Charlie Rose

vongleichent  03/29/2012 03:38 PM Report

Basel III would certainly not hurt the US Banken system it's meant to help.

GKS  03/29/2012 08:23 AM Report

To me, an unsophisticated viewer, Kevin Warsh's thoughts and ideas were refreshingly clear and simple; he knows what he thinks and can get his points across clearly. No current committee or policy seems to be headed in the directions he believes are vital. I agree with him without needing to nit pic the discrepancies that some folks are prone to do. And let's face it--how many people who watch Charlie Rose are likely to watch Jon Stewart?

Big banks are running the country...and apparently they have everyone in their pockets. No one, ever, is willing to acknowledge this reality. At least Walsh came close to acknowledging the fact that the large banks need to stand on their own.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 02:25 AM Report

He says that Austerity v. Growth is a false dichotomy.

So are we talking fiscal multipliers via proper government spending?

Perhaps he is talking about a policy of emigration where we get our unemployed to become the poor huddled masses of another country.

By the way, didn't this gentleman work for Morgan Stanley and graduate from Harvard. Is he part of the problem who tries to become the solution yet in the end leaves his job early and we still have the problem?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 02:13 AM Report

Charlie,

Remember the $700B program everyone talks about?

What about the secret program your friends at Bloomberg uncovered? 11 times more!!!

Jon Stewart serves it up nicely in 8 minutes:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/america-s-next-tarp-model

And the bottom line according to Kevin? Too big to fail is still with us. WOW!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 01:51 AM Report

He said this a couple of times so yes to both times: "The political class needs to put some points on the board."

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 01:48 AM Report

Charlie--I feel a Bowles-Simpson theme developing.

You ask him if he supports Bowles-Simpson.

He says, 'It is a plan that is highly constructive to this debate and should be in the middle of our political discussion. Some things in it are not growth oriented though.'

Charlie, is a resurrection on your agenda before Easter?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 01:44 AM Report

'Everything we know about economics is in Econ 101 and the rest is made up.'

Yes, and as a Ivy League Economist you can be paid handsomely to make things up as we saw in the movie "Inside Job".

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 01:40 AM Report

Yes, 'the burden is on financial institutions to persuade us that they can withstand a shock.'

Perhaps there is an international institution that might audit these financial institutions since we are global now.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 01:36 AM Report

Charlie,

Ben Bernanke is giving lectures over at George Washington University about the 2008 financial crisis and the great recession. This was the third of four classes he taught at the school.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GreatRece

He speaks to your question about Goldman Sachs and Wachovia.

tabs  03/28/2012 07:04 PM Report

Mr Warsh's exposition was clear and concise which satisfies Einsteins dictum of making it understandable to a barmaid. While one largely agrees with Mr Warsh there are several contentions of his that one has to say, "Um mmmm, not so fast."

The first of Mr Warsh's contentions is that America has not entered into a "new era" of "malaise" as "some" suggest. Here Mr Warsh fails to realize that September 24, 2008 was a watershed date in American history just as August 6, 1945 or July 19, 1969 were. For it was the day that the Post War American financial system failed and the abyss loomed large. America now has to realize that America will not be able to return to from whence we came, as the Global economic conditions of 2012 are not those of 1965.

Secondly Mr Warsh believes that instead of an economic "malaise" that America instead has an opportunity to change its profligate ways and look to long term planning which will result in growth. Here one cites Mr Warsh's own commentary that there are those on Wall Street that have the notion that they are "to big to fail" and as such the US government will bail them out once again if they get into trouble. Here Mr Warsh fails the second of the Einstein dictum's of "One cannot alter a condition with the same mind set that created it in the first place." As one has previously stated that 40 years of bad decision making has reinforced itself so that it is now the "conventional wisdom" of the day. It is the American people and its political and economic leadership that are unwilling or are unable to make the changes necessary, that is until they are forced by exigencies to do so.

As for the those on Wall Street that are of the mindset that they are "to big to fail" and are running inordinate amounts of risk because they feel the US government will ride to the rescue once again. There are 2 factors to consider. First there is the old saying fool me once and shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me. The point being the American people will not stand for a second bailout. At least not without draconian measures being taken against the profligate ones. Second work the numbers, build the models and the conclusion will be a second bailout even if enacted upon will not ameliorate the situation. Simply put the US has spent its financial and good will reserves already

REMant  03/28/2012 12:05 PM Report

If it makes sense to believe no bank should ever be too big to fail, then it makes sense to argue the Fed's mandate needs to be changed fundamentally, because insurance is their business, and if that's the case, then he and other bankers are going to have to face the fact that less than 100% fractional reserve is a primary source of our problems.

I agree of course about Bowles-Simpson, because I think the overriding concern is paying down debt, not lowering taxes. The problem I have had with Dem proposals is that they haven't wanted to do that anymore than the voodoo economists, because they both think it possible to increase productivity without doing that first. What recovery we are seeing would seem to me to be mostly the result of public saving, not infrastructure spending, which BTW in my area seems to be reaching WPA levels. Four of the five wealthiest counties in the US, according to an article I saw recently, are now Washington suburbs, three in Va, one in Md. The other county was in NJ near Phila, where I suspect some drug cos are located. On that basis I suppose it could be argued recovery is beginning, but if so it will surely be a long time before it reaches San Francisco.