Charlie Rose

citymoments  01/24/2013 09:29 AM Report

McNerney graduated from New Trier High School in 1967. He attended Yale University, receiving a B.A. degree in 1971. At Yale he excelled in baseball and hockey. After graduating from Yale he worked for a year at both British United Provident and G. D. Searle & Company, then attended Harvard Business School, receiving a Master of Business Administration in 1975.

Boeing is a company which makes planes, does it make sense to you the CEO of such an entity ( with a $12m compensation) should have some technical qualifications in relation to engineering? Of course, McNerney can hire a chief engineer to advise him on technical matters. Then, how does a CEO who has no engineering qualification know which engineer is best qualified for the job? To hire another adviser to help him out on how to hire the best engineer?

http://qnpress.blogspot.com.au...

Edit Reply

tabs  01/17/2013 12:27 PM Report

Mr Bremmer is a Sooth Sayer, a caster of the Runes a caster of the bones. An Oracle, who if one throws down a few pieces of copper will divine you a fortune.

So where is the method of process and mechanism of how ones conclusions are derived, including the construction and deconstruction of indivdual risk units in conjunction with the whole panoply of the global system? Further where is the synthesis of that analysis from which one can draw conclusions as to what the likely resolution and or outcome of the various "risk" areas both indivdualy and in combination is going to be?

To reiterate once again, with the Federal Reserve being the priciple purchaser of US Debt instruments, it is monetizing US debt. As such the USD is becoming ever more diluted and considering that the USD is the RESERVE CURRENCY, the US is the largest economy which is intergrated Globally, US debt instruments are held world wide and the US military is the guanator of Global Security the USD is becoming a WMD as any crisis will create and economic tsuami. Which will cause economic, political and social fragmentation and chaos globally. From this Western Civilizations 500 year hegemonic dominace of the world MIGHT be put at risk with Islam being the potential benificiary.

With the 2008 financial debacle being a watershed year, in that the ILLUSION of US prosperity was disspelled. The world since that date has entered into a NEW NORMAL, one in which US power has begun to wane as the illusion of US competence has been called into question. As such since power abhors a vaccume the world is losing coehesion and is becoming more fragmented and as a result chaos is on the rise. This is due to the fact that as uncertainity rises stress, fear and anxiety levels have begun to cause instability and thus fragmentation not only in the US but globally. Perhaps another perspective is that as an established order is unable to govern effectivily it begins to lose the confidence of its clients and then it begins to lose power resulting in chaos as various factions vye to establish a new order.

ShalomFreedman  01/17/2013 08:37 AM Report

This analysis seemed to me largely superficial.If Iran is the biggest threat today to world stability why didn't Bremer go into greater detail about the possible scenarios for the coming year. Iran either already has or is very close to nuclear capability. The Obama Administration is committed to its not having that capability. What is the likely outcome here?

Does Bremer think that the U.S. is going to make a deal with Iran which will prevent any real military confrontation? If not why not consider the risks presented to the whole of the Middle East by a nuclear Iran?

As for other aspects of the Middle East I think any discussion of it must these days focus on Syria. Everyone seems to agree that it is only going to get worse. It is a humanitarian horror with thousands of civilians suffering greatly. Does a Syria which breaks apart constitute a threat to 'the markets'? Does the Shiite-Sunnite war which is going on in the area threaten to intensify in such a war that America's Sunni allies, primarily Saudi

Arabia will be at risk? What about the risk presented by an impoverished collapsing Egyptian economy?

There are many possible conflicts which might lead to enhanced global instability. Did Bremer in this conversation truly point out which are most likely and real? I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

finalfantasytown  01/17/2013 07:06 AM Report

I know mentioning cold war emotionally arouses your bad and painful memory, also satisfactory feeling on the end.

the Murdock scandal... I care this phenonmenon right now. Focusing on keeping Americans positive is best preparation before disolving the highly negative substance. the similar material can be found in Jiangsu province in China.

finalfantasytown  01/17/2013 06:31 AM Report

I understand one of the reasons for the lost second world war. also cold war.

finalfantasytown  01/17/2013 06:26 AM Report

the information economy... the rule can be found in Greek myth.

finalfantasytown  01/17/2013 06:21 AM Report

Each time when I begin learning German language, I have been interfered or distracted. Then I understand I need permission to learn a language from the people who speak the language originally. Otherwise, I will feel guilt to answer I learn from world wide web when being asked where you learn the language.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/17/2013 02:07 AM Report

Yes Charlie, good to recoil on his comment about NOT being on the brink of a recession.

"The report states that, should these measures be allowed to take effect, the economy would likely go into recession early next year, with GDP contracting around 0.5 percent.

If the fiscal cliff is avoided, the CBO estimates GDP growth of around 1.7 percent. This represents a lowering of previous forecasts. Elmendorf attributed this to a clearer picture of the fiscal health of the nation."

http://www.c-span.org/Events/CBO-Predicts-11-Trillion-Deficit-This-Year/10737433345/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/17/2013 02:00 AM Report

"China rising, Middle East exploding and Europe muddling through."

