Transcripts For ALJAZAM Real Money With Ali Velshi 20140421

Fund, the imf, came about. During the war and the Great Depression of the 1930s there was a call to create a global Monetary System before the wars end and create a way to reestablish world trade. The u. S. And Great Britain led the way and the delegates are traveled obretonwoods new hampshire. The 70th anniversary of the conference in 2014, has an opportunity to reflect on the International Monetary funds past and review some of the key Lessons Learned and look into its future. I monitored are discussions, the topic, imf 70 years later, reflections and looking ahead. I was joined by Christine Lagarde, are madeline gordon, and the former imf managing director john lipske, who is with the Johns Hopkins school of international studies. The imf is made up of 188 states, think of them as shareholders. Think of the u. S. As the lead shareholder. Brazil and china have grown, their influence has to change and for that to happen congress has to pass enabling legislation and that is something the u. S. Congress just wont do. Probably because some in congress feel it will cause america some of its influence and it marches to its own beat. Whatever its influence , lagarde says it, i began my discussion by asking Christine Lagarde to explain whats at stake if congress doesnt do that. Well, first of all the imf are brings together 188 members. They are all represented around a table of 24 chairs. So some chairs have one member. Like the United States for instance. Like china for instance. And a few others. And other chairs are more bulky with about you know 20, 30 constituencies. But they are all at the table. The imf is an institution like very few other institutions around the world, that is based on a weighted vote. So the bigger the economy, and we can discuss forever about how you measure the economy but to put it simply, the bigger the economy, the bigger the voice. But the Founding Fathers again in their wisdom knew that that would evolve over time. So there is a mechanism that actually decides that on a reassess. There is also a mechanism that provides that on a regular basis we have to reassess the resources that the imf has available. Back in 2010 just in the midst of the crisis, the members at the time, the 188, decided that the resources had to be increased, number one, and number two, that the chairs around the table should be a bit less european, and a bit more underrepresented countries. And obviously in those countries you have some of the emerging market economies. In the same vein, they decided some of the underrepresentcountries would have a bigger around. Everything was shifted around except the United States. The United States is the imf biggest member, a Founding Member and one that has the biggest voice and has the veto right. And thats why it was stopping the reform that was decided unanimously in 2010 from happening. And i dont understand why that is, because the u. S. Under the reform would keep its veto, would continue to be the leader in the organization. Would shift money from one line to the other. Would make the fund more secure, safer. Endowed with deeper resources to, for instance, help out a country like ukraine, urgently and with significant resources. So i hope it happens soon. So that the fund can continue to represent properly the entire membership of the imf including the United States. Secretary albright for purposes of this organization well make you the representative of the United States because you spent a little time in government. For people watching us around the world mostly they understand the nuance the fact that congress does what Congress Wants to do, the administration is a Different Branch of government, do you think this matter will be resolved and the United States will resume its rightful place in the leadership of the imf and in this context . Speaking as me, i hope it would and as a form esh secretary of statformer secretas saying it was important to do so. I can explain what is going on which is there is a trend in the country which is represented by the far left of the Democratic Party and the far right of the Republican Party that believes that the world is taking advantage of us and therefore what we ought to be doing is worrying about ourselves and generally that we dont get a fair shake in international organizations, that we are the largest donor in the United Nations in terms of dues, peacekeeping all those things and then what i call the karzai effect, which is we do a lot of things and we dont get thanked. So i think that that is one of the aspects that is out there that is making this difficult. The other, i think, if i might, because i am not an economist but a political science, a lot of this has to do with the role of the are legislative vs. The executive branch, and part of this was the hope that because there is unity in congress about doing something about ukraine, for all we can talk more about that, that it would be a good idea to put this piece of this change in the system on the bill that had to do with ukraine. Because it would then be able to be kind of pushed through as a result of sympathy for whats going