Charlie Rose

a shivers  03/16/2008 06:03 PM Report

WHEN ASKING ABOUT DUBYAS LEGACY--HE ATE HAMBURGERS WITH HIS DADDY AT OTTO'S ON MEMORIAL DRIVE

Paris  03/15/2008 02:10 PM Report

dear "rich dimmock" --get a grip, there, friend -- To conflate Obama's minister with Nazis and Hitler is waaaay over the top, and is seemingly ignorant of 200+ years of American history. (hint: oppression/anger) What on earth are you afraid of? Does McCain pay attention to the sleaze bag preacher making the rounds for him... the guy who blamed Hurricane Katrina on the sinfulness of New Orleans. (Does that mean he's saying god hates the southern united states? Yes, by implication. And, yes, seeing those grandmothers dead, face down in Mississippi flood waters, sure made me think of how sinful they were to be poor. (that's sarcasm, just to be sure we're on the same planet.) Yes, discuss this... .without hysteria... and if McCain wants to bring up the BO preacher thing, McCain's got a religious a-hole who's making camp in the repubes backyard. They placate these sorts because the nutjob vote is the only way repubes can win a general election.

--I'm not a true believer, but I'm tending toward Obama. No more family dynasties for at least a 100 years, please. Dear friend, you seem to have a serious case of the political crazies if you think Obama is dangerous because of what a religious nut said. Then every politician in the U.S. is nuts because they've all had hateful supporters they wish would shut up. Most of them, in my generous time on this earth, have been religious leaders of some sort. what a great country that we can survive all these religious leaders over all these years and still people can believe that Adam was Fred Flintstone walking among the dinos. And yet, science and learning go on...

rich dimmock  03/15/2008 02:38 AM Report

the times reporter rehashed what many of us already heard on many sites.

disappointed in the information i was able to glean.

i'm not sure if al or charlie were aware of the

obama's minister issue,since it was not mentioned.i consider it to be a watershed issue.obama is a member of a church for 20 years but appears to have been unaware of the vile ravings of this lunatic! AND evidently never even made a symbolic effort of changing to another church!

if the clinton camp doesn't use the tapes now,the republicans will...charlie better play some of the clips for people to hear the kind of stuff obama chose not to condemn(repudiate and deplore isn't enough this time)."god damn america" will certainly get everybody's attention across america. obama should become the minister of the church because it is certainly in need of his "change" message.

maybe the idiot minister and the editor of the harvard review could sit down together and read about the estimated 500,000+ casualities the military estimated the usa would suffer invading japan.this was based on the previous japanese mantra in previous battles of dying to the last man. the atomic bomb saved the lives of tens of thousands of american soldiers and japanese. hirohito even ended up living out a privileged life,while the other dummies died for their emperor,he wasn't as dumb. oh yes,the japanese attacked us at pearl harbor.

the minister is ignorant,obama isn't and for that he bears even more responsibility for his silence. like so many germans who kept quiet,joined the party,listened to the rants and ravings,then said they never really believed all the stuff adolph use to say to the ignorant masses. "we have seen the enemy and it us", might be this congregations motto.

in the coming economic dangers i'll take hillary and bill.they hit the ground running they are battled tested. they can visit obama at his church to see how "change"is working!

.....show the clips let the true believers see and hear the rants of this racist un-american

sonovabitch...get him a copy of the new testament to read or in his case probably burn.

Cal  03/15/2008 01:39 AM Report

Charlie said (twice) that Wal-Mart purchase $20 billion a year from China. That can't be correct. Wal-Mart's annual revenues are around $350 billion. Conservatively, 25% of their revenues come from products made in China. That would mean they're buying on the order of $80 billion and I think that is on the low side.

Allan Ramesh  02/15/2008 12:24 PM Report

Dumbfounded, I need to clarify that my endorsement of globalization is not unconditional. I completely support regulations that enhance environmental protection, worker safety, human rights, and advancement of the working class. We must not tolerate exploitation either in the U.S. or internationally. I certainly don't support preemptive wars like Iraq. There must be rules for globalization which are enforced even more stringently on global corporation. My support for globalization is that it is in total a good thing for the over 2 billion living in China and India and without it. This has helped to lift a significant percent of our global population out of abject poverty. We were heading for a collision course as the wealth of the world accumulated in a few countries leaving so many undeveloped. Globalization is helping China and hopefully India at least narrow that gap. Certainly much of SouthEast Asia is a case study for this benefit as seen in Malaysia and Singapore.

dumbfounded  01/28/2008 06:17 PM Report

Allan, I wonder about your unconditional endorsement of globalization. Would you endorse removing farm subsidies that prevent Mexican farmers from competing? And African produce from the market. Egregious greed - governmental and corporate - is wrecking this country. They'll continue to try to buy our votes earmarks. Unfortunately, they'll succeed. We're much overrated as a country. Our history is replete with preemptive wars. Iraq merely the last. Latest grab led by Citigroup et al is symptomatic of endemic and brutal greed.

Allan Ramesh  01/28/2008 03:36 PM Report

I have worked as an expatriate manager for a US corporation in Asia for ten years and I have to agree with the comment that globalization has lifted the welfare of so many people in Asia and advanced stability for the entire world. Imagine the stress and conflicts we would be enduring the world remained desperately poor and hopeless. Globalization has been great for Americans too as we have enjoyed low inflation due to the productive capacity of Asia.

