Charlie Rose

jporcelli  05/08/2013 08:42 AM Report

Charlie et al

Amazing honest discussion about limits of resources and how they impact the economy and our perceptions of the future. But this conversationin fact has been taking place on places like the oildrum.com, kunstler.com and other place for quite some time.

Many people have been talking about peak oil since 2005. The late Matt Simmons, who I believe you have interviewed, was one of the loudest voices about this.

Thanks again for making it happen, it can't happen enough.

msipos  04/20/2013 09:57 AM Report

Interesting Malthus comment....is Jeremy the new Malthus? Is there technology today that will improve our energy cost future (he mentions alternatives but do we really know if we are running out of hydrocarbons?) and solve his major problems of too much carbon in the air (scientists looking at ways to remove carbon as plants naturally do) and limited suplies of phosphorous (ovbviously an element that we need to find ways to recycle...again plants naturally gather it up like the old lake bed in Moracco). He seems to think we have no way to improve going forward. Robots that mine asteroids...ultimately we must go to the stars as our own sun one day will die...

vongleichent  04/09/2013 03:25 PM Report

No wonder why his fund is doing so well. Someone who actually understands the economy.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  04/07/2013 05:52 PM Report

Jeremy, your Keystone XL pipeline comments were really brought home with these videos:

Local guy Drew Barnes who lives in an evacuated house: http://youtu.be/ECKYz00aouo

Neighbor video Of Clean-up Crew: http://youtu.be/HsXsC32X-DA

CNN Video: http://youtu.be/BvK85r7x_3E

jlee77x  04/07/2013 09:01 AM Report

Great interview, Mr. Grantham in a word is prescient. This is a man worth interviewing at least once a year if even for a web only viewing. I've read his newsletters for years but to hear him speak and your excellent interview style was a real joy. Thank you to Mr. Rose.

SirD  03/30/2013 05:05 PM Report

BEST. INTERVIEW. EVER.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/27/2013 05:11 PM Report

NASA ON CLIMATE CHANGE: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

ExxonSecrets.org documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=631

NASA QUOTE:

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/25/2013 06:49 PM Report

THE TWO DEGREE MARK—like a fever:

Jeremy tells us we have pushed the temperature up 0.8 degrees centigrade. BIG BOUNDARY IS two degrees centigrade (agreed by climate scientists and others to be a boundary).

Dire consequences above 2 degrees C. Stay below two degrees and we might limp along. It takes 565 gigatons of Carbon to get above 2 degrees C. The bad news is that we already have in our proven reserves five times that amount.

Now over to BILL MOYERS:

http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-ending-the-silence-on-climate-change/

ANTHONY LEISEROWITZ: Currently we are scheduled, unless we change direction to GO THROUGH THE TWO-DEGREE MARK. And in fact, we're heading on towards three, four degrees and perhaps even six degrees centigrade warmer than in the past. As you go things get much, much worse. And in fact, let me just use a SIMPLE ANALOGY.

Because people often will say, "Wow, you know, four, five degrees, that doesn't sound like very much. I mean, I see the temperature change more from night to day." But it's the wrong way to think about it. I mean, think about when you get sick and you get a fever, okay. Your body is usually at, you know, 98.7 degrees.

If your temperature rises by one degree you feel a little off, but you can still go to work. You're fine. It rises by two degrees and you're now feeling sick, in fact you're probably going to take the day off because you definitely don't feel good. And in fact, you're getting everything from hot flashes to cold chills, okay.

At three you're starting to get really sick. And at four degrees and five degrees your brain is actually slipping into a coma, okay, you're close to death. I think there's an analogy here of that little difference in global average temperature just like that little difference in global body temperature can have huge implications as you keep going. And so unfortunately the world after two and especially after three degrees starts getting much more frightening, and that's exactly what the scientists keep telling us. But will we pay attention to those warning signs?

reward1  03/24/2013 01:14 PM Report

Jeremy Grantham interview was riveting! Please have him back soon. Excellent interview Mr. Rose.

FrankAntonson  03/21/2013 06:52 PM Report

Numbers, numbers. Probably right -- all of them.

What is needed is a paradigm shift.