on in ukraine. But that didnt work leafll legislatively, whether it would be put as an individual thing or put on some other bill, i think speaking the administration wants this through, so i can easily say speaking for United States, the bottom line is, this has to happen. Coming up our panelists tell us how closely the Global Economy is interconnected. Al jazeeras Investigative Unit has tonights exclusive report. Stories that have impact. That make a difference. That open your world. This is what we do. America tonight next only on Al Jazeera America todays Global Economy is more somewhere connected than ever thanks to technology. I continue my discussion the forces that will shape the world in the future. Bob gordon, as we come to realize as those folks who organized the imf, as worlds shift, are the Major Organization he in the world prepared to accept the fact that as emerging economies emerge and become more powerful, are we still multilateral or should we look out for ourselves . I want to put this into perspective, providing the resources to the imf provides the resources to pay for pensions of old people and i think its very helpful to understand whats going on. To go back 70 years and think about where we stood in 1944, in the late 19th century, there were two fabulous inventions and many other almost equally important inventions. Namely electricity and the internal combustion engine. Europe lost out for the first half of the 20th century in exploiting those inventions because the two world wars. The u. S. Started to exploit those but then we had the Great Depression and world war ii. 1944 this enormous agenda of things that had been invented, and the world was just waiting to buy them. And we had after world war ii what the french called the trompe gloreuse, the 30 years of glorious growth. Much faster than its been since then. When we think out to the future, the last 40 years for the u. S. And what does that mean . It means that we just are not going to experience the kind of historical growth that we have. Its not because were failing to invent things. Its just that those inventions arent as important as the ones i mentioned before. All countries have a different mix of what i call head winds. They go beyond technology and beyond invention. For the things we are familiar with. One is demographics. The growing ratio of retired people to working people. More serious in some like japan than in others like the United States but a drag on growth, growth in per capita income is not going to be sufficient to pay the pension obligations that we have. The second head wind very serious in the United States is education. We have a system that is massively increasing the cost of going to college. And leaving us with a generation are students who are heavily in debt, postponing life choices. The third also most important in the United States ask is the rise in inequality. The tremendous fraction of Economic Growth that we are getting going to the top 10 of income distribution. And the inevitable consequence of the growing ratio and the rising cost of medical care causing continued upward pressure on debt gdp ratios. That is the sort of gloomy outlook that doesnt require you to be any kind of forecaster about innovation. In the some sense the rich world suffers from this set of problems. To get back to your original problem. Going to have to cede power to the emergin emerging countries. Let me going to add what may be tail winds. Pull out your polling devices, and see what is going to shape the world in the next 30 years. Diffusion of power, b income and equality, c shifting are graphics, d, e, Climate Change an resource scarcity. 20 of you think that an increasingly interconnectworld will shift, thats very interesting, leads me to my next discussion. Id like to take it over to andrew because you are with the mit center for digital business, you know something about technology. An increased technology connected world. Youre looking at it differently. I have a huge respect for bob gordon, ive learned a ton from him. He and i have a major point of disagreement about whats going to happen in the future particularly with regard to innovation and technological process. My answer is f none of the above because i think the great force thats going to shape the worlds economies for next few decades is another one of bobs fabulous inventions. He mentioned electricity and the International Combustion engine, we are in the early stages of a period that is going to be at least as transformative as bob described. This bundle of stuff that has only been seen in Science Fiction movies. Let me give you three different tasks that are extraordinarily important to do and now weve got machines to do them. Landing a plane on the pitching deck of an Aircraft Carrier is one of the skims a pilot has. Let the computer land the plane on the Aircraft Carrier. Playing jeopardy well, we can do okay on it, winning on jeopardy is extraordinarily difficult to do. The world jeopardy champion is now a piece of technology, its not a human being anymore. And making a very complex mechanical part, to go onto one of those airplanes, used to have to machine away metal. Now