Charlie Rose

vongleichent  02/24/2012 04:45 PM Report

Global warming is just another myth. This theory is probably tight up to a billion dollar industry that likes to see us worrying about this issue. Even though I'm hesitant to call this an issue. Unemployment is my opinion is what we should be focusing at all time. The notion that with more people we will have a greater demand for essential goods shouldn't be anything new to us. This economics 101 demand and supply. As a matter of fact, I welcome all this new people on planet earth.

325243  07/13/2011 01:51 AM Report

I just got done watching the first half of the Larry Summers interview and G. Stepheanopolis interviews and I'm struck at how out of touch economists and politicians are with how much our current laws on protecting the environment and the American worker puts America at an disadvantage against nations like China, India and Pakistan who don't care about either one. I work for work for a MAJOR shipping corporation and have seen many companies leave America for these nations because they don't care about the environment or working conditions for their citizens. We have our Love Canals and have learned our lessons about protecting the worker and environment, these nations don't. We will never have employment rates done to 3 or 4 percent if you don't strongly encourage these nations to have minimal protections for workers and the environment, it simply makes us less competive. Not everyone can be a lawyer, economist, teacher, police officer or other professionals without decently paid blue collar workers as the multitude, the foundation on which the other professions drive their livelihoods. No permanent economic gains can be made without good paying blue collar jobs. Wages at Walmart, Target and the like will not support the taxes base cities, states and this nation need to keep a level of living close to what America is use to. I have seen to many jobs move to nations who sacrifice the environment and their citizen's well being for economic gain. We can't compete, we will never have enough white collar jobs to replace them. We need to "help" these nations to protect the environment and at least provide a safe environment for their workers, let alone providing basics like social security and Medicare and Medicaid. Yes, I said basics, because we do it, why won't they provide this for there citizens. American businesses are too handicapped by these "basics" we provide in America. We will never compete with nations who take advantage of their workers and pollute the environment.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/03/2011 04:31 PM Report

I get this email this weekend that humans are all right--it is the volcanoes that are really bad.

So I do the research:

The US geological survey shows that human beings produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes.

The volcanologist Dr Terrance Gerlach confirmed that figure and said furthermore that in their counting they count the undersea volcanoes.

Partial [edited] transcript (heed Charlie Rose!) of this debate that shows what the world is up against:

GEORGE MONBIOT: .... Take, for example, his claim that human beings produce more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. Now, the US geological survey shows that human beings - sorry, he suggests that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human beings. The US geological survey shows that human beings produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. And yet again and again, however many times it is pointed out to him, Ian keeps reporting this straightforward fraud, this fabrication that volcanoes produce more CO2.

...

IAN PLIMER: Well I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology. Now Mr Monbiot wrote to me when I asked him some questions of science and said he was not qualified to answer these questions of science. So he's a journalist and he's asking me a scientific question. He has not read this book ...

....

IAN PLIMER: Well, let me make two points on this. On the chapter called Earth I talk about two volcanoes. One are the terrestrial volcanoes, which is the USGS reports on emissions of carbon dioxide, but more than 85 per cent of the world's volcanoes we do not measure, we do not see, these are submarine volcanoes that release carbon dioxide and we deduce from the chemistry of the rocks how much carbon dioxide is released.

TONY JONES: Can I ask you a question about that, if you don't mind? Because one British journalist whom you quoted those exact figures to went back to the US geological survey after you told him about this 85 per cent figure, and asked he them to confirm their claim that actually 130 times the amount of CO2 is produced by man than volcanoes. So your response to that.

IAN PLIMER: My response is that there are 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about. There's 64,000 kilometres of undersea volcanoes which we do ...

GEORGE MONBIOT: Which they have counted.

IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please restrain yourself. And we have 64,000 kilometres of volcanoes in submarine environments with massive super volcanoes there. We do not measure them. And the figures that I have used are deduced from the chemistry of rocks which erupt on the sea floor.

TONY JONES: OK. Now, that's that point dealt with. George Monbiot, a quick response to that and then we'll move on to other questions.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong.

You get the flavor.

