Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2013 02:39 AM Report

Charlie, CEO pay--when does it finally become robbery?

CHART OF CEO PAY vs WORKER PAY vs S&P INCREASE:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/Users/cunninghamlg/CEOvsWORKERcomp.jpg?uuid=DvkH0JuIEeGew k3kPCNo5A

(How do we get our money out of a S&P 500 mutual fund and into a CEO pay mutual fund?

By the way, JC Penny cut their CEO's pay by 96%. He is down to $1.5M. Hard to live on huh Charlie--eight million dollar man.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/06/2013 02:32 AM Report

Yes, Jeffrey a massive amount of wealth goes where the resources are BUT food prices and political stability are crucial.

We are seeing a vicious cycle in which rising oil prices drive up the cost of food, which triggers political disorder in the oil-producing countries, which in turn pushes oil to still higher prices, propelling food costs even higher, and so forth—with no end in sight.

In 2007–08 the prices of oil and food reached record levels and helped fuel the Great Recession.

Between July 2007 and June 2008, crude oil rose from $75 per barrel to $140, an increase of 87 percent; during the same period, basic food prices also shot up, from about $160 to $225 on the “Food Price Index” (with $100 representing the average cost of the same staples in 2002–04) calculated by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

That the price of oil and food rose in tandem at this time is hardly surprising, the World Bank concluded in 2009, as “agricultural production is fairly energy intensive.” Rising oil prices “raised the price of fuels to power machinery and irrigation systems; it also raised the price of fertilizer and other chemicals that are energy intensive to produce.”

OIL PRICE=FOOD PRICE. FOOD PRICE=POLITICAL STABILITY.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/18/2013 01:42 AM Report

We have the largest world economy, then China.

Some say China will have the largest GDP in three years, some say it will take 17 years.

This is if China doesn't kill their own people with air pollution or some other major problem.

Look what they did in JUST 2 days:

http://youtu.be/Ps0DSihggio

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

Impressive.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/18/2013 03:57 PM Report

Charlie: great, great job.

Loved this interview--learned a tremendous amount.

Jeffrey Immelt is an encyclopedia of pertinent information and his mind is able to access it very quickly.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/13/2013 03:42 AM Report

We are told, 'the Global Economy is $60 Trillion BUT the market for credit default swaps was $65 Trillion unregulated. It probably was not the right way to go. We just did not ask the right questions. We let things get out of hand.'

$60T for the world economy and credit default swaps were $5T over that and you didn't ask the right questions?

Not only did you let things get out of hand you blew up the world economy.

BOOM!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/12/2013 03:16 AM Report

"As the flow of credit begins to dry up, Paulson fields desperate calls from international regulators, CEOs and the head of GE. When the world’s largest company faces difficulty financing its daily activities, Paulson knows a tipping point is at hand."

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/05/hbo-films-too-big-to-fail-based-on-andrew-ross-sorkin-boo k-debuts-monday-may-23-at-9pm-et/91688/

Immelt tells us in this interview, "The mistake I made was I let it (GE Capital) get too big."

No kidding and as "Too Big To Fail" shows us you hurt your country deeply but don't worry about it you still collected millions, probably improved your golf game and gave Warren a sweet, sweet 10% deal to bail you out.

Max83  01/08/2013 02:11 AM Report

The new website for the #NOBILLIONAIRES campaign is now online.

Check it out, get involved in the discussion online on Twitter etc. and spread the word about this campaign if it resonates with you: http://www.nobillionaires.com/

Thank you Thom Hartmann!

''Thom introduces the No Billionaires Campaign''

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b4jTxgEN30

'' Published on Jan 7, 2013

Thom Hartmann says its time to put an end to billionaires in the US once and for all.''

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/07/2013 03:38 AM Report

General Electric won the coveted worst footnote of 2012 for this disclosure filed back in July:

http://www.footnoted.com/my-big-fat-deal/and-the-worst-footnote-of-2012-was/

At 35:56 we are told that the Oil and Gas Business was $500M when he first became CEO and now it is $15-$16B.

$89,000 a month for the next 10 years for John Krenicki.

Krenicki is prohibited from working, consulting or serving as a board member at 22 companies in the energy space.

Fantastic increase from $500M to $16B in energy but yes, the worst footnote of 2012 is just another worthy title for GE.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/07/2013 03:25 AM Report

He says the insurance business at GE was not very good, a billion dollar write off from premiums of just $7M.

WHOA! And you thought AIG was crazy.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/05/2013 03:19 AM Report

(Make sure to visit all the links--you will not be disappointed with the charts.)

". . . The fact remains that the middle class are greater job creators than the investment income class.

Middle class aggregate demand is far more determinant of job growth than investment because most of what they purchase is fungible, so there is no one corporation which can limit their consumption of all but a few goods and services. Profits on sales represent far more investment than what the rich put into stocks and corporate bonds.

But the top bracket tax rate has far more of an influence on job creation than consumer spending, because it controls consumer spending for the reasons illustrated in http://j.mp/taxplain.