you seriously print those things out, one thin layer of metal at a time. You can make a part of arbitrary complexity for the same price as the simple part. My only point of forecasting confidence about the world we are creating is we are going to see astonishing amounts of innovation and Technological Progress. They will have consequences, a lot are good, i think there are challenges that come along with it because what were learning is Technological Progress is not a rising tide that floats all boats equally, it tenders to favor more skilled over less skilled, tends to favor capital over labor and tends to favor superstars over everybody else. Peter, as you saw the evidence come in from the audience about the main forces . My first reaction to the poll was that in a way not surprising. Because all the factors all interrelated, Climate Change, demographics, income inequality , diffusion of power as a result of political strategic shifts Even Technology and all of these are interacting in ways that are going to lead to consequences which we are still not yet able to see what the final result is going to be. So i think we have indeed entered a very interesting period. And i think we probably have not seen a period like this in a very long time. Where a lot of factors are coming together, the forces of globalization, the forces of technology, huge changes in demographics, and i think again, Climate Change, which is perhaps a result of all the human activity that is going on. And these are interacting in very, very complex ways. And i think the big challenge for governments, the big challenge for global institutions like the imf is, what you read into this, how do you position yourself . I think this is a challenge for all governments, for all institutions. I institutions. You have to adapt. If you dont adapt you die. John lipscomb, what does the imf do . This interconnected world, the diffusion of power, it all challenges the role of an international organization, particularly one like theism and its mandates. How does the imf deal with that and remain relevant as we go forward . An excellent question. We have to recognize one thing. First of all the aspects we have been talking about are quite long term in their influence. In the near term the imfs latest World Economic outlook is fairly benign about the near term risks. Let alone, the future it projects, is slower than the 20 or 30 year average. And it seems to me quite self evident that an improved and more cooperative and coherent approach to Economic Policy informational no formulation now has the possibility of producing faster growth in the near term than using up the self evident wide capacities that still playing most of our economies. The imf has a role. The creation of the principal Institutional Response to the great Global Financial cries i christist o crisisfor 20082009, effective cooperation but has muttied muddied the waters a bit whos in charge of what, whos supposed to do what, and the g20 itself being a partial although representing important economies only part of the imf membership and doesnt have a decision role that is useful for a consensus, we need to find the authorities of the world need to find a mode us open ren di modus operandi and the Economic Policy focus that will produce better results in the very near term. Coming up an audience member asks Christine Lagarde why the imf was unable to see the 2007 Global Financial crisis. Al Jazeera America presents a Breakthrough Television event. Borderland long held beliefs. Im really pissed off at the mexican government. Give way to compassion. If you feel tired, would you turn around and come back . Our teams find out first hand how treacherous the migrants journey can be. We make them take a trip of death it is heartbreaking when you see the families on top of the rail car borderland continues on a. Welcome back to real money. Should the imf have been better to predict the 2007 Global Financial crisis . Heres my discussion at the International Monetary fund with Christine Lagarde and others. Talking in the context of the United States of america should do all instrument in their power to make sure that the o financial cries does not turn into a depression, global recession since 1940s, that is a major issue on the imf. Global financial crisis coming in 2007 has been a major failure. The queen of england in 2009 asked a very important practice coming so im posing the same question to madam lagarde and mr. Lipscomb, what make sure the experience in 2007, 2009 . Very good question. Thank you for your question. Because that is one i have in my up. Am i going to with the help of everyone at the imf be able to spot where the next crisis is coming from . What im certain of is there will be more crises coming for sure. And we know there will be activity coming in the near future. Where will it come from . What will prompt it . What kind of other subprime that we are not seeing today will emerge that will shock us that will be a stress for our economies okay . So you ask me what do we do about it . First of all, we have learned a little bit. So all the departments are alerted to that. They have this additional sense