On GPS this Sunday at 10a.m. ET/PT, making sense of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Who are they and what do they want? Fareed explores the macro picture with an all-star panel: Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media and former U.S. presidential candidate Steve Forbes; Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman; Chrystia Freeland from Reuters and Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal.
Also on the show: Prince Turki al-Faisal is the former head of Saudi intelligence and a former ambassador to both the UK and the U.S. His thoughts on the Osama bin Laden he knew, the war on terror, Obama’s presidency and reform in the Kingdom.
Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman on Occupy Wall Street's "positive contribution" to society:
Paul Krugman: We are just three years after the greatest banking crisis since the 1930s. I think it was brought on by excesses on the part of the financial industry and the financial industry was bailed out at the public's expense and risk and yet we're still in an economic crisis. And somehow the discussion of who are these guys, why are we supporting them, why haven't they paid more for this, what are the reforms that's going to stop this from happening again, all that disappeared from the debate.
We have been arguing about who's going to cut Social Security and what about that budget deficit? And we lost the whole thread of the core issue in our society right now. And these protesters, who are a mix of all sorts of people, suddenly brought that back into the center of our national debate. And that's an enormously positive contribution.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
The only way to reduce the enormous budget deficit is to stop all these useless wars that we're in, make very deep budget cuts in the military and make the rich pay their share of the taxes. It's too bad that most people don't have enough sense to realize this simple fact and I find that to be most disgusting that it's being ignored.
Infowars/Paul Craig Roberts/America is truly being destroyed
The panel discussion today, the 16th, recalled a central theme in the book by Ron Suskind about Paul O'Neill, George W's first Treasury Secretary: ideology is the enemy of analysis. No one on the panel really considered anything anyone else had to say that didn't conform to their own economic ideology. Why are they surprised government isn't working when they approach the problem the same way: apparently they would rather die defending their beliefs than entertain any modification based on an unprecedented and unanticipated situation.
When the british economist said spending more will create jobs was said in an environment where england produced most of the products. We are only stimulating China, India and other countries.
Mr. Zakariah,
I very much enjoyed the debate between Steve Forbes and Paul Krugman. Your program is excellent. I wish, however, that I could have asked a follow up question of Mr. Krugman after he ended the program with his concern over the collapse of the Euro. Mr. Krugman, would you agree that the reason the Euro is failing is due to excessive government debt incurred by several of its member states – that is excessive relative to the size of their economies? The obvious answer is, of course, yes. If so, then doesn't it follow that for Europe to right its economic situation, it must reduce spending to a more sustainable level and stop running up more debt? And, if that is the case, why should the US build its debt load to the same levels and beyond in an effort to stimulate its economy?
Europe is in trouble precisely because it has followed the Socialist/Keynesian model of massive social spending, suffocating taxes and the inevitable massive debt that must necessarily follow. The problem is excessive government spending in those European economies that are failing. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and ultimately the rest of Europe will collapse under the weight of their excessive government spending, if they don't immediately start to cut the size and scope of their governments' imprint on their economies. This means spending must fall, taxes must fall and the size of their huge debt loads must fall – and fall quickly – unless the entire Euro economic community wants to see their populations in abject misery in pretty short order.
It sounded to me that Mr, Krugman suggests the US should follow the same failed model. The TEA Party arose in the US precisely becuase they saw how these same idiot policies were going to destroy the United States. The TEA Party is made up primarily of middle-class Americans who instinctively know that they will ultimately be stuck with the tab for massive government spending – either through higher taxes now – or higher taxes later to pay off the massive debts being run up in the name of "social justice" and Keynesian economics. The Occupy Wall Street movement, on the other hand, are people who want the government to do more for them – cancel their debts, save the whales, string up the bankers – and give them a job. The TEA Party movement actually wants the federal government to do less for them – not more. This is the fundamental difference between the two movements. TEA Party sympathizers know they will be the ones stuck with the bill for providing the "free lunches" demanded by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Taxes paid by hard working Americans will be spent to clean up after the rabble has had their say.
