Charlie Rose

doodah  07/24/2011 09:18 AM Report

what happened to the Dick Turban Puppet Show?

NeilMacCallister  07/17/2011 04:08 PM Report

Dear Mr. Durbin,

The last time I saw you on TV, you were sidling up next to President Obama at the podium, ..and your face militarily snapped from a back-slapping laughter engagement, into a grim solace as soon as you thought the camera was upon your Presidential-backing coterie of Democrats.

Please consider that old advice: "Get out of the way, if you can't lend a hand."

Thank you, sir.

doodah  07/17/2011 08:53 AM Report

... and shamelessly turning America into a SocialistElitist Plutocracy, will help alot with 'security' and 'stability' and all those 'conservative' keywords, to help focus that free patriotism energy.

doodah  07/17/2011 08:31 AM Report

How Best to stabilize (or keep stabilized) the value of the USD, is the question. Judging by most of the republican rhetoric (or philosophy), they think it best to steer general American patriotism to subsidize the entrepreneurial spirited and financially fortunate to partake and take advantage of the many worldly spoils (labor, materials, etc.) that American struggle and sacrifice has fought so hard 'to Secure'. And will continue 'to Secure', if they can continue to force wages down in the good ole USA, and continue reap the bountiful harvest that a 'Secured' rest of the world will provide. Basically so 'we' can have our cake and eat it too. .. Oh! but 'we'(America) don't want to be financially dependent on the rest of the world; that's not the right way to 'stabilize the USD'.

tabs  07/16/2011 08:44 PM Report

The facts of life are that if the US should suffer a Sovereign Debt Bubble deflation the Global economy will also fail. There are 4 reasons for this

1. The USD is the worlds Reserve Currency

2. US debt instruments are held world wide

3. The US is the largest economy in the world

4. The US provides Global Security

Let us just look at the US providing Global Security. If the US fails the US will no longer be able to afford its role as the provider of Global Security. To put it simply if the cat is away the mice will play. If the Global economy fails due to a deflation of the US Sovereign Debt Bubble chaos and fragmentation will result. Since power abhors a vacuum there will be those who are going to try and fill it.

So the question arises, what can the US do to avert a Sovereign Debt failure? To answer the question one has to first realize three things.

1. That to do nothing or by taking half measure will ultimately lead to a failure of the system. The time is past for the easy fix.

2. Time is now of the essence as every day that goes by the hole grows deeper which further limits ones choices till one has no choices left.

3. That there are 2 separate sets of problems facing the US. First and foremost is the Sovereign Debt issue. Second being the long term structural economic problems facing the US. Since the deficit and debt has grown so large it now does have an overlap on the economy which will only grow greater as time passes.

The first and most important problem is the deficit and debt issue because it affects the very FOUNDATION or structure on which an economy is built. It affect the medium of exchange in an economy which is its money. The idea is to stabilize the currency and its debt instruments to maintain confidence in their value. Since increasing the debt which is brought on by deficit governmental spending undermines that value or confidence the first order of business is to bring the Federal and State budgets into line with the tax revenues taken in. Since raising taxes and further Stimulus either by the Treasury or the Fed is now counterproductive in that each has a negative unintended consequence aka Catch 22, those are no longer viable alternatives. Also the creation of new governmental programs in the hope of rectifying or alleviating current or future deficit problems not only increase complexity of government it also adds expense which is counterproductive to the goal of averting a crisis. .The answer here is to trim the Federal and State budgets as quickly as possible to be in line with tax revenues. while this is not an overnight process as dislocations will result it must be done quickly and with resolve. The mere fact that one is taking the problem seriousily and is moving with resolve is a restorative of confidence. In other words time will have been bought.

The second order is to rectify the long term structural problems that the US economy has. They are as follows

1. The tax system must be reformed from top to bottom not only to simplify, make more equitable and most importantly to entice capital to be invested in the US.

2. The Regulatory environment must be streamlined so as to be business friendly and not to put road blocks in its way. The alternative is to have business go to where it is more friendly. The CA and Texas models are the proof of a negative and a friendly envirnoment.

3. The wage structure of the US has to be more in line with the rest of the world to be competitive. This does mean that Americans won't earn as much and the standard of living will decline. Americans will have to do with less. Here one remembers Jimmy Carter telling Americans to "put on a sweater." One also has to think in terms of what will the American standard of living be if America should have a debt crisis and the economy gets crushed or the malise of the economy continues?

