Charlie Rose

PoliticalRealist1  09/10/2011 09:34 PM Report

The Federal Reserve or "the fed" as it is most commonly identified, has a report on how the monetary system works and its role in it. The fed has always, in its 96 year history - loaned all the money created to inject into the banking system, this money is printed in exchange for U.S. Traesury Notes (15 - 30 year notes). If you, the reader, investigate on what two components are needed for a monetary system to function adequately, you will discover that GROWTH and SCARCITY are both needed or the system will have what Marx described in his third book of "Capital" a final crisis. In this scenario many things could happen because the elites- bankers, top corp. execs, politicians, will not let their grip on power go. So one possible outcome is the "police state"...individual liberties and rights do not exist in this scenario. Im in Mexico, and so far I can see the U.S. observing and taking notes as to how the "war on the cartels" is resulting. Mind you, Mexican soldiers are everywhere- the new federal security law that politicians want passed actually throws all rights and liberties in the trash. So U.S. Citizens, be careful, I will tell you whats gonna happen anyway...U.S. forces will be brought home from Irak and afghanistan, not all but the majority...then the politicians will move Congress to pass some minor laws at first to "combat" the "security threat" that the cartels represent. This will only happen after some horrible event that kills U.S. citizens, that involve the cartels...well thats what it will look like...most likely it will be the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc... Look, the monetary system is at the braeking point...and the human race needs to make a paradigm shift to a new system. The people in power(political, financial, cultural) do not want to. Here is a theoretical situation for one to think about as to what kind of system is needed and how "money" is useless.

You are given an opportunity to develop a small state. You arrive on a large island, say the size of the Big Island of Hawaii, - its prior inhabitants were "deported" because they were so unefficient and wasteful. You have 700 billion dollars...you get ready to bring in some cheap labor from the 3rd world country next door...but as you travel across the hills, mountains, barren rivers, beaches, you realize that there are no fauna, fish, trees, metals, cattle, or any other type of valuable resource! Oh Dang, your 700 billion dollars cant do anything, and its worth nothing in this place!

So what we have is a resource problem, and not a monetary problem here in the modern age. visit www.thevenusproject.com and watch the zeitgeist movies in youtube.

JohnGelles  08/07/2011 03:35 AM Report

CAPITALISM, as practiced in America (and nearly everywhere else,) is "socialism for the rich", "corporatism for business" or "cronyism for a favored few". It is not capitalism, as it should be, in the national or public interest.

Our culture accepts the fact that moneyed elites will do what they please to stay in charge -- as the REST OF US refuse to end wage slavery or persistent debt and poverty. We willingly follow the herd -- and shun the prophet who pleads the case for the individuals who need and do the work, and the case for the GOLDEN RULE.

Capitalism for the rest of us (TROU) is a decentralized democratic monetary system of production -- aimed at future GROWTH in economic OUTPUT, not just on old DEBT that was INPUT to the system.

GROWTH versus DEBT is the argument of the day (August 2011).

Conservative opinion is to avoid more debt, if possible, until our budgeted federal revenues are closer to the necessary federal spending they will be asked to support.

An opposite opinion is to increase federal spending as the only practical means to provide jobs and income as soon as possible to recover from recession, deflation and depression gripping the economy -- because a real estate bubble burst and trillions of dollars of wealth evaporated for millions of people who never caused it.

A third opinion is to do both: (1) avoid more debt and (2).increase federal spending -- simultaneously -- by switching now from socialism for the rich and powerful to CAPITALISM FOR THE REST OF US.

This means the money government spends will not be borrowed -- it will be given by the Federal Reserve free of debt and interest now or ever.

The Federal Reserve will do this to prevent further deflation or depression.

But, because the money permanently increases the money supply, it can cause hyperinflation.

To prevent such result, anti-hoarding law, scarce resource allocation and rationing, powerful savings incentives and wage/price controls must be ready and used as needed.

Inflation-protected tax-free savings will be necessary

Investment will then be seeded for jobs to "nation-build" at home.

Good jobs will grow rapidly and federal incentives to outsource jobs and industries will end. Full employment and high wages will be created as low taxes and interest invite recovery and prosperity.

Savings, that track necessary green production, will take the poison out of debt. Regulation will be simple and effective -- "production-friendly" in a word.

================================

Above is from http://ustaxreform.us

There is more.

winter  08/05/2011 12:09 PM Report

Robdverity's nails it. The wealthy are an occupying force thats sacked America by owning the rule makers. Freedom is just their first line of defense.

robdverity  08/03/2011 04:17 PM Report

G - when the top 1% own 90% of the wealth, taxing any amount is fair game. Besides they doubtless bought the rule book legalizing predation and exploitation from the venal reps we send to Congress. The fact that Corp's are awash with cash and NOT creating jobs makes a mockery of the rich are our saviors and their inherent ingenuity will save. BS! As Mark Twain said (in effect): no man has ever made a million dollars honestly (adjust for inflation on your own).