It is obvious winning Nobel prizes is not that difficult, if Paul Krugman has one. This is the same outfit that gave Al Gore a Nobel prize for his global warming diatribe and gave one to Barrack Obama before he had ever accomplished anything. Nevertheless, it is obvious, despite Mr. Krugman's protestations to the contrary, his policies have never worked. Any intellectually honest analysis of FDR's alphabet soup of government programs coupled with the high taxes enacted during his tenure prolonged the Great Depression. Yet, Mr. Krugman insists that more spending, higher taxes and giving people money to do nothing productive will somehow magically stimulate the economy. It won't and if his model holds sway in the next election, Europe's problems will inevitably be visited upon our shores. God Help US.
Scott C.
Usually I agree with Prof. Krugman, but here he is clearly wrong. The lesser depression of 2009 is still going on because too many households are saddled with too much debt and as long as they want to pay it off, demand will be in a slump. Krugman has fought for a big stimulus package since day one of the crisis and he predicted in 2009 that ARRA would be too small to get the US out of the rut. It's only one of many things but there were hundreds of thousands of teachers fired over the last two years because of cash strapped local goverments. Congress could have and should have spent much more to counterbalance the desire to spend less by millions of households. President Obama was too cautios in 2009 and his hands are bound now because of that Tea Partiers now in the House.
But what could the banks do today to help the economy? Nothing. It's all politics. Only the federal government is not debt constrained. Mortgage relief, infrastructure building, education expansion – everything that creates jobs, congress can enact in a matter of days. They (mostly the republicans) won't, because they want the economy come election day to be as bad as possible so that Obama does not get reelected. If a republican were in the WH, we would already haven seen the mother of all stimulus packages being passed in January this year.
Johann, I can't tell what you disagree about with Professor Krugman. He has made numerous references to the debt overhang on his blog and has gone into detail discussions of Koo's concept of a "Balance sheet" recession.
You seem to be on the same page about everything. (As am I).
The 15 October 2011 was an international day of protests, inspired by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. All over the world in over 900 cities across Asia, Australia and Europe, people took to the streets. While in most European countries protests were peaceful, in Itlaly they turned violent. In Germany protesters voiced their discontent to bail ailing economies like Greece out. In Switzerland only those who don't work in the financial services expressed their sympathy.
Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary to the Treasurer under the Ronald Reagan administration, would have been an exceptional guest on this show. It's a shame he's banned from main stream media.
Non of the pannelist asks the obvious question: WHY DID BANKERS MAKE SUCH LOUSY LOANS? The answer is very simple: Lots of high interest loans, plus their "derivatives", created enormous short term profits which inflated the value of shares. Bankers were being paid outrageously to make stock prices go up as much and as quickly as possible. They cashed in their bonuses and stock options before their crazy loans crashed the system. They figured they could keep doing it as long as real estate prices kept going up and even foreclosures were profitable. What would happen after they began deflating was for the Board to worry about later on. Meanwhile they took their "compensation" (and occasionally, their "golden parachutes") in their private jets to their Bahamas palaces.
I try my best, every Sunday evening, not to miss Fareed's GPS Show. Thanks for the good Show.
Now my little wonder in relation to the Unemployment in the US and the low Taxes on the very Rich, i would like to know if any of the Law Makers explored the possibility of Taxing the Rich and the Super Rich as high as possible[may be 40%] and then bring the Taxes Down IN PROPORATION TO THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS EMPLOYED BY THE CORPORATION, TO AS LOW AS, may be 10%.
This way the Corporates pay a "the more you employ the more you enjoy" tax.
Thanks
Fareed – seriously?? Krugman?? ... former Enron Adviser Krugman? Yes – folks, the so called "brilliant" economist was an Enron board member and consulting to Enron.
That should tell you all you need to know about his philosophy and so-called, "expertise".
GPS seems to be going downhill on guests – way too liberal...
I am tired of hearing that the stimulus did not work. Bret Stevens of the WSJ, kept on hitting on the talking point that 800 billion in stimulus was a failure and must not be tried again. Conservatives made sure that the stimulus was watered down so it would not work as well as it should. 340 billion of stimulus had to be tax cuts to get the bill through the Senate. Republican filibusters made sure of that. Obama must not be allowed to succeed at all cost, even the well being of the country must be put on hold. Then we have the Fannie and Freddie mantra , putting the blame on poor people causing the melt down, how convient, blame the powerless. I f one has read anything on the melt down, you would find a very complex story of high finance, greed, and fraud.Fannie and Freddie got caught up in the deregulated ponzi scheme like so many others world wide.Conservative always use talking points that leave most of the facts out of the story.
