Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/28/2013 03:06 AM Report

Senator, you are forgiven for believing the lie.

Please see "Inside Job" so you will NOT be twice fooled.

Coburn mentions a study by Harvard economists.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-e rror

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's 2010 debt study inspires austerity around the world, but grad student Thomas Herndon debunks the results.

COLBERT: Now after publication in 2010, one economist complained that they refused to share their data. Well of course they didn’t share their data. If they can’t use excel, I doubt they could send email attachments.”

COLBERT: “Oh please. If ignoring New Zealand, Australia, and Canada were a crime, everyone in America would be on death row.”

Graduate student Thomas Herndon identifies little staggering omissions in a prominent academic paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt."

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425749/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-e rror---thomas-herndon

winter  05/10/2012 11:19 AM Report

Stop overpaying the top end of the arrangement and equitably

allocate the rewards of the business and the economic cycle won't be interrupted. Who's going to admit that they're overpaid? People will take the money and run screaming how they're entitled to it. The speculators have skimmed off more than their share for decades by holding their workers hostage, the same people who now can't afford to keep the cycle running. The Chart proves it. Henry Ford testified to it.

tbo88  05/09/2012 08:09 PM Report

History will show Krugman is a kwack, while Coburn's aggressiveness to tackle the debt and other problems should be used and applauded, because he has looked at the numbers. Get a clue people or I will be buying you food in 10 years.

Gelles  05/07/2012 01:26 AM Report

Sherlock Holmes in modern dress did not hold my interest.

So I am back to Tabs and his prediction of economic failure when the national and private debt are too big to pay. He sees such a default as causing so many defaults after it, that the "system" fails to produce enough output or employ enough workers.

I see the opposite. Large unpaid debt may cause, instead, heavy debt write-off, followed by recovery.

I admit our system is overly complicated -- and no adjustment of debt from "too high" to "just right" can be built on my "wishes". But failure can also not be summoned solely on our fears. Creditors will prefer some money to none at all.

Gelles  05/07/2012 12:00 AM Report

Tabs -- you make your oint and prediction as follows:

The conclusion to draw is that the deficit and debt train has reached a point where it is moving of its own volition toward a cliff and there is nothing anyone can do about it as all the levers of fiscal and monetary policy no longer work except in a Catch 22 fashion.

The opposite prediction is mine.

See yhou latder. Sherlock Homes is on TV.

tabs  05/05/2012 12:04 PM Report

As everyone knows over the past 4 years the Federal Reserve has created successive waves of liquidity in order to keep the US economy from falling into recession. Where much of that cash has gone is into the pockets of Corporations in the form of retained profits. Corporations due to a climate of business uncertainty brought about by the current adminsitration in the White House has been hoarding that cash. It has been the hope of Business and the Republican Party that a change of occupant in the White House would create a more favorable/friendly business environment in which that hoarded cash could be unleashed into the economy to create growth. However the nasty truth of the matter is that since the Federal Reserve has put so many USD into the world economy any increase in money supply from that Corporate hoard being unleashed is going to create inflation. Since inflation is merely a reflection that the USD has been devalued those Corporations not to lose their value in those hoarded USDs will not be able to unleash them into the economy for fear of that inflation. Therefore not only is this a defacto tax on Corporatios because they are forced to hold ever devaluing USD's in order to keep from realizing that loss but the Federal Reserve will have to continue creating liquidity in order to keep the economy from stalling out. The conclusion to draw is that the deficit and debt train has reached a point where it is moving of its own volition toward a cliff and there is nothing anyone can do about it as all the levers of fiscal and monetary policy no longer work except in a Catch 22 fashion.

tabs  05/04/2012 03:54 PM Report

Now comes Part 2:

There are some that think that a rising tide can rise all boats and it is not a Zero Sum game. In the real material world the Earths resources are FINITE.

In Part 1, one used the putting of the SS Trust into the GA as a symbolic example of the American response to a changing world.

