Charlie Rose

Gelles  07/01/2012 07:32 AM Report

Marc Andreessen, founding partner of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and a co-founder of Netscape is a fast talker and money maker. These skills serve him well.

What about us slower, poorer people. Can we improve our fortunes with useful ideas in a world that will not reorganize debt to make forced unemployment disappear?

When demand dropped and jobs were lost what should we have done?

I say we should have, and now still should, use our central bank to finance economic growth and private saving with massive investment in clean energy and mass production of wants for the poor, including education and training to make good results possible, probable and factual ASAP.

If government cannot do its job in time of peace, we know war and terrorism will follow such failure. So, it behooves us to recall WWII and Keynesian war fighting to plan for Keynesian war-preventing as our goal.

Democracy depends on adequate aggregate supply and demand, and systems to connect them. Most people do not keep this truth in mind. Some people oppose solutions, they prefer we do nothing as we wait for recovery to happen spontaneously, (if they do not suffer more than what they welcome).

Such anti-Keynesian moronic behavior is justified by these people by their belief there no alternative. Like it, or not, TINA is our enemy and indirectly is our fault. Charlie Rose has the megaphone but is afraid to use it.

Massive  07/01/2012 03:41 AM Report

Questions seemed stale, Charlie seemed distracted and a little disrespectful. Not the best

blank  06/30/2012 02:38 AM Report

okay i read that stuff below about the paypal mafia

http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/reviews/d/diversity-myth.html

i think it's important to go to college for all the people you meet and friends you make

you can't do that online (you can study whatever you want)

Warp 9 - Light Years Away

the most diverse classes are usually math/science anyway

oh i can't listen to music i'll post this anyway it's better to be outside in the heat in the rain and buying food

-----------------------------------

at some point i'm pulling a total vanishing act from life as i know it i'm not going to be able to survive otherwise i'm going to die it's guaranteed i just have to try to get by the best i can and try to get a little better if i can however i can until that point this stuff isn't fake this is like real life (i can't write messages) it's not something to talk about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeSINqdnPA&feature=related

i can't listen to music

Saultxyca  06/29/2012 08:50 AM Report

Charlie, you may scoff at Marc Andreessen's frank quips about the wreckage and fall-out from the "dot.com bust" but, in fact, Marc understated it, as many survivors (literally) can attest. America was in recession in 2001-02, but concentrated-position Silicon Valley was in a depression, as "Dot.con" author John Cassidy pointed out. There was a kind of traumatized denial over the entire area until about 2003, when you could feel survivors starting to surface among the miles upon miles of corporate real estate for-sale and rental "see-throughs" all over the area. The tech ghost-town look and feel was especially pronounced and scary in the south Bay, with whole streets in high-tech parks from Sunnyvale to Milpitas empty — many are still vacant.

It was amazing, overdue, and cathartic that a prominent member of Silicon Valley's elite tech minority finally acknowledged the psychological impact of the severe tech bust that was followed just five years later by the so-called housing: mortgage bust. Many people will never recover. All of us survivors know lots of horror stories that probably ought to be told. Silicon Valley needs its Steinbeck, no kidding, Charlie.

Disclosure: Canadian-American associated with a tech boom "darling."

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2012 02:48 AM Report

"We are on the cusp of profound change." We will all have a magic box in our pocket.

Perhaps, if we strengthen our weakest link.

The Federal Communications Commission has warned of a looming crisis and says spectrum will exceed supply by 2013.

A historic moment has just happened this year, where there are now there are more wireless subscriptions in the United States than there are people. And this is just the beginning, the proverbial tip of this enormous iceberg that's only growing.

Here is a great discussion on it:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-26/spectrum-challenges-facing-us-wireless-industry/transcri pt

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2012 02:36 AM Report

CONFIDENCE or not!

The PayPal Mafia were studied in considerable detail by journalist and writer Sarah Lacy in her book Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good.

Lacy attempted to explain the anomalously high success rate in Silicon Valley of the Paypal Mafia.