The show was very good and the segment on the economy presented the usual variety of viewpoints. Unfortunately, the divisions were as stark as ever and I suspect they will remain so. Still, I hope Paul Krugman's comments were able to convert some folks to change their mind in favor of the strategies he supports.
But on an entirely different note, I would like to point out that Chrystia Freeland had to try hard to get her ideas into the discussion. She did make the effort and did a superb job in my opinion, especially when she described how the rules of the system had made possible the profligate behavior of the bankers. The Fed policies and the push for more mortgages on the part of the government were not the primary causes. She was forcefully succinct. Mr. Zakaria, please be scrupulous in giving all your guests equal time and call on the women as often as the men.
Sure, Chrystia Freeland's comment that the bankers weren't "evil" and were merely exploiting lax regulations was brilliant (snark). Who do you think has been lobbying for decades to eviscerate the regulations that were put in place after the Depression? Probably the only thing Wall Street CEOs spent more money on than their bonuses was their relentless lobbying effort to create the loopholes which they then exploited. Not evil, really? Well, at least amoral if not evil... The Depression era restrictions on banking, such as Glass-Steagal, need to be reimposed. Ms. Freeland's effort at misdirection does not fly. I was disappointed that Fareed let it slide by.
Republicans claim that lower taxes will create more jobs. The Bush tax cuts were extended by President Obama, and taxes were kept low. The unemployment rate remains very high. Therefore, lower taxes do not create more jobs. Why is this correlation not being stressed by the current administration? Consider...
To date, both parties have supported Wall Street to the detriment of the people in the middle and lower income brackets. The gradual destruction of the middle class is leading to a new, two-class society...the rich and the poor. Would an appropriate term for this condition be "CAPITALISTIC FEUDALISM", or perhaps "FEUDAL CAPITALISM"?
Fareed: I am a simple man of simple means but I can feel the pain of many of my fellow "small people". I used to be afforded health insurance at my work. To qualify I only had to be scheduled to work 500 hrs a year, now it has risen to 1500 per year. The company paid for half the premium and I paid the other half. Now the "small people" are getting less and less hours scheduled with the excuse "its the economy" and such "no insurance". There are few if any raises (its the economy)for us,food prices are going up, gas is going up, mortgage is still there,electric bill,water bill and on and on. I doubt anyone on your panel worries if they will be able to pay the electric bill this month. Now here is why you get the Occupy Wall Street protests, the company I work for made MORE PROFIT this quarter than ever in the history of this company. Wait a miniute I thought "the economy" was bad!!!, and thats why all the cut backs in hours and benefits. We "small people" are tired of being squeezed and squeezed while these big companies make more and more. Companies have taken "cost controls" to a level never seen before. Something has to give! And so far its us the "small people" See ya on Wall Street.
It's a safe bet to assume Dr. Krugman is always right. When his Conservative/Republican critics argue "we have a spending problem not a revenue problem" (wrong) and "tax cuts increase revenues" (wrong) and "Fannie and Freddie and CRA caused the crisis" (wrong) and "taxes/regulations kill jobs" (wrong) and "man has nothing to do with climate change" (wrong) you begin to realize how valuable a voice he is.
Republicans are grasping at the only issue they can, which is the economy is a mess. If they can pin it on Obama, they can win the election. If not, they lose. And Paul Krugman brings fact after fact to the table about how this financial crisis was caused by deregulation or lack of regulation in the banking sector, plus letting our trade deficit get out of hand creating enormous pressure on us to borrow money necessary to fund this deficit. He points out how Republicans would like to cut the deficit, breaking the cardinal rule of economics which is you don't let GDP fall.
It is heartwarming to see the two shills for corporate greed try to downplay the importance of OWS. The press tried to ignore it, but even they have been shamed CNN. As this grassroots movement goes viral the world over, the 99% will exert their will and banish the greed of a small fraction of the 1% to a footnote in history.
II don't think the bankers are fundamentally evil but I do think they knew exactly what they were doing, what the risks were and how the whole system could implode but they were swept away with greed (which you could call evil if you'd like), and were complicit in the crash.
Occupy Wall Street should be demonstrating against Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs – The reason behind the crash of the stock and housing markets
Why your 401k is now a 201k and your home worth nearly half its value
The public and media have a genuine reason to wonder why Goldman Sachs emerged unscathed from the financial crisis, to question the extent to which the bailout benefited Goldman, and to question its many decades of intimate ties to the government.
