Charlie Rose

vongleichent  02/13/2012 06:30 PM Report

wow this panel was killing it. they certainly who economics in and out. this was really interesting. nice point that she made about the fact that europe has a better social net. people like OPW are going to have a much harder time. this is why the movement will be an on going basis. how is an unemployed person going to survive?

JohnGelles  10/31/2011 08:52 PM Report

The whole fuss over jobs and wages is easily solved by putting free trade in a logical cage where labor and and other costs we have that our competitors do not are RECOGNIZED for their potential effect AND domestic markets are open to free trade for no more than is good for each nation. In the case of the USA, most markets must be protected from imports so that we do not become a banana republic or wage slave state. Eighty percent of our steel and everything else ought to be made in America. Or some other rational measure. ARE WE INSANE to risk freedom for a theory that has proved to be nonsense -- about free trade and comparative advantage. We cannot sell them beef and beans and buy steel and electronics and expect to prevent war against our people and our interests.

JohnGelles  10/31/2011 08:35 PM Report

[correction: }

... concerned with government investment of "borrowed or collected (from taxes) MONEY (or funds)" -- which meant...

JohnGelles  10/31/2011 08:29 PM Report

R.E. Mantle (Mickey's cousin), is the most difficult voice on money and banking, law and economics, etc., I ever encounter.

The intense argument yesterday on Fareed Zakaria's CNN GPS TV show, had Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia Univ.) arguing for government "investment" in growth and future supply of products to reduce scarcity and poverty, AGAINST Niall Ferguson (Harvard) who was concerned with government investment of "borrowed or collected (from taxes)" -- which meant risking future hyperinflation and even current fear of inflation that might cause more fear and unemployment.

Sachs and Ferguson were arguing vociferously and angrily over the same issues over the global economy as these editors were at Charlie's table.

Now REM says save and don't print money.

The save is OK by my lights. It may not raise DEMAND but it does allow government to print more money.

Government can print money to invest in our future capacity to produce SUPPLY of all the human race needs -- and to add so much liquidity to the system that the poor will soon be able to buy their needs.

The animal spirits we have, that Keynes knew helped overcome moods which shunned more risk, is part of the capitalist freedom of enterprise spirit America has (and must protect) to nourish entrepreneurial effort to satisfy need and not lose money in the bargain.

Keynes saw money created by more debt could fail support profits necessary for adequate jobs and wages. So he favored spending on the investment side to raise SUPPLY and on the purchasing side to raise DEMAND.

Keynes did not specify the printing press as a source for managed money. Abba Lerner implied this and Ben Bernanke does it.

REM and Ferguson fail to understand money in relation to supply. A small amount of money can allow a production genius to radically raise SUPPLY via high technology.

REM AND and all these editors fail to see the material needs the economy supplies. They are all focused on money profits. Money profits can be assured the same as money purchasing power.

The major rule to be followed is to keep saving popular by inflation prevention COLA's for savings, as well as social security and wages.

In the end, production and output are EVERYTHING, the rest is simple arithmetic for logistical and financial peformance.

REMant  10/31/2011 11:44 AM Report

Forcing the bondholders to pay their part was undoubtedly a step forward. But it would seem that the appearance of these three weyward Sisters on the show is to again push for the restoration of bubblenomics, timed to coincide with yet another G20 preach-a-thon. There is no way to split the difference between printing money and saving. And saving, which is not simply "austerity," is what is needed, not more paper credit, worthless without anything behind it. The Keynesians insist on reflating their pyramid scheme and anything that hinders that is just this side of treason and apostasy. Certainly churlish and undemocratic.

I resent, as well, having ppl with funny accents talking about "our economy" and "our growth" as if sun had never set on the British Empire. Like Geithner and co, whom I saw on TV making his banking pitch just a few days ago, Britons want Europe to take their advice, but not take any responsibility for it, nor in the end, any responsibility at all. Responsibility finds no place in Keynes, just "animal spirits." But I have a strong feeling not only that Italy will follow Greece, but Spain, Italy, and then France, and the UK. I suspect that in this case the accents will all migrate to the Middle East, where, in fact, it seems a lot of them already are.

While an artificially low interest rate in a strong economy may temporarily keep prices from falling, in a weak economy it keeps prices from rising, and as soon as they see inflation nowadays, instead of retrenching it becomes imperative "we must have more growth," which only serves to weaken the economy further. As Benjamin Anderson remarked of Britain in the '20s and '30s, any country can have unemployment, which can afford to pay for it.

Like the US in the '30s, the Chinese have a lot of foreign currency, which if they were to use it to buy goods, instead of govt debt, would no doubt help the situation, and go a long way to helping themselves as well, because bubbles are starting to burst there as well. But if they listen to these three, they'll sit on it to increase domestic demand, which will be less than useless. We did that in the '30s.

Kicking Greece out of the EU would certainly mean an even greater loss for creditors, but since that is likely to happen anyway there's no real point in antagonizing the Greeks over it now. The animals have already left. And if the Euro further depreciates it certainly isn't going to help us either, though it will no doubt help the bankers. If the Occupy Wall St ppl want villains, Geithner and Bernanke are perfectly cast.