Further technology brought about increased productivity replacing many unskilled workers jobs. If one were to think about it Technology is the enemy of the American MIddle Class as it has taken its job and thus wealth (status) away. The American Middle Class was destined to shrink due to increased foreign competiton starting in earnest in the middle 1960's and the rise of technology which can now do what a man used to do. The question is can you train a man of average intelliegence to do a high tech job which requires above average intelligence to master those skills?

tabs  05/04/2012 03:28 PM Report

Permit one to be egocentric for a moment. Some have said that, "TABS is with Colburn." NO, Colburn is with TABS. Colburn as a politician is only telling you half the truth. Either he does not see it or he dare not say it.

It has become evident if for no other reason than the comments posted below that Americans CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH. The truth of their predicament is unpleasant and disturbing. Americans would rather delude themselves by remiaining ignorant. Charlie Rose himself seemed perplexed by what Senator Colburn was telling him, as if he was just hearing it for the first time. One can catagorically state that from watching Charlie over the years that Charlie has heard it before but choose not to believe it.

The truth of the matter is that since 7/19/69 America has been a power in decline. That day of landing a man on the Moon was the pinacle of American power and prestige in the world. At the end of WW2 America had the perfect once in a nations history storm at its back that filled its sails with unprecedented wealth and power for the next 25 years. America entered into the Great Post War Prosperity Boom where a man without a High School education could become Middle Class by working at a high paying factory job.

Why was this so, because there were NO OTHER FACTORIES IN THE WORLD that produced what was needed. By the mid 1960's this all began to change with Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan at first coming back online economically (industrially). With this competition the game changed and America HAD TO GIVE UP MARKET SHARE to its competitiors. This was a fact of life about the nature of competition.

So what has America done to meet this changing world. In 1968 President Johnson put the Social Security Trust and Payroll Taxes into the General Account thus hiding the real deficit spending and debt for the NEXT 44 years.Thus America has been living beyond its means for all those decades. In other words Mr Krugman we have been spending those Chickens long before they have been hatched. The bills for that largess is now coming due and there are unpleasant contraints attached. Now comes the queston of what to do about it?

If one looks at this from a historical perspective it is very clear that America can NEVER return to the prosperity and hegemony that it enjoyed in the post WW2 period while there is competition in the world. You can not put Humpty Dempty back together again. However neither Political Party is willing to tell the American People this unpleasant truth.

winter  05/04/2012 09:49 AM Report

I get winded easily. Went to Cleveland Clinic for a test to diagnose the problem. Took a walk on the treadmill with EKG attached. That was inconclusive but cost was ~$1,000. Next it was recommended I take the same test this time with respirator attached, that was $4,000. Whoa. Even with insurance that was something I'd pass on. Guess I'll don't need to know what my short windednesses' source is that badly. I imagine alot of people have similar experiences with health care costs. If I someday am diagnosed with cancer and need surgery the cost of which would cause us to have to sell the house I'll kill myself first. Preventative medicine is only possible until the onset of whatever it is you do die from eventually makes affording it preventative.

pbergmans  05/04/2012 09:45 AM Report

Paul Krugman followed by Tom Coburn! Wow. Makes you want to cry. Coburn sounds so convincing and confident in his solutions while Krugman seems logical and pragmatic with his.

History backs Krugman.

Coburn needs to read his history.

Kayposi  05/04/2012 06:05 AM Report

lipwak, Have you understood the message? I PAY FOR YOU. I am quickly and deliberately taking steps to leave this country since you seem not to understand basic economics. What'ja gonna do when there is no one left to pay for you? And the newscaster's (especially the liberal's} wonder why there is so much "vitriol" in this country. How many elitist pathetic socialist communist snobs reside in our country? Can someone answer that since I'm going broke AND more importantly I am losing my freedom.

Among other things, government rape in the airport tells me so.

Kayposi  05/04/2012 05:46 AM Report

Save America:

Mitch Daniels

Ron Paul

What a ticket!

Kayposi  05/04/2012 05:36 AM Report

lipwak...think it was u that spoke against Coburn...

Well, I speak against you and your cancer...I don't care since no one cares that I pay rather large individual payments that I NEVER use since my individual premiums PAY for YOU and my elderly mother whom does not care that I pay for her. My individual PAYMENT is now 1800 hundred a month. How would that sit with you and your cancer if you had to pay for that house payment? Since that's what it really is. And now Obama is going to force me to pay...what a joke I have to pay regardless if it is upheld with the S. court. Think lawsuits. How 'bout pay as you go as an individual? Like me whom never gets to see a doctor since my premium's are so high and my deductible (10,000) deters me from annual checkups (last time I had a pap was about 12 yrs. ago, never had a mammo)and I am 57 yrs. old. Pay as you go system. Then I will get to, actually, visit a doc.