Goldman is just as culperable in the impending Greek default. Here, in 2001, Goldman Sachs engaged in a series of apparently legal but nonetheless repellent deals designed to hide the Greek government's true level of indebtedness. And a Greek default may yet become the catalyst for a European depression.
The machine that enabled Greece to borrow and spend at will was analogous to the machine created to launder the credit of the American subprime borrower – and the role of Goldman Sachs in the machine was the same.
Every ninth-grader knows that the U.S. government consists of three branches. Goldman owns just one of these outright; the second we simply rent, and the third we have no interest in at all. (Note there isn’t a single former Goldman employee on the Supreme Court.) Yet there were plenty in key positions of the government, such as former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson (see list at end of story).
America stands at a crossroads, and Goldman Sachs now owns both of them. Goldman Sachs controls the U.S. government.
What's odd about the subprime crash which brought this country to the brink of Depression is that Goldman Sachs took a position contrary to the rest of Wall Street, first putting together and getting the rating agencies to give AAA+ ratings to collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) before selling them, then allowing one of the hedge funds it advises to short those CDOs before Wall Street and the average American found out they were extremely risky bets.
Even more surprising is how little Wall Street seems to have dwelled on how and why Goldman Sachs made its killing. There are insane conspiracy theories - for instance, that former Goldman chief executive officer and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tipped his old pals, but then, how did HE know?
John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who allegedly picked the investments that are the subject of the SEC's civil fraud case against Goldman Sachs, likely did similar business with other banking firms.
The SEC alleged that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDOs, in particular the role a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDOs while Goldman was telling other investors the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party.
The securities eventually went into default while Goldman made nearly $4 Billion dollars from the subprime meltdown as both the housing and stock markets crashed. This was during the same time the American taxpayer loaned Goldman $12.9 billion dollars in bailout money.
For more insight into how Goldman Sachs nearly brought down the US and ruined the lives of millions of Americans watch the 60 Minutes video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6298082n
USG Officials and former officials with ties to Goldman Sachs. This reaffirms that Washington is in bed with Wall Street
Pete Coneway
Investment Banker, Goldman Sachs & Co
Diana Farrell
Former deputy director of Obama's National...
Jose Fourquet
Investor, Goldman Sachs & Co.
Stephen Friedman
Chairman of Stone Point Capital; director of...
Gary Gensler
ex-Goldman Sachs executive, Chairman of Commodity...
Dick Gephardt
US Representative from Missouri
Robert D Hormats
Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy,...
Robert J Hurst
managing director of Crestview Partners
Reuben Jeffery III
Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and...
James A Johnson
Vice Chair of Perseus and Goldman director;...
Neel Kashkari
Treasury official in charge of TARP; former...
James C Langdon Jr
Senior Executive Partner at Akin Gump and Bush...
Philip D Murphy
Ambassador to Germany-Designate
Mark Patterson
Chief of Staff to Tim Geithner
Henry M Paulson Jr
Secretary of Treasury under George W Bush; former...
Karthik Ramanathan
Director of Bonds at Fidelity; former Assistant...
Robert E Rubin
Former Treasury Secretary and senior advisor at...
Faryar Shirzad
Global Head of Government Affairs at Goldman...
Robert K Steel
former CEO of Wachovia; Under Secretary of...
Adam Storch
SEC Chief Operating Officer; former Goldman Sachs...
Larry Summers
formerly Director of the National Economic...
John Whitehead
Banker and public official (ex-Goldman Sachs)
Robert Zoellick
US Trade Representative and World Bank president...
And everyone needs to wake up and realize this. Their government has been hijacked and is being run like a corporation in favor of it's associate companies. For some, the corporate American dream has been realized; corruption without consequence, guaranteed revenues, and unlimited credit from it's shareholders. And we thought Greece was bad! Just wait.
The discussion with these four people was the most civilized and realistic conversation I've seen lately about the economy. The problem is it was too short. I would like to hear from this group again in an extended or regularly scheduled segment. These people actually listened to one another and didn't interrupt or talk over one another as is so often the case with cable programs that are stopped dead to sell you something. But generally I find Fareed is masterful at moderating in that regard. This was a great panel! We should hear more from them.
