In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/9251
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
tartufe 01/11/2009 11:45 PM Report
Rubin is "bailing-out" of Citigroup. That's a start. Now if integrity and justice would do the same to Citi from the world it would be a better place. These scumbags went along way to creating the crisis we're in. Predatory CSs.
tartufe 12/10/2008 05:19 PM Report
To regain the world's confidence in the US financial system, systematic and thorough investigations of all potential perpetrators of this pandemic misery should be undertaken. Without such no one can be assured it wont happen again. Bailouts will assure it and without meaningful trials, fines and incarceration as an offset the moral hazard will return.
In this regard Robert Rubin and Citigroup are culpable and prime players in initiating the enabling legislation from repeal of Glass-Steagall, and overriding of states usury laws, to championing more stringent bankruptcy a la the infirm and unemployed ad nauseam.
Excerpt NY Times entitled "Where was the wise man?" Where indeed.: "Early in 2005, Citigroup’s board asked the C.E.O., Mr. Prince, and several top lieutenants to develop a growth strategy for its fixed-income business. Mr. Rubin peppered colleagues with questions as they formulated the plan, according to current and former Citigroup employees. With Citigroup falling behind Wall Street rivals like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, Mr. Rubin pushed for the bank to increase its activity in high-growth areas like structured credit.
He also encouraged Mr. Prince to raise the bank’s tolerance for risk, provided it also upgraded oversight. Then, according to current and former employees, he helped sell the proposal to his fellow directors.
On the surface, this appeared to be a sensible strategy. In hindsight, the timing could not have been worse: Citigroup was bulking up in mortgage-linked securities in 2006, not long before that market cratered."
Ostensibly Rubin and Citi broke no laws. He had them changed to avoid that. He only violated laws of common decency, equity and fair play. But that's OK in a predatory state. But do they buy that in Brazil? France? Congo?
In the US the prisons are full of druggers and petty thieves. A $700 heist of a convenience store puts you in the calaboose. A $0.7 trillion heist via hi-jacked legislation gets you accolades and a golden parachute. If hell is merely wishful thinking by us prey, where does retributive redemption come riding in on a gleaming manicured white charger to vanquish the predators?
Why isn't he in jail? Or someone? Is our culture / society so sick that they can manipulate the system so blatantly with impunity? Is there no court of moral turpitude that would have merit in civil law? So abusive and flagrant! Maybe we can do an OJ on him and lock him up in perpetuity for a parking ticket. He's not a nice man and I hope his yacht is springing a leak.
My emotive blogging made me forget the premise. Oh yeah, Amaral could you have him extradited to Brazil on 'crimes against humanity' down there and around the world?
This is for all those living under a bridge tonight because of Citigroup and Rubin et al. And they don't even know who to be angry at.
Ricardo222 11/30/2008 04:25 PM Report
Charlie:
As of the end of November, it's become clear that you owe your viewers (and yourself) a "mulligan" on this interview. These two guests were foxes in the Clinton henhouse, helping to deregulate and loosen government oversight at the end of the last century. We are reaping what they helped sow and you let them get away with the beginnings of what is turning into a massive cover-up by both Summers and Rubin.
In your next meeting with these two, please do some serious research. I'm not even in the business and I've gotten my hands on better information than you and your staff seem to have had at your September meeting.
Rubin has managed to help bring Citigoup to the brink of collapse (while stuffing his pockets with millions) and is currently embarked on a new career advising the president-elect. You tout the concept of "an informed electorate", as do your guests, but Rubin is neck-deep in a campaign of obfuscation and cover-up, based mostly, I suspect, in an effort to save his (undeserved in my opinion) reputation as some sort of saint and saviour. See Rubin's deliberate deceit in his WSJ interview in yesterday's paper. This is clearly an effort to cloud the eyes and ears of the American people (and Obama's people, more alarmingly!) so that they may continue to prosper while the entire system comes apart.
Now, your reputation is on the line, sir. You have the opportunity to show your viewers your talents as a journalist. Please open your eyes and do your job! We do not need any more cheerleaders in the media. Leave the adoration and grovelling to the faux professionals. But do it soon. The country needs help from people like you; Summers and Rubin are culprits, NOT saviours!
Rose Krumdieck 09/24/2008 01:44 AM Report
Charlie, Did I understand correctly that former Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, said Citigroup used the sovereign countries capital to divert a financial disaster for tyhe company? Has anyone thought that maybe the Islamic radicals can defeat us by undermining our financial systems and taking control of the banking sytstem? Possibly this could be more effective than a terrorist attack on the world trade center.
forbespd 09/23/2008 05:26 PM Report
Charlie,
You missed your chance when you interviewed Nassim Taleb (Black Swan). Had you done your homework and understood a fraction of what Taleb was saying (for the last 5 years), you would have been able to ask Rubin and Summers some serious questions- i.e. "how do you justify leveraging your company's balance sheet 30x when you do not really understand the security or systemic risks?" And you now perpetuate the illusion- after the fact- that we actually understand the risk and paths of complex human activity like derivatives and war.
