Charlie Rose

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/28/2013 03:12 AM Report

Please see "Inside Job" so you will NOT be twice fooled.

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's 2010 debt study inspires austerity around the world, but grad student Thomas Herndon debunks the results.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-e rror

COLBERT: Now after publication in 2010, one economist complained that they refused to share their data. Well of course they didn’t share their data. If they can’t use excel, I doubt they could send email attachments.”

COLBERT: “Oh please. If ignoring New Zealand, Australia, and Canada were a crime, everyone in America would be on death row.”

Graduate student Thomas Herndon identifies little staggering omissions in a prominent academic paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt."

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425749/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-e rror---thomas-herndon

(WOW is not strong enough.)

NeilMacCallister  12/28/2012 02:54 AM Report

Barack Obama wants to "nationalize" our American money supply.

All money shall belong to the state, ..and the state will decide who "qualifies" for a bit of it.

The President would like to walk around with a briefcase hand-cuffed to his wrist. In this briefcase will be the American money supply.

He has said that we Americans can "make an application for a bit of it" -- but no one has had any success using that route for over 3 years now.

The President just happens to be once again on the beach in Hawaii, ..but you can send a letter of application to his Post Office Box in Washington, DC.

Unfortunately though, you'll probably just get the same non-response that Christopher Stevens got.

YNHow  12/20/2012 06:44 PM Report

How can no one ''really'' know what is the correct percentage of debt for GDP... It seems an ironic reality considering that ''no one'' is understood as being a mass of knowledgeable profesionnals having high studies the subject. The answer provided from a historical perspective seems more theoretical than practical.

A more precise answer would have been interesting coming from Mr. Rogoff on the question of what would be a reasonable agreement. Even though Mr.Rose asked the question twice. Same for the repercussions of 2013 without a deal...

Nevertheless, the answer on ''crisis indicator'' was

really well given.

Maybe it is in the nature of economics to be so evasive (or so complex) on practical and ''easy'' questions.

Infrastructures, R&D, education...

Gelles  12/20/2012 07:07 AM Report

..... ... THE CASE FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE

..... ... ========================================

The Rt Hon. George Gideon Oliver Osborne MP is a British Conservative politician. He is currently the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, a role he was appointed to in May 2010, and has been the Member of Parliament for Tatton since 2001.

..... Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Osborne

Kenneth Saul "Ken" Rogoff (born March 22, 1953) is currently the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He is also a chess Grandmaster. Rogoff grew up in Rochester, New York. His father was a Professor of Radiology at the University of Rochester. He attended East High School. Rogoff received a BA and MA from Yale University summa cum laude in 1975, and a PhD in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980.

..... Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rogoff

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

The other side from a Keynesian view of economic life (credit, debt and money, and, employment, growth, living standards, and democratic-republicanism,)-- is -- conservative austerity, in anticipation of the truth of Says Law, that supply will create its own optimum demand:

..... The austerity promoting deficit hawk crowd, who are the present majority, hope that guided by the invisible hand, humans will develop over time a more sustainable prosperous realm on Earth than will --

..... The present minority anti-classical Keynesian view that MONEY is as much a fuel for production as ambition and desperation, and a more manageable one at that, that looks to FUNCTIONAL FINANCE as the best doctrine available NOW.

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

Based on the above, we have Great Britain, under Prime Minister David

Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer the Rt Hon. George Gideon Oliver Osborne Member of Parliament, spelling out a highly competitive system (where actual work is little prized and fancy callings are over-paid and the English aristocracy which at one time had to fight its wars on horseback but now fights them in parliamentary elections, ) makes the case for free trade and Thatcherism.

Simultaneously, in my view, Rogoff, Geithner, Obama, Wall Street and Washington (with K Street -- Lobbyist Alley), follow suit, with the slightest bow to entitlements and government spending--just to prove they're not all that dumb to think traditional capitalist reward for greed is optimal, fair, or self-correcting.

Nevertheless, these Americans represent Reaganomics, -- not Franklin Roosevelt's Bill of Economic Rights or Benjamin Franklin's faith in science, technology and paper money.

So, how will as prejudiced a voice as mine present the "other side" of Keynesian thought. Obviously, I do not know as yet.

But Charley Rose had Rogoff on and then Osborne. I will have to re-listen to them a dozen times. Rose furnishes no transcripts. I will try to pick out their best points.

I know we do agree on wanting production of the highest quality most essential goods and services. We differ on HOW to get the most and do the most to solve the problems facing human civilization.

And, to a great extent, we differ on what the problems are. Is poverty a problem? Are pollution, terrorism, accident, disease and war problems? Or are they no more than athletes foot and fungi, -- normal accompaniments of life?