It was civilized but I'm not sure it was as enlightening as it might have been. There are some fundamental disagreements concerning markets, government, and economics amongst the panel that explains each members' opinions. The gap between Forbes' and Krugman's, and Stephens' and Krugman's, view of the situation and the remedies are so great that they can only express their views with the understanding that the others cannot be dissuaded by any argument the other might offer.
It's very important to know whether government can affect the economy usefully, or whether we must accept increasing disparities of wealth and power as the wealthy play games that continually crash economies with speculative activities and global adventures as they have over the last thirty years, because that is just the way markets work.
Fareed, your discussion with Krugman, Forbes, et al reminded why I've stopped wasting my Sunday mornings watching the political talk shows. It's the same politicians and pundits in $1000 suits spewing the same old s**t over and over ad nauseam. Tell me who's on and I can write the script before the show is on. It's one reason the #OWS are in the streets. Blah, blah, blah changing nothing. Time is better spent marching.
I was around during the late '60s and early '70s when there were something like 11 riots in US cities. I've been thinking for some time that we're cycling back to similar conditions. I think it's starting. Sometimes it takes a heady mixture of glass in the street, smoke and teargas in the air to push the status quo off center to change the discussion.
The #OWS movement has gone global, your forte. Why don't you do something informative like actually talking to some of the young people all over the world in this unrest? There's internet media bypassing commercial media by direct communication live from global events that are more relevant.
Well said. Dr. Krugman warned about something like this happening. I only watched just to see how ridiculous the other side would sound. Fareed could have at least stopped Forbes from talking about that nonsense of debased currency, right?
A month ago at dinner, I asked my family if they could imagine what would happen, or what it would be like if all money became completely worthless overnight. Driving the dollar into the ground is not necessarily a good solution to anything. But it could become the fate for everything.
Indeed! Fareed should have done more to stop Forbes and Stevens from hijacking and diverting the discussion as they did and given Freeland a chance to contribute more to the debate. I think he could also have countered the argument that its people like Steve Jobs who create the jobs not the Government. Its Government spending that created the Internet and the communication technologies that the products that Apple makes depend on.
-_- Fareed needs to do a better job at moderating. Forbes and Stephens were lying their asses off the whole time! Good thing Dr. Krugman warned us of this ahead of time... (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/hackitude/).
Krugman is a nice man and he means well, but he's a knucklehead.
Great segment with Mr Krugman. He and Ms Freeman made valid and compelling arguments for the need of stimulus spending during a financial crisis such as the one from which we are still trying to recover. Mr Krugman did well to point out how Mr Forbes was trying to change the conversation.
However, I wish that someone had reminded Mr Forbes about the stripping away of the financial regulations and laws that started under Pres Reagan and continued from there. At last 3 of those laws were enacted during the 1930s to specifically prevent another Great Depression from happening in our country.
Less than 9 years after Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, under Pres Clinton, we had the biggest financial crisis since The Great Depression. Those repsonsible destroyed 20% of our national wealth in just 18 months (mid 2007 – end of 2008). We forgot the lessons from the our past mistakes and so we repeated those mistakes. Those regulations still need to be reinstated or this could happen again at any time.
I also wish that someone had mentioned that Pres Reagan raised taxes several times during his time as President . I think it was 11 times that he raised taxes. I also might have mentioned that top tax rate under Reagan was about 50%. Maybe even mentioned the top tax rate was 90% until President Kennedy lowered it to about 61%. Just went down from there even though many of the top 1% of that time thought it should stay higher. Now it is only 35% on income and 15% on capital gains. Maybe we have finally gone too low and we must go back up some to run our country. Oh yes, Regan also tripled the national debt...uhmmm..
However, Mr Krugman and Ms Freeman made very excellent points and fact checking will certainlly back them up. Besides, they did have to allow Mr Forbes and Stephens to speak too. I would not describe the OWS as a small "ragtag" group though. It was small at the very beginning, but it grew very quickly and it continues to grow even larger every day. It's growing throughout our country and the world now. Even old retired military people like me fully support them and back them 100%.
One of the reasons for our support of OWS is our concerns for the middle class that Mr Forbes said people were afraid, under Reagan, would disappear. Well, the midde class in our country is almost gone now and he should check the U.S. national gini coefficient chart to see what I mean. In the 1980s, middle class income stagnated while the income for the wealthiest continued to rise. Then in the last 15 year or more, the middle class income has dropped dramatically while the income of the wealthy has risen dramatically. The middle class is now very cose to merging with the poor class of our country. Almost gone...
