Charlie Rose

vongleichent  05/03/2013 05:07 PM Report

What a pleasure listening to Jim O'Neill.

finalfantasytown  03/09/2012 12:33 AM Report

Bruce effect can be the best option to effectively control population.

finalfantasytown  02/21/2012 04:01 AM Report

I don't know why in 21th century no genius philosopher like Karl Marx represent and continue to develop communism. Maybe because of fear. That is too bad. Most people prefer to talk about capitalism. When mentioning communism, they show hatred. Fortunately, very few countries insist on communism. Never hate communism and communists because finally 99% society will unconsciously to in this direction.

albertablair  02/16/2012 01:15 PM Report

No words or ideas needing explanation in The Economist, Mr. O'Neill (in the two interviews with Charlie) strikes me as a player who calls them as he sees them. Could he be on every week?????? With appreciation . . .

BENEZRAA  01/31/2012 08:18 PM Report

ON CHINA AND ON WORLD GOVERNMENT: MISREPRESENTATION AND PARADOX

MEDIA MISREPRESENTATION of CHINA

In the media there is repeated misrepresentation of China, that China is not an expansionist entity. This misrepresentation is based on acquiescence to Chinese possession, occupation, and annexation of Siankiang and Tibet. Not so long ago the Great Wall of China defined China's border. Now it is the Himalyas and the contiguous ranges to the Himalyas that form a new Chinese "wall" and that greatly expand "China's" borders.

The challenge of the early 21st Century is to convince China to voluntarily withdraw from both Tibet and Siankiang, and to convince China to voluntarily scale down it's military proliferation. China has already made it's marks (some may say 'permanent scars') on both Tibet and Siankiang. Certainly in northeastern Tibet, Chinese railway and the mining operations will only grow; nor may Tibet anticipate a return to it's pastoral culture. Modernism has come to Tibet for good as well as for evil. But, Tibetan culture is yet sufficiently resilient; Tibet may rebuild it's own cultural integrity, though it may mean economic intimacy with China and the continuation of Chinese operations in northeastern Tibet as a price for China to return Tibet to Tibetan sovereignty (and there may be some such similar model for the return to sovereignty of Siankiang).

Many would sell the idea of Chinese military expansion, that it is necessary in order to fill an alleged gap resulting from American contraction. Those hucksters of American contractionism practice modus operandi based (ironically) on the business practice of creating a market and then filling that market. In this case that "market" is Asia; the perversion of our American interest is fulfilled by our abandonment of Asia to China. Gifting Asia to China, we must then applaud Chinese "protection" of Asia. Respectfully, this is no way for the US to win friends and influence people, and it is the way to Liberty's ruination.

PARADOX

It is natural in a world of financial confusion and disorder for both the powerful and the powerless to seek clarity and orderliness. It is natural for both the powerful and the powerless each to have their own utopian visions of a controlled, perfect, mechanical future. It is natural for both the powerful and the powerless each to have the simultaneous self-perceptions that they are powerful and powerless, both with respect to themselves and with respect to the other.

And so it is no surprise to hear Mr. Rose's guest speak of the need for World Government as a curative to much of the world's confusions and disorders. Has not the quicksilver fantasy of a one-size-fits-all world rule captivated many actors in history, sometimes for good, and sometimes for evil? It should be no surprise, that some economists may have similar quicksilver dreams, seeking to model the economic world according their own one-size-fits-all model (and it would certainly make the accounting appear easier).

The paradox of the desire for such a "one size fits all" machine, as evidenced by the United Nations and by the EU, is that cultures do not live or die entirely voluntarily and independently (though there are many in the US, who would surrender cultures of freedom to cultures of despotism, not knowing the difference twixt the two, not differentiating between peace and appeasement). It may well be that greater order would come to the world of mainstream macro- economics; but, at what price and to what end?