that they have to open their eyes, their ears, their models to try to spot what is the unknown, what is the black swan out there that were not seeing. In addition to keeping their eyes on what would be the normal risks. So we are doing that and we are really in the process of refining and strengthening our riskspotting analysis. For crises . Yes yes yes. For depression, i see confidently there wont be any depression . Can you guarantee us no depression . Lets answer that josh. Are you guaranteeing no further depressions . Yes. Wow. Ill personally are guarantee it. [ laughter ] we did three things at the imf that have been carried on. We substantially strengthened our staffing in understanding the underlying economies and developments in financial markets. Secondly we instituted a weekly discussion at the highest levels of the fund staff to make sure we are looking every week at developments to make sure we understand the trends and the interactions between Economic Policy, economic fundamentals and financial markets. And third, most important in a way, is we developed something called the Great Depression<\/a> of the 1930s there was a call to create a global Monetary System<\/a> before the wars end and create a way to reestablish world trade. The u. S. And Great Britain<\/a> led the way and the delegates are traveled obretonwoods new hampshire. The 70th anniversary of the conference in 2014, has an opportunity to reflect on the International Monetary<\/a> funds past and review some of the key Lessons Learned<\/a> and look into its future. I monitored are discussions, the topic, imf 70 years later, reflections and looking ahead. I was joined by Christine Lagarde<\/a>, are madeline gordon, and the former imf managing director john lipske, who is with the Johns Hopkins<\/a> school of international studies. The imf is made up of 188 states, think of them as shareholders. Think of the u. S. As the lead shareholder. Brazil and china have grown, their influence has to change and for that to happen congress has to pass enabling legislation and that is something the u. S. Congress just wont do. Probably because some in congress feel it will cause america some of its influence and it marches to its own beat. Whatever its influence , lagarde says it, i began my discussion by asking Christine Lagarde<\/a> to explain whats at stake if congress doesnt do that. Well, first of all the imf are brings together 188 members. They are all represented around a table of 24 chairs. So some chairs have one member. Like the United States<\/a> for instance. Like china for instance. And a few others. And other chairs are more bulky with about you know 20, 30 constituencies. But they are all at the table. The imf is an institution like very few other institutions around the world, that is based on a weighted vote. So the bigger the economy, and we can discuss forever about how you measure the economy but to put it simply, the bigger the economy, the bigger the voice. But the Founding Fathers<\/a> again in their wisdom knew that that would evolve over time. So there is a mechanism that actually decides that on a reassess. There is also a mechanism that provides that on a regular basis we have to reassess the resources that the imf has available. Back in 2010 just in the midst of the crisis, the members at the time, the 188, decided that the resources had to be increased, number one, and number two, that the chairs around the table should be a bit less european, and a bit more underrepresented countries. And obviously in those countries you have some of the emerging market economies. In the same vein, they decided some of the underrepresentcountries would have a bigger around. Everything was shifted around except the United States<\/a>. The United States<\/a> is the imf biggest member, a Founding Member<\/a> and one that has the biggest voice and has the veto right. And thats why it was stopping the reform that was decided unanimously in 2010 from happening. And i dont understand why that is, because the u. S. Under the reform would keep its veto, would continue to be the leader in the organization. Would shift money from one line to the other. Would make the fund more secure, safer. Endowed with deeper resources to, for instance, help out a country like ukraine, urgently and with significant resources. So i hope it happens soon. So that the fund can continue to represent properly the entire membership of the imf including the United States<\/a>. Secretary albright for purposes of this organization well make you the representative of the United States<\/a> because you spent a little time in government. For people watching us around the world mostly they understand the nuance the fact that congress does what Congress Wants<\/a> to do, the administration is a Different Branch<\/a> of government, do you think this matter will be resolved and the United States<\/a> will resume its rightful place in the leadership of the imf and in this context . Speaking as me, i hope it would and as a form esh secretary of statformer secretas saying it was important to do so. I can explain what is going on which is there is a trend in the country which is represented by the far left