If people decided to NEVER buy anything new, unless absolutely necessary (and then were ashamed that they had had to; and to pay repairmen to keep old things still useable -- that alone could destroy the world economy, and maybe save civilization and the planet.

For THAT to happen, the work of poets, songwriters, filmmakers and gurus, is required.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/20/2013 09:20 PM Report

Look at Detroit vs Shanghai:

http://www.thedeathofamerica.org/images/shanghai-detroit.jpg

Now read what Jeremy Grantham said: China uses 53 percent of all the cement used on the planet -- not traded, just used. They use 47 percent of all the coal, 46 percent of all the iron ore. These are unimaginable numbers. And if they mean to even slow down to seven percent, it means 10 years from now we`ve got to find another 47 percent coal, just for China."

Oh Charlie . . . Oh my.

FrankAntonson  03/18/2013 07:30 PM Report

This commentary seems to be so dominated in volume (or syllables) by one contributer. Tab's comment almost seems like a "still small voice of calm".

In any case, since I earlier suggested that poets and songwriters (and I probably should have added "filmmakers") have a role to play in achieving a paradigm shift. Let me offer about 210 syllables of an anapestic sonnet written in the 1970's. I believe that it is germaine to Grantham's thoughts It's called "Diderot"

In the strength of the farm I went down to the City of Power./

My search for the past of my skills found the Room of the Rare Book./

Never had Mountain Man been there so much as an hour,/ But I too had French and credentials that allowed me to look./

Back at the turning from greatness to bigness in Paris/ When knowledge was precious and all things had power of speech,/ The drawings of Diderot honored the skills that I now miss./ The Craftman then spoke in the language of all in his reach./

There in the city, the climax of bigness around me,/ I was wounded, struck by the grief of the loss of that magic./ I fled through the gauntlet of mechanical marvels with pity/ For people, the victims, the prey of the Monster mechanic./

Back on the farm, I found Maker Mountain still there,/ And was healed by the Fire, the Water, the Earth, and the Air.

tabs  03/18/2013 03:40 PM Report

A few years back one was reading a newspaper article about a man who remembered the San Franscisco earthquake of 1906. The article went on to say that the man was still working part time in a grocery store in San Francisco at 102 years old. Ones first thought was that the cost of living in San Francisco must be really expensive if one has to still be working at 102 years old!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/18/2013 01:39 AM Report

TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the second Iraqi/Bush Family War on Tuesday.

What say ye Jeremy about America as the world's policeman? (perhaps your next visit?)

http;//costsofwar.org is from our Ivy League friends at Brown.

First estimate of the cost: $50B to $60B.

Brown says that it is really $2.2T.

190,000 DEAD.

We borrowed the money so $3.9T might be the cost with interest.

$4T Jeremy, where can we send the bill?

Blood, all that blood, how do we wash away the Gulf Oil Spill of blood?

A decade of time lost forever.

Jeremy, please lay this all on top of your analysis for that same decade.

FrankAntonson  03/17/2013 09:28 AM Report

Almost none of this commentary shows me evidence of the contemplation of a true paradigm shift. A 72-year-old working. Of course! Naturally! But measurable in the work force? Probably not. In the "developed" world, America for example, people have be trained all of their lives to be consumers. So, the retiree who lives in a big, empty house and drives his big new vehicle daily to the golf course, should probably be described as not in the workforce. Or, riding his lawnmower should probably not be considered work, but rather conspicuous consumption. But, even here in America, I could name a man who, even though his hands barely work, spends his time splitting small pieces of boards into kindling -- the best kindling I have ever seen. Of course, he gives it away.

That represents a different paradigm.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/17/2013 02:50 AM Report

"The economy is extremely difficult. The debt in the long run is not as significant as people think. How you manage debt is an art form."

(So how is personal debt so different from Federal debt? Why do so many states balance their budgets?)

"We should worry more about the real world and less about the paper world."

(How can you separate your paper world--it is part of the real world? A critical part of the real world unless you are bathing in wealth or a wealth created by being the reserve currency?)

"We`ve had lots of traditions like the market would look after itself. People wouldn`t be crooks because economic theory assumes that they`re not. But they often were crooks, and greedy and short-term oriented and willing to dance until the music stopped."

