Charlie Rose

Gelles  03/18/2012 04:24 PM Report

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, is supposed to understand UK money, debt, budgets, national goals and interests, etc., that ordinary voters in an advanced democratic UK leave to expert politicians -- to protect their families and nation from foreign enemies and domestic self-inflicted wounds.

So what does he know of money? He claims America has a near monopoly to create Earth's reserve currency. England once had such power when its empire was the greatest and its currency was supreme.

Yet, America, like the UK, is chronically short of DEMAND for locally manufactured supply, and chronically short of SUPPLY to meet the needs of tens of millions of its people for homes, food, health care, education, economic security, and habits likely to improve their lot within a reasonable time.

Americans, in general, believe when we buy from China's factories we must pay with American money borrowed from Chinese savers. They do not remember a few years back when Chinese savers had no dollars to lend to us or anyone else.

So the questions are fundamental, and cannot be ignored forever: What are American dollars made of? If we need them why don't we create them in necessary quantities? And the same goes for British pounds sterling or even euros?

Our Constitution assumes Americans in their majority will understand enough about money to elect lawmakers who will control it to promote the ideals expressed in its Preamble. Yet it is clear that we do not, nor do the voters in the UK from whose systems we borrowed so much to arrive at 1789 and begin a reign of reason that would become the envy of all peoples with lesser wealth and power.

If we knew every step ever taken in the past to improve the efficacy of our money, would that help a little? For sure?

So why do we know less than what we must to prevail against economic scarcity that demands more money than we have and less money than we can print (if we knew no better)?

If I answer the WHY above, why won't you accept it, change it, and move on -- until together we have arrived at a far better place than where we're at?

..... Is it that we have separate INTERESTS or separate BRAINS?

This post invites you to www.outputbasedmoney.info to solve the problems George Osborne ignores -- as he goes on to spoil the era in which we're trapped. Quit now -- and come back later when General David Petraeus leaves the CIA to become President of the United States. He knows where we're hiding all our money -- it was a secret; but as head of the CIA he learned all our secrets.

Gelles  03/17/2012 02:05 PM Report

SORRY!

Only outputbasedmoney.info really works in google

and www.outputbasedmoney.info works in your url address box

Gelles  03/17/2012 02:01 PM Report

Does not work well.

Only output based money.com or outputbasedmoney.com work well.

Gelles  03/17/2012 01:49 PM Report

The more I read about "Abundance the book . com" (no spaces please) and its TWO authors, Diamandis and Kotler (possibly mis-remembered), the more I see that CHARLIE ROSE MUST INVITE THEM IMMEDIATELY.

Then we have to get them into ELECTRIC MONEY. (I'M GOING TO GOOGLE IT AND SEE IF ANYTHING COMES UP.)

Gelles  03/17/2012 12:18 PM Report

http://www.amazon.com/forum/economics/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1K53KZRRALRH&cdP age=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2LLIYB2RJVGO9&newContentID=MxBGO8DSQWAF6V#MxBGO8DSQWAF6V

Above link continues much of my argument here.

Gelles  03/16/2012 05:35 PM Report

Alobryan ~

The twin towers were brought down by terrorists -- not by Americans or others with controlled explosions timed to coincide with the attacks on the Pentagon and on the White House (which passengers stopped).

Mr. Rose is of my opinion (just expressed). He would have to crazy in the extreme to believe what you claim "scientists" have been led to consider. No scientist on earth has been led in any such direction. Men you call "scientists", like you, are susceptible to conspiracy assumptions that only prove their foolishness.

The real issues that tend to prove that Osborne is a fool, as well, surround the real monetary system of production that he ignores in favor of anti-middle class solvency which also favor less than full employment and less than the economic democracy, technology has brought within reach by all nations with any understanding of human needs and promise.

REMant takes a different route to discover where the contradictions of casino debt-based capitalism (including laissez-faire loyalties) lie. He says as follows:

..... "The reason why the US and UK have the infrastructure and employment problems they do is the direct result of the skewing of wealth and income by such artificial bank credit, regardless of productivity, which due to the moral hazard incurred is also lagging.

..... "A free economy must maintain equality, and if it does it will need increasingly less saving and investment, and interest rates will lower commensurately."

Here, REMant values equality -- knowing that what we want is freedom from monopolists who use debt as an unfair weapon.

Alobryan  03/16/2012 11:17 AM Report

Mr. Osborne premises the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan on the 911 attacks and terrorists camps there. But if the first premise is in error then all the insights and arguments that follow are also in error. 911 according to scientific analysis was not a terrorist attack. The controlled demolition of the towers has led scientists in the direction criminal act on the part of some very high people, and was blamed on "terrorist" as a pretext for the actions that followed by the Mil. Indust. Complex.

Foreign Policy based on false premises can only lead to further and continual war. One of the results of the war on terror is the Patriot Act which effectively squashes any opposition to the official story of 911. How convenient is this?

Even if I am wrong about these things the fact that there is the least chance of it being true ought to alert "we the people".

I would be interested in Mr. Rose's opinion on this matter.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2012 02:40 AM Report

He tells us, 'Recapitalization of the banks was critical for whole Western recovery.'

So almost the collapse of the world by banks and . . .

Dodd-Frank and the Volcker rule? The Vickers reforms in the UK?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11236.pdf

I made a peanut butter and honey sandwich. Then I ate it. It did as much.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2012 02:28 AM Report

Yes, 'high oil prices are a threat'.

A huge threat that might really 'knock the stuffing' out of your hard work.

So the price is on every corner yet there is no real alternative--you can't put water or dirt in the gas tank.

No matter the story told, the oil companies roll in the dough like clover on St. Pats.

Perhaps a utility such as this should have some oversight since the traders really have eliminated the free market back in the days before Enron.