Bob Acord 09/21/2008 10:11 PM Report
It would be interesting to have these two gentlemen return and speak to the US Treasury purchasing 600 billion dolars in bad loans.
ekacz 09/18/2008 04:14 AM Report
These guys are great,....! No mention at all of the policies they instituted and lobbied for during the Clinton admin, i.e., the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999,.... Clinton, Rubin, Weill and Greenspan are the main architects of first the Dotcom bubble, and now the credit crisis,.... Repealing this act was like giving the key to the hen-house to the wolves and was in part the reason the act was put in to place in 1933,.... The boom '90's was a result of Reagan's responsible deregulation in the '80's, and the crises in the '00's are a result of Clinton's irresponsible deregulation in the '90's,....
James Wilkinson-Ray 09/14/2008 12:48 PM Report
This clip has severe encoding errors late in the piece (>48-54)and needs to be re-encoded. BTW, thank goodness for Charlie Rose' program!
sock puppet 09/13/2008 09:16 PM Report
Bill Parks - know of a dude of that appelation from the KC area and recall that he was an economist of note and erudite beyond my bounds (which I am about to prove).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
I was under the impression that the Federal Reserve (FR) created money at interest and set the interbank lending rates in the process. The banks designated as National (Citigroup et al) have to dance to the FR tune. Your discourse seemed to suggest that interest wasn't necessary. But by definition doesn't the time-value of money have to be factored in somewhere in the process? (Interest reflects our mortality, right? If we lived indefinitely, time thus interest would be meaningless. Too philosophical.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
That aside, I simplistically want to blame the FR for not imposing a simple regulation of requiring a ratio of a range of 4 or 5 to 1 of Income : Mtg (princ+int+taxes) to be eligible for putting them on the so-called secondary market as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
Lastly, politics seems a diversion as we drive off the cliff. Neither candidate / party will have the cajones to staunch the hemorhaging wound of lobbying a la M-I complex, Blackwater, Halliburton, Bear-Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, GM, Ford, Chrysler, yadda, yadda ad nauseam.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Aren't we trading the potential bankruptcy of the several for the many (namely the treasury), when our 'paper' becomes devalued internationally? Create more by printing (on banana pulp), with spiraling MARKET-DRIVEN interest rates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Forgot why I'm here. Oh yeah, the Feds culpability. Pls dont disabuse me of the pleasure of holding them primarily responsible for diaper rash, small animal abuse and our financial chaos. Thanks.
TABS 09/13/2008 08:45 PM Report
Dear Preston: If Mr Rubin's looks are any indication of the financial health of Citi, then Citi is nearly BK. Mr Rubin is lookin like a cadaver.
charles 09/13/2008 06:48 PM Report
After all of the utterly shameful and ridiculous behavior of NBC and many other news outlets lately, I am again reminded of how fortunate we all are to have a Charlie Rose out there. Whatever your politics, you can watch a show like this containing 2 respected and respecful professionals, both of the same party, and listen to an intelligent articulation of our issues rather than a bunch of jive, and more hack politics. We all have a huge decision to make, lets use the facts rather than Keith Olberman's simple minded grandstanding and riduculous notion of filling Russert's shoes. Thank you Charlie Rose.
Preston 09/13/2008 01:54 PM Report
So I guess all the Democrats have to do is tickle the baby-boomers with a feather and they will magicly clone themselves IMMEDIATELY, and buy more houses and stocks?... Instead of waiting for it to happen naturally, like the lame Republicans, just caring about trying to "stabilize" the rest of the world for future economic growth... God! I'm so shallow!
Richard 09/13/2008 09:11 AM Report
John,
Larry Summers said "Perils of Pauline". He is referring to a movie serial of the same name from the 30s or 40s. It was called a "cliff hanger". Each episode ended with something awful about to happen to Pauline (e.g. tied to a train track with the train bearing down). And in the next episode Pauline was rescued in the nick of time.
John 09/12/2008 11:18 PM Report
Anyone know what Mr. Summers says at 39:33? It sounds like "Pauline." Sometimes people use the word "Pauline" as an adjective to describe something which relates to St. Paul. I'm not sure I see the relevance in this case. Anyone?