Was this a forecast or history?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/17/2013 01:58 AM Report

So on the one hand . . .

"For the past five years, emerging markets have accounted for two-thirds of the world's growth. By 2020, that number is expected to grow to 75%."

Yet . . .

Russia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Algeria, Libya, Venezuela and Argentina are essentially “submerging markets,” countries that are both under-performing and generating unacceptable levels of political risk.

And this is the conclusion?

"The takeaway: the world's advanced industrialized democracies are much more resilient than feared, and their downside risk is "bounded." Indeed, in the aftermath of a major crisis, most are even "anti-fragile."

How so when 66% of the world's growth is dependent on the top risk of the year?

Ricardo_Amaral  01/17/2013 01:10 AM Report

Ian, you should not pay any attention to what the American mainstream media is saying about “Operation Clueless” that the US and Nato are running in the Middle East, and now “Operation Clueless” is spreading also all over North Africa.

Here is some reliable information about what is really happening in Syria.

Pepe Escobar about Chavez

http://youtu.be/L5SF8pNCaFc

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L5SF8pNCaFc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Syria has reportedly opened the New Year with a horrifying discovery of dozens of corpses in the capital Damascus. Some of the bodies were decapitated and bore traces of torture. They have not yet been identified. This comes amid widespread doubt there will be any major breakthrough in Syria's bloody civil stand-off any time soon. Asia Times Correspondent Pepe Escobar predicts that the conflict could follow the Lebanese Civil War scenario and continue for another fifteen years.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  01/16/2013 06:47 PM Report

Today, they took down for the second time from the Elite Trader forum my thread about "Economic Forecast for US Economy and Brazilian Economy for 2013 and Beyond".

This thread really hit a nerve at the Elite Trader, somebody is going crazy and is telling them to take down my "Economic Forecast for US Economy for 2013", and they never had deleted any of my postings before since May 2005 when I became a member of the ET web site, and I have over 5,000 postings on that forum.

Somebody with power over the Elite Trader owner is telling him to delete this information that they don't want you to see it.

I created a new Blog to post the information that is driving the people crazy at the Elite Trader, and they don't want the public to see it:

Economic Forecast for US Economy for 2013 and also the Economic Forecast for the Brazilian Economy for 2013 – By Ricardo C. Amaral

http://economicforecastforuseconomyfor2013.blogspot.com/

PS: I am sending the above information to many members of my family who are powerful politicians in Brazil, including my friend former president Jose Sarney.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  01/16/2013 06:23 PM Report

Congratulations Ian for a very good interview, and regarding your positive analysis of Brazil - You hit the nail on the head.

Max83  01/16/2013 03:11 PM Report

Mr. Rose please share this letter with Mayor Bloomberg and Warren Buffett and any other benevolent and patriotic billionaire or multi-millionaire you know.

Thank you.

Link: http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/an-open-letter-to-patriotic-philanthropists.php

''Issue #27, Winter 2013

An Open Letter to Patriotic Philanthropists

Bill Moyers & Arnold Hiatt

Dear Fellow Citizen,

Shortly before the election last fall, The New York Times ran an editorial about the flood of independent money in the campaign. The editors noted, “The business interests behind those hundreds of millions are not going to give up the influence and the power that spending has given them. That’s the reason this unlimited money is so corrupting: win or lose, it binds lawmakers, corporations and special interests ever closer.”

If the Times’s readers could tolerate it, such editorials could run every day—and not just during elections.

Because others in this issue of Democracy are writing about the many dimensions of the problem, we won’t pile on. But we do want to point out that both of us have, for eight decades now, been witnesses to—and proud products of—the American experiment. And in that time we have never seen our democracy so utterly subjugated by the power of well-heeled special interests.

So, what can be done? A lot, is the answer. But here’s one simple idea: Help fund the groups that fight for political reform.

Both of us have been doing so for a long time—one as the president of a small family foundation whose benefactors were devoted to the renewal of democracy, one as an individual citizen concerned for his country. Over the years, we’ve collectively helped reform groups raise millions of dollars. But that’s only a thimble-sized sum compared to the need.

It’s been rewarding to see the many groups we’ve supported do so much with so few resources. But it’s also been painful to see them toil away in a long and losing battle, seriously outgunned on Capitol Hill by the lobbyists who profit from the current system, and outmaneuvered in the courts by the lawyers and justices who deem money the equal of speech.

How much do these reformers spend annually? An estimated $45 million. Only about .01 percent of total charitable giving in America (which was roughly $300 billion in 2011). It’s about one-fourth of what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends annually (roughly $200 million in 2010), and roughly one-tenth of what Koch-related groups committed to spending in the 2012 elections to promote their agendas ($400 million, according to Politico).

The two of us could list most of the funders of reform on the back of a napkin. Like their grantees, they’re very capable and dedicated people who strive to accomplish much with few resources. Like us, many of them are frustrated that the pool of philanthropists has remained so consistently small over the years. And, also like us, many can’t keep investing in this cause much longer, not for lack of interest but for lack of resources.