My gas tank seems to be a real way to re-distribute the wealth a gallon at a time as well as a way to bring my own little economy to its knees.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2012 02:15 AM Report

Yes Charlie, good question: 'Sum up our special relationship?'

'No major differences. Cabinet sees the world almost the same and no major differences. We are the largest investors in each others countries. Shared sense of each others' histories. President and PM have strong values, personalities and shared interests.'

How about adding "President's Questions"? Now we are talking no major differences. (By the way, you can catch "Prime Minister's Questions" on C-SPAN on Sunday nights.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2012 02:03 AM Report

Charlie, was it me or did I hear some Simpson-Bowles?

VAT 17.5 to 20%.

Corporate tax rate most attractive in the world.

Investing in road and rail infrastructure, science and education.

Pension ages up, prioritize spending.

Pension funds invest in infrastructure.

Then he went radical on us: "You need smart government and the private sector to grow as well." (Sick em' Grover.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2012 01:54 AM Report

He mentioned twice that the Brits' exports to China are up 20%.

This is the key if you are making cuts. Someone should be helping the Greeks increase their exports by at least 20%.

Gelles  03/15/2012 08:20 PM Report

The twin twits, Lagarde and Osborne, share a silent "e" at the end of their name. They should share a common bed in the nuthouse of debt-based money acceptance.

Some money can be much the same as debt. But not all money. There must be output-based money to match demand to supply and match supply to real need.

Keynes explained it all. World wars always prove it. Full employment is necessary for both production and good conduct.

People all agree -- WE NEED MONEY !

All people except those who live with hyper-inflation. They need less money.

We are at the cusp of hyper-production -- based on the era of Abundance as explained by Peter Diamandis -- look in Amazon books and Singularity University.

Hyper-production requires output-based money NOT more debt. See http://www.outputbasedmoney.info

"Time will tell if I am just blinded by wishful thinking or not hahahahaha," says Max83. Max is OK. Not a real sourpuss like REMant.

As for Charlie Rose, Barack Obama, and Niall Ferguson, what can one say. They invent no technological wonders. Dean Kamen, Ray Kurzweil, Elon Musk, and thousands of others do. They also know the end of this story will be an age of Abundance if any people survive to inhabit it.

Charlie Rose is the real problem. He is in a position to interview the people who know how important is demand when supply is high -- and how important is supply when need is great and supply inadequate.

99.9 % of TV and Internet are trash. Charlie is one of the few people who can broaden acceptance of a modern monetary system of production.

Why is he so deliberately ignorant of his duty? Let him answer that one. Let him visit Keynesian scholars at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and Futurists at Singularity University. Let him come back fro such visits and tell us he has seen the light.

Max83  03/15/2012 05:19 PM Report

I was pleasantly surprised by this interview I must say. Mr. Osborne seemed more balanced and sincere than I personally expected.

I wonder how the American-British relations would change if Mitt Romney should become the next President of the United States?

I have done my fair share of conspiracy and alternative history research and I feel there is an Elite of a fairly few people running the planet. David Rothkopf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf puts that number at about 6600. However I do not feel that it is necessarily a negative thing that our planet is run by an Elite, if that Elite is benevolent, transparent, open-minded and responsible. I feel, and this is just my personal intuition, that George Osborne and Christine Lagarde could potentially be part of this new breed of responsible and benevolent Elite leadership of the planet. I am sincerely hoping that they will be able to maintain their integrity and benevolence and will make it their goal to serve the entirety of humanity and the planet we are all living on and not just an over the top privileged king maker class.

Power does not have to corrupt necessarily, but it takes much self-awareness and authenticity to maintain ones integrity in these very high profile and highly demanding jobs. I feel Mr. Osborne and Ms. Lagarde have the ability to pull this off and to be the new positive role models in what this global leadership looks like, acts like and how they can truly benefit humanity and the planet without ulterior and selfish motives.

Time will tell if I am just blinded by wishful thinking or not hahahahaha

REMant  03/15/2012 11:30 AM Report

I don't see how the ECB has helped anything in the long-run, anymore than the Fed. The only thing reflation can do is to protect the "investments" of the rich at the expense of working stiffs, and that is not sustainable, regardless of whether it prevents unemployment. The reason why the US and UK have the infrastructure and employment problems they do is the direct result of the skewing of wealth and income by such artificial bank credit, regardless of productivity, which due to the moral hazard incurred is also lagging. A free economy must maintain equality, and if it does it will need increasingly less saving and investment, and interest rates will lower commensurately. The rising price of oil, food and other commodities is being driven by these actions, as in 2007, and the rest of the world moves ahead while we lag behind. As with the response to 9-11 the bankers have got it backwards. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Paying down debt is, of course, another matter. When in 1932 the London Times asked readers to propose remedies for the Depression, Keynes, Pigou and the Cambridge crowd replied with a letter advising spending. They were answered by Hayek, Robbins and the LSE crowd that instead saving was required. (Scans of the letters here: <http://thinkmarkets.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/keynes-hayek-1932-cambridgelse.pdf>) But, pathetically we are still having that argument, despite the fact that for more than half a century Britain and the US, which have done little but print and spend money, have seen little for it but crumbling infrastructure, declining industry, increasing poverty, and Hollywood movies skewering businessmen and politicians.

I am sorry, too, the Tory half of the British govt has taken the foreign policy positions it has. I doubt very much it will lower the price of oil.

The "special relationship" goes back to Dean Tucker, who realized that it wouldn't matter if Britain lost the American colonies if it retained their trade, a concept which governed relations throughout the 19th c. Things have been a lot rockier since then as Britain has refused to accept the dissolution of its empire, and dragged us into one war after another over it.