Bill Parks 09/12/2008 10:14 PM Report
The economic crisis boils down to who issues America’s money supply – the federal government or a privately owned banking system. If the federal government issues our money, it can extend the money into the economy as loans using the interest as revenue, it can spend money directly into the economy for programs and projects without taxation increasing the money supply without inflation, and it can stabilize the money supply by fine-tuning taxation – the money creation process benefits American citizens. If a private banking system issues the money, they can only issue money as debt, their creating money for the interest payments produce a pyramid or Ponzi scheme and all that goes with it – the money creation process benefits only the bankers. The choice is ours.
Bill Parks 09/12/2008 09:47 PM Report
Neil, maybe you’re right, since we don’t have any inflation now, and the $500 billion federal deficit and $10.6 trillion debt aren’t problems to bother our heads about, and nobody losing their stuff because there isn’t enough money in the economy to repay their debt, and the banking industry isn’t collapsing as we speak, and short selling currency derivatives aren’t well known so it can’t be an issue, and foreign investors won’t pull their capital out of our economy just because they can get a better return elsewhere, and nobody should worry about our currency losing its value, and everything will be just fine if I just use fewer words.
jason 09/12/2008 06:59 PM Report
Rubin and Summers both agreed we have a huge asset bubble (overvaluation) which is driven by derivatives (NOT subprime). They got it totally right. However, their solutions are:
1. fiscal stimulus including tax rebate to people who don't pay taxes (income redistribution), government legislation to prevent foreclosure of housing (thus creating a government subsidy on housing and let the housing bubble continues).
2. tax hike. Summers blamed the current account deficit solely on Bush's tax cut and wanted to reverse tax cut (meaning raise taxes on people who pay most of the taxes). given the current economic downturn, how does more taxes to take away people hard earned income helps?
3. healthcare and all sorts of "reforms", meaning more taxes to fund the government program.
so, in a nutshell, if Rubin and Summers had their way, the best economic system is to tax more and let government spend your hard earned money. According to Summers (who has a PhD in economics from Harvard and is currently teaching at Harvard), this is also Barrack Obama's economic thinking (another Harvard man). So, when you vote for Barrack Obama this November, please also include your wallet, your paycheck, your hard earned savings, your everything...... LOL
Kurt 09/12/2008 06:37 PM Report
Why do we need higher taxes in the long term? Couldn't a more balanced budget also be achieved with lower govt. spending? The general idea of more long term fiscal responsibility seems right, but why is the left leaning solution preferred? I agree, we need to educate ourselves on this, but are Thomas Freidman and a pair of Clinton advisers the most objective?
lynn bard 09/12/2008 02:14 PM Report
We are in terrible trouble. I, too, would like to know why all media are not putting these economic realities factually and truthfully before the eyes of the American people. Our problems go way beyond politics and political parties and worthless money and gold too. No propaganda can convince me that gold has any value as a means of exchange. We do need to go forward, we need to progress. We need to learn from the past and recognize and own up to learn from our mistakes. History has much value. It is easy to say greed is at the bottom of all this. I don't think this is true. The lust is for power and control over people and everything. Those that want it will use our accepted means of exchange, whatever it may be, as part of their means to their end--ultimate power and control. If you have the clear headedness enough to think all this through and you can come up with a more sensible conclusion,I would love to hear it. Capitalism is based on a faulty premise. It is a predatory system. Why bother to try to fix it. Are we not intelligent enough to come up with something better? Are we not intelligent enough to see we need to work towards economic EQUALITY. Life does not have to be a continual struggle just for survival, does it? Well does it? We can do better than being a debtor nation can't we. Well can't we???? It does not have to be survival of the fittest. The bullies and the predators are in control and many have willingly joined in and look where we are. Summers and Rubin were very interesting to listen to. I was chagrined that they are unwilling to take any responsibility or admit they made mistakes. They are unwilling to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They are big time COWARDS. There is very little credibility out there anywhere. Disgusting, shameful and totally frightening and morally sickening, the state we are in. Not everybody is fooled. Not everybody is morally corrupt. I am so tired of the bs and lies. I am tired of politicians and politics and corruption. Thanks Charlie for giving us the opportunity to see all these people for who they really are. Now even you look frightened to me these days as you are learning for yourself that we have plenty of people who are adept at screwing things up royally, but few who have any sensible, responsible ideas of how to fix it. When will enough people come to the realization that getting a gun and shooting it isn't working either.
Aloke 09/12/2008 10:29 AM Report
The country was better off when these gentlemen were running the institutions, compared to the last 8 years under the supply-siders.
Game, set and match. End of story.