JohnGelles  08/03/2011 12:50 AM Report

If you do tax the rich you create resistance to planned growth that uses the revenue you took from the rich. This revenue is not needed. Government can create the full employment of total systems that needs money only to prevent inflation. This money can be blocked from bidding for real assets and labor in short supply.

JohnGelles  08/03/2011 12:42 AM Report

You may note I side with the Tea Party on taxes. We do not need to tax the rich. We should not even try to do it. If we grow the economy, machines that think can grow output so high that the poorest among us can have a standard of living that is very high. Take a thing like education: high tech educational systems can bring the cost of the best education to nearly zero cents per pupil -- if we store the recorded media containing the best courses available in universities on line and accessible to everyone all the time.

Anyway, if you do not buy the idea of the end of scarcity of necessities, (not luxuries like castles, palaces, yachts and private lakes,) then competition can be our primary goal and ending poverty and disease can be neglected in favor of rampant narcissism.

JohnGelles  08/03/2011 12:26 AM Report

Sharks... 08/02/2011 01:01 PM is worth repeating:

"Robert Reich nails it:

"The budget deficit is NOT the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is.

"And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it

demands.

("The Economist" had a GREAT cartoon showing the Tea Party pulling the entire world off a cliff.)"

===== end Sharks and Reich =====

I am willing to assume that this repeat of The Great Depression, (admittedly--so far--held to less unemployment than during TGD), does not yet have the threat of fascism and communism on a par with Hitler's and Stalin's evil doings.

And our future dealings with Iran and North Korea may not be as horrific as the death toll for WW II.

Moreover, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, India and Brazil may possibly still be our partners for peace and the greatest prosperity ever imagined.

Yet Robert Reich wants to end poverty and pollution now. And so do I.

The only way to do this is with full employment of labor, capital, science, technology and as much debt-free (or very low interest rate) money as possible.

The heart of the matter is tax and interest rates that will be allowed to slow down growth and possibly ruin democracy as we know it for the foreseeable future.

Democracy as we know it has been good for many people. But it has allowed "the money power" to "buy the law". Thus it is all about competitive games and greed, and not about the "golden rule" and government by objectives -- primarily to finance the golden rule in the real world.

Too many of us think we are at a casino and invited to make bets on the power of the "golden rule" to triumph over "winner take all-ism". So we bet that "winner take all" will be more popular than the GR and will make the future lousy for almost everyone.

I say we can become more civilized and sensible. The GR may be the only rule we can follow if we want to avoid nuclear winter or worse.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 09:25 PM Report

Check out the four minute mark on this Daily Show video:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-1-2011/dealageddon----a-compromise-without-revenues?xrs= share_copy

The Republicans are ruthless negotiators. Watch your back Obama. They just got their own leader who got you so . . .

By the way Charlie, see how nice this video operates? You can slide to the four minute mark and watch after a wee bit of buffering. Oh for that on your site!

Bax  08/02/2011 07:24 PM Report

I realize we are all "in the cycle" and alive in the moment, but I believe the significance of the resolution has been overlooked. The fact is the President has not relinquished any Executive Branch influence and control over the budget for the next decade. Such control was obviously the target of the extreme Right and, at least in this regard, they missed it miserably.

As for the issue of revenue increases, the President merely has to let the Bush "cuts" expire at the end of 2012, or in the alternative, use those present cuts as leverage to reform the tax code.

That is a goal sorely needed here - and one that his base will support universally.

charlizecourriers  08/02/2011 05:23 PM Report

It's time for PBS to begin looking for a replacement for this biased group. Timorous, tedious, and tired old men who can only giggle at their ineptitude--surely something better is possible!

tabs  08/02/2011 05:10 PM Report

Politics is the art of the possible and one needs to keep their eye on the prize. Given that the Republicans only control one 1/2 of 1/3 of the government the prize for the Republicans is to win back the other 1/2 of Congress and the White House in 2012, so that they can enact their agenda of fiscal restraint. Therefore the goal of the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling Increase negotiations was to get as many concessions on reducing the deficit as possible from the Democrats while positioning themselves favorably for the 2012 elections. To this end the Republicans exacted the essential concession from the Democrats in not having revenues increased. However the trick for the Republicans was in not appearing to be unreasonable and self righteous in their demands. This they failed to accomplish when the financial markets started to seriously erode because of their continuing to press for their demand of Cut, Cap and Balance. At that point the Tea Party Republicans should have become aware of the exigencies of the situation and bent a knee to compromise. At that point they had won major concessions and had good position for the 2012 election. As it stands, they are now perceived in the world as being willing to let their house burn down in order to achieve their single minded agenda. This is a failure in keeping ones eye on the prize of achieving a larger goal and shows poor leadership capabilities in that one has to be adaptable and or flexible in meeting the exigencies of material events.

Upon hearing the VP Biden and Liberal Democrat comments about the Tea Party being "Terrorists" one thinks that the Tea Party should not take offense but understand that they have been affective in achieving their goal of exacting concessions from that party. As for the Democrats making those comments, they sound exactly like spoiled little children who didn't get their way.

marestro  08/02/2011 04:44 PM Report

When you give in to some one who has put a gun to your head, there may be no other rational choice, but that is not a "compromise."

