Charlie Rose

quotes88  10/27/2012 09:37 AM Report

QUOTES&NOTES http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au/

A periodical of reading notes By James Farmer

Knowledge, while it is in aphorisms, is in growth. (Francis Bacon 1561-1626 ).

If you would like to support No-Commercial press, please

email this periodical to your close friends and work colleagues.Together, let's build a better civil society.

All rights @ James Farmer 2012.

charliesheep  10/16/2012 12:54 PM Report

OI-VEY; SO, YOU[AMERICA]SHOULD PUT YOUR MONEY IN CAYMANS AND BANK-SUISSE! AND IF THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL HAVE MONEY? THAT YOU STILL HAVEN'T SPENT DUH; RETIREMENT-NOW CONSISTS OF PICKING YOUR GRAVE SITE ,THEN DEATH-THEN-- DEATH PANELS-- IT'S -------------ALL GOOD!

NeilMacCallister  10/14/2012 02:36 PM Report

Hah! .."TheQuietOne" shouts "Traitor! Traitor!" because Mitt Romney once owned a Toyota!

In fact, QO, Mitt Romney wants to shorten tax forms; and to cap deductions at $17,000 dollars, which will INCREASE tax revenues collected from "the rich" who lawyer-up all those tax shelters .. so that Barack Obama can't grab that money and spend it on his friends at the banks, or amateurishly "invest" it in failed corporations like Solyndra.

So, ..go ahead and "Wonder" what America would be like if we had a President who knew what he was doing!

TheQuietOne  10/14/2012 10:13 AM Report

A Question That Make You Wonder!..

I wished someone would ask the ex-Governor Romney this question “If you have made your money in the United States, you are running to be the President of the United States, how come you have offshore investments in Swiss and Carmen Islands?.. You call yourself a patriot?"

Mitt Romney’s tax return for 2011 is almost twice as long as it was in 2010

It is 379 pages long, and 250 pages are foreign entity disclosure forms. Put simply, that’s 250 pages about his offshore investments, tax preferences, like Swiss and Carmen Island accounts.

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/09/mitt_romneys_2011_returns_reve.php

vongleichent  10/13/2012 01:46 PM Report

With Elderly people working longer youth unemployment is going to shoot up. We can already notice that with the high numbers of students being unemployed. The increasing gap between the rich and poor is the real danger out there. We will see class war fare happening real soon.

YeOleMittster  10/13/2012 01:24 PM Report

On second thought, perhaps it's possible, that YeOleMittster, CAN 'Stop the sky from Falling' on 'us' (i.e. Country-Club Republican Socialists) i.e. 'CCRS'

Hear Here Brethren!

NeilMacCallister  10/10/2012 04:18 AM Report

I was ready to listen to this public-paid "yarn-spinner" tell his story of "More public money for my school, please!! ..I desire another raise again next month!!!"

But Charlie just STOLE the show, demanding to defend Obama's 'tax-and-keep' economy, and Ben Bernanke's "So where's my next job going to be next year, boss??"

Charlie??? ..maybe next week you and Tina Fey can deliver us a deep discussion on that coming credit cliff that is going to hit us soon after our (..uh-hem) "election"????

I hope so, ..I mean, I know that you and all the other "Top 1%" government paycheck drawers will always do just fine, ..But out here in this "no job" private-market land, ..things are getting quite desperate these last 4 years in Obama's 'seize-and-keep' $6 Trillion dollar unemployment slum!!

Quit toying with your grade-school socialisms, ..eh? .."Time's awasting!!"

YeOleMittster  10/09/2012 06:28 PM Report

This Professor speaks to me. His Truth Telling and common sense approach to problem solving is admirable. He is, Benjamin Franklin.

People should listen to him And ABSORB.

Read his book.

EPatrickMosman  10/09/2012 10:26 AM Report

Warren(Tax me more) Buffett was mentioned by Mr.Stiglitz as a role model for those whose taxes should be increased conveniently failed to mention that"

-Mr.Buffett could write a check to the US treasury at any time for any additional amount he deemed necessary but doesn't do so for the following Buffett Position on the tax-free foundations he established for his family members or contributes to via Bill Gates.

"In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: "I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he's really not so different from the rest of us who would rather direct our contributions to our own charitable institutions rather than passing them through high overhead government agencies to fund activities such as Acorn and Planned Parenthood

EPatrickMosman  10/09/2012 07:16 AM Report

Mr. Rose,

Your interview reminded me of the Obama- Romney debate, with Professor Stiglitz playing Obama.