So, imagine you are a CEO with profits of $10 million. You can bank your profits at low risk, and when the effective top bracket tax rate is low with abundant tax shelters like it has been for the past decade, your CFO will probably tell you that makes the most sense. So most corporations decide to bank the profits, and skyrocketing corporate profits — http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP — lead to skyrocketing commercial deposits — http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DEMDEPSL — but terrible employment numbers: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNU02300000

But what if the top bracket tax rate is, say, 50% with relatively limited tax shelters as under Ronald Reagan? Now the risk of re-investing those profits on additional labor, materials and production is far less than the guaranteed loss to the tax man before banking it. So you decide to hire and buy your wholesale goods. Now, what happens when every corporation in the country is facing that same decision?

Does anyone doubt that the effective top marginal corporate tax rate has more control over the economy than any other factor? The failure to understand this is what made Ron Paul go on television and claim that tax rates declined during the American postwar prosperity period, when in fact they were the highest they have ever been in the late 1940s through early 1960s."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2012/05/17/the-real-reason-that-ted-talk-was-censored-its-shod dy-and-dumb/

Max83  01/04/2013 02:55 AM Report

Not all billionaires are bad :-)

Nick Hanauer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer

is one of the few good billionaires who use their influence and money to help the middle class. America needs more people like Nick Hanauer and it will be back on track in no time.

''Banned TED Talk Nick Hanauer Rich people don't create jobs''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOuKHj2_M28

'' Published on Aug 30, 2012

Gazillionaire Nick Hanauer trashes the false notion that lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs.TED is refusing to post a talk that Hanauer gave on the subject. National Journal reports today that TED officials decided not to put Hanauer's March 1 speech up online after deeming his remarks "too politically controversial" for the site...".''

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 02:55 AM Report

“We made 60 recommendations on the job council that required executive order; we did 54.

We made 30 recommendations on things that took legislation; we did 4.”

Then he followed with two heavy blinks and one light blink.

Yes, we do have a problem and instead of blinking I would like to swear profusely.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 02:41 AM Report

'Nobody in the world copies our regulators. Nobody!'

Now let's hear from Fareed: 'A World Economic Forum study that gave us four marks for infrastructure gives us terrible marks on taxes and regulation.

On the burden of government regulation category the United States ranks 76th, with a score of 3.3 on a total scale of from zero to seven.

On the extent and effect of taxation the United States ranks 69th out of 144 countries. On total tax rate, percentage of profits, the United States came in 103rd out of 144.

Now the truth is that overall the U.S. economy remains highly competitive. The World Economic Forums' report ranks the U.S. overall as the seventh most competitive in the world.

That's why a few months ago, "The Economist" magazine predicted an American economic renaissance.

Where we have slipped badly of late is in our investments, in people, science and infrastructure.'

(I like Fareed: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/23/fzgps.02.html)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 02:33 AM Report

‘Currency of power is jobs.’

Nope.

The currency of real power is a middle class with good jobs.

It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children.

In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 02:07 AM Report

At 29:57, Jeffrey, the make-up person left your neck naked.

We need attention to detail in this country unless this was just a metaphor--going from white neck aristocracy to self-deportation brown in order to up your Q score.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 02:00 AM Report

At 28:25 moving the fiscal cliff into the next year is failure.

YES FAILURE.

So Jeffrey, how do you find a buyer for Congress?

How do you right size them to functionality?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/03/2013 01:58 AM Report

At 26:35—Everyone—UNIVERSAL--agrees the country needs to invest in infrastructure. Essential for growth.

All right then let's have the military do some nation building at home for a change. They need the practice.

Max83  01/01/2013 05:15 AM Report

I did some more thinking about the billionaire problem and I came to the conclusion that a wealth tax is the most effective way to make billionaires contribute to the public. In this taxation, besides private fortunes I would also include all foundations, endowments and trusts.

I would tax holdings/net worth that exceed 1 billion dollars at 1% annually.

So if Mark Zuckerberg at the end of 2012 is worth 20 billion dollars, 1 billion of that would be tax exempt and he would be taxed at 1% for the remaining 19 billion dollars, which would be 190 million dollars to pay for him to the government for that year. If for some reason facebook stocks drop through 2013 and he is only worth 5 billion dollars at the end of 2013, he would only be taxed on 4 billion dollars for that year, which would be 40 million dollars from him going to the government.

The combined wealth of all billionaires world wide in 2012 was ca. 4.6 trillion, 1226 people in total, 425 of them coming from the USA. So roughly 1/3 of the 4.6 trillion is ca. 1.5 trillion. Since each of the billionaires is exempt on their first billion only 425 billion is exempt from the 1.5 trillion, so roughly 1 trillion dollars would be taxed at 1% for 2012, which would be 10 billion dollars extra for the government.

That would be just from the personal fortunes. If we added all endowments, trusts and foundations we could probably at least double this number. This is just a very rough and low estimate of the potential revenue benefits from this annual billionaire net worth taxation.

Also I would at that the revenue from this taxation program could only be spend on social programs like food stamps, public education, public housing etc., so that the giving back aspect of it gets emphasized and underlined.

I think this is a great way for the billionaires in the USA to give back to society in a simple and uncomplicated way and they could prove on paper that they are assets of the public and not just takers camouflaged as job creators :-).

Just taxing billionaires on their income and capital gains is not enough in my opinion, especially if the capital gains tax is as low as it is right now, so the wealth/net worth tax would be a great way to go in my opinion.

