Charlie Rose

worldwatcher  11/14/2011 05:32 PM Report

Sachs understands and articulates what he said excellently -- except that he, after everything he's said, and all the glassy-eyed liberals, progressives and even leftists -- who were once mesmerized by Barack "Continuing-Or-Even-Exceeding-Bush's-Policies" Obama -- didn't and *still* don't understand, even as Sachs (or Cornel West) says, "But, *compared* to the Repubicans...", even though Obama can talk smoother than the obviously *crrr-razy/simpleminded/brainfrozen/boorish*, corporate-rich-loving, and intellectually challenged Republicans, is that...

__________________OBAMA **IS** A REPUBLICAN.__________________

worldwatcher  11/14/2011 03:20 PM Report

Jeffrey Sachs: "We have a political business cycle that is the shortest [of the modern democracies], so we can't even think straight..." in a system where "the lobbyist dominate the Congressional process" -- and a system of the largely corporate financing of election campaigns and a corporate lobbyists dominate the political system in general:

THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS UP FOR ELECTION EVERY TWO YEARS -- WHICH MEANS THAT ESPECIALLY THEY ARE RUNNING FOR ELECTION ALL THE TIME!

What kind of system is that!? I'm surprised the Constitution hasn't been amended by now to change this.

So, who do you think the politicians are ultimately going to respond to (even if they talk a smooth game to us): ordinary people or the people with suitcases full of money? This, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has equated endless money with the endless ability to privately fund election campaigns.

Jeffrey Sachs' comments are excellent, but if he thinks that Obama is going to respond to anyone but the corporate rich and the military-industrial complex, then Sachs still doesn't get it! -- even as Sachs says, He's [Obama's] with Wall Street all the time!"

I'm African American and I never believed in Obama for a second of his election campaign. (And, of course, I didn't support McCain-Palin, or any of the other candidates, although the more naked obviousness of the Republicans might have been better for all of our political consciousnesses -- they're both going to ruin the country in the way Sach's describes -- instead of an Obama who lulled his voters back to watching Masterpiece Theater on PBS, and refusing to stand up to him, or even make prior *demands* on him, the way the Tea Party would make demands or stand up their candidates/politicians.) Obama was merely the ultimate face-lift on this economic system of corporatism and American imperialism.

So, how's that "Hopey-Changey -- Yes We Can!", thing been coming along?

WHAT THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IS CALLING FOR IS A CHANGE IN THE PLAYING *FIELD* -- NOT JUST A CHANGE IN THE PLAYERS.

tbo88  11/02/2011 09:51 PM Report

Finally had a chance to view this show from October 5 with Jeffrey Sachs. Even though he is rooting for the wrong guy to succeed, he is exactly dead on for what President Obama needs to do if re-elected or if the Republican party gets into office in 2012. Everything that happens is too short-term, nothing gets done unless the President has the Congresses ear. He should have raised taxes on the rich, he didn't have the stones to do it. If he did, there would be less anger coming from Occupy Wall Street.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/12/2011 07:22 AM Report

Keiser Report: Ground Zero of Financial Terrorism – October 11, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zpp3BNUgGM

.

machngunjoe  10/11/2011 06:05 PM Report

Max Keiser is a crack pot conspiracy Theorist with little credentials. Its hard for me to take him or anything on RT seriously, because there answer to everything is BLAME AMERICA. Jeffrey Sachs on the other hand is right on with his assessments on America, great Interview.

luciano10  10/10/2011 07:14 AM Report

One of Jeffrey Sachs' key points was that America needs a long term plan to get healthy, including tax reform, lobby reforms, and investment in the infrastructure, systems, and human capital.

I recommend Charlie dedicate a series to "America's 10-Year Plan" and interview people from across the spectrum who have big ideas about long-term reforms and investment. For example, love him or hate him, New Gingrich has big ideas in these areas and I encourage Charlie to interview Gingrich and others to challenge and test his ideas and stimulate a healthy debate about the long term. My belief is that when it comes to the long term, both the left and the right have much on which they can agree. Ultimately, this would encourage the public to also think long-term and pressure political leaders to do the same.