This country is quickly turning into a joke.

You whine. I cry.

Sugarland  05/03/2012 08:36 PM Report

Comment about the opposing discourses of Krugman and Coburn on present management of the USA, and World, economic system.

Coburn – He is on a journey through the endless catacombs of a complex, organically grown economic system. No road map is available. He needs a leader to find the way out. What to do if Diogenes appears with a light but requires complete austerity. Faith based??

Krugman – He applies the results of the 1930’s economic analyses limited by the technology available at that time. Keyenes says during a period of reduced economic activity of the private sector, government should fill the void by introducing sufficiently funded activity to make up the difference. Faith based economics??

The US zeitgeist would go for Dr. Krugman’s solution. Who wants pain when you can move forward without it.

Of course, the present day private sector void was generated when the expected profits from investments, such as in sub prime, did not materialize, or worse, were negative. Key to this was irrational exuberance on a massive scale of uninformed investors.

Going forward we need a financial system built with 21 st century tools. This is the age of Big Data and sophisticated systems. Man knows how to control multi variable transients in complex systems and not have wild disabling swings. But to do this requires a completely transparent system. There cannot be variables that can’t be measured….no shadow banking.

Such a system would supply investors, big and little, with accurate and complete knowledge including interpretations of the future. With this in hand, funds would flow to where human activities would be the most useful and rewards distributed accordingly.

Miguel_Ruz  05/03/2012 07:31 PM Report

Very interesting interviewee. A mix between a gentle guy and a Milton Friedman's speaker. A lot of things he says are wrong or half true. He picks a specific thing that Sweeden has done, but omits the whole picture (the role of government in Sweeden for decades). This guy is a gentle fanatic that believes the market is the solution for everything, and no matter what happens, we humans do not have to interfere with it.

aj617  05/03/2012 05:00 PM Report

Even though Tom Coburn mentions that as a nation, the US has lived the

last 35 years by borrowing from the next 35 years, he still speaks as if

"confidence in the future" is the main obstacle to putting trillions of

dollars of idle corporate cash to work as investments that will create

significant job opportunities. His prescription is a combination of gov't

spending cuts coupled with tax cuts that he believes will restore that lost "confidence".

Surely it must be obvious by now that weak demand brought on

by the exhaustion of most sources of future potential credit expansion

is several orders of magnitude greater than any possible ameliorative

effect that could be expected from a tax cut, however large. The

current glut of excess capacity would probably absorb most of this

money without any further expansion of capital goods or hiring. Why

build a new auto plant in what is now a zero-sum game? A bubble

of fake credit of some sort could temporarily give the appearance

of economic revival, and we could all pretend once again that it doesn't

exist, but when it inevitably pops conditions will be worse than ever.

Gov't spending cuts would further diminish aggregate demand, and rapid

automation would decrease it still more. In short, Coburn's Economic Rx

is probably a hallucinogen.

Somehow the wealth of the nation now migrating to the few must be recycled

to the many if we are to have a sane society. The options to attain this goal

mostly founder on the shoals of human greed. High income taxes or a wealth

tax (proposed by Trump in 1999) might restore some balance, but resistance

to this idea will be fierce.The abrogation of some of the so called free trade

agreements and the reinstitution of tariffs on imports might bring some jobs

back to the US, but this too will be resisted. Maybe the fear of a new Hitler

together with the opportunity to destroy our main economic competitors

could get the wealthy to voluntarily open their wallets again, but the odds of this happening are also very low.

Although Tom Coburn seems sincere, his message appears to be a new version

of that old song and dance known variously as Supply

Side Shenanigans, Voodoo Economics, the Trickle Down Debacle, the Fad and

Crank Doctrine and from way back in the 1800's the Horse and Sparrow Theory -

"If you feed a horse enough oats, then some will pass through to the sparrows."