True mutual respect between governments, due deference to borders and differences, and greater lending of genuine helping hands (rather than lending towards the establishment of sinking funds, cultural impositions, wars, conquests, and hedonism) -- that would be good!

I say, "Neah," to the idea of World Government, and "Yeah," to the idea of honest reform of the United Nations, that it should work to the common good of all nations.

finalfantasytown  01/29/2012 08:19 PM Report

Communism has formed gravity in China. It is not a chamber. In terms of instinct, Americans have part of communism.

jburnh  01/23/2012 12:18 PM Report

Excellent interview Mr. Rose.

I know it is but a detail and doesn't change Mr. O'Neill's argument, but Italy doesn't share a border with Germany (10:38). Switzerland and Austria separate them.

finalfantasytown  01/22/2012 11:45 PM Report

this world is very wrong

JJGelles  01/22/2012 10:27 PM Report

If you buy all I write on macro-economic doctrine, which party or candidate do you support? Democrats who are center-left? Or Republicans who are center-right? Obama? Romney? Gingrich? Other?

None YET !

Bernanke? YES -- for more quantitative easing as needed!

Some new voice, like Warren Buffet, for a one term Presidency for four years of study as we switch to a new system of human rights protected by common sense, diplomacy, and a Teddy Roosevelt appreciation of defense policy that prevents war with rational military assets.

JJGelles  01/22/2012 10:13 PM Report

Too many Americans see only half their role in our domestic economy and our global economy:

..... a. True each has a role as producer of tangible goods and services at a commercial price for commercial quality offerings.

..... b. But in performing the above role, each is helped by machines with brawn and brain of extraordinary power. As a consequence, output can grow exponentially over time, and price can dive below the cost of production. Unemployment and poverty follow our capacity to supply our needs. THIS IS CRAZY -- AND MUST BE CORRECTED BY LAWS THAT SYSTEMATIZE training, recruitment, employment and bill-paying income from wages and "entitlements" sufficient to make liberty real and defense of democracy obvious to all potential enemies of the USA.

..... c. So, the role of every American to purchase the output of his neighbor and sustain our free enterprise system (protecting it from BOTH over- and under- production, IS SACRED: deny the USA balanced monetized demand , and you deny it oxygen to breathe!

I hate to be the the only one here to scream at YOU STUPID conservative idiots: you are not conserving freedom. You are creating suicidal opportunity for our whole middle class.

We must immediately end all taxes for people below a median income and wealth standard. In place of the revenues lost by doing this, we must initially use money created by fiat and central bank liquidity operations. As inflationary forces become predictable, and liquidity is where it belongs, such fiat money may be backed by credit-worthy debt, including government bonds sold at market prices OR INNOVATIVE TAXES designed for minimum political resistance and levied on taxpayers whose sacrifice will do the least harm to national macro-economic systems.

The above opinion fits the models of FUNCTION FINANCE and MONEY-CRANK-ITIS. It is "Keynes Without Debt". It is not popular. It is the way we operate in time of war when output keeps you alive and unemployed people are unthinkable by the winning side.

Swliv  01/22/2012 01:39 PM Report

Haven't read all of the above but "warm" and "clim" come up empty; ... as did this interview, rather dazzling though it was, best I caught it. The absence of ... people-made global warming seemed cryingly absent when the i'view wrapped up. Combined with Coke advert'g some saving of the polar bears that seems to accept the (between the lines) end of Arctic ice .... Well, just my thought. ... xo

chawlybygolly  01/22/2012 10:20 AM Report

I would have no problem with cutting up Italy like a big pizza. It would serve them right for siding with Hitler; And then changing sides ONLY AFTER THEY DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE LOSING! typical machismo cowardice (also known as 'short man complex). Look at the mafia, they can only win if there's more of them than you; but get one on one with one of them ALONE, and see what pussys they really are.