Since we are using metaphors such as "gun to your head" and "trigger mechanism," let me add one more. Under the new plan just adopted by the congress and the president,the trigger mechanism is really a "trojan horse" for spending cuts without tax reform. Cuts in spending are automatic if no agreement is reached; tax increases are not. Why couldn't President Obama make the argument for a balaanced approach to cuts and tax increases as favored by a majority of Americans? Because he doesn't convey conviction. I believe that the present agreement will lead to an increase in unemployment and worsen our economy, which may be just what the extremists in the Republican party want. After demonstrating their willingness to allow the country to go into default by not raising the debt limit, why shoud we give them the benefit of the doubt? With respect to the 2012 presidential election, President Obama is banking on LIberals acting like Liberals. He assumes that they will fall into line because they will consider the alternative to be worse. Isn't that just like Obama?

robdverity  08/02/2011 03:57 PM Report

The TEA party affect had a bifurcated outcome for me. On the one hand their convictions to their cause - not dissuaded by non-reelection - was admirable. Where is the same moral fortitude on things that really matter - like wars and more wars. Which their prevention would have reduced the deficit considerably.

The TEA kool aid drinkers and the MI complex and financial hegemony over our system makes it a moral swamp. Guns over butter? Damn straight. Taxes to pay for the guns (even the fingers on them) were at risk.

Our values are reflected in the quality of our representatives - as they (god forbid) seem to reflect them right back on us. As they're supposed to do. Wars go unopposed. Money issues (our real god) bring out a bizarre kind of statesmanship.

We can bitch, but we prob. should be looking in a mirror as we do.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 01:05 PM Report

There ARE revenue increases in it!

THE TRIGGER IN 2013 IF NO AGREEMENT:

Cut spending with a split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending--no cuts to Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs.

Increase revenue by ending Bush tax cuts: the Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 01:03 PM Report

Looks like College Students are protected--big part of the base:

Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 01:01 PM Report

Robert Reich nails it:

"The budget deficit is NOT the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is.

And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it

demands." ("The Economist" had a GREAT cartoon showing the Tea Party pulling the entire world off a cliff.)

Robert Reich http://robertreich.org/post/8331408301

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 12:59 PM Report

Peter Orzag speaks to me--direct, numbers, short sentences.

FACT SHEET FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

adamlarson14  08/02/2011 11:26 AM Report

Good show here as the guests are pointing out that the political system is dysfunctional right now and we are seeing the rubber hitting the road on this problem. This manufactured crisis continues to erode our economic and international strength and has not provided any solutions.

ShalomFreedman  08/02/2011 11:24 AM Report

What a disheartening discussion. All seem to be agreed that the United States in the years ahead will be a slow - growth, high unemployment, larger deficit Economy. All seem agreed that the polarization is so great that the great issues of the day cannot be truly addressed. There is no sign of a vision for America which can move it beyond these kinds of economic problems.

REMant  08/02/2011 10:43 AM Report

The result was about the best that could be had at this time, but a lot more than I feared would be accomplished. I have congratulate the House Republicans. Of course, many Keynesians and Labourites, like apparently Hunt, Heilemann and Halperin, and Zachary Goldfsrb on the Post's front page this AM, have started to argue that it is too little to achieve its purpose and too much for the economy - an echo of the stimulate now and balance later argument, which hasn't shown anything positive for 2 1/2 years, and never made any sense. It never made any sense in the 1930's when it was made too, nor in the 1890's, 1870's, 1840's, etc, etc. They probably would swear it's not addictive, too. What is bad about this bill is that it didn't go far enough, and it cut programs that aren't the important ones.

Given the cant of this ensemble, I'm not surprised no one professes to understand it. Like listening to the Chris Matthews Show. Pelosi showed again that tho she may have a retentive mind, she doesn't really understand anything. Reid will no doubt go down as one of the great Congressional curmudgeons. On the other hand, McConnell, after stumbling out of the gate, finished strong on Bob Schieffer's show Sunday. IMHO Obama, despite a few less than totally honest remarks, did himself a favor and may have won back some independents. And Boehner, I believe, came across as a good Speaker, not at all weak. I suppose those who think otherwise have some idea ppl really ought to be whipped.

The impression I have of the recalcitrants is that their influences come from several directions. Clearly Ron Paul (that great unmentionable) is one. Michelle Bachmann made that clear when she said last week she takes Mises on vacation. Others tho seem to be typical no new taxes types, and many favor guns over butter. Nothing new in that. Others are obviously states-righters and constitution originalists. But I am surprised at the number in both parties who've finally, after some four decades or so, embraced a flat tax approach. I think it will be a while longer, however, before they feel the same way about Social Security.

Unlike the pundits Orzag sense. This is really a typical major financial crisis, and we have so far repeated all the stupid mistakes made in the 1930's despite what Bernanke and Romer may think. The only way stimulus, even originating in China or Saudi Arabia, will reduce the debt is by paying it down with depreciated dollars, and in this situation the only way effect that will have would be to bleed the nation dry.