The wealthy will love it, but the economy as a whole will only give us a dead-cat

bounce before resuming its zero-sum game. I fear that the real plan of the totalitarian/corporate/apocalyptic elite behind Coburn's cover story is simply to let Main Street rot.

YNHow  05/03/2012 11:46 AM Report

Yes, when politics become only a matter of tearing the opposite team, and are no longer a ''vehicule'', a mean, a tool to achieve great things that only the tool of politics can provide for society, then I agree a strong leadership would be most of the solution to rallying the troups together for country first, let's say.

On the other hand, although it sounds irrational, I would rather vote for a politician that would serve the public the usual elect-me discourse and win but who would truly try to change things once in office...In other words: I wouldn't mind voting for someone who lied to me if things REALLY get better instead of the honnest tale of nice guys finish last...

REMant  05/03/2012 10:58 AM Report

Personally, I think the act, itself, of running for office should be disqualifying, but, based on this, I'd be happy to vote for him for president, nevertheless.

I'm afraid, tho, that I don't think there's any middle ground to be found between the "parties." We are talking about two fundamentally different attitudes towards life and ones of long-standing. While Sen Coburn and I think liberal measures are perverse, hurting more than helping, the progressives, themselves, are blind to it. Indeed they think it's progress. Rationality, on the other hand, is demonized, and freedom considered deranged. It is a curious idea of progress, which champions primitivism. The fact of the matter is that ppl like Krugman are capitalist's crusaders, not its saviors, and they always have been, if frequently displaying the enthusiasm of an Archbishop Laud. This was the attitude, too, of my fine-feathered friends last week, one of whom at least I suspect has spent time with those Whig histories, which in one breath praise the rise of commerce for breaking the parochialism of feudal institutions and decry it for it lack of "organic" community.

But men of faith, no matter of what stripe, have always preached no more than fair dealing and against extortion. "This hath been the generall judgment of the Church for above this fifteene hundred yeeres, without opposition, in this point," wrote Roger Fenton in 1612, "Poor sillie Church of Christ, that could never finde a lawfull usurie before this golden age wherein we live." And Francis Bacon remarked: "Treasure doth then advance greatness, when the wealth of the subject be rather in many hands than few." Protestants fought for free trade as much as free conscience, against king and courtiers as much as prelates, who, as much as today, can be called welfare capitalists. It did not take Adam Smith to tell them, and certainly not Maynard Keynes to save them!

Obviously, there is a candidate for the Republican nomination, who has made the senator's arguments, by the name of Ron Paul, but he has reached only informed party regulars, and collegians. He won caucuses in Louisiana and Massachusetts just a few days ago. Should Romney fail to be nominated on the first ballot, Paul's in a strong position, but he has clearly not converted the public at large. Part of that has to be the absence of large donors, who appear to have other agendas. Incidentally, Paul "debated" Krugman recently on Bloomberg TV. Excerpts here: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-vs-paul-krugman-on-bloomberg-tv-2012-4?utm_source=inpost&utm_ medium=seealso&utm_term=&utm_content=1&utm_campaign=recirc

When the senator uses the word confidence, I take it he doesn't mean mania, but encouragement for rational investment, the prime one of which would be the possibility of a return. This gets back to the Keynes-Hayek, spend or save debate.

I don't think, tho, he'd find a national sales tax to be any better than a personal income tax in the long run, and it would provide unbalanced incentives, but perhaps he meant the corporate income tax.

Jefferson didn't help write the Constitution, I'm afraid; he was our minister to France.

Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital Management, I gather. He bet against the sub-prime mkt and appears in Michael Lewis' Boomerang because he is betting against Greece. Personally, while I don't think derivatives are inherently important, unless the Fed wishes to underwrite them, of course, they are in my view distinctly unhelpful. I feel the same way about them as I do lotteries and casinos. Or weapons stockpiles. It can be overdone and at some point the insurance provokes adventurism. Ditto hoarding gold, tho I think some state measures taken to allow ownership of gold potentially of great use in taming the banks.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  05/03/2012 03:07 AM Report

Charlie, I think we caught him in lies 4,5 and 7 of Robert Reich's 7 biggest lies about the economy.

http://youtu.be/mM5Ep9fS7Z0

dosbichons  05/03/2012 01:27 AM Report

1st time find'g my way to a website to respond to a radio program. Charlie, how could you let him off the hook? He's got "All" the answers..yes, enough to write a book "for profit".He's done more oversite than others? When asked when he has a conversation w/the President what happend? I fell off my chairs when he said he hasn't had a discussion w/The President.. Because??? The President hasn't asked him!$# (Is he wait'g for an engraved invitation!) Is the best case scenario is for him to "sell" the President his book..It seems he doesn't give anything without a price. To me so un American! If he can help, make a ****ing appt w/the President & help America.