Gelles  01/22/2012 08:09 AM Report

O'Neil is not an anti-Keynesian thinker. He is a practical practicing leader in the investment banking industry. His advice is circumspect -- nowhere near as direct as mine. He is no money crank; but is also no anarchist or pessimist. He knows what Krugman knows -- and would not have us forget it. So here is a link to some of it.

http://www.outputbasedmoney.info/krugman-keynes.htm

neilrieck  01/22/2012 07:51 AM Report

This was a very encouraging interview. Most economists, political-economic watchers, and news channels usually project doom-and-gloom scenarios on the horizon. Meanwhile, Jim O'Neill relayed numerous facts indicating light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

I, for one, didn't know China had already begun to raise Chinese worker's wages and that this had the effect of lowering China's trade surplus from 10% to 2%. Obviously China's actions would have the same effect as having all of China's trading partners increasing their import tariffs but with some differences: in this case, China is in control and can quickly tweak wages as China requires -AND- China didn't need to pre-negotiate with all their trading partners. China was able to do at the source what Walmart would would have blocked closer to the consumer. Will this mean that lost manufacturing jobs will ever return to North America? Probably not but you never know.

On a related note, like Jim O'Neill, I never believed that some countries would ever want to (or be force to) leave the EU or EMU. Why? Europeans are constantly reminded about the lost lives, time, and money associate with previous European wars (The EU was formed to avoid future European wars; their were blue-sky errors associated with EMU but the damage is already done so they should now consider becoming the "United States of Europe"). Why is this relevant? Just how much money was required to repair the damage done to Europe by WW1 and WW2? It had to be in the trillions (in today's dollars) and the costs of a few sovereign bailouts are nothing compared to the money required to rebuild Europe after a future war. For Americans who still do not agree, please think about the restoration costs of the 9/11 attacks multiplied by several thousand.

Gelles  01/22/2012 06:05 AM Report

Tavis Smiley's show, like Charlie Rose's, speaks politics to the American people. It just had a symposium on REMAKING AMERICA:

The symposium is over -- poverty lingers. The following was posted by me in your related parts 1,2,and 3 of its shows.

The QUESTION not stressed in this symposium was: "What and where is the MONEY missing from the American SYSTEM to fight poverty and create jobs and wages for people who need more money with which to pay bills and enter a MIDDLE CLASS supported by their own output at work?"

Such money can be found fast with QUANTITATIVE EASING when tied to investment in training and working on nationally developed plans for such needs as energy, homes, health, education, defense, etc. Government contracts can SEED such development NOW. Private investment and employment will follow.

Rich people, whose past attached them to the fate of minorities, who nevertheless are no longer poor, like many of us who watch Tavis and Charlie Rose, should be asked to support federal investment NOW that will train and employ all Americans to PRODUCE the output on which money is fundamentally based .

Capitalism and socialism, both, in all their forms, require MONEY based on work-output to supplement MONEY based on credit worthy DEBT. Unless we teach and learn this fact ourselves, recovery will always be too slow and incomplete to DEFEAT POVERTY for the enemy it is to our freedom, defense and HOPE for real economic democracy.

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

All of the above is part of my on-going appeal to you, and Charlie Rose Show commentary, for OUTPUT-BASED MONEY.

Our present use of debt-based money (all over the global trading system) is proved in fact to be inadequate to defeat poverty and create economic democracy.

Please contact me to bring QUANTITATIVE EASING and output-based money to the attention of your effort and the voting public.

Taxes are a poor substitute for work and its monetized output-- when the object is to defeat poverty NOW. I'm talking about the proven method we used to finance WW II (and all other must-win wars.) Michael Moore and Susie Orman (spelling?) were missing these points. An excellent source of knowledge on these points can be googled at "Keynes without debt" by Professor Ron Rorrison in the UK. A copy of his great essay is at

http://www.outputbasedmoney.info/kwod.htm

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/22/2012 02:55 AM Report

We heard that in Italy only 40% of the women work outside the home.

I am not sure what this means to our economy in 2012. Italy needs to tap this human capital so it does not bring down the world?