So the question is who is going to step up to the plate by telling the truth and have slings and arrows thrown at them. Here one has to remember that the arc of history does get to its ineviatable end one way or another. The only difference being that by doing nothing the outcome will be more severe. One thinks that it is better to move proactively than to role the dice by doing nothing and have the potential outcome of having chaos reign. Further onee has to remember that the heyday of the American economy of the 1960's being hegemonic is no longer a reality. The US faces ever rising economic and political competition and that the desire to maintain or return to that former status is delusional. The choice is in the hands of the American people and by proxy its elected leadership.

robdverity  07/16/2011 02:26 PM Report

Ya know? Just perhaps there's potential poetic justice in the biggest warmongering nation befouling its own financial capability to wage unending wars ad nauseum. A self-imposed built-in restraint. The world might go hungry (along with us) but at least they wont be torn asunder by our techno-terrorism.

doodah  07/15/2011 07:09 PM Report

... meanwhile, back at the ranch, the bankers keep laughing all the way to the bank; thanks to politics and suckers who believe that bullsheet.

tabs  07/15/2011 06:07 PM Report

THE PROGRESSIVE ERA IS DEAD ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

The vituperative bickering over the Debt Ceiling comes as no surprise as it is just another bend in the river that gets us to an inevitable end that the Arc of History shows. What the Debt Ceiling bickering is showing the world is that the US government has become dysfunctional and with that perception of being dysfunctional comes a loss of confidence in the USA. Since the world recognizes that the Republicans who were elected for their fiscal conservatism only control 1/2 of the Congress the level of expectation for a comprehensive resolution of deficit and debt was low, however the Republicans had to prove that they were serious about implementing their rhetoric about fiscal conservatism. This has largely been borne out by events and the world will give a pass to 2012 elections provided a deal is cut. The deal that is going to be cut is going to solve nothing except kick the can down the road to 2012, at which time as previously stated America will become all of one thing or all of another. America will have a choice to make, either travel down the road to Social Democracy and social justice or retain the values of entrepreneurialism, innovation,and American Exceptional-ism one can not have both and once the choice is made there is no going back. If America chooses to become a Social Democracy with the deficit and debt levels being addressed with an "investment" agenda and policies it will be a scant year or two before the world loses all confidence in America's ability to deal in a rational manner in solving its problems. At that time the main event of a Sovereign Debt debacle will be upon America and the outcome will be that not only will America just resemble a Banana Republic it will have become a 3rd World Banana Republic.

charlizecourriers  07/15/2011 03:49 PM Report

What was the national debt in 1982, when R.J. Durbin, was first elected to Congress? And what was the debt when he dodged the draft as the war in Vietnam raged in the 60's? And did he step forward to suggest tax increases in the 60's to pay for the war he dodged? Rose has exactly the same personal history during the sixties as Durbin. Thus their friendship as Democrats. Thus the bad faith in terms of talking about "personal sacrifice."

tabs  07/15/2011 10:16 AM Report

PRESIDENT OBLIQUE

Last night (7/14) on Greta Wire on FOX Rep Paul Ryan was interviewed. When asked about Obama he said, "That you can not get any specifics or a plan out of him, That while he talks about the need for deficit and debt reduction, he believes that Obama really wants to increase spending and the size of government instead. "

Further if one thinks about it Obama has NEVER been specific about anything in any of his speeches and all of his decisions have been drawn out and dithering in nature It is as if he can not commit to anything. Remember General McChrystal said, "That Obama was DETACHED" during his meetings with him. . All BO does, is offer vague outlines without any specifics of his plans and policies. One is thinking that this is not a political strategy but a pathology

doodah  07/15/2011 05:17 AM Report

I can see both sides of argument, Gelles vs. Mant, but like Larry Summers said, the Keynesian Philosophy wasn't really working as a solution to the first Great Depression, until WWII came around, BECAUSE of too much Piddling around with Implementing, same goes for Japan in the 90s. I think what he was trying to say is, go ALL IN, or all bets off.

Amateur Geniuses can philosophize all they want, the bottom line is, reality is, you, we have to work with what's there, Monetarism is what's there, so if that's what it is, then do it RIGHT, enough of this thumb in the posterior rhetoric.

JohnGelles  07/15/2011 03:55 AM Report

REMant speaks for no one in today's dispute between believers in AUSTERITY versus believers in GROWTH -- as the choices before Western Civilization's leaders in Europe and America.

GROWTH is believed to be possible by the pro-JOB Keynesians. Keynes saw that EMPLOYMENT (jobs) was a result of lowest INTEREST and highest supply of MONEY in a free NON-Soviet style political economy.

REMant writes from his unique understanding of employment, interest and money, as follows:

..... ..... " Interest, not 'demand' (actually 'command') is what encourages ppl to invest, work, and save. Isn't it entirely likely that if artificially low interest rates increase prices, higher rates would LOWER them? The Keynesians, Mr Bernanke included, would like to recreate the Soviet Union."