I do not expect the other side will change a single sentence in their doctrine. But maybe Charlie Rose or Jeff Bezos will help to find a text that represents a center better than I can find it in the press or libraries or all that is on line.

tabs  12/20/2012 05:05 AM Report

ncp2:

Let us just discuss for a moment the affect of a USD crisis. The world does not need to suffer a nuclear war to suffer the affects of one, for the USD is a WMD. Since the USD is the bedrock foundation of the world economy by being the RESERAVE CURRENCY FOR THE WORLD and as such is needed to be held by every governemtn in the world to buy oil. A crisis in the value of the USD would create a world wide economic tsuami which would collapse the Global economy. The result would be world wide economic, political and social chaos.

tabs  12/20/2012 04:30 AM Report

Mr Rogoff has failed to tell us that America has stepped through the looking glass when Mr Bernanke issued QE4. Which consists of the purchase of 40B USD a MONTH of US Treasurys until the unemployment rate declines to 6.5%. This in effect is the printing of money (USD) in order to purchase US Treasurys to support the current governmental deficit spending of a Trillion plus USD a year.

The reasons for this being an obverse world are two fold. First is that to lower the unemployment rate the economy has to grow by at least at 3%. Otherwise with a growing population the unemployment rates climb ever higher. Currently the growth rate of the American economy is stuck between 1.5% and 2%. Second starting at a debt to GDP ratio of roughly 92% a drag on economic growth begin to occur. With America at 106% of debt to GDP there is already a substantial debt drag on the economy which will hinder economic growth from reaching that 3% of growth threshold that is needed to spur job creation. Thus as the American debt grows ever higher there will be more and more drag on economic growth which is needed to spur job creation. In the end it is unlikely that America will ever again get to 6.5% unemployment rate. The only thing that is likely to break this vicious cycle is Market intervention which in street parlance is the hitting of the "FISCAL ABYSS."

Secondly Mr Rogoff briefly alluded to decision making? The problem here is that policy makers want to return to the normative past or the way it once was, as their goal. To accomplish this goal they use the same "conventional wisdom" methods and prescriptions that worked in the past. Never realizing that with the new pardigm those methods and prescription are the very thing that are driving the train into oblivion.

However one wants to deny it, the truth remains that the 2008 financial crisis was the begining of a new era in American history. Here Mr Rogoff states that crisis usually start with a bubble economy, nixing RE and Bonds as currently being in bubble territory. However Mr Rogoff misses the elephant in the room and that is as one previously stated is the MOTHER of all bubbles, a SOVEREIGN DEBT BUBBLE which is running at 16 plus Trillion plus 16T SS, 20T Medicare and Medicaid, 20 Trillion Prescription drugs for roughly 70T USD in US Government debt. Then add in another 5T for State and local governments debt and 55T Private debt..for a grand total of some odd 140T USD...does anyone think that staggering amount of money can EVER be repaid?

And all it is going to take is for someone in the world to say one morning, "I don't believe in the FULL FAITH OF THE US GOVERNMENT ANYMORE."

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/20/2012 02:26 AM Report

'Hyperbole we will become Greece but NOT hyperbole about becoming Japan.'

Sounds just as bad.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/20/2012 02:21 AM Report

Ken mentioned carried interest.

"Both Presidential candidates referred in the debates to closing income tax loopholes, yet both were deathly afraid of mentioning anything specific, such as the egregious carried interest income tax loophole for hedge funds and private equity funds.

Romney skipped it because his entire Bain Capital career benefitted from it, and Obama skipped it because he’s derived a healthy portion of campaign funding from the same industry.[2]"

From Bankers Anonymous--you're kept in the dark and they avoid the taxes.

http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/blog/shhhhhh-please-dont-talk-about-my-tax-loophole/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/20/2012 02:12 AM Report

Ken tells us that government spending in France is half of GDP.

Here is the chart for the US:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/joshbarro/files/2012/04/spending-GDP-chart1.png

For the EU-27, general government expenditure, including central, state and local governments and social security funds amounted to around 49.1 % of GDP.

More: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/General_government_expenditure_statis tics#General_government_expenditure_at_49.1.C2.A0.25_of_EU_GDP_in_2011

Not as bad as France but we are world competitors.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/20/2012 01:55 AM Report

Ken is right--we are being punished.

"So the way the system is rigged up now, there is a silent redistribution of wealth punishing the savers to the benefit of overleveraged irresponsible debtors."

Bank of America (BAC) has as of the end of the March 2012 quarter $1.041 trillion in deposits. One third of these are non-interest bearing. On the two thirds that are interest bearing BAC is paying an average of just under .316% or less than 1/3 of one percent or only $2.2 billion annualized interest expense.