Roy Fassel 09/12/2008 09:58 AM Report
Rubin and Summers are two of the best economic thinkers of our time. Both have a different economic vision than current Bush policies. Rubin was sitting at the head table of Citicorp during the whole housing bubble. Rubin acknowledged that he did not see it coming. He implies he was not in the trenches. Therefore it must all be Bush’s faults. Summers stated that when he turned over his post after the 2000 elections, he warned his successor about the problems of the Fannie and Genny. Why didn’t he address it when he could have? The most important part of this interview is that both state “they don’t know” and that all things today are interconnected internationally. The real homerun was they agreed that it is impossible to address these demanding issues politically anymore. That is where America is today. To address the economic issues and correct policies, parties and policies would have to state things and do things which would make them totally unelectable. That is what happens to democracies. Citicorp, Rubin's firm was one of the leading players in the housing bubble. And he has answers? Both of these very good people were pimping for Obama during the whole interview. But it was informative. Thanks Charlie. Your show is the best.
TABS 09/12/2008 05:40 AM Report
What people have to remember with these two guyz, is that they are Clintonites and are auditioning for a role to play in an Obama Presidency. Neither one is telling ya anything new. It is just establishment boiler plate that passes for conventional wisdom.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Mr Rubin says that the next government is going to have "to start with a "fiscal framework, because it is going to be very tempting for people (A Democratic Congress)to do the things they want to do without figuring out how to pay for them because figuring out how to pay for them is going to be very difficult." So solve the problem, by electing John McCain to hold their feet to the fire.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Mr Rubin didn't see the "perfect storm" coming. Anybody who had been around the boom and bust cycles of California RE could see this "perfect storm" coming from a mile away. To quote "Ace" Rothstein, "Either he was too dumb to see it coming or he was in on it, either way he is out." You have lost credibility Mr Rubin.
sock puppet 09/12/2008 04:14 AM Report
Some of the most intelligent CR posting ever. The 'experts' used the refrain you "can't deny arithmetic." But 4th grade arithmetic is exactly what they did deny. Had the ratio of Income : Mortgage of 4 or 5 : 1 been applied the mess could have been avoided. The other grade school lesson would be to not pervert the language. In this instance not to call something collateralized when it isn't as in "collaterized debt obligations." Intentionally misleading. Also grade school letter selection by rating agencies where instead of AAA it should have been XXX as in expect a good screwin would have helped.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________
Another refrain was "fiscal stimulus" needed to assist in recovery. This would merely strain an already overextended treasury. Putting a cap on consumer and credit card interest rates would infuse the economy immediately. A multiple of the prime rate perhaps, not to exceed say 35%. Not the predatory 300% and up. But Mrs Rubin's boy Bobby aint gonna endorse that. Especially with Citigroup - one of the most egregiously greedy scumbag, puppy-kicking institutions extant and deserve to belly up. They all smugly exploit human frailties with such arrogant entitlement, it has a poetic justice irony that they've bled the economic life from everyone and virtually collapsed their own system. Kudos to Walt Kelly who penned through Pogo, "We have met the enemy and it is us." Us in this case is the financial industry, and it's wise-guys. Citigroup in particular.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Talk about deserving to fail. Which brings up Summers theme on a system that allows failure. In a possible real scenario we could be transferring these mismanaged financial institutions failures to the failure of the treasury. Treating it like it's a bottomless pocketbook could expose our immaturity to the rest of the world to the point that they no longer view our treasury notes etc as viable and secure and reallocate their investments elsewhere. We would then be forced to raise interest rates, print money, ramp inflation and start selling our euphemistic bananas.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
Neither mentioned lobbyists. Our treasury nor our system will survive lobbyists. The M-I complex, Blackwater, Halliburton et al ad nauseam will bleed it like the addiction it is. And the venal-whores it's purchased from will not change despite the bloviating of both candidates about CHANGE.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Greed may make capitalism work, egregious greed may make it fail. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Regulations are needed to curb the egregious part of the inclination. A start would require sound financial ratios to be in place before allowing the placing of any financial instrument on the secondary market. Anything less you own it (a la the pottery shop analogy).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Lastly as a real deterrent from kicking the moral hazard can down the road, make all golden parachutists return the money plus interest plus 10% and spend REAL public service time (2 yrs?) in the poor areas (they helped create) or at least 6 months in jail. Start with my Mssrs Rubin and Prince of Citigroup, then Mr. Dimon and on and on. Future wise-guy CEOs would monitor the 'egregious' factor with the zeal of an evangelical. Alas, none of this will happen!