While she conceded that the selection effect and the technical learning at Paypal played a role, she argued that the main factor behind the success of the Paypal Mafia was simply that their success at Paypal had given them the confidence to try again, even while the rest of Silicon Valley around them was getting burnt by the bursting of the IT bubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal_Mafia

In Hollywood, if you star in a small budget film that makes loads of money you usually get another role but not many times does lightning actually strike twice.

In both cases it is much more than just confidence, it is moolah potential.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2012 02:16 AM Report

Sal Khan's name was thrown into the name dropping frenzy:

ZAKARIA: Khan Academy shows real promise. But countless past attempts to bring technology into the classroom have fallen flat. A landmark study by the Department of Education found that nine out of 10 math software products had no significant effects on test scores. Only a handful of Khan classes have been tested. But so far they've earned high marks.

KHAN: Traditionally people said, that technology is cool. Let's use it by hook or by crook, just because it's cool. We're saying, we want to enable a certain way of learning. We want to enable people to learn at their own pace. We want to empower the teacher so that they have all of this class time freed up. And then we say, how do we do that? Really, I think it's a matter of major shift and mindset on what a classroom is.

ZAKARIA: That's why I'm so taken with what Sal Khan is doing with California schools. It is classic American innovation. Thinking outside the box. Upending the old system applied to education. We might well look back on this trend as the beginning of a whole new way of teaching math, and maybe everything. Technology is allowing us to make education more customized, personal and interactive.

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

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2012 02:07 AM Report

Yes on the timing for digital education and Charlie you should have asked Marc about Sebastian Thrun and what Marc knows about his digital education experience at Stanford.

From "Fresh Air":

DAVIES: Right. Now let's talk about this. There was the case of the Stanford course, which was in, I forget what subject...

CAREY: Artificial intelligence.

DAVIES: OK. And it was available to anybody for free. And how many people followed the course or participated?

CAREY: Well over 100,000.

DAVIES: OK.

CAREY: I think getting up to 200,000, perhaps.

DAVIES: Now, no doubt they learned a lot, but they don't end up with a college credit, do they?

CAREY: No. It's...

DAVIES: How does this get translated into something that society recognizes as, you know, an - you know, a real education, a real credential?

CAREY: Well, that is the question that everybody is thinking about now. There is, I think, now no doubt that certain kinds of students - not everybody, but certain kinds of students can learn a lot, as you say, online. But people don't just go to college to learn. They go to college to get a credential that could help them get a job. That's the difference between a library and a college, or one of the differences.

And I think recognizing this, the professors that taught this class at Stanford - and it should be said that they - the Stanford professors kind of just did this on their own. They didn't even ask for permission ahead of time. They just opened their class up to the Internet. And as it turns out, while Stanford, the university was very enthusiastic about this kind of innovative, broadly reaching class being taught by one of their professors, they were also very, very concerned that there be no confusion about the fact that students who were not paying Stanford to take this class, those students were not going to receive Stanford credits.

Stanford credits are very expensive. Only a small number of students are allowed to get them. So what happened was the professors who taught the class for the students who satisfactorily passed the class based on tests that they took online got a letter from the professors saying: Dear such and such, this letter officially certifies that you took this class and - or something along those lines, and in some cases perhaps graduated or scored in the top 10 percent of the class. Sincerely, such and such person who is a professor at Stanford.

So we're really getting into the realm of semantic distinctions now, because in the end all a college degree is is a piece of paper saying that: Dear such and such, you took these classes and here's how you did in them - nothing more, nothing less. It is the piece of paper that has the seal of approval from an institution that has been itself approved through a process of government endorsement and accreditation, but the essential act of communication is the same.

The above is from this link where you will find a GREAT transcript:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=155766786

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2012 01:52 AM Report

Yes, perhaps it was the dot.com bubble bursting or perhaps it was Y2K. Either way, when you lie to people, and they feel it in their wallet, it sometimes takes over a decade for them to recover or to forget.

Let us look at the Microsoft chart.

You can access the chart at the following link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=msft#symbol=msft;range=19991231,20120628;compare=;indicator=volume ;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Microsoft fell off the mountain at Y2K and lost a decade for investors.

