Charlie Rose

vongleichent  08/04/2012 07:53 AM Report

Cyber War is being done by people who got the brain power to do so. Countries like Israel have particular reasons why they would engage in such behavior.

Ellen_Dibble  08/01/2012 08:20 PM Report

Dear Gelles, I am not an economist, but... Who was it said, watch out for those economists, who's padding the economists' accounts. Certain economists dare to say such things, and I won't name names (because I probably intentionally can't remember). Krugman seems secure enough in his positions that I have my fun trying to goad him further this way or that. Not all economists think it is important (in a democracy, I suppose) to take on board the evolving economic perspectives of the general populace, but I consider it a dialogue between the millions of "us" and the more influential voices, and simply following along once you get the drift of this one or that, well, that's no fun. And why would they participate if "we" were simply herded. If an economist seems to have an inside track on Congress or the Administration, that might be indicative of something. If Krugman manages to fathom exactly what direction Etchasketch Romney would actually try to take us, actually then be able to take us, I would really, really like to hear that. Really, really like to hear that.

Gelles  07/30/2012 10:47 PM Report

Dear Ellen,

My only decision, so far, is to follow Krugman's advice when I vote -- assuming he does take sides.

I agree with your feelings that a third party is not attractive at the moment. I have always voted for big D Democrats --except when Jimmy Carter ran for a Second Term without first preventing Iran from holding our diplomats as prisoners.

If I had been President I would have freed our diplomats at all cost. The example we set was IMO beyond all good reason. Our diplomats are soldiers when they are taken prisoner.

Your idea, "I think that our ability to collaborate had better get stabilized and become globally contagious -- ASAP", is as correct as any I might express.

If Krugman refuses to support Obama, I may mimic him. If not, I will follow Krugman and vote for Obama and hope our candidate gets guts and brains enough to yet become another Lincoln.

Ellen_Dibble  07/30/2012 07:43 PM Report

Gelles, remember what happened when Gore v Bush -- when people voted for Ralph Nader?

I look at candidates like Jill Stein of the Green Party, and locally a candidate for a Congressional district with similar views, and I know those could be spoilers in the election, and probably spoilers, like the Tea Party candidates in Congress now, presenting views maverick to orthodoxy. I have to be impatient toward public opinion and patient to elected realities, I suppose.

People see Obama as selling out, and the sad fact is that as a candidate, he ran on an agenda that had not yet taken onboard the about-to-take-place Wall Street crash of September into October. How could he? I am waiting for our presumed Republican candidate to get up in Warsaw tomorrow and reignite the dying embers of the Cold War, foot in the mouth that he is. So. But I think there are urgent matters to address, probably mass exoduses (globally speaking) due to environmental stressors that we are still setting in motion, and I think that our ability to collaborate had better get stabilized and become globally contagious -- ASAP.

Gelles  07/30/2012 10:21 AM Report

Ellen D. ~

The systems evolved to meet supply and demand and encourage middle class wealth and a safety net that prevents poverty are incomplete. Many critics claim they are corrupt. These systems encourage astronomical inequality unrelated to reason, fairness or common sense.

At the top, the system includes election of lawmakers and executives and regulators to enforce the laws, by ordinary citizens who cannot conceivably understand the system or the laws.

The system has evolved to allow former lawmakers and their ilk to become lobbyists who rig the system for a living. Many of these lobbyists make a killing. And the citizens who voted over the years of this evolution are among the majority whose prospects have dimmed as technology made it possible for them to have become rich from its rewards.

Your hope rests with these citizen voters. Try to vote for candidates determined to enrich all of us not the very few. This will not be easy -- because the system helps candidates who tilt the system against the majority of people who do the work and deserve the rewards technology has offered them.

REMant represents the concepts that reward the hard money crowd not likely to improve the lot of people in the bottom half of the of the citizenry measured by wealth.

I represent the ideas determined to justify your hope.

If i were you I would watch Paul Krugman. He knows the score. If you vote for the candidates he votes for, you may be advancing your hope.

If you vote for candidates claiming to be conservative, you are likely to be cheated. Their hopes are not consistent with better law, higher wages and a more effective safety net. No one deserves to be poor as much as those who care not for the end of poverty, disease and war. They are the sad sacks who do not support Functional Finance and Function Law as they evolved for a brief period in the 20th Century under the pressure of the times from 1930 to the death of FDR.