(Value human worth, protect against human nature, and if you watch "Inside Job", you will learn that you can buy your own economic theory.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/17/2013 02:30 AM Report

He tells us:

"By keeping interest rates low, you`re transferring money away from retirees who spend every penny (YES PUNISH THE SAVERS) and are really hurting. And by the way, there`s far more of them every year now (YES, 10,000 BABY BOOMERS A DAY RETIRE) than there ever was when economic theories were being panned out.

You take money from them, and who are the beneficiaries -- the guys who run the hedge funds and the banking system in general and speculators and corporations theoretically can use it to build. (EASY, NO RISK MONEY) But they`re building less now than practically in history. There is no major league capital spending boom going on."

(So pay out almost nothing on deposits and then buy Government financial instruments and keep away from the risk of lending. PERFECT! Little risk. Good Return. However, the economy does not move forward and the estate tax is hidden because you can NOT live on the interest of your Certificates of Deposit, you have to live on your capital. DOUBLE HIDDEN BAILOUT FOR THE BANKS!)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/17/2013 01:54 AM Report

JEREMY GRANTHAM:

"Japan, you know the old story, the land underneath the emperor`s palace was worth more than the state of California. We spent a couple of days researching that. It really was worth more than the state of California.

I mean how ridiculous can you get."

(Indeed, quite ridiculous and Japan was taking this ridiculousness and buying up Hawaii and California real estate helping these states create a bubble from the Japan bubble. It can get really nasty if we all start building off the same bubble.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/17/2013 01:42 AM Report

Charlie, the study was at age 72 not 71 (you're 71).

More importantly those primitive hunter gatherers, at age 30, have the same odds of dying as a modern Swedish or Japanese man would face at 72.

So odds of dying is one thing, working 40 hours a week at age 72 is quite another. How many jobs are there that someone 72 can really do and how many 72 year-olds are there out in the working population?

Funny no employer is screaming for 72 year-olds. In fact, AARP magazine has article after article about how difficult it is to find a job over 50.

So you two at 71 and 74 are the exception not the rule. Please remember public policy studies have shown the wealthy live longer and live better in the higher decades of life.

Here is the link to the Financial Times article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16f44f3e-7d24-11e2-adb6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NltuRNNP

MichiganMan  03/16/2013 10:07 PM Report

This was indeed the best interview on this show in a long time. And indeed Mr. Grantham's appearance four days after the interview with Rex Tillerson was ironic. The contrast between the two was striking. Mr. Grantham is a big thinker with broad vision while Mr. Tillerson's thinking is bound by the interests of his industry. Charlie, I wish you had challenged Mr. Tillerson more than you did, but I feel that Mr. Grantham's interview served as a strong rebuttal. I too hope that Mr. Grantham becomes a regular guest.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 06:40 PM Report

Rex Tillerson and then four days later we hear from Jeremy Grantham.

Each should watch the other for their own sakes and our sakes.

SAKES ALIVE CHARLIE!!!! Those two interviews are important.

MikeGillespie  03/16/2013 05:46 PM Report

One of the best interviews my wife and I have seen in 17 years of watching. Concise, unafraid to be honest, wide-ranging. Hopefully, Jeremy Grantham will be back again.

apasette  03/16/2013 05:05 PM Report

Wonderful interview. I am surprised he has not been on before. I only wish Charlie would let guests finish their thoughts. I thought he had cured himself of this but he picked a terrible interview to revert to his old ways.

I also thought the interview with the CEO of Travelers insurance was excellent.

FrankAntonson  03/16/2013 11:32 AM Report

Yes, right over Charlie's head. But how many people are ready to think about less growth or no growth or "negative growth"? Grantham spoke of insulating homes in the North East of the USA, but he stopped short of saying that people could learn to live in only one room of their house in the winter. Who is ready to hear that?

EyesOnYou  03/16/2013 04:20 AM Report

I should add that some of Jeremy's comments went right over Charlie's head.