The Koch brothers would probably not be thrilled about this :-) , but we really need to think out of the box here to fix this problem and to make society more fair and balanced again. All the way from Wall Street, through Wichita to Silicon Valley.

Thom Hartmann suggests the same idea just a little more radically :-) in this very good short video:

''Hartmann: Ban The Billionaires!''

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1dHqhdI7AA

'' Published on Dec 27, 2012

Thom Hartmann makes his case for a 100 percent tax on income over $1 Billion.''

Max83  12/31/2012 01:45 AM Report

Chrystia Freeland is doing a superb job of explaining the thinking and feeling process of the super rich new money technology class. I grew up around this type of people for a while back in 1997 when I lived in Palo Alto California and my father attended Stanford and they really can be very self-righteous about their wealth and success. They are as self-righteous as the Koch brothers and their right-wing friends are, just to the left on the same spectrum. They are super intelligent of course, but as I said before, a super brain without a gentle heart is the most dangerous thing in the multi-verse. My father was the same way till just a couple of years ago when he started to mellow out and after he left the corporate world. Just recently he was in Palo Alto again for a class reunion, where they went to Tesla Motors etc. and I could feel how him being in that environment re-infected him temporarily with the Super Class bug, even though he is not a billionaire. It is quite a big problem, because they think that their riches was all just earned by their genius and their doing. They are majorly lacking humility and are very self-centered in main cases. Often because everybody and especially the media think they are the hottest thing since sliced bread :-)

Here is the interview with Chrystia Freeland on the Sam Seder Radio Show:

''Rise of The New Plutocrats (with Chrystia Freeland)''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8bC5OdC2c

'' Published on Dec 27, 2012

Reuters' Digital Editor and author of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, Chrystia Freeland, explained the global growth of the plutocracy, the economic and technological drivers behind the growth of small sectors of super wealth, the impact of the bubble the plutocrats live in globally, the challenge the left faces in talking about income inequality, the emotional neediness and delusions of the new plutocrats and why they resent President Obama so much...''

A good real life example of the lack of humility and sensitivity of these people and that the world owes them something is the following:

''When in Rome ... tip! Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg dubbed a skinflint''

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/29/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-rome-tip

Of course he could have maybe not tipped because he was in a hurry, but this just shows in my opinion how self-centered these people can be and how little self-reflection they practice in terms of how they affect other people through their behaviour.

I was very concerned too today when I saw that Google has made Ray Kurzweil Director of Engineering, see here:

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/ray-kurzweil-google-direc_n_2377821.html

I think Ray Kurzweil is a genius, but I also think he is misguided and dangerous, especially when his ideas are backed by this kind of money and influence as in the case of Google.

I said before that I do not want to live in a Cyborg Society, and neither do I want future generations to have to live under conditions like that.

Mother Earth News wrote a very good article on this in their October/November 2012 issue:

''

Raymond Kurzweil and a Vision of Living Forever

Should we wish to live forever? Doing so may not be just to those who follow us in life.''

Link: http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-community/raymond-kurzweil-living-forever-zm0z12onzmat.aspx

I hope these Superclass Plutocrats find their way back to Nature, because that is where they come from and that is where the belong.

Thank you to Chrystia Freeland for having the courage to write her book and for her courage to speak out on this topic. She is a brave and very progressive, but at the same time very well grounded person person.

vongleichent  12/30/2012 07:45 AM Report

2008 was a wake up call for everyone not just for businesses. The people have stood up and raised they voice especially against the rich and wealthy.

Max83  12/29/2012 01:30 AM Report

''Corporate America has Messed with the Wrong People''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBfiFJYOuwE

'' Published on Dec 28, 2012

Professor Richard Wolff, New School University NYC, joins Thom Hartmann. Facing salary cuts, Port workers on the East Coast are threatening a strike that could impact the economy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. We'll talk about why THIS strike in particular is so important - and how - if it's successful - it could bring about a future Leisure Society for working Americans.''

Max83  12/28/2012 05:11 PM Report

One of the main problems of all of this, is really that many rich people have lost their connection to the real world and that would not be a problem in itself necessarily if they just stayed in their gated communities and would not get involved in politics, but the rich are actually trying to make policy and politics for the real world when they live in a completely different universe than 99% of the ''normal'' people do. They do not really know what is going on on the grass roots level and what is needed to support the majority of people, which is not just to boost growth and GDP.

Many of them have good intentions, only few of the very rich are truly sinister, however ignorance of reality is as dangerous in this case as intentional criminality and cruelty, maybe even more so in some cases, because self-delusions of wisdom are particularly hard to shake off, especially when you are rich and have created a very successful and popular business.

It is the opposite dynamic of Memphisto in Faust who wants to evermore create evil, but ends up creating good. You want or think you want to create good, but you actually end up creating much evil, because you are ignorant and do not see the bigger picture.

There is a saying in German, that the opposite of doing good is is meaning well :-) and I think this applies to many of the more ''liberal'' rich people that are at the moment getting involved in the policy debate.

Money and riches are not a guarantee for virtue or wisdom and I think that is one of the great dilemmas and shortcomings of current American culture, that over the last decades it has unconditionally in many cases equated riches and success to virtue and wisdom.

