a problem solver, G. Are you?
JohnGelles 06/13/2011 12:32 AM Report
From Wikipedia to Gustav:
"Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living.[1][2]
Gross domestic product is related to national accounts, a subject in macroeconomics."
Gustav 06/10/2011 06:55 PM Report
I have a question. Is lent money/printed money counted in the gdp statistics?
anne4444 06/10/2011 03:02 PM Report
US GDP per Capita is $47,284 (Rank 7). It is quite high in comparing with other nations. If you calculate the percentage populations who lost their homes without natural catastrophes or civil wars, we will be number one in ranking.
Our economy is shrinking because we allow this massive cash to flow out of this country.
Besides, if we don’t have enough jobs (because of new technologies) or foods in our world and we still desire a better life, Union Nation may need to focus on global population control.
Ricardo_Amaral 06/10/2011 11:48 AM Report
Jim Rogers RT America Interview – June 9, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeFEkvxokEs
Jim Rogers: Get Ready for the Next Financial Crisis – June 8, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHNqvL48-IU
doodah 06/10/2011 05:25 AM Report
@ Gelles is where I dwelles,
Hey, some of your comments are starting to make sense.
Some of them, not all of them.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 06/09/2011 10:33 PM Report
From now until November 2012 drill like a madman--employment increases, gas prices decrease.
At the same time federal fund electric cars to a $15K price point by making the batteries a utility that pays down the debt. (The government owns the batteries and charges to refuel them with electrons. The money made goes directly to debt reduction.)
SharkswithfrikingLazers 06/09/2011 10:28 PM Report
Charlie nailed it with his opening comments: oil! We are a corn and hydrocarbon society. We see gas prices on every corner, every single day. Every penny increase in gas prices is like a $1.5 billion tax on America. So you increase gas by a dollar a gallon and you have slammed us with a $150 billion tax--which is felt more in the South due to lower incomes and more driving. GAS PRICES!
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/gas-prices-under-president-obama-in-pictures/
JohnGelles 06/09/2011 08:20 PM Report
Milton Friedman said inflation is everywhere the result of too much money chasing too few things for sale. This was less than half a truth. Money can be saved and not chase anything. It can be invested in long term projects and not inflate the price of potatoes. Money can ease commerce so that we have full employment, full consumption, full saving -- especially by the those who never had enough to want to learn to save. With the computational and bookkeeping power we have at near-zero cost, past planning failures can be avoided.
JohnGelles 06/09/2011 08:09 PM Report
We today need quantitative easing to inject debt-free legal tender on which no taxes can be attached. With such greenbacks, Obama's investments in a new green economy can put everyone to work. With such work, the prosperity we earned from solving the problems that Pearl Harbor presented and the fall of the Berlin Wall took away.
But today's problems are just as acute as yesterday's. Only too many dumbbells refuse to want to solve them.
JohnGelles 06/09/2011 08:03 PM Report
What about deficit and debt? They are as meaningless as was the predicted surplus in 2000 that was supposed to end the public debt and send us scurrying for a replacement on which to establish a reliable rate of interest for risk free government bonds.
JohnGelles 06/09/2011 07:58 PM Report
Coy explained perfectly the "Apres vous Alphonse, apres vous Gaston" nature of business hiring and consumers shopping. Until we force (by cost accounting) balances that spell profits, we cannot expect full employment prosperity that is the hallmark of economic democracy.
Demand must balance need. Supply must balance demand. Gross profit must balance all costs, including wages and other sums that will make up aggregate demand. None of these essentials can be heaved overboard and not be missed.
JohnGelles 06/09/2011 07:47 PM Report
All the questions and answers were given in the brief conversation between Charlie Rose, Jon Hilsenrath and Peter Coy -- only commentators on this board chose not to hear and comprehend them.
[Because this system (Rose's and/or mine) is prone to crash I have to send this intelligence in several sequential posts.]
NeilMacCallister 06/09/2011 07:21 PM Report
Charlie beagan with: "We begin with the economy, which is producing at levels way below its potential."
And then we went, ....where?
REMant 06/09/2011 11:43 AM Report
Bernanke said not to expect any more bond purchases and that the country had to address structural and debt issues, atho he stood by his previous measures and hoped the Congress would not be precipitous with respect to the latter. These gentlemen, on the other hand, seemed to me to reflect a point of view that few, except Wall St, any longer hold. It is not. nor ever was, just a matter of uncertainties regarding consuming and hiring, but of unresolved debt issues, coupled with wage disparities between the US and its trading partners. However, the easy money policy IMHO has only given speculators the means with which to drive up commodity prices, and eliminated the incentive to earn which would be there if interest rates reflected reality. Wall St would no doubt like the whole economy driven by speculation, but if then one would wonder what explanation they might have for the position in which we now find ourselves. And we have Moody's and Fitch saying that they will downgrade American credit if we DON'T borrow more. Can you imagine them saying that to any ordinary borrower? Besides the bank regulation, BTW, the Treasury is proposing to increase the amount required for home loan down payments to a point well above what it is now. I can hardly wait for the hue and cry about that. The Germans employ ordinary counter-cyclical measures like unemployment insurance, which a lot of ppl think better than monkeying around with interest rates, bail-outs, and make-work. I ought to mention in this regard, since he is getting a lot of bad liberal press, that I read Pawlenty's economic speech and found it technically above reproach. His position is much like Bowles-Simpson.