If he can't make positive changes..why take up a seat when someone w/gumption, drive & ethics should be sitt'g in it. To use the Amish ex. getting more /betters care 'cause they pay for it.(was from outter-space!Read some stats on how many millions pay people pay -he his info based on a sm section of the US. Also what about those that can't afford it."there are plenty of answers to our problems, there's a lack of leadership! Where is his? He has put the country 2nd to his political career. I'd love his email address..would someone kindly post it?

lipwak  05/02/2012 10:17 PM Report

Dr Coburn wants me to consider the cost of my health care when I'm sick. Sorry. The most important thing to me then is getting better. I don't care how much it costs. I want to get better.

I had prostate cancer. As far as I know it has been taken care of. I went to the best Dr I could find. My health insurance paid for all but about $3000 of it. I think the total cost of my surgery and everything else came to about $40-$50,000. That was what my insurance told me they paid. They were billed about $100,000 but only paid the $40-50,000.

If I was going to pay for it myself, I would have decided that since I can't afford that, I will live with the condition. Who knows. Maybe I would be looking at death from cancer soon.

My brother also had prostate cancer. He didn't go to the best Dr he could find (and wanted to pay less for insurance so had a very high deductible.) He has not had anywhere near the success I have had with my health post-op. I think it is because he had a lessor quality Dr.

Money is not what matters when it comes to your health. Getting the best care is. For Dr Coburn to encourage people to worry about how much their health care is going to cost rather than encouraging all to get the best care is absurd.

Richard_DeBiase  05/02/2012 08:58 PM Report

Dear Senator Coburn,

Here is my suggestion for how Republicans can eliminate massive federal, state and local spending, and steal some of us left-wing voters from Barack Obama in November. Republicans should advocate legalizing marijuana (especially, let us grow our own marijuana in our own homes for our own use).

The marijuana war is worse than government waste; it is spending that does only harm, and no good. We are still living under laws that were written when people believed that marijuana caused "reefer madness". The truth is, marijuana is great, and too many Americans know it. If you ever try marijuana yourself, you will be shocked that it is illegal. You have not been able to stop us in the past 75 years; it is time for you to peacefully coexist with us.

Try looking at the pro-marijuana chatter on the Internet, there are apparently a lot of people like me, who will vote for whatever candidate is the most pro-marijuana, regardless of their positions on any other issues. Personally, I'm pro-choice; but if the pro-life candidate is also pro-marijuana, then I will vote for the pro-life candidate. Personally, I am very pro-gay; but if the anti-gay candidate is pro-marijuana, then I will vote for the anti-gay candidate. Pat Robertson already advocates decriminalizing marijuana; I'm sure he will be happy to help you sell this idea to the Religious Right.

Here is a link to a recent Gallup poll showing that 50% of Americans think marijuana should be legalized:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

During his 2008 campaign, candidate Obama promised to respect states rights in regard to medical marijuana; he has not. President Obama is widely considered, among pro-marijuana voters, to be a heavy-handed federal thug. Also, at the recent Summit of the Americas, when Western Hemisphere leaders complained to President Obama about the horrible effects of the U.S. Drug War, Barack Obama told them to drop dead. Maybe if Mitt Romney can act like he cares whether Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are destroyed by drug traffickers, then he might improve his standing among Hispanic voters.

And if you really cannot work up any concern that almost 40,000 Mexican citizens have been killed in the Drug War on Obama's watch, then you still have one more option. That is, make sure that the Libertarian Party candidate, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, gets into the presidential debates with Obama and Romney; Governor Johnson will single-handedly take every pro-marijuana voter away from Obama.

I think pro-marijuana voters are a big enough group to swing the general election.

Best regards,