Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/05/2012 02:36 AM Report

He tells us in Syria there is unspeakable slaughter.

Then he tells us that Foreign Policy is keeping people from killing each other.

Well then the conclusion is that lots and lots of people need to be fired.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/05/2012 02:32 AM Report

He tells us 5 year terms for Parliament vs our 2 year terms for Congress.

Yours sounds better because here we are in perpetual election.

Our two year term would defeat your system if our Congress could not run again in order to focus on the job instead of the possibility of job security (and could not become a Lobbyist either).

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/05/2012 02:15 AM Report

He tells us that healthcare as percent of GDP is 8% for them and 18% for us--looking at efficiency, productivity and innovation.

Yes, I am with you David on efficiency, productivity and innovation in our healthcare.

You might like our anemic 1.7% to 1.9% growth but we would love your 8% of GDP healthcare costs.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/05/2012 02:10 AM Report

Ed's brother tells us anti-austerity in the short term and reform in the medium term.

Sounds like he is in the Paul Krugman camp.

However, that anti-austerity has to work quickly enough or the lack financial reform will sink the ship.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/03/2012 08:45 PM Report

When I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN I love to hear "Ed Miliband" yelled over the room's hubbub. It is mostly the way "Miliband" is said after one syllable "Ed".

In fact it has become an ear-worm for me and I find myself yelling "Ed Miliband" out in my house.

Sorry David.

(EDDDD MILL ABANDDDDD--oh that feels good.)

REMant  10/03/2012 11:26 AM Report

No, we have a double-dip recession here too (tho it won't be announced for a month or two). If the British still have a problem, it's because of the Bank of England and the central banks of the rest of the world. And the cash has no more value than it had to begin with - probably less. Doing anything with it would make no difference. Less still if the govt attempted to do so.

But banking school folks like Bernanke (and Keynes) believe only the supply and demand of goods can affect value, not the quantity of money. That's true only because money in their scheme is credit and not anything of value in itself, and because credit is its prime mover.

This school of thought doesn't think they are actually creating money when they "print" it, because they believe money is created only when spent, not in the act creating credit. It's completely illogical, and has been since Law and Steuart thought it up. They want to put us back on the installment plan or pyramid scheme that banks have always run, and Bernanke reiterated it in Indianapolis Monday.

The Fed, like any investment bank, functions by "making markets," that is, not investing savings, but brokering deals. They, themselves, never have much, if any, real money. This is the way Hamilton's bank and others began: the capital being mostly promises to support the bank. They truly were, and remain, pyramid schemes, subject to collapse if returns are not forthcoming.

In trying to "reflate" the Fed is attempting to salvage this scheme - keep the boom going - but without associated productivity the demand for money continues to increase while the value of it decreases.

For years now we have been sustained by the productivity and cheapness of reserve armies of Chinese and other emerging 3rd world economies, who now longer need us. And it has also had considerable "moral" consequences, reflected in part by investment in houses instead of factories. Unfortunately, the Chinese economy is now also being driven more by real estate than it is by exports.

Under this kind of regime we can only manage inflation if we can find another source of "growth," otherwise we can look forward to increasing stagnation leading to further depreciation of money's value, and hyperinflation.