If this 21st century is the century of the woman someone needs to start working on the ramifications--which should be HUGE. The Economist says lower fertility itself is a game changer.

http://www.economist.com/node/15174418

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/22/2012 02:35 AM Report

On the Occupy movement, Jimbo nailed it:

'Working 18 hours a day on something narrow is not necessarily good for you if it limits others.'

I will lift a pint to you sir for this alone.

Now if you can get those scallywags at Goldman Sachs to look in the mirror and say this three times a day I will ask the Queen to knight you.

I pray you have seen "Inside Job".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/22/2012 02:28 AM Report

Yes, we do 'have a justifiable paranoia about energy prices'. Every penny more is like a $1.5 billion dollar tax increase. So gas goes up a dollar and Americans feel a $150 billion dollar tax increase. It is felt more in the South where wages are lower and there is more driving.

Cheap, clean, reliable, abundant energy (electrons)--Thomas Friedman nailed it.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/22/2012 02:23 AM Report

Charlie, perhaps more on this Chinese Communist Party who we hear is not really communist and who is the world's largest Chamber of Commerce.

The Financial Times does some nice analysis:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/acebc234-a421-11e0-8b4f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1kAYWQkj0

Perhaps you can invite a few of the 80 million members to a panel and tell us how it is done.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/22/2012 02:12 AM Report

Yes, "Why isn't South Korea an emerging economy anymore?"

South Korea's crown jewel is its education system as our friend Fareed Zakaria explains in his CNN special.

This nation's students outperformed the rest of the world for the better part of a decade. On the most recent PISA exam, the benchmark international test, South Korea ranked first in reading and second in math among all nations.

South Korean students spend almost two years more in the classroom than American students.

Thirty years ago, the nation's per capita income was less than $1700. Today, it's almost $24,000.

MORE: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/12/fzgps.01.html

Gelles  01/21/2012 05:13 AM Report

Jim O'Neil speaks fast with his British clipped pattern and does not smoothly convey to me a memorable picture of the "problem" (inside the global economic "system") or its solution.

But he did mention two trinities:

..... (1) "Politics, geopolitics, and economics."

..... (2) "Time, recovery, and wages."

Without a transcript, I may have these six words wrong -- no matter. He never connected them in the form of a model equation.

My own model is need (water, food, energy, education, infrastructure, health, virtue, cooperation, etc.); supply; demand; money; price; and etc. (language, logic, law, intelligence (as in the CIA and NSA).

This is social engineering along futuristic (not past)lines. We have thought it could not be done. South Korea, Finland, Scandinavia and China have proved that it can.

No one has yet put it perfectly all together. But it is bound to come. Singularity University and Ray Kurzweil tell us so: technology will end scarcity before scarcity ends all life. Just wait and see if you can.

For those who will die before hydrogen and carbon are put to their proper economic use, and death from highway accident, disease and war remain common, it may seem that th past was prelude to chaos. For me the opposite is true. Past is prelude to solutions based on science not silliness.

We will have to manage wages, prices, debt and money (spent, circulating, and saved). Taxes will have to be repealed until there are none. Debt will have to be owed from society's government to all people -- and not the other way round. And Jim O'Neil will have to show with diagrams and visual aids what his brain has in mind.

Charlie Rose wants us to understand the brain and its infinite possibilities. I want us to begin with money and the solutions it offers peasants today that were once reserved for Kings with very large armies, navies and special forces.

hjtmia  01/20/2012 11:35 PM Report

Mr. O'Neill had a spot on view of our world today. I wish more of us in the US, especially the politicians would live in that same world.