It is neither good to have polluting monopolists like the Koch brothers run the country or libertarian technologists like Peter Thiel run the country because they are both not humanists. They are often philanthropists, but that does not mean they are good for humanity and working class humans.

As I said in another recent post our focus needs to be on Sustainability and not on efficiency. They seem to be the same principle, but actually efficiency is really technocratic and very often inhumane.

Paul Krugman sums it up very well in two of his recent blog posts. I am very grateful to him that he is pointing out these dynamics to a wider public:

''

December 28, 2012, 9:01 am

A Double Shot of Misunderstanding

One of the enduring fantasies of the pundit class – most dramatically demonstrated by the ludicrous Politico piece on What Insiders Know – is that all we need to fix our economic problems is to get the great and the good together and bypass those pesky elected officials. Business leaders, in particular, are presumed to have the know-how to deal with all the important issues.

But the reality is that the business leaders intervening in our economic debate are, for the most part, either predatory or hopelessly confused (or, I guess, both).

I’d put Fix the Debt in the predatory category; it’s quite clear that the organization (which is yet another Pete Peterson front, this time explicitly dominated by corporate interests) has an agenda more focused on cutting social insurance and corporate taxes than on reducing the deficit per se.

Meanwhile, Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, exemplifies the hopeless confusion factor. By all accounts, he’s a good guy, with genuinely generous instincts. But in his message to employees, urging them to write “come together” on coffee cups, he gets the nature of the fiscal cliff completely wrong. In fact, he gets it wrong in two fundamental ways. He writes:

As many of you know, our elected officials in Washington D.C. have been unable to come together and compromise to solve the tremendously important, time-sensitive issue to fix the national debt.

OK, first of all, the fiscal cliff is NOT A DEBT PROBLEM. In fact, it’s the opposite: the danger is that with expiring tax cuts, expiring unemployment benefits, and the sequester, we’ll reduce the deficit too fast. Deficit scolds are having a hard time reconciling their sudden concern about excessive deficit reduction with everything they were saying before – and evidently Mr. Schultz hasn’t gotten the message that we are now at war with Eastasia, and always have been.

And then, on top of that, he has the politics all wrong, in the characteristic centrist way: he makes it sound as if the problem was one of symmetric partisanship, with both sides refusing to compromise. The reality is that Obama has moved a huge way both in offering to exempt more high-earner income from tax hikes and in offering to cut Social Security benefits; meanwhile, the GOP not only won’t agree to any kind of tax hike at all, it also has yet to make any specific offer of any kind.

So that’s a double shot of total misunderstanding. And you could say that there’s yet a third error in Schultz’s message – amongst his errors? For he sends people, in the name of public-spiritedness, to Fix the Debt – who, as I’ve already pointed out, are not good guys at all.

It’s quite sad, really. And it’s also an indication that Republican extremism isn’t the only source of our dysfunctional response to economic crisis, that the awesome inability of Very Serious People to come to grips with either political or economic reality is another huge source of our failure.''

and

'' December 28, 2012, 9:48 am

Policy Implications of Capital-Biased Technology: Opening Remarks

I’ll be writing more about this in weeks to come, but I guess I’d better say something right away about the implications of a declining labor share in GDP. Again, the data so far look like this: (Graphic here on original article)

(By the way, some commenters, weirdly, think that this is not the basic BEA data. It is; just check the sourcing at FRED).

So, if the recent plunge in the labor share is the shape of things to come, what difference might it make?

The short answer is that it will pose problems for the current mechanisms by which we fund social insurance programs; but it will not undermine our ability to afford those programs, and it would in fact be cruel and basically irrational to slash social insurance in response to a declining labor share.

OK, maybe that was too quick. Let me take it more slowly: a substantial part of our social insurance system — Social Security and the hospital insurance portion of Medicare — is funded through dedicated payroll taxes. If payrolls lag behind overall national income, this will tend to leave those programs underfunded given the way the laws are currently written.

But America as a whole won’t have gotten poorer: the money is still there to support the programs, it’s just coming in the form of capital rather than labor income. There would be no problem, at least in economic terms, in continuing the programs by adding revenue from general taxation, maybe even from dedicated taxes on capital income.

And consider the alternative, in which we slash Social Security and Medicare not because the nation can’t afford those programs, but merely because workers are taking a smaller share of national income. What we would be doing in that case is doubling down on the damage to workers — they’re already hurting because income is shifting away from labor, and we’re going to hurt them even more by cutting the benefits they depend upon.

Actually, something like that is already happening, although it’s mostly coming from rising inequality of earned income. Remember, back in the 1980s the Greenspan Commission supposedly fixed Social Security’s finances for 75 years, that is, until 2060. Why, then, do most projections show the trust fund running out well before then? Not because life expectancy is rising — that was already built into the projections. No, the big reason is rising inequality, which has led to a growing share of income coming above the payroll tax cap, so that SS revenue lags behind overall compensation. And yet the conventional wisdom is that we should respond to a financing issue caused by rising inequality by slashing benefits, further increasing inequality.

We should keep this line of argument in mind — and when somebody talks about the need to rein in entitlements, we should always ask whose interests, exactly, are being served.''

Max83  12/27/2012 08:55 PM Report

Crony Capitalism at its best. No morals, no ethics and no brains :-) CNBC is the new Fox News. Let's go off the cliff just to piss off CNBC.

