Charlie Rose

zb1  12/22/2011 07:28 PM Report

Well I do give Brooks credit for saying for the Republican/Tparty, "Truth doesn't matter anymore." And that's the truth.

zb1  12/22/2011 07:24 PM Report

I have really come to dislike Brooks and his smooth talking like he actually knows what he is talking about.

He talks about the lack of trust in government and yet refuses to acknowledge that it is the Rightwing Republican/Tparty have done their best to destroy all trust in government and even science. (perhaps he forgot what Regan said) All they trust in is religion, corporations, and money.

Maybe when he acknowledges we have a Republican/Tparty that is really nothing more then the party of the old civil war south and their only real objective is to refight the civil war and destroy the union.

Greyfox01  12/22/2011 05:41 PM Report

I was about to go into a tangent over David arrogant. But then he said "we are all born with a since of fairness". If we are it doesn't take long for the young long to see the injustice that boils out of those who live in ivory towers, who don't know or don't care how their greed effects those who live at ground zero. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about just that, fairness. The concept of fairness has never been so empty as it is today.

Greed is not a bad thing when we're talking about living the promised American Dream. But, today greed is like alcoholism, enough is never enough, even if it means cutting the heart and soul out of a nation and it's people to feed on.

David knows to much, which leave him as an educated idiot. If humanity were allowed to fallowed it's evolutional direction, and not by social engineering we would be far better off. Fallowing David example would be more like America living in the fun house of mirrors.

bbetzen  12/22/2011 11:32 AM Report

It was a joy to listen to Mr. Books for a multitude of reasons. Probably the most critical reality he discussed was the lack of long term life planning and more risk taking as the most common regrets for those over age 70. Our cultural aversion for such planning used to be naturally encouraged back in the small farm communities many of us have roots in. Now, in the urban cultures most of us live in, such a common future focused community is much more rare. We need to, and can, change that with our schools.

We must bolt a 500-pound vault to the floor in every secondary school lobby to function as a 10-year time-capsule. First parents of all new students are encouraged to write letters to their child about their dreams for their child. Then each student brings that letter to their Language Arts Class to write their first letter to themselves for the vault as they enter the school. They write about their history and plans for the future.

Then, as they are about to graduate, students retrieve those letters. They use them in writing a final letter with a clearer focus 10 years into their future. They place their new letter, possibly with another from their parents, into the vault and plan for a 10-year class reunion to retrieve them. At that reunion they will be able to speak to the then current students in the school about their recommendations for success. They prepare for questions such as: "What would you do differently if you were 13 again?"

Such a long term focus on the future is critical, and too often missing in our urban culture. Nothing could change the United States more than to be doing this simple project in all middle schools, and again in all high schools, so that students graduate used to thinking long term, and have several times heard talks from former students who had been in their exact classrooms as students 10 years earlier.

Time passes too fast! More details about this open source, low budget project are at www.studentmotivation.org. See the blog on that site for more details, especially the Annual Report for 2010 as the last posting in the blog for 2010.

Gelles  11/28/2011 08:04 AM Report

Til now, the Republicans have refused to welcome modest tax increases on the very rich. Their reasoning may include some of the Chaney Doctrine that DEFICITS DO NOT MATTER.

Obama and Brooks hold to the older doctrine, DEFICITS destroy confidence in some currencies and welcome inflation that may be worse than the DEFLATION it would replace.

I'm with the Republican dare devils: let us chance the inflation, a decade of slow nearly-no growth, as forecast by Brooks, would be intolerable.

The Democrats will defend some of our pensions and federal health insurance. These entitlements are still far too low to finance a return to prosperity for all.

If Obama and Brooks stay with doctrine out of date, both should be relieved. Replacement of Brooks will make no difference to anyone but him and his kin. Replacement of Obama by some new form of isolationism will run the risk of more rapid economic decline and more rapid decent to oligarchy than even today's. We may need a third party to shake everyone up. But whose doctrine would it advance.

No one seems willing to spend far more than China can afford on renewing our manufacturing prowess and putting us back in charge of the basic research and venture capitalization of science that made us number one for half a century.

I am exploring this vexing problem in "Economics: On Purpose and Off the Charts" It looks for a course to stop the bleeding and rebuild our health. It's not for sale, it's for free.

http://outputbasedmoney.info/eop1.htm

JAY101  11/23/2011 05:00 PM Report

Good show:

Mr. Brooks when you say there is a 30% popularity heled by booth parties. This dose not hold true in that it takes a simple majority for REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION but a superity-majority for DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATION. Reflecting extrism on the REPUBLICAN side? Maybe a 20X40% split in the country.

JAY101  11/23/2011 04:36 PM Report

Thank you Mr.Brooks.I appreciate allowing me to as a questions.