of the Democratic Party<\/a> and the far right of the Republican Party<\/a> that believes that the world is taking advantage of us and therefore what we ought to be doing is worrying about ourselves and generally that we dont get a fair shake in international organizations, that we are the largest donor in the United Nations<\/a> in terms of dues, peacekeeping all those things and then what i call the karzai effect, which is we do a lot of things and we dont get thanked. So i think that that is one of the aspects that is out there that is making this difficult. The other, i think, if i might, because i am not an economist but a political science, a lot of this has to do with the role of the are legislative vs. The executive branch, and part of this was the hope that because there is unity in congress about doing something about ukraine, for all we can talk more about that, that it would be a good idea to put this piece of this change in the system on the bill that had to do with ukraine. Because it would then be able to be kind of pushed through as a result of sympathy for whats going on in ukraine. But that didnt work leafll legislatively, whether it would be put as an individual thing or put on some other bill, i think speaking the administration wants this through, so i can easily say speaking for United States<\/a>, the bottom line is, this has to happen. Coming up our panelists tell us how closely the Global Economy<\/a> is interconnected. Al jazeeras Investigative Unit<\/a> has tonights exclusive report. Stories that have impact. That make a difference. That open your world. This is what we do. America tonight next only on Al Jazeera America<\/a> todays Global Economy<\/a> is more somewhere connected than ever thanks to technology. I continue my discussion the forces that will shape the world in the future. Bob gordon, as we come to realize as those folks who organized the imf, as worlds shift, are the Major Organization<\/a> he in the world prepared to accept the fact that as emerging economies emerge and become more powerful, are we still multilateral or should we look out for ourselves . I want to put this into perspective, providing the resources to the imf provides the resources to pay for pensions of old people and i think its very helpful to understand whats going on. To go back 70 years and think about where we stood in 1944, in the late 19th century, there were two fabulous inventions and many other almost equally important inventions. Namely electricity and the internal combustion engine. Europe lost out for the first half of the 20th century in exploiting those inventions because the two world wars. The u. S. Started to exploit those but then we had the Great Depression<\/a> and world war ii. 1944 this enormous agenda of things that had been invented, and the world was just waiting to buy them. And we had after world war ii what the french called the trompe gloreuse, the 30 years of glorious growth. Much faster than its been since then. When we think out to the future, the last 40 years for the u. S. And what does that mean . It means that we just are not going to experience the kind of historical growth that we have. Its not because were failing to invent things. Its just that those inventions arent as important as the ones i mentioned before. All countries have a different mix of what i call head winds. They go beyond technology and beyond invention. For the things we are familiar with. One is demographics. The growing ratio of retired people to working people. More serious in some like japan than in others like the United States<\/a> but a drag on growth, growth in per capita income is not going to be sufficient to pay the pension obligations that we have. The second head wind very serious in the United States<\/a> is education. We have a system that is massively increasing the cost of going to college. And leaving us with a generation are students who are heavily in debt, postponing life choices. The third also most important in the United States<\/a> ask is the rise in inequality. The tremendous fraction of Economic Growth<\/a> that we are getting going to the top 10 of income distribution. And the inevitable consequence of the growing ratio and the rising cost of medical care causing continued upward pressure on debt gdp ratios. That is the sort of gloomy outlook that doesnt require you to be any kind of forecaster about innovation. In the some sense the rich world suffers from this set of problems. To get back to your original problem. Going to have to cede power to the emergin emerging countries. Let me going to add what may be tail winds. Pull out your polling devices, and see what is going to shape the world in the next 30 years. Diffusion of power, b income and equality, c shifting are graphics, d, e, Climate Change<\/a> an resource scarcity. 