RE Mant 09/12/2008 12:21 AM Report
It seems as if Rubin and Summers want it both ways: they want a short-term bailout, but not a long-term one; they want fiscal discipline, but they want infrastructure, healthcare and other programs. These would have been reasonable in the 30s, and in fact were done then. But where they say that the current situation is in no way as problematic as the Depression, I think it is in many ways potentially far worse. In the Depression we were still in a much stronger position vis-a-vis the rest of the world than we are today, with respect to money (gold), oil and resources in particular. Our situation was like Japan's in the 90s, a strong mercantilist suddenly without markets. WWII restored our mkts. The postwar period saw no depression because those mkts continued and we were smart enough this time to subsidize them, which we did not do after WWI, tho this was done mainly as a Cold War measure. But it was a program we followed much too long, and can no longer afford. We have also spent far too much on war and defense. Today our position is more like it was in the 1790s with no money, no industry, poor education. We still had our virtue in the 1930s, but we've lost it in the interim, and the shoe is on the other foot. To summarize: what we need to do is stop "printing" money in all its forms and spending it on stuff from overseas, at least without reciprocity, save, balance our budget, pay for our wars, or not fight them, and re-educate our ppl in the ethos and practice of self-reliance and community. McCain was right when he said the Republicans were elected to do this, but didn't deliver. The problem has not gone unrecognized, just unattended, but I see no sign of miraculous intercession in the other party as yet, just the parroted msg that we will all be changed.
Neil MacCallister 09/12/2008 12:12 AM Report
Gee, Bill, ..that's a whole lot of words to say, "Just print a bunch of new bills to pay your debts, and buy new stuff, too." I think that is called inflation and everybody loses (..even the person printing the bills!) What other ideas do you have?
justin schachtman 09/11/2008 11:59 PM Report
I've contacted you guys before, love what Rose does...almost all the time. But seriously, how about having some libertarians on the show to talk about the rediculous nature of the level of government intervention in the creation of this economic problem and its 'solutions' for this economic problem. And lets ask where would our society be if we hadn't created this bubble: where would our oil usage be, what would the auto industry have looked like today, what would suburbia have looked like today, what would cities look like today, what would our domestic infrastructure look like today if we hadn't relied on all these false mechanisms for growth...?
And in the end, after all this intervention to create and then deflate this bubble, who suffers, the rich, the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, and what does an actual principled and rational america look like and how far away are we from that.
P.S. I have recieved the form thank you letter from you guys before, I'd love an actual response...please pass this along to Mr. Rose.
Thank you again for your great show and your providing the material free of charge online, really really really really cool. THANKS!
sincerely, Justin Schachtman
Bill Parks 09/11/2008 11:21 PM Report
Dear Mr. Rose,
This economic mess is a self-inflicted wound, a wound that is easily healed once you address the cause of the difficulty: privatized money!
With the exception of coins, the entire US money supply is created by a privately owned banking system, a system Composed of the Federal Reserve and its member banks and other lending institutions, the money created out of nothing, written in banks’ ledgers or typed into their computers, extended into the economy as interest laden debt as the principal of government bond and private loans of all types, including credit card debts. The Banks create only the principal of the loans, but no money to pay the interest, interest payments drawn from the money supply, leaving insufficient money in the money supply to repay the principal, Creating an impossible contract (when viewed as a collective whole), guaranteeing that many loans and mortgages will be forced into default. Banks originate more and larger loans, making up the short fall, keeping the system from self-destructing, giving the illusion of financial stability, all the while, creating a growing pyramid of debt – the current banking system is operating as a pyramid or Ponzi Scheme.
The remedy for the nations economic problem is the US government must issue all money, in all forms of legal tender: public money.
According to a ruling of the US Supreme Court in Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884),the US Government has the authority and the power to create money in all its forms, that authority being inherent in the sovereignty of America. Unlike government-issued bond, Government-issued money (Green Back notes) would not create new debt, obviating the need for a national debt.
The national debt can be eliminated by simply substituting US government-issued notes for the US government-issued bonds. Both these bond and notes are forms of money; they are interchangeable without a change in value, differing only in that bonds are interest laden debts and notes are debt and interest free. The following example may clarify the point:
If you have a portfolio with $10,000 in stocks and $10,000 in US government-issued bonds, the total value of your portfolio is $20,000. If the government substituted $10,000 US government-issued notes for the US government-issued bond, the total value of your portfolio is still $20,000. There is no net change in value.
Paying the national debt, in this manner, would save US taxpayers $500 billion in the next fiscal year, balancing the national budget.
At the same time, we need new laws requiring all lending institutions to have 100% reserves for their loan and mortgages. The US government can issue money, at interest, to banks to meet their reserve requirements, the interest going to run the government.
The US government can both issue money and spend it directly into the economy for programs and projects, its spending without taxation – the spending replacing the money taken from the money supply to pay interest on bank loans and mortgages, new money adjusting the money supply to population growth stimulating economic growth and creating a stable currency without inflation.
don bruce 09/11/2008 10:30 PM Report
charlie:
excellent discussions by Lawrence Sumner. I am glad you attempted to engage Robert Ruben in his "failure to see" what was coming...i still think he was somehwat asleep at the wheel.