Was the president given amandate because we were fed up with president Bush OR FED-UP THE REPUBLICAN?

dowd  11/23/2011 09:24 AM Report

David helps shed some light on our dysfunctional American family and it's binary vision of good and bad and it's inability to even want to understand each other which could be characterized as myopic selfishness. This is a subject worth further exploration hopefully on your program and beyond.

As a suggestion you might invite David, Matthew Dowd and some others to discuss our "family" issues and what kind of intervention is required.

musicdorian  11/23/2011 04:08 AM Report

David Brooks always amazes me with his take on things. I always learn things when he speaks. He truly is one of the best interviews on television, and frequently has unique things to say. We are lucky to have a man with his thinking ablity, willing to step forward and educate the populace. David Brooks does great work and is truly an original thinker.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/22/2011 06:43 PM Report

David is down in the dumps.

'We have no economic policy. We have no fiscal policy. The country is 30% Republican and 30% Democrat and has no way to come together. Americans won't pay for the government they demand. You're with the New York Times--so screw you(Gingrich staffer). Vision for the country is lacking. Government is not healthy. America is old and ossifying. Our egos are too big. We are about to have a bad ten years.'

Poor David.

If only I could get to your subconscious, Happy Guy Brooks.

tabs  11/22/2011 06:01 PM Report

Having 2 guests in one night present contradictory messages must be a record for Mr Rose. Mr Brooks presents an assessment of Barry Obama which is clouded by what he wants to see vs the reality*. Which is contradicted by Mr Brooks search for a deeper meaning and thus clarity as reflected in the book he wrote on the brain Ones previous assessment of Mr Brooks still stands, the basic tenet of which is that Mr Brooks searches all the academic research yet never wrestles with those lions in the night that are within himself.

* 1.Mr Brooks asserts that the Generals all think favorably about President Obama. Does not Mr Brooks recall General McCHrystal's comments saying that the President was detached during his meeting with him concerning Afghan strategy?

2. Does Mr Brooks not remember the waffling of President Obama during the Iranian protests, the Egyptian Spring and the beginning of the Libyan revolt? Does Mr Brooks not realize that there is a firmer hand at the helm of American Foreign policy since the team of Hillary, Panetta and Petraeus were appointed to their respective responsibilities?

Gelles  11/22/2011 05:24 PM Report

Here is the TRUTH: not He is

Gelles  11/22/2011 05:23 PM Report

Tecliff ~ you are right to castigate David Brooks as a pundit without a clue to the future within our grasp. He is not fair, wise or well informed. He's writing a new book the world would be better off without.

He is the TRUTH:

We must all watch

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/need-to-know-november-18-2011-the-pentagon-hard-times-hard -choices/12374/

It is the PBS show Need to Know.

From its 17th minute + 27 seconds until its end at 25 minutes it examines affordability and why we want to win this struggle against oligarchy and ignorance.

Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute presents the common sense view that opposes most of the notions of the detail-old-men who preceded him in the video.

He presents purpose and affordability of money and budgets.

Donnelly does not mention Keynes or Lerner or functional finance or functional law. But he does explain how human rights must be protected by military might.

He defends America's role, from 1776 and preambles to our Declaration and 1789 our Constitution, that invited Keynesian production to defeat the evils of the mid-20th Century from ending Civilization by force of arms.

PBS' "Need to Know" has risen to the media challenge. Charlie Rose is far behind.

Where is President Obama? In the Video, Romney and Reagan are given credit for wanting peace through strength. That is good, but PEACE FOR WHAT? Peace for human rights? Or Peace for oligarchy (gov't for the rich more than for our Preambles)?

It is Charlie Rose' opportunity to ask for peace for human virtue, life and liberty, for the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Success demands that we admit we have money to match a fully employed capital and labor system's potential to double and triple output of homes, food, care, education, water, hydrogen, etc.

But if we budget for misery -- misery will be our reward.

Teclif  11/22/2011 04:06 PM Report

So, .... Mr. Brooks .... I personally and adamantly disagree with your hypothetical premise on what Americans contributed and will remove from the Social System you and your social "fellows" call entitlements.

Americans who worked for a paycheck and invested in themselves through (an often touted, and mandated) Medicare System all their lives (on average) per-capita paid in cumulatively $150,000 before retirement. This (like the outcome stated number $400k+) may or may not be a valid economic statistic, but for convenience, let us stay with your figures throughout this argument.

You (and your politically like minded cohorts) object to the an estimated $450,000. (Your "sources" say) on average is paid per-capita to them after 45 or more years of labor.