20 of you think that an increasingly interconnectworld will shift, thats very interesting, leads me to my next discussion. Id like to take it over to andrew because you are with the mit center for digital business, you know something about technology. An increased technology connected world. Youre looking at it differently. I have a huge respect for bob gordon, ive learned a ton from him. He and i have a major point of disagreement about whats going to happen in the future particularly with regard to innovation and technological process. My answer is f none of the above because i think the great force thats going to shape the worlds economies for next few decades is another one of bobs fabulous inventions. He mentioned electricity and the International Combustion<\/a> engine, we are in the early stages of a period that is going to be at least as transformative as bob described. This bundle of stuff that has only been seen in Science Fiction<\/a> movies. Let me give you three different tasks that are extraordinarily important to do and now weve got machines to do them. Landing a plane on the pitching deck of an Aircraft Carrier<\/a> is one of the skims a pilot has. Let the computer land the plane on the Aircraft Carrier<\/a>. Playing jeopardy well, we can do okay on it, winning on jeopardy is extraordinarily difficult to do. The world jeopardy champion is now a piece of technology, its not a human being anymore. And making a very complex mechanical part, to go onto one of those airplanes, used to have to machine away metal. Now you seriously print those things out, one thin layer of metal at a time. You can make a part of arbitrary complexity for the same price as the simple part. My only point of forecasting confidence about the world we are creating is we are going to see astonishing amounts of innovation and Technological Progress<\/a>. They will have consequences, a lot are good, i think there are challenges that come along with it because what were learning is Technological Progress<\/a> is not a rising tide that floats all boats equally, it tenders to favor more skilled over less skilled, tends to favor capital over labor and tends to favor superstars over everybody else. Peter, as you saw the evidence come in from the audience about the main forces . My first reaction to the poll was that in a way not surprising. Because all the factors all interrelated, Climate Change<\/a>, demographics, income inequality , diffusion of power as a result of political strategic shifts Even Technology<\/a> and all of these are interacting in ways that are going to lead to consequences which we are still not yet able to see what the final result is going to be. So i think we have indeed entered a very interesting period. And i think we probably have not seen a period like this in a very long time. Where a lot of factors are coming together, the forces of globalization, the forces of technology, huge changes in demographics, and i think again, Climate Change<\/a>, which is perhaps a result of all the human activity that is going on. And these are interacting in very, very complex ways. And i think the big challenge for governments, the big challenge for global institutions like the imf is, what you read into this, how do you position yourself . I think this is a challenge for all governments, for all institutions. I institutions. You have to adapt. If you dont adapt you die. John lipscomb, what does the imf do . This interconnected world, the diffusion of power, it all challenges the role of an international organization, particularly one like theism and its mandates. How does the imf deal with that and remain relevant as we go forward . An excellent question. We have to recognize one thing. First of all the aspects we have been talking about are quite long term in their influence. In the near term the imfs latest World Economic<\/a> outlook is fairly benign about the near term risks. Let alone, the future it projects, is slower than the 20 or 30 year average. And it seems to me quite self evident that an improved and more cooperative and coherent approach to Economic Policy<\/a> informational no formulation now has the possibility of producing faster growth in the near term than using up the self evident wide capacities that still playing most of our economies. The imf has a role. The creation of the principal Institutional Response<\/a> to the great Global Financial<\/a> cries i christist o crisisfor 20082009, effective cooperation but has muttied muddied the waters a bit whos in charge of what, whos supposed to do what, and the g20 itself being a partial although representing important economies only part of the imf membership and doesnt have a decision role that is useful for a consensus, we need to find the authorities of the world need to find a mode us open ren di modus operandi and the Economic Policy<\/a> focus that will produce better results in the very near term. Coming up an audience member asks Christine Lagarde<\/a> why the imf was unable to see the 2007 Global Financial<\/a> crisis. Al Jazeera America<\/a> presents a Breakthrough Television<\/a> event. Borderland long held beliefs. Im really pissed off at the mexican government. Give way to compassion. If you feel tired, would you turn around and come back . Our teams find out first hand how treacherous the migrants journey can be. We make them take a trip of death it is heartbreaking when you see the families on top of the rail car borderland continues on a. Welcome back to real money. Should the imf have been better to predict the 2007 Global