Ricardo_Amaral  10/09/2011 07:52 AM Report

Here is an interesting program with Max Keiser, and on this interview they discuss Jeffrey Sachs experience with Russia.

Keiser Report: Price Propaganda – October 8, 2011

http://youtu.be/QP0WAYsbkNE

.

doodee  10/08/2011 08:51 AM Report

This Professor who spends alot of time Thinking about this stuff, and getting paid alot of money to do so (Columbia University?.) is wrong about alot of things (I call it, IvoryTowerPower Syndrome, there's a small degree of disconnect to the Real world and it's just as Real as the Plutocracy America has become), but he's right about the most Important thing(s), The 'Plutocracy' America IS.

About 95% of what he said, Hit the Nail Right on the Head. I just don't understand, Has he heard of 'Buddy Roemer'? Why no mention of him??? Buddy Roemer (a republican) is More in line with this Professor's Cause.

THe System (Systemic Corruption) Isn't going to change, Until somebody with Integrity and at least half a brain holds 'the bully pulpit' who Isn't OWNED BY THE BIG CORPORATE LOBBYISTS CONGRESS MONEY GRUBBING (TAKING AND SPENDING) PARASITICAL PIGS. It's NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

I would argue, that America Needs to do both, temporary stimulus spending AND temporary raising of taxes and long term INVESTING IN AMERICA! WISELY!!! HELLO!

vfstrand  10/07/2011 10:33 PM Report

Thank you, Charlie, for having Jeffrey Sachs on again.

Much of the interview, however, was contentious. (reminiscent of the one with that Huffington woman a couple of years ago.) Please invite him back again, and allow him just a little more time to explain to us what he is thinking. Kenneth Langone just told us that what this country sorely needs is people who speak the truth; we should let them speak. Thank you for a fabulous show.

ThomD  10/07/2011 04:03 PM Report

Sachs' criticism of the stimulous isn't so much that it isn't a success as a stimulus, but that it isn't long term policy that he sees as more needed. Further if all the stimulous pushers can politically get is anemic programs that not even they are happy with, all the more reason to consentrate efforts where they will help.

ThomD  10/07/2011 03:57 PM Report

If it is scandalous that the wealthiest corporations book their offshore earnings in tax havens, then the treatment of US "citizens" abroad is even more shocking. The IRS is attacking the long term savings of US citizens who live abroad. In the extreme such citizens could be foreign nationals who were born in transit through a US airport. The IRS doesn't care and wants 35% of their bank accounts. This is all under the auspices of searching out tax cheats, but there are millions around the world who are US citizens in name only, and are now under attack.

basile13  10/07/2011 12:34 AM Report

I think Sach's view on taxation is spot on, but I would argue about his refute of Keynesianism. We needed a stimulus in order to stop the hemorrhaging of the U.S. economy (and still do). He says the stimulus was a gimmick because it did not really do anything (it did not keep unemployment down to 8% like it said it would), this is because it was too small for the problem because we thought the problem was smaller and GOP and conservative Democrat's intransigence. When the stimulus bill was drafted (and remember, nearly half of it was tax cuts), we thought the economy contracted 4% of GDP, but it actually contracted 8%, this changes the figures completely. Secondly, he even argues that our infrastructure needs modernization and maintenance, but argues that 'shovel-ready' projects are gimmicks. Shovel-ready projects fix this problem, and therefore are not gimmicks.

On his idea of increasing investment in the future, he is generally correct, but we cannot expect everyone to have a college degree. Secondly, I'm getting really tired of every commentator saying we need to be more like Germany without understanding the vast differences between our systems. Germany has massive and powerful labor unions that keep wages up by restricting labor mobility so that companies can train these workers to justify paying higher salaries, without the fear that another company will poach their worker that they just spent a great deal of money training. It also creates an insider-outsider dilemma where those who are hired live very well, but those that are not cannot find employment because these companies labor costs are too high. This obviously has its benefits in terms of keeping wages up, but the U.S.'s nearly absolute strength in labor mobility is a serious competitive edge for the U.S. Also, Germany has a different banking system where they favor long-term capital investment over short-term trading, as in the U.S., and so these banks have tremendous say within the companies. Also, these structures favor different outcomes, where the German model creates incremental innovation (e.g. awesome cars), while the American model favors radical innovation (e.g. Apple and Google).