''Maria Bartiromo's Rant: Protect the Rich''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWDPSnA8nEE

'' Published on Dec 26, 2012

"CNBC host Maria Bartiromo clashed with U.S Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., over the fiscal cliff and both political parties brinksmanship.

Bartiromo faulted Democrats for only focusing on tax increases on the rich and said both parties are keeping the economy and markets hostage with their stubborn stances.

She also asked Cardin if Washington lawmakers are incompetent."*

Maria Baritromo went all out on her CNBC show against Senator Ben Cardin, (D-Md) on parties not coming up with a fiscal cliff solution. Of course, Baritromo fought for Wall Street and the interests of the wealthy. Cenk Uygur breaks down how she and CNBC protect the wealthy and powerful.''

Max83  12/27/2012 06:55 PM Report

This piece below is highly critical of Mr. Immelt and rightly so.

Full Show: Crony Capitalism

January 20, 2012

Bill Moyers and former White House budget director David Stockman on how politics and high finance have turned our economy into a members-only private club.

Video Link: http://billmoyers.com/episode/crony-capitalism/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/19/2012 06:24 PM Report

In the last year I have replaced my GE oven, microwave and my GE freezer door is defective (water dispenser freezes up when it gets cold because the water line is not in the correct place for insulation).

In 2010 GE made $14.2 billion in profits, but paid $0 in taxes. In fact, taking advantage of tax credits GE actually received a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government.

To make matters worse GE cut their American workforce while adding jobs overseas.

About two-thirds of American corporations pay no taxes at all, or receive a benefit like GE.

"The Daily Show" nailed it and also makes you laugh before you cry (4:50):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-28-2011/i-give-up---pay-anything---?xrs=share_copy

Buffer to 3:08 for Jeffrey.

JohnMatro  12/19/2012 11:34 AM Report

Immelt said that America must grow her population in order for GE to grow significantly. Population increases, while maybe good for business, is damaging to the environment. I think we should significantly shrink the population and develop an economic system that is geared to a smaller, static population. The whole world needs to do this.

NeilMacCallister  12/16/2012 11:48 PM Report

Jeff?? ..not that you have even one CENT of your own money 'in the game', ..but when is America going to start exercising? ..and GROWING again????

When do we get off this "government redistribution" (..not!) monetary theft, and get serious about life once again?????

Must we all wait for you to redeem yourself with some purposeful HONEST work??? ..or are we just waiting (..with 'hopes' that we LIVE that long) for YOU and BARACK OBAMA to finally stuff yourselves to the gills, and then 'Move On' to some foreign socialist victim, ..before America can then begin its own recovery from your type's selfish maliciousness?????? (..see Dodd-Frank!)

I'll take your answer off the air -- I'll watch our GDP non-growth 'flat-curve' for your answer.

charliesheep  12/12/2012 12:29 PM Report

THE ARC OF G.E CEO'S IS FROM THE "PANTHEON OF OF DARKNESS" REVEALED!- THEY LIE LIKE THE WHORES THEY ARE!- FEEL NO COMPUNCTION TOWARDS AMERICA'S SALVATION ! I.E.-THEY; BELIEVE ONLY IN THEIR DARK DESTINY! TAKE- JAMIE DIMON- AND OTHER SUCH GE CEO'S; WHO ARE THE "CLUB" THAT DENIES TRUTH!- THEY ARE INDEED "FIXATED" ON "SEX" WITH LIVING HOSTS, AND WILL, DIE FOOLS! AND, IN THAT PROCESS;THEY SHALL TAKE THAT COLD REALITY WITH THEM! THE REASON THE WORLD HAS NOTHING; IS BECAUSE THE 1%ER'S AREN'T HAPPY TILL; "ALL ARE MISERABLE" AND BROUGHT DOWN AS THEY! I.E. IT IS THEIR;LIES- FALSEHOODS--AND PROJECTIONS OF BOASTS OF WEALTH, THAT BECOME A "FABRIC" FACADE/ BEHIND AMERICA'S SELLING OUT, TO THESE FAKE "DEMONS" !- THAT; NOW, DRIVE THE BUS I.E. KOCH BROS-A.L.E.C.-ROVE-BUSHITES-! THEY ALL PARADE IN A CARNIVAL; THOSE WHO "SUP" ON THE BONES OF THE PAST WORLD [AMERICA]AS ONCE WAS! "FOR WHAT DOTH IT PROFIT A MAN[OR WOMAN ]IF THEY SHOULD GAIN THE WORLD AND LOSE THEIR ETERNAL SOUL"? APPARENTLY; THE DARKNESS,[VAILS]SPAWNS THESE FOOLS INTO DEEDS THAT, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HEARTS BETRAY-THEIR COMPASSION TOWARDS ALL OF CREATION! BROKEN INDEED THE WORLD CALLS[PRAYS NOW]THAT THE "SAVIOR" REDEEM THE EARTH FROM TIME ITSELF;--- AND TURN BACK THE HAND OF MAN IN ITS DEMISE--! G.E- AND ITS 29% INTEREST LOANS- R.I.P.