If you look at the international gini coefficient you will see that the USA is also now very close to bottom of all countries of the world. We are just above Uganda, Jamica and 3 other third world countries. The 5 countries that are worse that our country have 2 classes...rich and poor. They also have very little democracy in their governments. We are not pleased to be so close to those countries and we refuse to allow the middle class to disappear.
Many of us also believe that free trade has almost destroyed us. The fair trade agreements have not been so fair to our people. The out of control power and influence that the large corporations now have over our state and national governments is very apparent to all and we can not allow it to continue. We have no problem with any person making lots of money, but we expect to also make a decent living and to keep our social safety net programs. The 1% now owns 24 cents of every dollar made (up from 9%) and that is too much. They, nor their parents, grew their wealth all on their own.
We, the 99%, can also NOT bear the full burden of paying for unfunded wars that corporations profit from and we will NOT pay for our long overdue infrastructure repair/rebuilding on our own either. The 1%, like Mr Forbes, can fight us (and lose) or he and his wealthy friends can admit their shortcomings and start helping us fix this mess we are in now. We can all work together or not. The choice is theirs to make.
Either way, the 99% and our country will prevail/survive. We have nothing much left to lose now so we don't have much choice. The decent paying jobs have been moved off shore by the top 1% and they are responsible for our job situtation and our financial crisis. The cuts are all being taken out of the incomes, jobs, and education opportunities of the 99%. We can not accept that.
Mr Forbes attempt to blame the government may have a small tiny amount of validity. However, the top 1%, like him, are the ones who "bought" our government and pushed to strip regulations, create unreasonable tax loop holes, and promote unfair free trade. It is time that they find what the 99% already know.... that free trade is not really "free".
The 1% might stand up and do the right thing. If not, then they are on their own. They are no longer seen, by many of us ,as patriotic Americans and they have put themselves into that position. No one else did it to them. They allowed greed to overcome common sense and moral actions. We have no sympathy for them.
Mr Stephens, unfortunately, is just plain lying about those who make up the 99% OWS movement. I'm not in NYC at this moment and I can not speak for the OWS leadership. However, I know for a fact that they/we are not the "fringe'. We are non-violent citizens of the USA, old, middle aged, and young. We are just not as stupid as the 1% may have thought we were.
Mr Stephens should know that we can not allow the 1% to further erode our individual rights and our right to survive and prosper. BTW, the 3 trade agreements were determined to actually cost jobs instead of creating jobs and that was why they were delayed....the most recent delay anyway. I hope that the job loss was corrected, but only time will tell and we will all be paying attention this time.
Mr Forbes and Mr Stephens are both just whining, making excuses, and trying to blame others for their own greedy and immoral actions over the past 30 years or so. ENOUGH! NO MORE!!
The 99% are not just whining...we are making our stand to save our way of life for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. Some feel this is a stand for their very lives...survival is a very strong motivator to not give up. Plenty of motivation for all of us to hang in there and bring about change. That is what we intend to do.
As more Americans learn what the OWS stands for, they will support them. Three 3 polls released last week show that OWS is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans AND OWS is much more popular than the Tea Party. I wonder if the fact that the Tea Party was "bought" by the Koch brothers, & others like them, had anything to do with their decreasing popularity. Maybe so...
Gloria, Gloria, Hallelujah
Her truth is marching on !
The breadth of experience and diversity of views on the panel is outstanding. Thank you for posting this video, I'll have to watch it a few times to fully process everything everyone's putting on the table.
Freakonomics » Stimulus Package Analysis: Which Type of Spending Created The Most Jobs? http://bit.ly/psVTaV
Apparently, Steve Forbes does not want to hold Willie Sutton responsible.
I USED TO WATCH GPS EVERY WEEKEND! LOVE FAREED BUT CANT WATCH IN THE MORNING!!! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PUT THE FULL PODCAST BACK UP!!!
Today on Fareed Zakaria GPS: Bret Stephens is the deputy editorial page editor for the "Wall Street Journal.". While discussing "Occupy Wall Strett" Bret stated "And you can do one of two things. You can march on, you know, Jamie Dimon's house or on – on JPMorgan, never mind that JPMorgan actually was one of the banks that didn't get itself into the – into the mortgage mess, or you can have some kind of serious discussion about what we have been doing over the last three years to create jobs.