The issue of the abuse of the American workers is a home grown problem. Corporations have systematically cut benefits to workers by eliminating pension programs, cutting back on health insurance coverage, and increasing the use of layoffs as a way to boost the bottom line. Unlike Europe that chose to maintain its safety nets, we have resisted providing health care to all our people. All this has been happening while senior executives line their pockets and the government cheers from the sidelines. Blaming globalization (or immigration) for the plight of US workers is a convenient distraction by those who do not wish to expose their greed. Even in failed corporations such as Countrywide, the CEO will receive $36 million in severance payment while the workers will be laid off. Reforming the abuses of corporate America is where the focus should be placed.

dumbfounded  01/20/2008 05:52 PM Report

Frustrated by the 'overt?' avoidance/omission of dialogue of second major cause of current recession! (Iraq 1st.) Subprime mtgs strong 2nd. Egregious greed by Citigroup, et al mortgaged the entire country to Saudis and the Emirates. [Rampant irony: Allah blessed usury?\ Jail the $2 thief. Give the billion dollar thief a golden parachute. Only in America. Wonder for how much longer? Allah Akbar!! Humdillah! ***********************************************Capitalism seems to be following the predicted script of consuming itself with it's own greed. And others: see Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. See K-street lobbyists whorifying our whole system. See us bypassing John Edwards, the only one close to having grasp the problem. We deserve what we're getting. Let's preempt Iran and finish US off.

Shaft  01/20/2008 02:40 PM Report

Mr. Rose: this is was a very sobering real economic talk, I enjoyed it very much. I have rather sharp comment to this housing debacle. I am very disappointed that the president proposed a bailout to this huge financial institutions. First they knowingly rewarded the brokers to seek unqualified and risky borrowers to take a loan with low interest rate. The brokers were getting rewarded for signing as many people, and the banks CEOs were getting rewarded for transfering the risky loans to bigger financial institutions, the bi institutions were selling the bad loans into the stokes markets, and they were getting a chunck of the rewards. Now the big financial institutions buying these stokes are claiming losses and they are getting a bailout for their stupidities. I, as a taxpayer are getting hit from different directions by the fraudulent brokers, fraudulant bankers, and fruadulant stoke exchange financial speculators. It is funny, how these sneakers manage to roll on my tax money takle many vacations while I am slaving for every penny and worrying about lossing my new house and more, suddenly the administration is giving out my tax to the very people victimising I and millions of others. And now I am getting to finance all those who benefited from this subprime market debacle. It is like the administration is rewarding thievery at my expense. I think the administration should not bailout these big finacial institutions. Let the market sort itself out. Recessions are expected in large economies like the US, if they come evey 15 years or so, its the natuire of the market. But bailingout these crooked speculators is not only wrong, but it is like rewarding a crime with money at the expense of the vitim.

L D Fraley  01/16/2008 02:38 PM Report

Mr Norris referred to the period leading up to WWI as a time of max free trade and that it did not resume until the 1990's. His comments on the characteristics of the earlier period would be interesting.

It is my understanding that the Industrial Revolution established England as the World's industrial manufacturer. They created free trade, utilizing the gold standard, to reach more markets. Their economy shifted from manufacturing to a transaction economy governed by the elite. (Inventors of major technical, patented devices were allowed to be buried as paupers).

Eventually, the transaction people traded their technical intelluctual property away. A major recipient was the USA operating in a protectionist mode. The USA became the world's largest market as it expanded West. England received very little of that market share even though their technology was a major influence. England has never regained it's former position.

One cannot help but to draw a parallel to the present USA free trading to a protected China.

JMan  01/15/2008 12:32 AM Report

Basically, I will echo butters sentiment and also say that if we keep propping up Wall Street and demanding that Main Street play along with no new incentives to grow, the middle class will say **** the system, and personally, I'll be happy to see it worse for everyone just to watch Wall Street suffer. We are in a war of ideas as Mises said; I certainly hope the establishment and the elite in the U.S. have the right idea about our future.

butters  01/14/2008 09:25 PM Report

As a very progressive independent, I'm deeply troubled by the protectionist sentiment gaining traction among anti-globalization Democrats and anti-immigration Republicans. The American consumer market is tapped out. If our economy is going to continue to grow and produce jobs, then we have to be competitive in the export market, and that means we should be working hard to reduce import tariffs and increase trade around the world.

Reagan's supply-side economics of propping up the business class is the primary reason why the American middle class is galvanizing against free trade. Globalization decouples corporations from the American economy, so the trickle-down effect no longer makes any sense (as if it ever did). Free trade can work for our domestic economy so long as we adopt the demand-side economic theory that focuses on strengthening the middle class.

Free trade has to work because protectionism can't. If America starts building walls around its economy, the rest of the world will follow suit, causing global recession and geopolitical conflict. Instead of blaming the developing world for our wealth distribution problem, we should tackle it directly. The tax code has gotten way too flat, and it should be substantially more progressive. All Americans should have universal, life-long access to healthcare, education, and job placement services.

Progressive policy should focus less on safety nets and more on upward mobility, less on entitlement and more on empowerment, less on handouts and more on opportunities. It should be about making sure that children born into unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances have the support they need to make a better life for themselves, that laid-off workers can go back to school and train for a new career, that underemployed workers can pursue other opportunities without worrying about their family's health coverage.

If we could solve those problems, then nobody would be complaining about globalization. We'd instead be excited about how, now that the middle class stands to participate in overall economic growth, pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty abroad will also lift the standard of living here at home. But if the middle class continues to see an inverse relationship between the fortunes of Wall Street and Main Street, then they are going to continue to rail against free trade even though the alternative is worse for everybody.