Gelles  12/12/2012 07:04 AM Report

Jeffrey Immelt identified for action: (1) "competitiveness" in the global market for company sales and profits accruing in dollar denominated balances; (2) growth, year over year, in said sales and profits; and (3) some respect for environmental imperatives delivered by Mother Nature.

These three imperatives, or forces he wants at his back, as GE contests with Siemens and new corporate competitors that will arrive for sure, are on his mind.

Other firms may eat GE's lunch and shove America aside as its business and government leaders feather their own nests because that is the name of their game.

How disappointing he is compared to a leader who might see the pursuit of corporate profit at the expense of national planning as unwise.

Must we not plan for industrial capacity to produce all we must to avoid becoming dependent on China or any other state capitalist system motivated to exploit our consumers and buy our producers in markets they design to cripple their competition?

We have evolved a capitalist system based on lowest cost of production that is (1) blind to human rights and (2) near sighted when recognizing green imperatives -- until Nature destroys in hours what may never be recovered.

Jeffrey Immelt is a leader of 300,000 employees. They are all asked to gamble on price-based contests that deny a national identity and deny any moral code.

Are we not asking for outcomes that serve no purpose?

Jeffrey Immelt may well be leader of a company without a country. Is anyone prepared for that. Is there a partnership in the offing that will spell cooperation and moral law to protect the American and Chinese people from plutocracy run amok?

As I herd Jeffrey Immelt, he said his pay grade was below the political bosses of China and America. If there is to be any tenure for wealth and diplomatic responsibility for leadership out of bankruptcy and into future rationality, who is to receive it and what are our criteria for merit?

The man is paid too much. His jet engines pollute the skies; his gas-fired power plants are not as green as solar systems; his health systems need to be designed to make us healthy -- with financial goals replaced by national goals expressed in terms of health and not of an anachronistic view of currencies and profits.

This TV show was an eye-opener. We are flying blind between the era of world wars and the coming era of abundance.

The respect Immelt has for Obama and Obama has for Immelt bodes well for the human race. But the scope of their responsibilities needs to be widened and strengthened against the storm.

The size of our Congress may be far too large: their motives to retire rich may have destroyed the efficacy of our lawmakers. And our supreme court may be too small and its majority may need to be two-thirds, not 5 out of 9.

There are gaping holes in our system--and this program has started to point them out.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 02:35 AM Report

He tells us, 'There are plenty of people who are mean to CEOs. CEO’s like growth and competitiveness and they want people to help them with that.'

Yes, and so do investors.

Plenty of CEOs are mean to investors and all investors want is growth and competitiveness. Especially those investors who have invested decades of their lives, as well as generations of their family, into a company and who die and bequeath their stock as a symbol of their trust and life's work.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 02:16 AM Report

He tells us about Chancellor Merkel and her entourage of 20 CEOs who get off the plane behind her.

"In the past two and a half years I have taken trade missions to Africa, Indonesia, the Gulf, China, India, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Japan and Malaysia.

The late Lord Mayor has been doing the same, visiting no fewer than 26 different countries during his year in office."

David Cameron's speech on November 12, 2012:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/lord-mayor-speech-2012/

Well at least our knuckle heads are at home working on the fiscal cliff. Their talents do not extend to knocking on doors for exports.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 02:05 AM Report

Buffer to 19:12:

'Globally we are not trying to play tiddlywinks here.'

Watch his subconscious at work via his eyes.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 01:50 AM Report

He asks us, 'Is the American Citizen better off when GE is in every corner of the world competing toe-to-toe?'

Yes, if GE pays taxes, keeps the innovation indigenous to America and doesn't sacrifice jobs for the middle class for ridiculous executive pay.

Too bad GE can't do this and therefore as the 130 year old, "last American company" simply sucks.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 01:27 AM Report

Charlie, please listen to what he says about oil.

$15 a barrel for most of the 1990s.

Now in the $80s and upward.

"A massive amount of wealth goes where the resources are."

IT IS A ZERO SUM GAME. OIL. OIL. OIL.

Natural gas is nice but we still need oil and he would probably be saying this if GE still had its plastics division.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 01:20 AM Report

“I think we could do better job in manufacturing. I actually think it is quite important. And it is one of the ways you create good middle class jobs.”

He also tells us that manufacturing has fallen from 25% to just 9% manufacturing of the economy during his career but manufacturing could make it back to the low teens--but never to 25% again.

Before that he says 30% of GE's revenue a decade ago came from outside the United States and now 60-65% of its revenue is from outside US.

OK, connect the dots . . .

Good-bye middle class. You did make America great!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 01:12 AM Report

Since taking over, GE's stock has dropped nearly 60%.

General Electric has closed more than 31 plants since 2008 and let go of more than 19,000 employees, but Immelt still took home $15.2 million in 2011.

The Guardian seems to have a line on the truth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/02/ceos-pay-us-unemployment

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/12/2012 01:08 AM Report

Charlie, if you are going to use the set from your other job, and make it a commercial for GE with images flashing in the background, perhaps the PBS in you would kindly include GE's chart.

Here it is:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GE&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

He took took the job on September 7, 2001. So you can see his performance.