Looks like the deputy editor of the WSJ editorial pages doesn't read his own paper's stories about JP Morgan paying an SEC settlement for selling a complex mortgage bond porfolio to pension plans, that lost 100% of its value because it was co-created by a hedge fund betting against it.
A lie or just ignorance, I can't decide.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/16/fzgps.01.html.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576399801103678040.html
My only critique of the discussion on Sun's show was that 4 guests meant that none of them really had the opportunity to present his/her views completely. Suggestion: have only 2 guests so that they can have a more direct and comprehensive dialogue with each other. Krugman vs Forbes or the Wall Street reporter would have been much more informative!
I take exception to Fareed Zakaria, in his short piece about global food price increases, passing over concerns about GM crops as a "phobia". I challenge him to hold a forum on GPS about GM crops, addressing the very legitimate concerns:
the monopoly over the world's food production handed to huge corporations like Monsanto; the extreme hardship of small subsistence farmers who may not be able to afford new seeds every years, especially when the last season's crops may have failed; the problem of cross-pollination and threat to diminishing crop diversity even further, leading in turn to possible large-scale disease (as with bananas); and last but not least, the fact that GM products are present in most of our food products without any regulation or labeling, regardless of the fact that some tests show harmful effects of ingesting some GM crops, necessitating more rigorous testing.
Dr. Zakarias, please do an in depth program on GMO agriculture in the U.S. We are putting all our agriculture into the hands of a few companies raising a few crops. How can such a policy be wise? At the very least let us hear the concerns of those worried about evidence we are already seeing that we may be headed toward disaster. Please interview scientists such as Dr. Huron. Give this important topic the platform it deserves.
As a person visiting NYC, in my 60's, and closer to the 1% than the 99, I really resent the depiction of the "Occupy" movement as "anarchists" and "malcontents". I have been there and witnessed the people from all ages and their passion to see our country return to a nation that cares for it's own, not corporate interests. Bret Stephens made my blood boil with his comments that we are all 'far left'. I have been waiting to see how the media would begin to trash this movement and once there were 82 countries involved it was time to begin discrediting it. I guess living in a third world nation is more appealing to him and his boss, Rupert.
After watching your guest blaming the various villains of the financial crises and failed policies for recovery, it came to me that all these people who were named as responsible were in the 1%. I point this our because they are getting richer through all this while actual real income is falling.
Fareed, I really like your show and your opinions. Please give Paul Krugman more time to speak when he's on your show. He deserves it. Four person panel is fine, but with commercials each person can only give out sound bites. Either cut it down to Steve Forbes and Paul only or give the panel more time. We don't need another sound bite show on television. Fareed, please. Your our only hope.
Even though Ron Paul knows he will never get his way, he does make lot of sense. He doesn't want America to play an occupying role,. He doesn't want drug war or big centralized program like education. It does make sense for him to say he wants lower tax. The politicians cut a deal for 15% tax. They want big army, no cuts in social program and wants to give more discount to top earners without reforming anything. It's not like they're stupid/ They all know there is no such thing as vodoo economics but they keep promoting bad policy after policy. And there is not going to be millions of jobs anytime soon because of lower economic growth. So I don't know what else is there besides taxing rich or cut safety nets.
As a little person with global interest I want to thank you for having such an intelligent and open public forum for the pressing issues that affect all of us today.
The most recent 10-16-2011 program was both fascinating and some what terrifying to me. The items that caught my attention were that; 1. We are making the same mistake that we made in the 1960's by radicalizing and marginalizing the protesters. Wither the are or are not radical fringe groups is , in my opinion, irrelevant . The political realities are such that there are just to many of them to ignore and that we need to come to terms with them as we finally had to in the early 1970's by getting out of the war in SE Asia. Political leaders should stop playing them as a trump card in their on going bid to power and stop trying to reinterpret their message for there own ends.. 2. Economic leaders cannot even agree on fundamental processes reminding me of two renowned physicians arguing over how to best treat a sick patient. Sometimes they get so caught up in there own research and experience they forget that the patient is dying. The many variables make medicine an inexact science at best requiring great flexibility and being willing to try something that neither one has thought of in order to bring health back to the patient. It seems to me that our sick economy needs a similar approach.
Krugman is a phony.