Charlie, please have Microsoft take a seat at the table and tell us their operating systems are finally as reliable as electricity and as safe as money in the bank.

anne4444  06/28/2012 08:48 PM Report

Thank you for sharing.

We are now in the beginning of human consciousness evolution into a new culture similar as Andromedans. We will likely live much longer than we are now and we will have less surviving problem, but a lot of passion to work for self-satisfaction and serving others.

Hopefully we all open our hearts and let them connect together in the frequency in the LIGHT to exchange information within as internet soon.

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

The universe in its origin does not have any separation. All things are united as one.

Our next future is likely to be in the level of sharing through our souls, sharing the thoughts without privacy, sharing the pains without shame, sharing visions without limitation and sharing the joys without reservation.

Chakras are information and energy exchange centers with other Galaxies in different time lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakra

Max83  06/28/2012 08:22 PM Report

Thank you tabs for sharing your wisdom with us:

''Ones impression of Mr Andreessen is that he has a lot of money, brains and talent like so many other Silicon Valley denizens, but he like so many others like him also lack wisdom. There also is a stink of hubris on these men like Andreessen, in that they believe that Technology can solve all the worlds ills, without regard for the souls of men.''

We are Human Beings, not human robots. Thank you tabs.

That is why I do not like the work and research by the likes of Ray Kurzweil or Daniel Kahnemann, who make the right observations of problems we are facing as human kind, but draw the wrong conclusions from them and offer the wrong solutions (ie technology), because they are lacking wisdom. Very dangerous if people like that should start ruling the world. As I said before, Super Brains not balanced by heart/wisdom are the most dangerous thing in the Universe. I think there is a lot of Truth to Peter Thiel and his associates being called the ''PayPal Mafia'', a Freudian Slip.

To come back to one of my favourite topics the Bilderberg Group hahahahaha, Peter Thiel is on its Steering Committee. PayPal Mafia members and Bilderberg Group Superclass Elitists mingling is not healthy and balanced in my opinion.

By the way I just signed this Manifesto for Economic Sense:

http://www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org/

because it makes Sense to me, because it is humane and because it confirms my own research :

A Manifesto for Economic Sense

More than four years after the financial crisis began, the world’s major advanced economies remain deeply depressed, in a scene all too reminiscent of the 1930s. And the reason is simple: we are relying on the same ideas that governed policy in the 1930s. These ideas, long since disproved, involve profound errors both about the causes of the crisis, its nature, and the appropriate response.

These errors have taken deep root in public consciousness and provide the public support for the excessive austerity of current fiscal policies in many countries. So the time is ripe for a Manifesto in which mainstream economists offer the public a more evidence-based analysis of our problems.

The causes. Many policy makers insist that the crisis was caused by irresponsible public borrowing. With very few exceptions - other than Greece - this is false. Instead, the conditions for crisis were created by excessive private sector borrowing and lending, including by over-leveraged banks. The collapse of this bubble led to massive falls in output and thus in tax revenue. So the large government deficits we see today are a consequence of the crisis, not its cause.

The nature of the crisis. When real estate bubbles on both sides of the Atlantic burst, many parts of the private sector slashed spending in an attempt to pay down past debts. This was a rational response on the part of individuals, but - just like the similar response of debtors in the 1930s - it has proved collectively self-defeating, because one person’s spending is another person’s income. The result of the spending collapse has been an economic depression that has worsened the public debt.

The appropriate response. At a time when the private sector is engaged in a collective effort to spend less, public policy should act as a stabilizing force, attempting to sustain spending. At the very least we should not be making things worse by big cuts in government spending or big increases in tax rates on ordinary people. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what many governments are now doing.

The big mistake. After responding well in the first, acute phase of the economic crisis, conventional policy wisdom took a wrong turn - focusing on government deficits, which are mainly the result of a crisis-induced plunge in revenue, and arguing that the public sector should attempt to reduce its debts in tandem with the private sector. As a result, instead of playing a stabilizing role, fiscal policy has ended up reinforcing the dampening effects of private-sector spending cuts.