EyesOnYou  03/16/2013 04:17 AM Report

This is the best and most important interview Charlie has done in a LONG time. Grantham is brilliant. He didn't say debt isn't important. He said there are much more important things to deal with now, and debt shouldn't be dealt with at the cost of making those problems worse, it should be dealt with a 20 year strategic plan.

What he said about how we are trying to stimulate growth, through monetary policy, is a wealth transfer. Having spent 20 years in financial industry, it is hard for me to gage if non financial people can easily follow the concept. But, when the Fed lowers interest rates to zero, it is doing it so banks can lend, corps borrowing inverts (hires people, buys equipment, produces more goods to SELL). But if there are no customers, why would businesses invest even if interest rates are incredibly low? To get stuck with inventory? So the only people benefiting from low interest rates are hedge funds and banks who gamble with the money, and if they lose, we'll they are too big to fail, but when they win they make billions. The elderly middle class is making nothing on their cash, hence the wealth transfer.

simonp  03/16/2013 03:18 AM Report

I was right with him until he said "debt doesn't matter"

What, does he think it doesn't need to be paid back?

It can only be paid with newly printed dollars - that's what's going to screw the USA. Just wait until no country in the world wants your paper with the ink still wet in exchange for the products of their blood, sweat and tears, or their scarce resourses

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 03:02 AM Report

He tells us, "We have to come back in 200 years and have a population of four billion, not 10. And we have to have complete self-sufficiency in renewable energy."

Yes, Moore's Law in renewables perhaps via Thomas Friedman's green energy bubble.

Yes take 7B folks and reduce them to 4B folks instead of growing them to 10B by getting these women out of poverty and free of disease like Bill Gates has told us repeatedly. Also the Federal Government needs to quit paying Utah/Mormons to breed as we see here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-savings-child-tax-credit-vary-significantly-state-state. And Catholics? You know what you have to do.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 02:40 AM Report

CHALLENGE:

'POTASH

Estimated world resources total about 250 billion tons.

At the current usage rate of 33 million tonnes a year that gives us an over 7,000 year supply.

PHOSPHATE ROCK:

World resources of phosphate rock are more than 300 billion tons.

At the 190 million tonne a year usage, a 1,500 years supply.

Reserves, the numbers that Grantham is using, are the deposits that we know where they are, have drilled and tested them, we know how to extract and process them using current technology and we also know that we can make a profit doing so. They are the known known: and yes, this really is the number that Grantham is using. Resources is a very different number. This is a combination of the unknown knowns and the known unknowns.

Phosphorus being some 0.1% of the lithosphere (ie, the top part of the Earth). Potassium perhaps 2.5%. The lithosphere weighs something like 300 billion, billion, tonnes.'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/16/what-jeremy-grantham-gets-horribly-horribly-wrong- about-resource-availability/

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 02:18 AM Report

Charlie says, "You are sounding Malthusian."

He said, and by licensing that pipeline (Keystone) we`re saying to the world, we`re going into round three. We`re going to start facilitating the flow of such utterly dangerous energy resources that we have no reasonable hope of surviving with the planet as we know it.

(Malthusian terms can carry a pejorative connotation indicating excessive pessimism and inhumanity and yes Charlie that leap on the pipeline was moving us in that direction.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 01:53 AM Report

He tells us we have pushed the temperature up 0.8 degrees centigrade.

BIG BOUNDARY IS two degrees centigrade (agreed by climate scientists and others to be a boundary).

Dire consequences above 2 degrees C.

Stay below two degrees and we might limp along.

It takes 565 gigatons of Carbon to get above 2 degrees C.

The bad news is that we already have in our proven reserves five times that amount.

"So we have enough to completely cook our goose and guarantee that our grandchildren are near starvation and so on with floods and . . ."

(Well someone has done some math, "death math" but math nonetheless.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 01:38 AM Report

YES, YES, YES, Oh God Yes . . .

"But in the short term it pushes up the price of oil. And what has happened, the most important thing, really, in resources is that the price of oil, which was $25 bucks a barrel in 2000, is approximately a $100 today. It`s four times. It`s also half the cost structure of all the other resources.

So when it goes up four times, if you are mining copper, you`ve got to spend four times the amount on your energy.