The transcript (again, Charlie!) is at:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

JohnGelles  07/02/2011 05:52 PM Report

All we ever do in this archive is to predict, prescribe, or criticize another's prediction or prescription. (Or meaning and/or.)

And if we are ever worth reading, only we are likely to know it. Because we only rarely read what we don't write.

In looking over this Timothy Ash entry I visited what is called "related guests". The archive is very strong on this feature. There I found a discussion on the matters discussed today that originated in 2008 before Obama was elected and tried to inform him of what to do not to screw up his first term if elected. Burns of the NYT London office is one of four who pretend to know something worth sharing with the CR audience.

They do share one great thought: the world that counts wants to partner with the USA to do the right thing. It does not want to be lectured by the USA. They think we have slipped and they know enough to be partners not just workers or consumers.

China, especially, has been said in many places not to want to kill us -- just to want be partners in Chimerica, not chumps, and not in fear of all the Russian and American bombs they know may come if we all go nuts and forget to duck.

Well the CR Show is the best source of thought outside of reading books and knowing all that Google is preparing to lead us to ASAP. So thank you CR.

But the Show is do GD stupid not to visit the Univ of Missouri Kansas City, and especially Wray and Forstater,

that I am flummoxed night and day. Charlie thinks that Niail Ferguson, historian on loan to Harvard, knows about money and its function. He knows from nothing.

JohnGelles  07/02/2011 05:30 PM Report

Tabs, like me, is a faceless name who wants a

lots of strangers to listen to his or her ideas

offered free via Charlie's show, asks:

..... "What would happen if the US has a Debt Crisis...?"

Tabs ends with : "These people better start thinking outside the box."

.

Coincidentally, one -- who like Carlie Rose --, keeps me informed and as sane as my brain can be in this mad-house Earth at the present time, writes in Time on our DEBT and GREECE's troubles: He thinks "Debates over money are always asking for a compromise. Just split the difference." He also thinks BOTH spending cuts and tax increases make sense."

Obviously, both FAREED and CHARLIE are trapped inside the box with the faculty at MIT, Harvard, Chicago and almost all who comment to the CR Show.

What is their problem. They AGREE we need more MONEY.

What is MONEY? It is not something tangible like gold, inventory, buildings, guns or butter!

MONEY is what people guess will buy what they expect to buy in the FUTURE with as little loss in purchasing power possible.

So MONEY is a "promise" by its monopoly creator that compels belief by lots of sellers that they should be content to receive it in exchange for WEALTH on hand.

Well, America as a supplier of money to BUYERS which they should not buy unless they are convinced SELLERS with love it in the future, has a CHOICE more than it has a problem!

It can supply its money that seems to be insufficient in amount to keep America growing not declining in its aggregate real wealth (not counting money -- all other things that people buy because they NEED and WANT it.)

Or it can supply Bernanke-FDR-Lincoln-Washington-Franklin-Keynes (BFLWFK) green backs.

These greenbacks can supplement our current FR notes and other currencies in a small enough supply to go un-noticed but a large enough supply to virtually guarantee full employment and greater growth than ever achieved by a nation of our size and stage of development.

Capiche? Capiche Charlie. Capiche staff member with no brain and no clout who is paid to read some of the trash that written in this archive?

Why do we write to the thin air? Are we insane? Or are we thinking outside the box because Tabs told us so.

tabs  07/01/2011 03:10 PM Report

One should consider that everything in the world is a two edged sword. Therefore one should consider, what would happen if the US has a Debt Crisis its ramifications on the US and world economies which is fossil fuel based and global security. What would the ramifications be on the economies of scale which the world population now depends upon for goods and sustenance? Would the world population at these levels be sustainable? These people better start thinking out of the box.

tabs  07/01/2011 02:47 PM Report

The following was posted to this Board on 5/11/11 under the Calderon interview. To one whose perceptions might be mistaken it does seem eerily prescient.