Given that your audience is relatively small, the larger question is why cannot the major media channels deliver this quality of discussion for the general american public...it is tragic what I am seeing for the coverage in major media..
Neil MacCallister 09/11/2008 08:53 PM Report
“Greed”, Emile? ..You want to stop “greed’? Hey, now there is a “plan we can believe in!”
A truer plan would be to reduce the quantity of susceptible food sources upon which that “cancer of greed” can grow, and that is: “cheap government money”. I do not see that "Change" being dicussed, especially by Sen. Obama. We have had a "growing" public-employee workforce since the "New Deal" of 1932, ..and Barack has already declared he will provide more "public service" jobs (..government jobs!) along with more "public sector" entitlements. While public service is a fine thing, ..having half of America's workers dependent upon (non-market driven) public sector paychecks is a "dead-end" for American employment. The "Change" that is coming (..whether we like it or not) is the shedding of our "national" economy, with its local jobs and markets, ..and a widening up to the larger global economy. There is no "decision to support the poor", or "Constitutional amendment for equality", which is going to put money in our pockets. That will come from our being capable and competitive participants in the new "changed" global market economy. Are we worried for more Bear-Stearns bankruptcies? ..or Fannie and Freddie's?? I'll bet it would be found that as government "supports" and "guarantees" are increased, the chances of the target company going bankrupt rises equally (.."Guaranteed money is the first to be corrupted"!!) In fact, ..Let's STOP the change from a private enterprise and open market, to this "new" government based employment and sales market. I don't want to depend upon a national vote to tell me what house I will live in!
Dr. Emile Piscitelli 09/11/2008 07:27 PM Report
Just a note: Greed is not just pursuing your reasonable self-interest. It involves ignoring the common good or allowing your uncontrolled desire for wealth to trump all other considerations. So greed is an economic disease. It is a cancer on the economy. A little bit of greed like a little bit of cancer is not a good thing. It will get out of control and destroy the economic system. How long will it take for us to learn this lesson?
Nancy 09/11/2008 06:01 PM Report
I don't think economics, walk economics, or talk economics. But I become engrossed, listening and conceptualizing. I've read a few of your viewers comments and I have to laugh when I read into the politics. One would think that the only people who watch Charlie Rose are Republican's, those who detest Charlie, and those who would likely openly claim to be enemies of Charlie’s guests. Might I suggest these brave people who don't have to show their face gain the credibility to become a guest and then enlighten us with something constructive. Let me guess, some of your viewers stand strong on the side of deregulation and they still support the current administration.
MotherLodeBeth 09/11/2008 06:00 PM Report
One can wonder if the country would still have been in good shape had GWB not been elected had we still been attacked on 9/11, poured money into a war in Afghanistan, and continued the bombing of Iraq as the Clinton administration had been doing. As I recall the Clinton administration wasn't doing much to deal with energy issues, or changing the housing laws so that subprime loans wouldn't be legal. These issues are issues we need to be discussed in NON sound bite discussions between Obama and McCain. Instead of pointing fingers and rehashing the past and playing the political blame game.............
The questions are. With China and even Arab nations lending the country money to keep our system afloat, where in the heck do we get the so called money to stimulate the economy? ...........And when are we going to have some honest talk about paying for programs with real money and not credit debt which will be getting paid off well into the life of my grandchildren and the children of today?
Nancy 09/11/2008 05:59 PM Report
I don't think economics, walk economics, or talk economics. But I become engrossed, listening and conceptualizing. I've read a few of your viewers comments and I have to laugh when I read into the politics. One would think that the only people who watch Charlie Rose are Republican's, those who detest Charlie, and those who would likely openly claim to be enemies of Charlie’s guests. Might I suggest these brave people who don't have to show their face gain the credibility to become a guest and then enlighten us with something constructive. Let me guess, some of your viewers stand strong on the side of deregulation and they still support the current administration.
Nancy 09/11/2008 05:58 PM Report
I don't think economics, walk economics, or talk economics. But I become engrossed, listening and conceptualizing. I've read a few of your viewers comments and I have to laugh when I read into the politics. One would think that the only people who watch Charlie Rose are Republican's, those who detest Charlie, and those who would likely openly claim to be enemies of Charlie’s guests. Might I suggest these brave people who don't have to show their face gain the credibility to become a guest and then enlighten us with something constructive. Let me guess, some of your viewers stand strong on the side of deregulation and they still support the current administration.