In the face of a less severe shock, monetary policy could take up the slack. But with interest rates close to zero, monetary policy - while it should do all it can - cannot do the whole job. There must of course be a medium-term plan for reducing the government deficit. But if this is too front-loaded it can easily be self-defeating by aborting the recovery. A key priority now is to reduce unemployment, before it becomes endemic, making recovery and future deficit reduction even more difficult.

How do those who support present policies answer the argument we have just made? They use two quite different arguments in support of their case.

The confidence argument. Their first argument is that government deficits will raise interest rates and thus prevent recovery. By contrast, they argue, austerity will increase confidence and thus encourage recovery.

But there is no evidence at all in favour of this argument. First, despite exceptionally high deficits, interest rates today are unprecedentedly low in all major countries where there is a normally functioning central bank. This is true even in Japan where the government debt now exceeds 200% of annual GDP; and past downgrades by the rating agencies here have had no effect on Japanese interest rates. Interest rates are only high in some Euro countries, because the ECB is not allowed to act as lender of last resort to the government. Elsewhere the central bank can always, if needed, fund the deficit, leaving the bond market unaffected.

Moreover past experience includes no relevant case where budget cuts have actually generated increased economic activity. The IMF has studied 173 cases of budget cuts in individual countries and found that the consistent result is economic contraction. In the handful of cases in which fiscal consolidation was followed by growth, the main channels were a currency depreciation against a strong world market, not a current possibility. The lesson of the IMF’s study is clear - budget cuts retard recovery. And that is what is happening now - the countries with the biggest budget cuts have experienced the biggest falls in output.

For the truth is, as we can now see, that budget cuts do not inspire business confidence. Companies will only invest when they can foresee enough customers with enough income to spend. Austerity discourages investment.

So there is massive evidence against the confidence argument; all the alleged evidence in favor of the doctrine has evaporated on closer examination.

The structural argument. A second argument against expanding demand is that output is in fact constrained on the supply side - by structural imbalances. If this theory were right, however, at least some parts of our economies ought to be at full stretch, and so should some occupations. But in most countries that is just not the case. Every major sector of our economies is struggling, and every occupation has higher unemployment than usual. So the problem must be a general lack of spending and demand.

In the 1930s the same structural argument was used against proactive spending policies in the U.S. But as spending rose between 1940 and 1942, output rose by 20%. So the problem in the 1930s, as now, was a shortage of demand not of supply.

As a result of their mistaken ideas, many Western policy-makers are inflicting massive suffering on their peoples. But the ideas they espouse about how to handle recessions were rejected by nearly all economists after the disasters of the 1930s, and for the following forty years or so the West enjoyed an unparalleled period of economic stability and low unemployment. It is tragic that in recent years the old ideas have again taken root. But we can no longer accept a situation where mistaken fears of higher interest rates weigh more highly with policy-makers than the horrors of mass unemployment.

Better policies will differ between countries and need detailed debate. But they must be based on a correct analysis of the problem. We therefore urge all economists and others who agree with the broad thrust of this Manifesto to register their agreement at www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org, and to publically argue the case for a sounder approach. The whole world suffers when men and women are silent about what they know is wrong.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/28/2012 04:40 PM Report

He tells us that 'Innovation is hiring the right talent, eating your own young (compete against yourself with new products knocking out old products as quickly as possible) . . .'

Perhaps this is innovation but capitalism runs mostly on price. Just ask China.

Low price, and steal the innovation, and your capitalism will win.

Then where will your innovation be?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/28/2012 04:31 PM Report

Charlie, you might have asked him to compare and contrast FaceBook with Google Plus since he is on the board of FaceBook.

How did FaceBook pass MySpace and could Google Plus do the same to FaceBook?

tabs  06/28/2012 04:26 PM Report

Ones impression of Mr Andreessen is that he has a lot of money, brains and talent like so many other Silicon Valley denizens, but he like so many others like him also lack wisdom. There also is a stink of hubris on these men like Andreessen, in that they believe that Technology can solve all the worlds ills, without regard for the souls of men.