This German model does not even really fall on the less/more government debate. While Germany certainly invests more in their economy, the government does not guarantee these wages, in fact Germany only recently passed a minimum wage. Bill Clinton stated a good point saying the U.S. is the only country that has had this stupid debate over bigger or smaller government, instead of smarter government.

robert_j_richardson  10/06/2011 06:25 PM Report

Professor Sachs has framed the problem refreshingly well. Our country's wealth has been increasingly placed in the hands of the few while those at the bottom pay for it by having less. There was a time when this was the accepted goal for all of us to achieve and now the game is over. 1% of those competing have captured 25% of the wealth. One way or another our infrastructure must be maintained, our citizens given the opportunity to remain healthy and our ability to compete with other nations be guaranteed. We must compete in global markets that do not include intensive labor resources unless we are willing to lower our standard of living to match other nation’s workforces. This means educating our citizens while investing in research for their future. Our political system is not designed to support these new goals. It is designed to support reelection. Shortening the length of terms of those who serve in government would reduce this dependency. Capital can be made available for investment in our nation and its future by increasing taxes on those business entities that use foreign labor to increase their profits.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/06/2011 06:25 PM Report

He claims that Globalization is a perverse system—pushing down the bottom, pushing up the top while having the government give the top tax cuts.

Well it was sold as bringing the world to a middle class level. So what happened?

I hear in China they aren't starving to death anymore. Perhaps the bottom was not eating and now the bottom gets to eat?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/06/2011 06:18 PM Report

Long term approach with tax increases huh? Stimulus a bad idea?

Perhaps Jeffrey should watch the episode with Warren Buffet when he says we were--at that time--on the edge of a cliff and we needed to call 911 or we would have catastrophic unemployment, Depression level unemployment.

The Ivy League really is institutionalization.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/06/2011 06:10 PM Report

Great job Charlie!

Kept him engaged and did not let him run the court.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/06/2011 06:09 PM Report

The really good stuff is about 20 minutes into the interview.

The world can NOT be organized for the convenience of the politicians. This will not work for the economy. Those who didn’t have a job should have been put back in school to retrain them. Lead off your new administration with a proper budget that includes proper taxation at the top.

Of course, Jeffrey Sachs is our Monday Morning Quarterback who might mention that Obama started the game with 41 points against him even before the coin toss.

BVA  10/06/2011 05:28 PM Report

The following comment is not meant to contradict anything that Mr. Sachs asserted in his interview. I agree with Mr. Sachs' main point that all of the spending of Obama administration could have been much more accurately targeted to solving the underlying 30 year plus problems of America and not just trying to pump-prime or jump-start the faltering economy. Indeed, he is very right in concluding that a great opportunity was wasted. But I submit the following paragraphs because I think they are also crucial to understanding the role of a modern 21st Cent government in the economy. And I think Mr. Sachs might whole-heartedly agree with most of the following.

Governor Perry, among others, is on record several times in asserting that the New Deal did nothing positive for America (e.g. Newsweek interview), so the following set of paragraphs is not a non sequitur to the current political situation.

"The zombie myth that the New Deal did nothing to improve the economy and the bigger zombie myth that the New Deal was not the proper strategy are stubborn items in the flat-Earth economics manual of Ptolemaic economic cosmology. To see why these myths are just that, myths, one only has to compare side-by-side three relatively available graphs: the unemployment rate from approximately 1929 to 1946 or thereabouts, economic growth as a percentage of GNP for the same approximate period, and also the federal deficit as a percentage of federal spending, or GNP (no GDP yet in the 30's and 40's) if you prefer, again for the same approximate period. A clear correlation pattern emerges. Even those who subscribe to the theory that it was only WWII that "cured" the Great Depression usually concede that wartime deficit spending had something to do with that "cure". The war itself was a giant-sized version a government works employment program 'a la' the CCC, WPA, and the PWA that also had a dramatic effect on the unemployment rate.