Vinod kumar a 09/11/2008 05:56 PM Report
#1 charlie is very genuinely concerned about what next president ought to be told about economy. #2 charlie did not get +++ rating and was corrected by one of 2 speakers. #3 both speakers agreed so many times, that it was kind of two people with one mind! But charlie is a great interviewer. I watch it almost regularly on pbs. It,s one of my favorites on pbs.
sock puppet 09/11/2008 05:13 PM Report
One of the more poignant posts as much for content as the 'contendairre.' No airs of pretension and yet had a wisdom comparable to the pundits.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
Comment by ron on Thursday, Sep 11 at 04:44 AM
Neil MacCallister 09/11/2008 04:41 PM Report
What is "the trouble", as you see it, Don, ..who is that "Leader that we need"? ..and what do you want that leader to do about the problem that you see?
Neil MacCallister 09/11/2008 04:16 PM Report
Gee, ..I stayed up to hear 2 "gentlemen of economics", but received only these 2 Obama disciples: Estragon and Vladimir ("I have a rock in my shoe." .."Take it out." .."I should, but on the other hand, it is very complicated. I will wait for Obama.") When Mr. Rose inquired as to America's standing among nations, Mr. Rubin offered that: "We are in the best position." ..but he then added that: "There is a big problem, that we need to address, but it is very small and difficult to see." Mr. Summers agreed: "It is very complicated, ..someone should do something." Mr. Rose kindly hinted he may see Mr. Paulson coming to the table soon. Let's hope Hank brings answers "We can believe in", ..and we will leave these 2 gentlemen "Waiting for Obama".
don bruce 09/11/2008 04:16 PM Report
Charlie:
thank goodness someone from the media is bringing these critical thinkers on important issues to us. The rest seem obsessed by pregnancies and lip stick comments...save us from the sensationalist and trivial coverage by mainstream media...lawrence sumners has some important messages for the public, namely WE ARE IN TROUBLE and need serious leadership.....
don bruce 09/11/2008 04:11 PM Report
Lawrence Sumners comments are incredibly clear and desperately needed by this country...why the rest of the media has consistently failed to bring serious discussion before the public is a travesty...instead we find endless nonsense about the lipstick comment...holy cow..we are in trouble as a nation, as so well put by Sumners YET the media is paying zero attention to this...thank god charlie rose is doing his job....
don bruce 09/11/2008 04:11 PM Report
Lawrence Sumners comments are incredibly clear and desperately needed by this country...why the rest of the media has consistently failed to bring serious discussion before the public is a travesty...instead we find endless nonsense about the lipstick comment...holy cow..we are in trouble as a nation, as so well put by Sumners YET the media is paying zero attention to this...thank god charlie rose is doing his job....
Elliot Kralj 09/11/2008 04:05 PM Report
Dear Mr. Rose:
Thank you very much for discussing our economy last night with Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Please continue to host guests who examine topics meaningful to our society that the corporate media who monopolize/capitalize our airwaves chronically ignore.
diane 09/11/2008 03:42 PM Report
One more thing: You can say what you want about Charlie Rose and his lack of economic sophistication, but keep in mind he is not an economist. He is a television host. He is, however, providing one of the very few - if not the only - forum for what could be the only serious public and televised discussions of one of the most potentially disastrous problems facing America and indeed the world: the hijacking of our financial and economic systems by chicanery-practicing amoral financiers.
diane 09/11/2008 03:31 PM Report
re: Nicholas Biddle's comment:
Fascism by its purest definition is corporatism, according to the ideology's most well-known adherent, Benito Mussolini.
Mary Ann 09/11/2008 02:57 PM Report
Apparently I'm in the minority, but I thought the Rubin-Summers interview was fascinating, informative and important. Thanks! BTW: Reading the above emails, I was amazed that you have so many viewers who know more about the subject than either Rubin or Summers! That's impressive!
Nicholas Biddle 09/11/2008 02:53 PM Report
A "uniquely American" form of fascism. You all can't seem to get beyond the fact that these guys wear suits and speak in complete sentences. Aren't fascists supposed to wear uniforms?
According to Rubin the problem cannot be solved by our current political system and the president has to join with the House and Senate to come up with a multi-year plan that includes austerity measures. Wondeful. Effectively a one party rule. Maybe they can come up with a "5 year plan" at a meeting in Beijing. They love communism in China.
I wonder if those austerity measures, those "entitlements" that Rubin referred to, includes the unconscionable military spending? Bet it doesn't. Or how about Fed Reserve printing presses bailing out the Manhattan bankers and invisibly taxing the average Joe? Bet it doesn't
The fact that social security funds have been sucked up to Manhattan leaving the little old ladies to eat dog food doesn't seem to bother Rubin. They weren't entitled to that entitlement anyway. He helped steal their money, now he wants to make sure he doesn't have to pay to replace it.
And don't give me this silly Democrat-Republican nonsense. At the top, they're all part of the same band of thieves. Their paychecks all come from the same Manhattan banks.