Further PE ratos being low as a result of "emotional scarring because of the Dot Com Bubble bursting." Ones case rests upon the foolishness of this stated belief. Rather the PE ratios reflect the sentiments of Investors towards the state of the economy and of what the future holds for the economy. The Stock Markets FLATLINE performance since 2000 has been a reflection that all was not well with the US economy since that time, which has been proven out by the RE bubble and attending financial debacle in 2008. These twin occurances were masking the real weakness of the US economy which has persisted until this day.

Finally, the first thing that one thought when watching Mr Roses next segement with Mr Feinberg, is that here is a man who has some wisdom. Sure enough towards the end of the interview Mr Feinberg brings up a 91 year old judge that acts as his mentor and counselor to help provide "wisdom" when he has a problem to resolve. The contrast between the two men was quite stark.

tabs  06/28/2012 04:25 PM Report

Ones impression of Mr Andreessen is that he has a lot of money, brains and talent like so many other Silicon Valley denizens, but he like so many others like him also lack wisdom. There also is a stink of hubris on these men like Andreessen, in that they believe that Technology can solve all the worlds ills, without regard for the souls of men.

Further PE ratos being low as a result of "emotional scarring because of the Dot Com Bubble bursting." Ones case rests upon the foolishness of this stated belief. Rather the PE ratios reflect the sentiments of Investors towards the state of the economy and of what the future holds for the economy. The Stock Markets FLATLINE performance since 2000 has been a reflection that all was not well with the US economy since that time, which has been proven out by the RE bubble and attending financial debacle in 2008. These twin occurances were masking the real weakness of the US economy which has persisted until this day.

Finally, the first thing that one thought when watching Mr Roses next segement with Mr Feinberg, is that here is a man who has some wisdom. Sure enough towards the end of the interview Mr Feinberg brings up a 91 year old judge that acts as his mentor and counselor to help provide "wisdom" when he has a problem to resolve. The contrast between the two men was quite stark.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/28/2012 04:25 PM Report

Charlie, slow down my friend. Even closed-captioning couldn't keep up. Play to the audience. Talk to each other--not over each other.

“The Man Who Makes The Future” appears to be manic and heading for an anxiety attack if not properly medicated.

JFed  06/28/2012 02:24 PM Report

I think that Andreessen overlooks the fact that P/E ratios are positively correlated with expectations of growth. So, high P/E ratios at one time may have indicated high expectations for growth and/or overvaluation. While it may be possible that Tech stocks are undervalued, maybe there is simply less expectation for growth in Tech companies, other than Cisco. In the case of Apple, a declining P/E ratio could relate to it meeting past expectations, but not raising expectations for growth in the future.

Comparable ratios are a useful tool for comparison, but not always useful on their own. How about a valuation based on discounted cash flows or even better, unexpected earnings growth? We could better extrapolate information from ratios if we compare them with proper valuations.

REMant  06/28/2012 11:37 AM Report

Carnegie was, and I'm sure Gates and Buffett will be accounted, a net loss to society. It makes no economic sense to drive people into poverty in order to patronize them, which is what capitalism, based on service or philanthropy does. My feeling is that Europe saw this beginning in the 12th c, but by the 14th had experienced its disastrous effects. The Renaissance, and its religious counterpart, the Reformation, proved corrective, but since the mid-19th c we have been slipping backwards. This is a very large historical concept, as I wrote yesterday and Monday, but one can see tangible evidence of it in the mania of Andreesen and many other of the type who've been on this show.

No matter what you think of Job's engineering prowess, Microsoft developed programs and hardware for people like itself. Apple and Google have developed them to sell stuff to ppl. Facebook will fail, because the sensible sorts with dough will resent its intrusiveness leaving it with only the enthusiasts, most of them young and without it. Most just do not want to be manipulated to the extent it is becoming clear FB has in mind. Nevertheless, with the pressure increasingly being exerted by business in this direction, websites aimed at price comparison will not be able, nor probably want to remain in their current business, negating much of benefit of the expansion of the division of labor created by the Internet bulletin board. Such as Andreesen don't see this because they BELIEVE they are doing a great public service.