"In the area of social science, the confirmation of a correlation between government deficit spending and economic growth and a low unemployment rate just doesn't get any better than these three graphs. The theoretical foundation for converting that correlation into cause and effect is also pretty simple. It involves an arithmetical process of elimination -- a version of "Occam's razor". The four major components of GDP (and GNP) are 1) consumer spending (the largest component), 2) business investment, 3) state and local government spending, 4) federal government spending (by far the smallest before the 1930s and 1940's). When 3 out of 4 of those components decline then start a slow return to previous levels it's pretty clear what the cause of the depression is. When the fourth and smallest sized component also declines somewhat and then increases dramatically to ultimately become as large, if not larger, than one or more of the other components, then it becomes pretty clear which component of GNP lead the way out of the Great Depression -- federal deficit spending.

"Some revisionist historians like to pretend that the Great Depression was caused by business uncertainty created by the New Dealers, and therefore the cure was business certainty created by WWII ending the New Deal. No doubt the initial recession was the normal result the stock market financial bubble bursting. And economists Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz proved that the Fed created the much larger extended economic downturn by doing the exact opposite of what they should have done (and the opposite of what Ben Bernanke is doing now) -- tightening credit and increasing interest rates. When FDR took over after 3 and one half years of economic decline businessmen were more than just uncertain, they were either bankrupt, or insolvent, or they just couldn't get any credit to invest in anything let alone their own faltering businesses. In other words they were about as 'uncertain' as a businessman can be. The New Dealers were the optimistic ones compared to the Republicans who were unintentionally (I think) ginning up any increase in uncertainty they could.

"Read Ben Bernanke's recent book about the significant effect the disruption in personal relationships between bankers and farmers and small businessmen (because so many banks went bankrupt) had on the availability of credit during bank crisis years of the Great Depression before New Deal legislation dramatically reduced the rate of bank bankruptcies."

anne4444  10/06/2011 04:12 PM Report

Talking is easy, but doing is never so.

A good idea is important, but it takes only one second.

To delivery the result, may take years.

Good Idea + Bad Result = Dreamer

Bad Idea + Bad Result = Dummy

Good Idea + Good Result = Achiever!!!

.

.

.

Bad Idea + Good Result = You have to believe God.

anne4444  10/06/2011 04:00 PM Report

Talking is easy, but doing is never so.

A good idea is important, but it takes only one second.

To delivery the result, may take years.

Good Idea + Bad Result = Dreamer

Bad Idea + Bad Result = Dummy

Good Idea + Good Result = Achiever!!!

REMant  10/06/2011 11:02 AM Report

Much of this is what I've been writing online for the past several years, and I certainly want to congratulate Prof Sachs on it, especially since I feel it is something of a turnabout for him. I would like to point out to Charlie that he did not imply by this that all conservatives were greedy and selfish, and he certainly took a jab at the missionaries among us. The answer is not always government. If we are going to make things work, we don't need more taxes given to a self-serving, hypocritical, domineering institution no one wants to support; what we need is to have ppl WANT to support cooperative effort. This is clear from looking at the European societies he holds up. Germany could not succeed without this essential virtue. Nor Scandinavia, excepting now, Norway. And it is not to be achieved by awarding gold stars. Just the other day, yielding to consitutent pressure, the admin gutted the No Child Left Behind standards, suggesting in the process that this was an educational advance.

As for the Buffett red-herring I'll just remark out that on at least a dozen occasions I've pointed out the way in which easy money gravitates to fewer pockets via inflation and that if the Fed refuses to stop creating it, and the govt refuses to stop borrowing it, then it has to be taxed away and redistributed. But stopping the process is far more important. And, at this time, we need saving and investment here, not more spending. Quizzed twice on this point the other day, Buffett, himself, twice said we had done enough stimulating. I feel quite certain, too, that ending this inflation-welfare dependency will go a long way toward supplying the country's shortage of virtue. Those European countries balance their budgets. I hope those who've begun protesting in American streets, as well as those abroad, take heed, because at this point I see a lot of confusion and differing perspectives on this.

I feel the same way as he does about the administration and I think every true American ought. All of us, I'm sure, wanted him to succeed, but he hasn't, the reasons seeming to run from bad advice to inexperience, but it does seem that he has, for whatever reason, never put together a coherent, consistent plan, preferring instead half-measures, or in the face of adversity, no measures at all, and I would not be running around blaming several hundred members of Congress for that.