Financial<\/a> crisis . Heres my discussion at the International Monetary<\/a> fund with Christine Lagarde<\/a> and others. Talking in the context of the United States<\/a> of america should do all instrument in their power to make sure that the o financial cries does not turn into a depression, global recession since 1940s, that is a major issue on the imf. Global financial crisis coming in 2007 has been a major failure. The queen of england in 2009 asked a very important practice coming so im posing the same question to madam lagarde and mr. Lipscomb, what make sure the experience in 2007, 2009 . Very good question. Thank you for your question. Because that is one i have in my up. Am i going to with the help of everyone at the imf be able to spot where the next crisis is coming from . What im certain of is there will be more crises coming for sure. And we know there will be activity coming in the near future. Where will it come from . What will prompt it . What kind of other subprime that we are not seeing today will emerge that will shock us that will be a stress for our economies okay . So you ask me what do we do about it . First of all, we have learned a little bit. So all the departments are alerted to that. They have this additional sense that they have to open their eyes, their ears, their models to try to spot what is the unknown, what is the black swan out there that were not seeing. In addition to keeping their eyes on what would be the normal risks. So we are doing that and we are really in the process of refining and strengthening our riskspotting analysis. For crises . Yes yes yes. For depression, i see confidently there wont be any depression . Can you guarantee us no depression . Lets answer that josh. Are you guaranteeing no further depressions . Yes. Wow. Ill personally are guarantee it. [ laughter ] we did three things at the imf that have been carried on. We substantially strengthened our staffing in understanding the underlying economies and developments in financial markets. Secondly we instituted a weekly discussion at the highest levels of the fund staff to make sure we are looking every week at developments to make sure we understand the trends and the interactions between Economic Policy<\/a>, economic fundamentals and financial markets. And third, most important in a way, is we developed something called the Early Warning<\/a> exercise which is a means in which, in a confidential forum, we can have a discussion with senior policy makers about the potential risks that and we emphasize risks, the idea that if the if things were evolving in a way that had not been anticipated and were potentially dangerous, how could we recognize that happening. And what would we do about it if we did recognize that happening . So we have that discussion, and previously wed had the problem that we did not have a forum for holding that kind of discussion, now we do and its continuing and hopefully its continuing. John, do you think this data will give the imf better Early Warning<\/a> systems for kinds of terrible events we see once in a while . Its possible and lets hope that it will, and that it will help provide much more granular understanding of a broad set of areas. But most important is the understanding of the interaction between policy, fundamentals and finance. One word about Milton Freedman<\/a>. He died in 2006. The cries started september 15th, 2008 and was met by an absolutely heroic response much the u. S. Government which showered trillions of dollars in particularly the u. S. In order to stop a Great Depression<\/a> from happening. If Milton Freedman<\/a> had been there two years after he died, that is he would have been applauding because thats what he preached that the u. S. Should do. I agree but i agree but . The signs should have been clear previously that in spring of 2007 the collapse of the two bear stearns funds, the redemptions in their firms, the collapse in bear stearns there were plenty of warnings that we didnt respond adequately. The week long meeting of Global Finance<\/a> ministers ended, with their expression of the u. S. Failure to ratify the 2010 agreement to reform the imf. The imf and its member countries have Given Congress<\/a> until the years end to act before pursuing other option he but warned that failure to do so would reduce american influence in the Global Economy<\/a>. Im ali velshi. This is real money. Ill see you soon. On america tonight, the weekend edition, strangers in their homeland. Kind of get nervous when i pass a Police Officer<\/a> because i am hispanic, and they look at me. They see i am a hispanic they have proof of their rights to be in the u. S. So why have these men and thousands more been repeatedly deported . Also, tonight, the most corrupt city in america, cash disappears, records disappeared along with a city car. You believe that, im","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601604.us.archive.org\/9\/items\/ALJAZAM_20140421_053000_Real_Money_With_Ali_Velshi\/ALJAZAM_20140421_053000_Real_Money_With_Ali_Velshi.thumbs\/ALJAZAM_20140421_053000_Real_Money_With_Ali_Velshi_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240619T12:35:10+00:00"}