Plus the quality of your copper ore is declining, so maybe you have to spend eight times as much. And so the price

keeps going up.

So if China continues to grow at these rates, yes it will stimulate global business and B, it will keep pushing up the

resource prices. And resource prices have been rising faster than global growth rate so they are squeezing the rest of the system."

ZERO–SUM GAME!!!

Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero–sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally. The cake is oil.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 01:28 AM Report

He tells us, "And in total the typical commodity dropped by 70 percent over a hundred years.

And then it turned on a dime and gave the whole 100 years back between 2002 and 2008. In six years it gave back a hundred years of decline. It went up more steeply than it did in World War II. It`s quite amazing no one talked about it, there was no fuss, there was no World War III."

(Yes, QUITE AMAZING. Something seems off here. Perhaps this is what really caused the Arab Spring but why not more rebellion in the world?)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/16/2013 01:16 AM Report

Charlie, those first five minutes are very intense and you appeared overwhelmed--or perhaps we are just projecting.

"But suddenly we seem to be running out of cheap resources. And when we look for the reason, incidentally, it seems to be steady population growth (YES!!) and perhaps more importantly, the enormous surge in China, 1.3 billion trying to grow faster than the 20 million South Koreans did 20 years ago, growing their demand for resources at 10 percent a year (YES CHARLIE, IT IS A ZERO SUM GAME!!!).

And pretty soon you end up with numbers that don`t seem to compute very easily.

China uses 53 percent of all the cement used on the planet -- not traded, just used. They use 47 percent of all the coal, 46 percent of all the iron ore. These are unimaginable numbers (YES!!!). And if they mean to even slow down to seven percent, it means 10 years from now we`ve got to find another 47 percent coal, just for China."

Charlie, now let's go to your interview with Jing Ulrich:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11998

SharkswithfrikingLazers 11/18/2011 02:51 AM Report

Charlie, did you hear Jing focus on the internal stability of China? She said it twice that this is what China really desires. Then she also said that China is natural resource deficient and it imports everything it consumes.

So boom--there is the question--is China going to be able to keep the global economy from becoming a zero sum game when it lacks the natural resources. (They are laying low on the world's political issues while running around the world signing deals for natural resources.)

Since Jing did not address this CRITICAL issue I will help. Yes, it is a zero sum game because China lacks the natural resources it needs. Jing brought that all home in this interview.

We can NOT make another pizza nor a bigger pizza when China does not have the stuff for their own pizza. The pizza ingredients are limited and the most limited, critical ingredient is oil.

It is a zero sum game because the lowest common denominator is OIL.

20 Million vehicles sold and needs 9.5 million barrels a day, 55% imported--HELLO?! or is it good-bye?

FrankAntonson  03/15/2013 06:14 PM Report

If something is to be done about the situation that Grantham so eloquently described, I am SURE that poets and song writers can help. They can be the voice of a people. Probably everybody reading this post can fill in the blank of, "The answer, my friend, is blowing in ..." The work of a poet and songwriter.

I do not mean by this to simply make pretty talk. Grantham describes himself as a numbers man. But he is so much more.

staceyharper  03/14/2013 10:26 PM Report

Mr. Grantham was simply superb! While his pronouncements about the US economic future were grim, he was informed, direct and unbiased. Our citizens need to hear his wake up call. It is imperative that he appear on your show again. Give this man a forum to influence US economic policy to avoid the iceberg he sees in front of us. It’s the iceberg that average worker senses while Wall Street worries how much money can be made on the lifeboats.

Thank you for continuing to bring out the best from the brightest.

rtal  03/14/2013 10:23 PM Report

Very enlightening. Brilliant work Charlie Rose.

A few notable points.

He seemed to have misspoken about the phosphorous and potash running out in next 50 years. Checkout the usgs.gov website.. its more like 600 odd years.