"Climate Change aka Global Warming. One wonders what the more than doubling of the worlds population in the last 50 years has wrought on the planet in the way of environmental degradation? Especially when most everyone aspires to a higher standard of consumption existence. Do the Climate Change hawks think that going Green is going to stop the over fishing of the oceans, land erosion, water pollution, deforestation and climate change that is brought about by an increased population? Do the going Greens think that their standard of living will not suffer from going Green as there still is no viable substitute for fossil fuels in the next 50 to 100 years. The economies of the world will falter and decline if Carbon Taxes are imposed, so one can not just transition themselves into being Green and maintain their current electric supply. Then have the Greens ever thought that deforestation is a primary cause of Climate Change or are they too busy planning on how to spend those tax dollars collected on those Carbon burning energy producers. One wonders what would happen with regards to Climate Change if the world planted a billion or two billion trees, which act as carbon sinks? One thinks that the going Green crowd have only found a new alter of worship to pray at. Or if one really wants to be nasty one can accuse them of being Luddites."

JohnGelles  07/01/2011 02:34 PM Report

CORRECTION:

Yet at the end of WWII, before the 80th American Congress wrecked middle class labor power, progress seemed possible.

JohnGelles  07/01/2011 02:31 PM Report

Rose and guests, Seligmann (CEO of Conservation International) & Roger Altman, (Chairman of Evercore Partners), offer enlightened establishment interests whose prescriptions and predictions will be helpful to the growing population on the planet who will need water, food and other necessities AND the money to buy them IF they are supplied required quantities at affordable prices.

I represent the money cranks who fear that even if scientists, specialists and engineers solve the supply problem (and all the political resistance to any solutions at all,) we will still end up with too little profitable demand in related markets and too little supply, as well.

..... That is to say -- there will be less monetized demand than supply, and less supply than the amount we would need if money cranks were allowed to enrich the poor with fiat money calculated to be just the right amount.

If the above is true, we face a no-win situation where no matter how smart we may be, we will be losers because global management of our monetary systems of production is not sufficiently advanced for our time.

Yet at the end of WWII, before the 80th American Congress wrecked middle class labor power. Over the next 60 years, the welfare state was replaced by the most corrupt crony and casino capitalism here and in the remnants of socialist and mixed economies.

However, the 2008 economic fiasco, touched off by the residential housing burst bubble, has invited reform starting in Scandinavia that may south, west and east, until we return to where we were in 1945.

Only, this time we will have computers and futurists as well as money cranks who may invent and achieve solutions science has made possible and law and economics have resisted.

Where do these three people (Rose and his 2 guests) stand in relation to such opportunity? Athwart its path with REMant -- locked into ancient superstition?

..... Or on the side of the angels, with Dean Kamen, Ray Kurzweil, John Gelles, and all the optimists who see the potential to end wage slavery, poverty, direct taxes, failing schools, neglected infrastructure, under developed cost accounting systems and debt-for-equity swapping, and all other failures to adopt functional law and functional finance before all is lost to ignorance of our best educated elites who never had a clue that money had a purpose and it was full employment.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/01/2011 01:49 PM Report

Hmmm . . . you say the gravest overall threat we face is climate change and the environment yet the 2012 election will be about the economy, the economy, the economy, the economy.

Gentlemen, me thinks you need to work a bit harder.

Pollinators, clean water, 9.2 billion people in four decades, 70% increase in fossil fuel consumption--I don't like the planet you live on.

Perhaps you can find a way to link the economy to the environment?

REMant  07/01/2011 11:16 AM Report

The problem has been that until recently industrial output has been overvalued, more so as the evolution of bank credit made that possible, while natural commodities undervalued. The irony is that recent attempts to prop up the former have merely succeeded in accelerating the price of the latter. Once these monetary problems are sorted out (i.e., by firing Bernanke, et al) I am certain things will equilibrate and population pressure decline. Malthus (a predecessor of Keynes, BTW) made all these gentlemen's arguments and he was clearly wrong. Energy, for instance, will not be demanded if there's no use for it, and if there's demand it will be limited by availability. So it will happen naturally enough without, as they propose, a bunch of regulations and artificial mkts, which I seriously doubt will work anyway, and would be unnecessary were the banks restrained. And the same is true with respect to greenhouse gases. We are already seeing nature's response to that, in drought and monsoon, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. That is not to say conservation and other such rational steps are an invalid response - that's why we have brains and no hair - but I fully expect the poles to start icing up again. The only other route is technological innovation, which cannot be rushed.