Your questions were direct and too the point and the answers were pure Obama/Krugman.

The more one hears Nobel Prize winning economists, Stiglitz and Krugman, preach the borrow, print and stimulate solutions it demeans The Prize to the level of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and Barack Obama.The idea that the Federal Government should borrow or even worse, print money,

to send to spendthrift States to hire more unionized teachers and public employees was tried in the first Obama stimulus program. New Jersey received one billion dollars and the Democratic governor spent it all, leaving a one billion dollar shortfall for Governor Christie in the next State Education budget and added one billion to the Federal deficit. So when the Federal largess ends the State taxpayers are left with the increased cost, higher State taxes, State borrowing or layoffs of the new employees, if allowed.. This is a Nobel Prize winner's solution to increasing the anemic growth rate?

Perhaps he should have consulted a man with experience Henry Morganthau

In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau,Jr., wrote in his diary and told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

Does history repeat itself? Yes, it does. And there is every appearance that Obama and the democrats intend to repeat the errors of the last Depression that came to be known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

richard-lipscombe  10/09/2012 03:28 AM Report

what planet does this guy live on? not the one I live on that is for sure...he is a great example of 'cognitive capture'...all his arguments are internally inconsistent - but why should I be surprised because after all he is an economist (regrettably, I was educated to be an economist too) which means he assumes away all the problems he has with his various positions...what annoys me most is that he is arrogant while being ignorant...unfortunately I am the fool here, not him, because I can not get back the time I wasted on this video...as Michael Crichton might says about this guy - he is not even wrong!

cheers, richard.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/08/2012 11:01 PM Report

Charlie asks, were they the right decisions at the time?

He tells us the decisions prevented the abyss but did not do it in the right way. Save the banks but they did not have to also save the bankers—REPLACE THEM. The UK did that. No bonuses. Financial help could have gone to the US taxpayers instead of the bankers.

Yes but then they also took money from the savers with low interest rates. A special tax on savers up to 87.5%.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2015812521_burns14.html

So a double dose of unbridled greed.

EPatrickMosman  10/08/2012 04:46 PM Report

On the I% factor, Mr.Stiglitz shows an amazing ability to ignore the period of time in American history that created the truly rich with names such as Rockefeller, Morgan,Gould,Mellon,Carnegie, Frick are only a partial list. Their majestic mansions, at Newport and mansions and property around the country and around the world are reminders of the wealth they enjoyed. And the museums, libraries,hospitals, works of art left to all Americans are a tribute to their generosity. America has always had the very wealthy, the rich, the middle class and the poor and it no different today then it was from its very beginning.

Max83  10/08/2012 04:44 PM Report

Thank you Charlie Rose and Joseph Stiglitz for this outstanding interview. I know it is sometimes hard to follow Mr. Stiglitz's train of thought, but he is speaking the Truth and knows how to turn around the economy and this country.

I really like that he brought up the comparison between a consumption based economy and an investment based economy. Here however it needs to be added that the investments being made have to be sustainable i.e. renewable energies and resources (planting trees etc.).

The goal of a sustainable investment based economy is that people will consume less things, but the things they consume last longer and enrich their lives more, which then leads to self-sufficiency. In a sustainable investment based economy you will have a more energy self-sufficient populace/society and there actually will be less trade and less labour, but that does not mean that people have no work, they will just not work for money anymore but out of a desire for creativity, innovation and pleasure.

I would love if the Charlie Rose Show invites Peer Steinbrück the 2013 German Chancellor candidate for the Social Democratic Party for an interview.

Thank you again.

anne4444  10/08/2012 04:28 PM Report

Thank you for sharing.

Honestly, we do not have enough jobs for everyone in US. If we create jobs by doing useless work, it will not help us in long term either.

rtb  10/08/2012 03:46 PM Report

REMaNt

Your comments are longer than the show's transcript. Do you want to be heard or just speak?

REMant  10/08/2012 01:46 PM Report

Prof Stiglitz shares with the president the belief that all our problems are caused by a few bad apples, but not apparently his notion that govt should "induce" business to do right, which is no doubt why he was engaged in a war with Summers in the Clinton White House. I would imagine like his disciple Krugman, Stiglitz would like to see the banks nationalized. All of them, would tho be opposed to the idea of getting rid of them altogether. They remain Keynesians, and you can't "stimulate" without the banks monetary expansion, unless you redistribute by force. But to be of any real value money has first to be earned by someone.