The "occupy movement" needs to clarify the basic reason why people are upset about "Wall Street", Big Banks, Big Business, etc. I would suggest a slogan: "Stop screwing your customer"

mutex  01/20/2012 04:09 PM Report

Mr. O'Neill is either stupid or he is counting on the stupidity of the viewers. TRILLIONS of dollars are being pumped into the world economy by countries and their central banks. This explains every single 'positive' piece of economic data out there. People must not understand how much a 'trillion' is. As for demographics, I'm not sure what timeframe Mr. O'Neill is referring to but for the next 20 years (at least) the demographics in the United States is going to be a GIANT drag on the economy. As 79 million baby boomers increasingly move into assisted living centers, nursing homes and ultimately die off what will become of their homes given there is less than half that number of people in the generation behind them? Charlie Rose knows these facts as well as I do so what is the excuse for not addressing them? I hope Mr. O'Neill starts off his book with 'Once Upon a Time...'.

tabs  01/20/2012 04:06 PM Report

There were several disturbing comments made during this interview which calls into question the sagacity of Mr Neill and Mr Rose for that matter. The first is, that it was only with the SP downgrade of US debt in 8/11 and the blow up of the European Sovereign debt that caused the Chinese to question its relationship with the West and started the move to convertibility of its currency? EXACTLY what did Mr Neill think the Chinese rhetoric about the US losing its world Reserve Currency status in early 2009 was all about? Did he NOT realize that it was a warning that if unheeded, the Chinese would begin a process of decoupling itself from the US so that it would not go down with a sinking ship? To that END did MR Neill MISS the backing off of the Chinese buying US debt, rolling over existing US debt holdings to shorter maturity dates, buying up commodities throughout the world, Signing a trade agreement with Russia where the USD was NOT the medium of exchange, signing trade agreements with Brazil and other nations and building up its military forces in the eventuality that the US would not be able to maintain its Global Policeman's role? One can assure you that there were those who did not miss the significance of those events as they transpired and said as much at the time.

The second comment by Mr Neill and Mr Rose that is disturbing is their misconceptions about the Tea Party in US politics. Does one think that the Tea Party is the sole cause of dysfunction in the US government? Does the lunatic Left Party of Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama and Harry Reid NOT bear any responsibility in this dysfunctional malfunction? Or are Mr Roses politics so far Left and thus close to his beliefs that his perceptions are distorted? Here as a point of clarification of ones own perceptions. One sees the Tea Party as being largely made up of Middle Class Americans who are fairly well to do, of an older demographic that are worried about their Children's and Grandchildren's economic future more than their own. Now there are SOME in the Tea Party movement who have been elected to Congress that are what one would say are practicing a SECULAR CHRISTIANITY by turning their Bibles in for Economic books. These few people are regrettable in that they do not know when to bend on principle for political pragmatism of achieving the desired goal they are seeking. Thus for accuracy of assessment one has to see both sides of the question simultaneously.

The third comment that is disturbing is the promotion of "Global Governance." Here one is reminded of ones Chilean Marxist Prof back in the dark days of a long time ago that was preaching the evils of the rise of Multi-National corporations and the diminishing role of the Nation State in the face of this Global economy. Isn't it interesting that what a Marxist so long ago was warning about has been co-opted by the Social Democrats among us? How times change.

REMant  01/20/2012 02:49 PM Report

So the solution to our economic problem is wage and price controls? Be serious. The answer to the question of who would have advocated that is probably Krugman. US politics that much different from everyone else's? I doubt it. And he should know that; he lives in London doesn't he? I don't know what his PhD work found, but oil and gas prices respond particularly to money as much as supply and demand. The measurement of productivity depends on the quantity of money, too. The past two months have not reflected much in the long term jobs picture, and certainly not if you consider employment a matter of livelihood and not merely distribution. He's obviously a rather crude Keynesian and, I'd think, a Labourite. Emphasis on the crude. Exceedingly tiresome, despite sounding like a Beatle, however not quite as tiresome as the host, who insists on running this program out of his hip pocket. Doesn't say much IMHO for Goldman Sachs, either. But it should also serve to indicate to our Marxist friends exactly what the politics of these ppl is.