Ellen_Dibble  07/30/2012 09:41 AM Report

I appreciated hearing this interview. I'm wondering if the show has others it can call upon to enlighten us about the workings of our justice system vis-a-vis the unaccountability of the banks. Make that, what our legal system can do, since apparently the laws weren't up to it. Make that the voting system by which we elect the individuals who make those laws. Hope burns eternal.

Gelles  07/30/2012 06:21 AM Report

We prize the "rule of LAW" among our great notions of what is right, what makes sense, what works, for America and the human race.

Yet the "rule of law" is a fiction. Only people can rule themselves -- only people can rule with purpose and nature can rule, with no purpose we can ever know.

Functional Law and Functional Finance advance the concept of PURPOSE as the missing ingredient in ancient and modern law and economics.

Science, alone among our disciplines, demands that all rules be tested at all times for EFFECT. When the effect defies all purpose, science puts us on guard to re-examine our beliefs and go back to the drawing board to design better cause and effect diagrams than those that do us harm.

The purpose of punishment is to improve the future not re-try the past. There may be satisfaction in drawing and quartering villains, but if we would end poverty and ignorance we have to apply rules that work not rules that appeal solely to our hate of other people. Sartre advises, "Hell is OTHER PEOPLE".

Wall Street villains and their partners in crime in Washington may deserve to be drawn and quartered. They have arranged to sell the LAW to the HIGHEST BIDDER. We the People ought to change that arrangement.Judges and Justices should never have been LAWYERS. Lawyers are taught to argue. The rest of mankind is taught to learn and think. They have invented empirical science and even its logical elements. Devils invented the law to excuse whatever they do.

I, myself, am a lawyer and a scientist. I ought to know.

Economists are worse than bad lawyers and mad scientists. I, myself am an economist. I ought to know.

Charlie Rose is a questioner. He knows notbhing and asks his guests to tell him everything. Then he contradicts them.

He does have good TV to his credit. And to top that off he runs the worst software in the world of bulletin boards.

Amazon runs the best software. It is editable from now to eternity. Its dynamic editing makes it incomplete at any moment. But so is life. And bulletin boards are interested in life -- not in being cheap and frustrating to theit users.

EPatrickMosman  07/27/2012 03:40 PM Report

Mr Baharara was very firm in his belief that justice is the most important objective of the Federal prosecutors office so it was somewhat surprising that you failed to ask him what punishment should be imposed on prosecutors who fail this litmus test. For example what if any punishment was meted out to the prosecutors in the Senator Ted Stevens' case. Senators Stevens' guilty verdict was dismissed by a federal judge due to

" prosecution was "permeated by the systematic concealment" of evidence favorable to the defense. The evidence prosecutors failed to disclose, the report concluded, "seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witness."

Senator Stevens lost his reelection bid and his reputation as a result of serious Federal prosecutorial misconduct. Justice delayed is Justice denied and yet the perpetrators seem to have escaped any punishment.

Dasein  07/27/2012 03:28 PM Report

The most significant "unknown knowns" for United States Attornies are these three simple facts: Drugs,Prostitution and Gamblings are managed by the local police in every community in the United States. In NYC the fourth truth: traffic tickets.

REMant  07/27/2012 02:22 PM Report

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a United States Attorney and a United States Marshall for each of 13 circuit court districts set up in the 11 states which comprised the union at that time. Originally his office dealt mostly with admiralty cases, but the caseload has very greatly increased over time, to match Federal overreach. Personally I think a lot of the problem with criminal behavior in this country derives from the fact that no one has a clue aside from things like murder, assault, theft and speeding, etc, what constitutes a crime. It's not taught to anyone except criminal justice and law students, and it seems to me to reflect a professionalism designed mainly to perpetuate itself, like doctors and CPAs. But the failure of the constitutional convention to address the judicial branch left the door open to Federalists to legislate through the courts in place of Congress and the Constitution, which can only be amended by a slow and cumbersome process. The legal system, much like the banking system, occupies a parallel and alien universe. I dislike Springsteen, too.