Perhaps just have him wear the chart as an image on his tie like a green screen effect?

tabs  12/11/2012 06:19 PM Report

President Obama does not seem to understand the risk that he is undertaking by persuing a Neocon like hard line stance of its my way or the highway proposal. What President Obama does not realize is that once you roll the dice by stepping over the "fiscal cliff" events can take on a life of their own. At that time one can not just flip a switch and every thing will return to normal. This is exactly the type of brinksmanship thinking that has set off major conflagrations throughout history.

tabs  12/11/2012 05:54 PM Report

The following was sent as an e-mail to Mr Rose on or about the date indicated. The question is, does this nearly 4 year old e-mail sound like todays headlines let alone what Mr Immelt talked about with regards to foreign attitudes on yesterdays show?

Midnight At The Crossroad

Wed, 05/20/2009 - 11:38 — tabs

America is now at the crossroads of its destiny. If the USA should choose the Obama road of increased governmental activism and determinism then our fate is sealed. President Obama has proved himself to be a pragmatic administrator, however that is not to say that his approach to solving problems is not from the left of the political spectrum. The fact that he does not please all those on the left only shows that he marches to his own vision of what America should look like. The great failing of his vision is the pejorative tones that he implicitly impugns the investor class with. His upbraiding of Chrysler Bond holders as being UN American is a prime example of this mind set. As any devotee of the rule of law would tell you the Bond holders have first call on any assets after the accounts payable are paid.

With President Obama's huge Stimulus Bill and Budget with massive deficits running well into the future it is imperative that the US mollifys any fear on the part of those who would invest in America. However this has not been the case with the Chinese and the expression of their fears. The Chinese are of a want to quietly express their concerns and to once more make a less subtle overture to make sure that one gets the message. If that message falls on deaf ears then they will then start a process of going around you. To this end the Chinese have backed off of their purchases of US Treasury debt and have started buying commodities as they have calculated that with a larger then life public debt the USD will begin to fall in value and inflation will set in.

This is not the only unintended outcome of the Obama administrations vision as the US is going to need revenue to meet its obligations taxes are going to have to be raised. This will put a further drag on the economy. As the Obama vision of America going forward requires certain new federal mandates about Carbon Caps, Increased fuel mileage, health care reform and education reform will also stymie economic growth. The end result of these new federal requirements will make the US a less than attractive place for capital to be invested. Instead of a once vibrant economy that was attractive for new capital these new regulations will not only be unattractive for new capital investment but will also drive existing capital offshore.

If this were not enough on the plate, with the recent Wall Street debacle and attending global crisis the mantle of being the preeminent financiers in the world is going to be called into question. Americans are going to be seen as less then sage investors and this will cause a reassessment in the world of Americas standing as the preeminent financiers to the world. This will end Americas dominance in the area of finance where other centers of finance will rise as gateways of capital flows. Hong Kong has long had the infrastructure of being a center of finance and trade but now would also enjoy being the gateway to the most vibrant economy in the world. It would be an easy transition from NYC to Hong Kong as being financial capital of the world.

All these factors leads one, not to the conclusion of the Obama administration that America will once again rise to its former economic glory with sustainable "Green Growth. For the underlying economic pillars of that growth will have been undermined by federal regulations, mandates and taxes. However a more plausibe scenerio will take place and that is once the Stimulus and increased Budget money wears off the economy, the USA will start a fairly preciptious slide into oblivion. One where inovation that was once a hallmark of American industry is now stymied. America will fall into disrepair and disunion resembling the economy of Moldovia.

tabs  12/11/2012 05:39 PM Report

The following was posted to the old Charlie Rose Comment Board on or about the date indicated. One understood what was happening as far back as the late 1990's when it first manifested itself with the Conservative distrust of President Clinton. Conservatives like people to say what they mean and do what they say and that is the anthesis of Bill "Slick Willy" Clintons essence of being able to feel your and everybody elses pain.

Time To Take Stock Of What You Are Doing

Thu, 09/04/2008 - 16:48 — tabs

Because you can say it or do it, it doesn't mean that you should. Freedom implies a level of responsibility for ones actions. A responsibility to be a good neighbor, not only to know your own limitations but to know your neighbors sensibilities. Americans are fast losing that sensibility. Democracy to function requires that both sides of a political argument trusts the other, that their hearts are for the best interest of the nation and not just partisan interests. Since 2000 the stitching of this Republic is being torn at by both sides and, is becoming more viperous with each passing election cycle. At some point the parties had better realize that they are creating a whirlwind. For, "If we do not do right God will let us go our own way to our ruin."

tabs  12/11/2012 03:12 PM Report

Last week it was Chief Gates and this week it is CEO Immelt being interviewed. Both seem to have just dropped by Charlies place to have a nice little chit chat about their respective careers? But to what purpose one winds up asking oneself? In others words one has to look to the common thread that each shares and that is being an Obama adminsitration alumni. So when was the last time any alumni of any administration ever said anything negative about a President that they had served?

So now we have Mr Immelt of GE who displays all the Razz Ma Tazz of a second hand car salesman. Who with his nervous laugh brought up having "humility" and being able to listen and ask questions on 3 seperate occasions during this interview. Mr Immelt in the end is the personification and thus the represenative of the American Empire or multi-national corporations that has no loyalty to the nation state or its people but only the seeking of ever greater profit. To whit GE under Mr Immelt has paid NO INCOME TAXES while the USA is running TRILLION USD DEFICITS every year, AND GE under MR Immelts tutelege is offshoring their business interests from a dead in the water US economy that has sub 2% GDP growth to the more vibrant emerging market economies. The only point in the interview that Mr Immelt nervously stuttered was when Mr Rose brought up GE's Stock Price and he expressed great sorrow that he had to cut the share holders Dividend for the GOOD of the company.