The professor might thus want to reflect on this statement from David Humes' Of the Balance of Trade published in 1752: "Our modern politics embrace the only method of banishing money, the using of paper credit; they reject the only method of amassing it, the practice of hoarding [i.e., saving]; and they adopt a hundred contrivances, which serve to no purpose but to check industry, and rob ourselves and our neighbours of the common benefits of art and nature."

And even tho these Keynesian types firmly believe such money can bring forth goods, they focus on physical arrangements, such as labor contracts and income tax provisions, as if it didn't. But what keeps markets from clearing is printing it, which happens every time the Fed either lowers interest rates or doesn't allow prices to fall. His views on health care also put the cart before horse, because it is clear service prices reflect this monetary inflation, not some wage or cost pushes.

Prof Stiglitz similarly believes externalities (things which cannot be properly valued by markets, like pollution or education) are pervasive, and condemns classical economics for not taking them into account. But like the effects of credit creation, the irony is that externalities are created in the process of making markets and producing rivals, which, of course, classical economics eschews. Classical markets assume personal independence and self-interested adjustment; it's the Keynesians, true to their mercantilist roots, who assume class and political warfare.

Another irony in printing money is that, in the process, it inflates the trade value of assets, making the rich richer, so involves a Ponzi-like transfer from labor to rent-seekers. And we've become rent-seekers on the backs of the 3rd world, exactly what he deplores. It is similar to the Greenspan-Bernanke argument that China's saving was responsible for cheap money, not our printing it. Keynesians consider saving and hence, of necessity, the labor needed to produce it, miserly and puritanical. Along with Reagan-era guru Jude Wanniski, he believes we've become too rich to work, tho it is couched in "stages" theory: hunting, farming, trading, manufacturing, and now services. (There's a good discussion of rent-seeking here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html)

The question of the debt-to-GDP ratio depends entirely on the success of this Ponzi scheme. That can come from increased real productivity or parasitism, but as Hume also wrote (this time in Of Public Credit): "The public is a debtor, whom no man can oblige to pay. The only check which the creditors have upon her, is the interest of preserving credit;.." This has been the primary means to our consolidation, and is presently being urged on Europe. Nevertheless it certainly has its limits, and we are in the process of discovering them.

Ppl like Stiglitz are also "reformers," making their plaints comparable to those of Mandeville's hypocritical clergy. And it was after all Mandeville whom Keynes relied on to make his case for animal spirits. Mandeville wrote: "I flatter myself to have demonstrated that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society: but that what we call evil in the world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception: that there we must look for the true origin of an arts and sciences, and that the moment evil ceases the society must be spoiled, if not totally dissolved."

And so also Adam Smith, who in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, similarly remarks that in their vanity men "are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for."

And in The Wealth of Nations: "[B]y directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it." Indeed, the main evidence Smith gives is the manner in which wealth has been redistributed from the nobility to the middle-classes in making goods for them. Despite all the commotion about it there was really nothing startling in this view, which derives from the pervasive Stoic idea of self-preservation and is found as well in Shakespeare, Hobbes, Locke and Pope.

I think the income tax on intangibles should be the same as on wages, but it's argued that we have, along with Japan, the highest corporate income tax in the world, and that would mean their income would be more heavily taxed, and tho ppl differ on whom the burden falls, the two have to considered together. Personally I'd scrap corporate taxation, unlikely to happen since that would mean forsaking a good deal of government's control over them, as well as over religious and educational institutions. But I don't know many professors, nor certainly students, who feel academically free now except to blame others for their problems (and it'd better not be some minority groups at that.)

I would be remiss if I didn't also point out that while not apparently a chickenhawk, Stiglitz, who was born in 1943, seems to have received sufficient educational deferments to have avoided military service during Vietnam.

And for the nth time, the 47% who don't pay taxes does not equal the 47% who say they are committed to the president, nor either the 47% who receive some means of govt support. And Romney never actually said they were. It is clear he did not mean to include Social Security among the entitlements he mentioned and he knows that it is not paid for by income taxes (or at least is not supposed to be). I am tired of hearing this distorted and I really think a Nobel prize winner and former economic advisor with umpty-ump honorary degrees shouldn't be among those who do.