Also I didn't understand one more thing, he basically disagreed with Keynesian economics about dept not causing growth and still suggest that if Keynes were here, he would have come up with a genius new theory?

enelson11  03/14/2013 09:39 PM Report

I am very familiar with Grantham and his firm's work for many years. I can say with great certainty that they play the "long game" in investing and they are nearly always correct. Unfortunately financial markets these days are entirely geared towards short term results which obfuscates their track record and proven success. If we'd just stop and listen to people like Grantham, we would all be a lot better off. Amazing job again by Charlie Rose, among the most informative interviews i have ever watched. For those interested, Jeremy writes a publicly available quarterly letter on his website www.gmo.com that I highly recommend spending a Saturday morning with every 3 months when they come out.

miguel44444  03/14/2013 09:11 PM Report

found a transcript here:

http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/27455/files/Conversation_with_Jeremy_Grantham_America_a.PDF

exeterline1860  03/14/2013 08:58 PM Report

It was a very interesting interview. I really love people that have numbers to back up their opinions and aren't afraid to speak up to the those that follow the popular opinions. I want a transcript too. I hope to see him on the show regularly. Perhaps he could get his own show!

SirD  03/14/2013 07:29 PM Report

This guy was fascinating. I listen to every Charlie interview but this one was truly gripping--couldn't take my eyes off the monitor. Great stuff.

fursdon  03/14/2013 05:38 PM Report

Marvellous interview with a very bright man. It is good to have someone from the money management world who has a long term outlook that takes into account the environment. And says quite simply that the grandchildren of his generation face an uncertain future.

What i do not understand is why people of his thinking power and foresight are not listened to, and interviewed more often than they are. i have watched this interview twice, and will watch it again.

thank you to Mr. Rose and his team.

oldjimyoung  03/14/2013 05:02 PM Report

Transcript please.

Grantham's remarks on the 1,200 financial analysts, from working levels, having a different opinion (that their bosses effectively suppress) can get them fired or moved out as Frank Raiter was at Standard and Poors. It matches similar situations somewhat, such as the Due Diligence teams results being ignored in something like 60% of the cases in the "Untouchables". Many of us could see all this and, as I've found, many of the lower echelon people like Tim Russert conducted research among let him build articulate and piercing questions for those who try to control the messaging. I find it easy to get the divergent views simply by asking the lower echelons if you can (it requires a certain trust that you won't misuse the information or put them at risk. Maybe it is just me, but I sense a dramatic decrease in whistle blower protection after the Garcetti v. Ceballos SCOTUS case which seemed to severely limit free speech by civil servants. It amazes me that lower echelon investigators never seem able to find the violations ordinary citizens and even minimally qualified investigative journalists can find. It seems ordinary citizens assume great personal legal liability if there are any flaws in what they report to government agencies. It seems the law is almost exactly the opposite of what you would expect in this country, protecting business interests from citizens that dare report potential or suspected wrong doing through gutted, and intimidated regulators. All I can suggest for starters is visiting www.stateintegrity.com and sunlightfoundation's open states report card, and doing your own investigations (without risking reporting what you find to government agencies that may be too compromised to be able to do much with it).

pchornet63  03/14/2013 04:12 PM Report

Why not allow reduced tax rates to US corporations on funds held overseas with a provision to fund national infrastructure bank with percentage of tax saving? Mr. Grantham, a sane voice for our times.

FrankAntonson  03/14/2013 02:42 PM Report

Unbelievable, really. So much that Grantham said was apparent already in the 1970's, e.g. the book, "The Limits to Growth". It has taken so long to hear it again! One thing that I would contribute is the idea that for the kind of paradigm shift that seems to be required, Grantham should not discount the poets and songwriters, as in the 1960's, bringing in the required whole new way of thinking. The fact that the new pope chose "Francis" as his name could help.

kaizen  03/14/2013 01:55 PM Report

Add me to the list for a transcript

Juddie  03/14/2013 01:33 PM Report

I would also like to see the transcript.

Guy_McPherson  03/14/2013 01:33 PM Report

Grantham is unaware we've already triggered near-term human extinction as a result of climate change. Relevant details are here: http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

rj_chicago  03/14/2013 12:06 PM Report

Is there a transcript of this interview available yet?

Art Cashin at UBS commented in his daily memo that this is an absolute must watch. I like to read the interview however.

Thanks.

mikegriffin  03/14/2013 06:51 AM Report

Charlie this is in the top of my list for informative information that has already changed my life. Thank you very much.