Summers says the system has to be preserved? What system is that exactly? The unaccountable financial system? Isn't that what got the country into this mess in the first place? Wonderful system: The thieves get to keep their loot and the victims get punished. The USA is a completely lawless society. As Jim Rogers said the other day, it's more communist than China.
Walter 09/11/2008 02:46 PM Report
are we tired of being stupid yet?
CarolC 09/11/2008 02:16 PM Report
Dear Charlie, Being an avid student of history and politics, but not really versed in economics, I found this show interesting and informative. I really appreciate your presenting these very complicated issues in a way that cannot be accomplished in campaign ads and news sound bites. Whether one supports the views of your guests or not, the main point that I came away with is that the problems facing our country are grave and we will need a really intellectually gifted person to sort through the problems and steer the country back towards economic stability and prosperity. When corporate America hires someone, they always ask for a resume...not a bad practice. Perhaps American voters should look at our candidates the same way. Though neither one of our candidates are intellectually challenged, it’s clear that there are differences in their grasp of a variety of issues that will affect not only us, but our children and our grandchildren. When I look at the two candidates, I can't help but put my faith in the guy who was at the top of his class at Harvard as opposed to the guy at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.
Dr. Emil J. Piscitelli 09/11/2008 02:12 PM Report
Wow, I am amazed at how many of the comments I find myself agreeing with. I could not have criticized Rubin and Summers better than the comments listed here. Both of these guys are failures, high paid failures. And the comment about the greed and corruption in the system was right on target, Enron being only the grossest of examples. The secondary mortgage market allowed the bankers to displace the risk away from themselves so that they did not care whether the mortgagees defaulted since they no longer held the mortgages. The dummies were the folks like Rubin who went for the quick buck and then tried to sell off the bundled mortgages to sovereign funds telling them they were triple A rated. The man is a charlatan. He knew very well what he was doing. This “Perfect Storm” metaphor he loves to use is a red herring. It’s his way of refusing to take responsibility. Why is it that these “free marketers” want the market to discipline everyone but themselves when they fail to deliver? They have their “golden parachutes.” They end up with hundreds of millions of dollars no matter what they produce!
The “free” in free markets does not mean totally uncontrolled. It is not a matter of controls or no controls. It’s a matter of the right controls that bring about fair results. Summers is prevaricating when he pretends that you can’t balance real risk with the freedom of the investor to take on greater risk for a greater reward. Balance has nothing to do with it. If you know you are taking on a high risk investment, it is your choice but if you are lied to about the risk, then the liar should be liable and your choice is based on a dishonest rating. This is not the meaning of “free” in free and open markets. Charlie does not recognize the fallacies! He is in over his head and he is being buffaloed by these phony “experts” with failed records. Unfortunately politics cannot be separated from economics because economies are part of the political reality. The fact is most politicians understand very little economics and that includes another charlatan the fast talking Bill Clinton. But that is another story. One thing Summers said is true: These economic crises have occurred in every administration for the last 25 years. The conclusion is there is something that needs fixing in the financial system which Americans have predicated not on free markets but on greed and turning a blind eye to corruption until it’s impossible to ignore. The people are always the victims. Until the people wake up and become educated, we have to rely on luck. But our luck is running out. The media needs to get educated before they can educate the people. If our universities are as great as some claim they are, why are so many of our leaders who were educated in them such jerks?
SteveR 09/11/2008 12:33 PM Report
Whether or not these two men hold any culpability for current crisis is a debate worth having, but it isn't the main point of the interview. The main line of discussion Charlie went after was a)what are the potential outcomes of the current crisis, and b) what should policy makers be doing.
It shocks me that fiscal "conservatives" on this board are still advocating a McCain presidency and a doubling down on the disastrous Republican party-led policy of the last 8 years. What is "conservative" about running huge deficits, failing to regulate our foundational institutions, and allowing our investment in critical infrastructure elements (upon which the US economy depends) like education and transportation and alternative energy.
That's not "conservative", its greedy, cynical, and short sighted. No winning argument (liberal or conservative) can be made without the demonstration of a deep understanding of how our existing policies have completely failed the country, and a prescription for a radical departure from the status quo. It's an insult to suggest that McCain's campaign is demonstrating either.
The guests advocated finding a bi-partisan process for making short and long term policy course corrections that admit a) current spend and borrow policy is an epic mistake that has 0% of chance of success in the long run - the balance sheet must be fixed. and that b) we are going to have to make some hard decisions which will require leadership, trust, and communication with the American people. Can't we all agree with them on that?
If the Republicans continue the policy of unwise tax cuts for the wealthy and lies and culture wars to win over 51% of the rest of the electorate, they will have earned no moral mandate from which to go out and effectively lead the nation out of this deep recession. The campaign they are running demonstrates that are ipso facto incapable of governing.