Towards the end of the interview the tone calmed and the cadence slowed when the conversation turned to relationships and the importance of trust. Here one finds it ironic that Mr Immelt extols the virtues of President Obama when not only was his campaign strategy based upon divisivly pitting one class or Americans against another but his post election governing philosophy of it is my way or the highway (Barrack the NeoCon) is the anthesis of creating an environment of trust and cooperation which is so desperatley needed by this nation.

Ellen_Dibble  12/11/2012 01:24 PM Report

What sticks with me is that Immelt is trying to figure out how to get infrastructure and hardware (cars, etc.) that can use natural gas, while I'm trying to figure out how to get infrastructure and hardware (cars, etc.) that can use solar, wind, wave, geothermal etc.). When directly asked about the greenness of natural gas, he says natural gas is naturally greener than oil, but I actually don't believe him about that one particular point. I'm thinking he must have some interest in promoting the natural gas industry. Otherwise, he would be stepping two steps at a time, not one. What he sees as a colossal piece of good fortune for North America seems to me to be a bit like winning the lottery, way too easy to turn into a curse. "Greener" is no good if it is not "green enough," and if counting the energy to truck around the water and so on, and the costs to water tables and so on, natural gas is like Halloween candy. Okay, eat some the night of the trick-or-treating, but then, the adults come along and throw out the rest of it. No, I'm not sure of that. And I can see how this resource can ease our way out of an economic crisis, and also ease ourselves out of dependence on the prickly knot that is the Middle East. But by then, we may all have natural gas-run automobiles, and be re-addicted. What is "green enough"? If Fukushima could make Immelt wake up about nuclear power, what other wake-up calls does he need to hear? He sure says that listening is important, finding the "context" for GE, and I'm thinking good. But is that good enough....

REMant  12/11/2012 12:13 PM Report

I've already delivered my sermon on the "fiscal cliff" (see Goldman, Dec 5) - in fact several times - but what is it? It's a combination of automatic, non-negotiable tax increases and spending cuts, agreed to when the GOP would not summarily raise the debt ceiling. The same reason the Congress has not passed a budget for three years. Saying we should avoid it is simply arguing we shouldn't pay our bills, and just the same Keynesian-monetarism Obama, Summers and Bernanke have been mouthing since at least 2009. It only makes sense to them, that if there's no growth we need more credit and indebtedness, not less.

But have we gotten any growth? Cos are firing, not hiring ppl. Floating bonds to buy back their stock. Is not paying our bills going to improve our standing in the world's eyes, aside, perhaps, those of Christine Lagarde, the Greeks, Spanish, French and Italians?

The Fed is, of course, blaming the impasse for the fact that manufacturing is at its weakest point since 2009, consumer demand is again slowing, and ppl are giving up searching for work. And just to make sure Americans can't afford to pay their bills, it is set to announce yet another round of bond-buying. For its part, the admin tells us it is "fighting for us." More likely, it's just "fighting us."

The natural gas business, a case in point. A dozen govt agencies are working to sabotage fracking. Drought conditions mean it aggravates farmers (at least those not getting money from it), while methane leaks inflame the global warming crowd, and ground water contamination, the EPA. And the investment in pipelines, liquification plants and tankers required to actually benefit from it seems insuperable, and would likely be manufactured somewhere else if they could be afforded. And if it does come on line, oil will become just that much more competitive, and Saudi Arabia has gas, too.

Plus, like methanol and the Canadian tar pits, I'm not sure but that it only looks attractive because of monetary inflation. Oil, BTW, is once again trending downwards, and the "fiscal cliff" is being blamed for that, too, which only makes sense if speculators feel it is no longer an inflationary hedge.

Even if fracking is accepted, there are those who want to tax it directly to pay off govt debt, instead of allowing it to further industry, the proceeds of which may then be taxed.

Just maybe the reason why GE stock appears undervalued is that what it does is still, after four years, itself undervalued. So IMHO Mr Immelt needs to decide whether he wants to avoid the "fiscal cliff," or whether he wants us to pay our bills.

The govt doesn't seem to really want to build infrastructure, either. We aren't even close to building or rebuilding the roads, railways, sewers, water mains, power lines, bridges, etc, we need. Nor really do anything about over-priced and under-performing education and regulation. The only thing we get is more empty office buildings, and rhetoric. Oh, and a tangle of expressways, overpasses and underpasses to shuffle govt workers around Washington.

It should be possible for a govt to pursue a plan which does not at the same time tell the private sector what to do, because, after all, what is good for the country ought to be what is good for its citizens, and vice versa, and if nobody plans or cooperates with others, little of lasting value gets done. I can't imagine what the Commerce, Energy, Education, and Labor Depts, etc, are for, if not for that.

But I get the increasing feeling we are dealing here with ppl who firmly believe in doing evil so good will come, and I can't see anything good out of that short of conflagration.