The AUSTERITY route for lower govt spending risks riots by labor which is asked to starve and stand idle while we wait for shoppers at the mall to rescue Western Civilization by buying things they do not need with money they do not have.

The GROWTH seeking Keynesians want govt to seed the future free economy with the only money around -- new money created by fiat only and/or by fiat and fractional reserve banking (with modest interest rates -- below 6%).

A Soviet style command economy without a powerful private sector is nowhere in the picture -- (not in Russia, China, India, Europe, America, anywhere -- but Cuba and North Korea.

Sheldon, by contrast, writes with common sense, historical truth and much needed understanding:

..... ..... "While I sympathize with Jackson's view, his decision to break up the FEDs first incarnation was a mistake. Though not as thoroughly obvious as not raising the debt limit."

Sheldon not only appreciates the interplay between employment, interest and money, he understands the issues around national debt ceilings and global banking systems which are front and center in the narrower contest -- not between Europe and the USA but between the T-party morons and the rest of the world.

I hope the new approach to the T-party -- which will allow the Democrats to demand growth and aggregate DEMAND via traditional EXECUTIVE power and allow CONGRESS to voice concern over the risk of inflation -- takes root.

If the President can stand alone and SPEND the seed money we must, to prevent defeat of labor in November 2012, we will have a chance of remaining a great financial power. If the T-party dies as the ignoramuses they are, the two parties may come back together to finance a new American industrial revolution as foreseen by Jon Huntsman.

REMant would like higher reward for savers. THAT IS HIS ONLY SENSIBLE idea. The way to achieve that is through TIPS savings accounts which ought to be the law: just as Treasury Inflation Protected Securities reward investors, so should inflation protected savings accounts protect savers.

REMant has a thing against Keynes that is nuts: he thinks Keynes would object to people saving money. Keynesian economics demands that people save money as government spends our way to full employment.

Keynes wrote The General Theory of EMPLOYMENT, Interest and Money. Employment came first. Interest and money were to be managed to allow for full PRODUCTION to pay the extra labor full employment demanded. This meant there would be a lag between spending seed money and middle class shopping at the mall. That lag meant higher reward for saving. That reward was meant to be modest interest PLUS inflation protection by way of COLA's.

I hope Sheldon stays around to give some class to these proceedings. He may disagree with me on all counts. But he will not be another REMant -- who would accuse Keynes, the arch enemy of the USSR's systems, of being anti-private business when it was Keynes who kept private business from committing suicide in the 1930's.

Sheldon  07/15/2011 12:35 AM Report

Rem, "unintended consequences" is too sanguine. After Jackson dissolved the federal bank, the money withdrawn was deposited into a legion of smaller local banks which fed credit and speculation. As bank notes were being issued without gold backing. After acknowledging the mounting inflation problem Jackson ordered all land purchases be made in specie which in turn caused the price of gold to go through the roof. When banks were unable to produce specie to back up their notes they collapsed causing the panic of 1837. While I sympathize with Jackson's view, his decision to break up the FEDs first incarnation was a mistake. Though not as thoroughly obvious as not raising the debt limit.

REMant  07/14/2011 11:19 AM Report

The statement by Moody's would be laughable, when you consider that they threaten to downgrade a bankrupt for not borrowing MORE, until, of course, you realize they are all Keynesians tied up and heavily invested in this Ponzi scheme. Keynesians, of course, WANT zero interest rates, NO savings, and a COMMAND economy, which would be the necessary result of a situation where no one saves, and thus cannot through their labor command anything themselves. (According to Locke, labor is what republics rest on.) And the idea that raising interest rates would harm this economy is farcical. Raising interest rates, or at least leaving them alone, is what the Fed should have done in 2007. Interest, not "demand" (actually "command") is what encourages ppl to invest, work, and save. Isn't it entirely likely that if artificially low interest rates increase prices, higher rates would LOWER them? The Keynesians, Mr Bernanke included, would like to recreate the Soviet Union. Really hilarious is that Dems like Sen Durbin took McConnell's proposal seriously. The Post put it on it front page yesterday morning. As he said it shifts the burden to the president, but only because McConnell thinks it will sink them in the 2012 election. Unfortunately it will sink the country as well, tho it might sustain the Federal govt for a while longer. What is at stake here is getting rid of Keynesianism, and with it incipient dictatorship. It is the same as Jackson's campaign against the "monster bank," indeed, far more significant considering the size of the Federal establishment and the reach of the Fed these days. Historians now know that altho Jackson's move had unintended consequences, mainly due to Wall St cupidity, the result was overall to bring about an economic revolution in this country. But I am not surprised that Rose, Bloomberg, and the Dems et al are hysterical about this. It threatens their monopoly. At any rate, Mr Cantor has taken this option off the table.