Charlie Rose

John  09/18/2008 08:21 AM Report

Earlier in the week, Charlie had another guest (Prof of Economics) that stated the current crises is rooted in 1) Greenspan putting rates at 1% and holding then there too long 2) Lack of regulation of mortgage lenders, which the Fed had power to oversee since 1994.

The Root Cause of this, by that analysis, is the Fed - and now there is a thought to grant more power to deal with crises that they originate?

If Mr Frank is sincere about another body to be set up to regulate and prevent future crises, how will such a Committee be staffed? By those who are party to the original problem? I don't see how that fixes anything.

JJ  09/18/2008 05:47 AM Report

Douglas-YES.

Douglass Montrose-Graem  09/18/2008 01:04 AM Report

Did you allow Frank to re-write history? Was he not in the forefront of blocking any initiatives to tighten control over the 2 mortgage giants in the last 4 or so years? Did he not allow those to expand rapidly based on the philosophy that expansion of home-ownership is desirable?

O'Chewy  12/11/2007 11:38 AM Report

Good interview. I do not agree with everything, but that is what America stands for.

In regards to the mortgage industry, I think he is right, we need the government to regulate the business. BUT, there are laws in place in most states that do regulate the "originators" but are NOT enforced. The government needs to enforce the laws on the books before trying to create new regulation.

Unions, I think he is wrong. Look at the industries in the US that are strongly unionized. Airlines, Automakers, etc. and they are all in deep trouble. In fact, most are needed to be bailed out of this trouble with government money (and where does the government get this money?? we all know).

Building a "FLOOR" under the lower income america. Right and Wrong. If there is anywhere in this country that needs more enforcement it is in the regulation of lower income benefits. These progams are a must, but are abused beyond belief. Instead of giving away more money, make sure it gets in the right hands ONLY.

And as for the lavender tie/suit combo. I think even most of his fellow democrats would vote "NO".

Bill  12/03/2007 01:44 PM Report

A lucid, informative and progressive understanding of how a capitalistic system can benefit everyone. Surely unbridled capitalism benefits but a few and regulations need to be put in place. Would suggest Ryan listen to the entire interview.

Brad Mortensen  11/28/2007 09:32 PM Report

Terrific interview. Very impressed with "the smartest man in Congress."

Chris Baker  11/26/2007 10:00 PM Report

This interview gives a good idea what directions Democrats will go after the 2008 elections, and why. Frank represents a very wealthy district and he's exposed to a variety of viewpoints that even Republicans may recognize. However that Frank would endorse Hillary Clinton isn't surprising given that Bill Clinton found his most consistent support was in Massachusetts.

Stephen Santis  11/26/2007 08:30 PM Report

It was good to see two politicians who felt that there was something wrong with a system where the top 1% of the population earns as much as the bottom 50%. Hopefully the era of "trickle down", which I always felt was insulting, is over. This was one of the most informative shows you have had, I hope you have them back.

Giovanna Di Censo  11/26/2007 11:27 AM Report

This interview was one of the best I have viewed on PBS' Charlie Rose. Please have him on again, I watch the show religiously and find that give me more information on my interest, which is a niche that there is very little tv programming geared towards. The political/economic/and arts subjects are dead own at most times. My only reluctance is the slight over-exposure of the War but I am Canadian and this is not a pre-occupation to the extent that it appears to be for Americans. Just wanted to drop a line that Barney Frank was very interesting and enigmatic. Thks Giovanna

Carol Leiby  11/25/2007 04:43 PM Report

Where can we get specific details on the recent legislation that Rep. Frank discussed?

Ryan  11/24/2007 01:41 PM Report

As a libertarian I objected to a number of the things that Frank commented on - particularly in regards to economics and the role of government.

I only saw the last half of the interview but one thing that was extremely frustrating was listening to Frank repeatedly quote that pay, adjusted for inflation (which is solely the cause of government by the way) has not gone up for the lowest income earners in America for a significant number of years (I don't remember how many). As he stated this he set it up as if the U.S. was a perfect free market economy and therefore the only result of this increased income inequality and a lack of rising pay was the result of the market. Eventually he stated outright that this was the result of the market and not government policy but he never bothered to back it up or explain his reasoning on this.

The inconvenient reality for Frank and most other politicians is that policies that support minimum wage laws, subsidies and labor unions that explicitly make it illegal for the employer to higher a willing person for a lower wage, have costs. That cost usually means, hiring fewer workers, raising the cost of the product (thus selling less of it and being able to hire fewer people) and ultimately, benefiting the few privileged people who are lucky enough to get the unnaturally high wage and hurting those who can't. This is the kind of thing that has created inequality and stalled progress.

In an attempt to appear as a "good American capitalist" he repeatedly said if you believe in capitalism you believe in a certain degree if inequality and he accepted this. He then said that it was the governments job to reduce the extent of this inequality. The trouble I have with this is that it completely ignores the fact that the most equal societies throughout history have been societies based on the freedom of the individual and this includes freedom for their pocketbooks as well. It completely ignores the fact that through the ages we see time and again that powerful governments - however well intentioned they may or may not be - create the most unequal of situations imaginable.

This is what I would like to avoid. When I hear representatives speak in the way in which Barney Frank did (he advocated the government get back in the business of building affordable housing), I am fearful that he and many other well intentioned politicians don't have a real definition for the role of government. Sure he may believe what government should be. But what really bothers me is that he doesn't seem to have a belief about what government should not be. Remember, it is seldom that liberty is lost all at once.

Jeffrey Mark   11/24/2007 12:56 PM Report

I enjoyed this interview very much and am glad we have Barney Frank in his post on the Financial Services Committee. He helped me understand a lot about currently needed industry regulation and what happened to bring about the subprime mortgage problems we face. But, I think both Charlie and Barney were too insistent on repeating several times, like a mantra, that of course, capitalism, which we support, means inequality, on the way to making the point that the wealth disparity in our society should be addressed. I believe it would have been more useful to speak of democratic [small c\ capitalism's aim of fostering equality of opportunity as a socio-economic objective of public policy, rather than just keep saying inequality is a given. I think we do not need such a fact about the system pronounced as a verity as much as we require our public servants and media to present us with specific, inspiring goals and programs for We the People to keep working hard to achieve the promise of America.

Johnny  11/24/2007 11:47 AM Report

Another series in the media campaign to elect the stinking, spineless Democratic Party. They won't end the war because of the Israelli stranglehold, defense lobby, and the oil companies which their buddy "Bubba" let Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, BP/Amoco, and Chevron/Texaco mergers go through without resistance. Now we have little competition with originally 8 large oil companies merged into 4. And, you wonder why we have high oil prices? Elect idiots like this, and nothing will ever change for the better.

Allan Foord  11/24/2007 12:12 AM Report

The interview with Barney Frank was very, very

good, interesting, and educational. I have always liked Barney Frank, and now I wish he could be president. He is one intelligent, and compassionate man. Is there any way I can get a transcript of Charlie's interview of him tonight, 11-23-07?