Your economic reality offers No consideration to or for the money made on interest by government and (albeit often illegally) by business as it was accumulated and held by banks and the USA Treasury. It ignores what these families may have earned on their own dollars as interest (by the way) never designed or offered in the social package or perhaps earned in lieu of Medicare payments. It ignores the millions made by private health care and medical related businesses. It willfully disallows many payroll sacrifices and concessions labor gave back to enterprises as they marginalized, outsourced, and outright stole their savings.

WHO do you think you speak for?

That is right! Literally The "RIGHT" one percent.

No wonder there are Americans who DISAGREE.

Gelles  11/22/2011 12:53 PM Report

The President has appointed to Defense and Intelligence Panetta and Petraeus. I have great faith in these leaders. But at Treasury and as Economic Advisers, and in his mirror, are real problems. If he, the President, does not come out fighting poverty with a knockout punch, he may as well be gone.

Gelles  11/22/2011 12:41 PM Report

REMants wish for small and opaque, hidden in his metaphors of historical contests made before nanotech, biotech, infotech, and global hyper-production were invented. REMant lives facing and marching to the rear. He may revel in it. Its relevance is zero.

China has learned to build a city faster than anyone else. But they have not learned to trust each other -- which is one thing David Brooks got right. America has the habits others have to learn. But we do need leadership. We need Lincoln's, Roosevelt's, and people who want for all of us and all our neighbors the products of science that contribute to life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue.

These products require connections between people made possible by the intelligent use of money matched to output far in excess of debt. And we cannot afford to neglect ordinary people. They are us. Our extraordinary people want to help. It is the malefactors of legacy negative beliefs that need a drink of optimism, courage and respect decency and generosity -- for the members of their era who will leave no one behind.

Gelles  11/22/2011 12:17 PM Report

At the heart of David Brook's thought that Romney may be our next president is Brook's concern that America (and others) are in for an unfortunate decade following today.

If we are in fact not going to rapidly recover; create the jobs; establish great effective and independent energy production, storage and green consumption systems; and renew our education and infrastructure assets, then David Brooks should be highly critical of a Romney political victory which would only win an election and not come near to waking up America to restore the promise within reach.

That promise today is greater than at any time in history. Science is ready. Our people are ready. Only David and our politicians are not ready.

The elephant in the room is the spider web of law and debt, not the rivalry of Russia and China or the threats of terrorism and sloth.

Money based on output destroys debt that can't be paid. It never made good sense and is no more than the common cold. The spider web of law is dusted away by equity and fairness -- of which there is no shortage the moment one sees the light.

David was pained throughout the interview. He seems interested to understand the natural roots of indecision. There is neither time nor means for profitable effort in that direction. Our situation calls for solutions we learned in the 20th Century. These demand no more than Nixon's money made on purpose not coined out of gold and FDR's directions to obey the Second Bill of Rights.

REMant  11/22/2011 12:08 PM Report

I think Obama did himself a favor by being blunt about this issue yesterday, although not necessarily with respect to the tax part of it. The country needs less spending and more saving and investment, and altho some Dems may think they can invest more wisely, I doubt it.

Chris Cillizza in the Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-supercommittee-failed-in-3-easy-steps/2011/ 11/21/gIQAeCTUiN_blog.html?hpid=z1) an uncommonly objective commentator for that pulp suggests three reasons for the supercommittee failure:

1.The public didn't care/didn't expect anything - 50% reported to pollsters that they had no idea what the supercommittee was about

2.The deadline wasn't a deadline - none of the penalty cuts will be forthcoming until after the presidential election

3. Disagreement is fundamental - the Democrats want to raise taxes instead of cutting budgets, and the GOP vice versa

But as Brookes says the issue is increasingly over Keynesianism. It is more than just ossification. We are talking about corruption. And while I agree with Banfield, I think we are seeing the disintegration of cosmopolitanism, a de-nationalization or de-globalization, not just deleveraging, necessary to correct the distortion of the marketplace and correct the maldistribution of wealth and opportunity occasioned by it. The problem is that most Americans think quite the opposite is underway, and that the malefactors remain the aristocrats, but they aren't. The problem lies rather in their own Court Whiggism in both its economic dimension, dependent on credit, and political, which relies on "networking," ie, lobbying and patronage. To some extent you could identify this trend with machine politics, but not much. More likely the opposite.

I think you can see the trend across a large number of institutions, even the media. While you could look at it in evolutionary terms, that would ignore the fact that libertarianism was the dominant philosophy of the 18th and 19th c and only gradually supplanted by the sort of sentimentalism we see now and so I think it is to be associated more with simple expansion. We have, if you will, not become too big to fail, but too big to succeed and in the process we have to get both smaller and back to basics. I certainly agree with him about the increase in narcissism, etc, but it should be pointed out that sociologists have been writing about this ever since Patten and Peale arrived on the scene.