JPM with more deposits (and proportionately less noninterest bearing ones) than BAC is only slightly less stingy paying .38% on their interest bearing deposits.

These two institutions alone hold close to one quarter of all US deposits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2012/07/29/bernankes-folly-and-the-punishment-of-the-virtuo us/

In banking, we punish the virtuous and reward the criminals.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/20/2012 01:46 AM Report

We are told that the US is eking out about 1 to 2 percent growth. 3% growth is needed to be happy but we need 4 to 5% for unemployment to decrease.

Paul Krugman wants an alien invasion (like full employment of a war).

Thomas Friedman wants a green bubble (like housing or tech).

Perhaps we can go the other way and shorten the work week to 30 or 35 hours.

99 weeks of unemployment checks might just mean we have already structurally changed the system.

Gelles  12/20/2012 12:50 AM Report

Where Rogoff and progressives agree is on the word GROWTH. They both have in mind growth in the supply of essentials that will eventually allow the poor to be comfortable and secure, as the most dangerous and unpleasant work is gradually performed by robots, and ordinary people can find pleasure in a job well done as can others whose number was very few before technology had afforded us so much.

Yet Rogoff wants GROWTH to be the result of orthodox ownership, where the commons are very small and private enterprise is often large--especially our private corporations whose charters have evolved from public works like canals and other major engineering projects.

..... ..... Rogoff sees an unplanned economy as inherently preferable to collective planning. His reason we may suspect is based on history to date. Unplanned free enterprise has usually been more open to experimental learning than planned collective ownership outside corporation law.

But the history he relies on to date, may be about to change. The world of high finance moved from partnerships to corporations. This may have been a blunder.

I prefer Krugman to Rogoff--although they share some of the same opinions. As to REMant and his pessimism, he is welcome to it. Pessimism shares with doom the joy of finding fault with others and finding common cause with a Ron Paul and his ilk. Its a very special mind that sees an empty glass instead of the one that is overflowing and needs more and larger glasses to be standing by its side.

Gelles  12/19/2012 11:46 PM Report

Common words in laymen's conversation can be vexing in a careful honest search for solutions to our business lives that would allow us all to (a)earn a living, (b)pay our bills, (c)feel more economically secure, and (d)have more confidence that the American future (and the future of democracy on Earth) will be brighter than the recent past.

..... ..... For instance DEBT can refer to what we owe--or when we say debt-based money, we really mean that "one man's DEBT is another's MONEY."

..... ..... And CREDIT CAN refer to the ease with which we can sometimes add to our DEBT or the folly of living on credit while others live on CASH INCOME and so avoid the unfair tax that INTEREST rates impose on the poor until they're finally dead and buried--after having been eaten by the cannibals we call the "comfortable" who invest in financial assets.

..... ..... And, also, there are ENTITLEMENTS--which carry a stigma if they mean PEOPLE are entitled to stay alive; but carry the flag we all admire if they mean PROPERTY is entitled.

[to be continued]

REMant  12/19/2012 11:48 AM Report

If it were happening in Europe, we would be yelling at them to pay their bills, and I think we need to take some of our own medicine. When you have to pay so much to service your debt it severely limits investment. One of the most troubling trends in the past four years has been the huge decline in private sector R & D investment. The debt can't really be inflated away as the Keynesians, including Bernanke and it seems, Prof Rogoff want to do. And the reason why all these desirable services have risen in price is because of the money printing. There's no way anything is going to go down without a productivity increase from somewhere, and that's not likely going to be any of the BRICS, whose need for us and our currency will only diminish.

The way I see it 8-10% inflation per yr since the mid-60s, so we could live beyond our means, has pretty well cleaned us out, taking away a lot of our productive capacity and middle-class incomes, letting our infrastructure deteriorate, and inflating the price of most everything not subsidized by 3d world nations, meaning that now, when the baby boom generation is set to retire, they have very little to look forward to. And because we are still trying to push the money printing off on others and future generations, the picture generally is not very bright. Bill Gross estimates our total govt indebtedness at $60 trillion; Laurence Kotlikoff at as much as $221 trillion. The admin blames the wealthy for all this, insists on sticking them with the bill, and doesn't trust them to be a part of the solution, while the private sector thinks the same of him. But the net socio-political effect is essentially to "re-feudalize" economies as property and products are turned increasingly into services and leases.

The only way you can compare the present to the past is to assume reflation, and the only relevant example issued in a world war. A big enough war might force the two sides to work together, and provide the discipline, austerity and investment required, for which the liberals can always take credit, but the problem is that war just isn't what it used to be, offering either annihilation or a money pit, the only silver-lining being that it scares the rest of the world so much they send their money here.