Over the years, we’ve encountered various reasons why there is so little investment in reducing the power of Big Money over politics and policy-making: Good-government groups don’t do a good enough job of selling themselves and are too fractured along policy lines; money in politics is seen as a wonky issue that only liberals care about; philanthropy is increasingly focused on short-term “deliverables” and “quantifiable outcomes” and reform is too hard to measure in those terms; foundations are risk averse when it comes to supporting efforts that might be perceived as political. And the list goes on.

All of these are understandable concerns. But none of us can any longer afford to allow such arguments to stifle the flow of money into the struggle to save our democracy. Citizens United and super PACs have brought America to a historic juncture—one path leads toward oligarchy, the other toward representative government. Abraham Lincoln defined the latter as the American ideal. It was the cause of Thomas Paine, the Revolution, and the Constitutional Convention. Today it is the inspiration for good health care and a good education, for fair and competitive markets, for honest government, for a sustainable environment, and for a decent job and livelihood for everyone. For these promises to be kept, the deep pockets of the moneyed class must be countered, because to travel upstream of any major issue facing our country—from Too Big To Fail banks to climate change—is to encounter a small, extremely powerful group of well-connected and well-heeled interests controlling the flow of the stream.

That’s why it’s about time for others who are well connected and well heeled to provide a counterweight. When some people think about philanthropy, they think of building libraries and wings of hospitals, of endowing university chairs and curing diseases, of providing comfort to the afflicted, and preserving pristine lands. All noble goals. But beneath them lies a larger structural problem with the way our country functions, or doesn’t function. Helping solve that problem offers philanthropists a shot at a different kind of legacy—one that would make Jefferson and Lincoln proud.

Now is the time to invest in such a legacy. The tinder of public opinion is dry. In a recent Gallup poll, 87 percent of respondents said that ending government corruption should be a “very important” or an “extremely important” priority for the President. The only priority that ranked higher was job creation.

There are more than two dozen groups working mightily to ignite the popular movement necessary for rekindling the American Dream of justice for all. If patriotic philanthropists fail to meet the challenge, future editorials in The New York Times on money in politics will read less like urgent calls for change and more like obituaries.

Sincerely,

Bill Moyers & Arnold Hiatt''

REMant  01/16/2013 12:00 PM Report

I doubt any of the positive signs Bremmer sees in the US will prove true. We have considerable asset bubbles developing, and fracking, I'm sure, will not prove as lucrative as many think. But he has long been among the enthusiasts.

Yet a recent survey still has the US believed to be the greatest threat to the world economy. And it was announced day or so ago that investors pulled money from stock mutual funds in 2012 for the sixth straight year, despite the stock market's "strong performance." Stock fund withdrawals have exceeded deposits for ten straight months. The total withdrawn last year was the most since 2008, when the financial crisis hit. Bond funds attracted $317 billion, the most since 2009. But bonds have long outperformed stocks, and been the vehicle of those sensible enough to save. And this despite the persistence of monetary authorities to kill them off.

I'm afraid we are still seeing a struggle for the American/cosmopolitan/globalizing hegemony to reassert itself, essentially the same struggle as that between North and South, monarchist and republican, government and business, Catholic and Protestant, women and men, rich and poor, urban and rural, and so forth.

Either you believe, as do the first of all those antitheses, in mercantilism with trade barriers and fiat currency, or you believe in free trade with hard currency such as gold or a gold standard. This is the issue which divided North and South from the founding of this nation, as the North wanted to industrialize and thought protectionism and paper promises the way to do it, and the South wanted to able to sell their commodities anywhere in the world. It was not an insignificant factor in the Civil War. The problem the world has faced since the evolution of central banking is that no one believes in the latter anymore, if indeed they ever really did, and when we are not engaged in trade wars, we are in currency wars.

There's a better than even chance the US would benefit with the trade agreements now being negotiated with many of the places Bremmer ticked off, as indeed it has with China and OPEC, as long as the dollar maintains its value, though at what cost to the lower and middle-classes in all the nations involved is open to debate. In order to ensure its favorable trade position China has had to inflate its currency to match ours, and buy our bonds, with the result that its wages are approaching ours, meaning that US firms are beginning to bring manufacturing back here. Tho that also means we might eventually be able to repay our debt to them, in the process China's gini coefficient has been steadily rising. Increasing wealth disparity has always been the result of mercantilist monetary policies.

The threat of consolidation comes not from Middle Eastern govts, but from these Bilderbergers, ppl who call themselves progressives, but are just neocons, the same ppl backing the fiat currencies, and particularly the dollar, in the currency wars, and interventions all over the place, primarily because of this imbalance. It all starts by failing to distribute the gains of increased productivity by keeping prices from falling as they should, stifling further growth. Saying Russia, China, and the 3d world generally, are riskier places for investment than the US is simply making them enemies. If we were talking about raising children, no doubt the attitude among many would be different, but those who see nothing wrong in making future generations pay for our cupidity, no doubt see nothing wrong in forcing other nations to, nor in whipping them when they get out of line.