Oral interpretation and language teaching's Fan Box

Search This Blog

Monday, May 10, 2010

Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Goldman Sachs

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10989#frame_top


Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Goldman Sachs

CHARLIE ROSE: In the fallout of the economic crisis, one name has
come to epitomize both Wall Street success and public resentment against
the financial system. Goldman Sachs, the 140-year-old investment firm has
long been known as an outlier with an indisputable record of financial
success. "The Times of London" recently called the firm "the best cash
making machine that global capitalism has ever produced, and, some say a
political force more powerful than governments."

Despite last year’s deep recession the firm posted a $13.4 billion profit,
a Wall Street record, and it recorded another $3.5 billion gain for the
first quarter of this year, a 91 percent increase.

The firm’s influence extends well beyond markets. Two of the last six
U.S. Treasury Secretaries were Goldman CEOs before they left for
government. Despite or perhaps because of this success, the firm has come
under attack from both Washington and Main Street. Many point to the
billions that it received from AIG after the insurer received a massive
bailout from the government. Other critics say that the firm owes more to
society after taking advantage of cheap capital provided by the government.
More recently, the bank stands accused of deceiving its clients and
profiting from the collapse of the housing market. Reports broke late last
night that the Justice Department has opened a preliminary criminal
investigation to the firm’s trading.

The news comes just two weeks after the SEC accused the firm of fraud.
This is all had a deep impact on Goldman Sachs. Its stock fell over nine
percent today and has dropped 20 percent in just two weeks. Its reputation
has been called into question. "New York Magazine" recently called Goldman
"America’s most successful, cynical, envied, despised Wall Street player."

The man who leads this firm is not your typical executive, Lloyd
Blankfein was raised in a Brooklyn public housing complex by a postal clerk
and a wife who was a receptionist. As a teenager, he sold popcorn and
peanuts at Yankee stadium before attending college. He then got into
Harvard Law School. He began his career as an attorney before breaking
into investment banking as a commodities trader, one of the most
competitive fields in the investment world.

Today in the minds of many, he has come to symbolize Wall Street. On
Tuesday, the Senate permanent subcommittee investigations summoned Lloyd
Blankfein and several Goldman executives for nearly 11 hours of sharp
questioning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: You don’t believe it’s relevant to a
customer of yours that you are selling a security to that you are betting
against that same security. You just don’t think it’s relevant and needs
to be disclosed, is that the bottom line?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes. And the people who are selling it in our firm
wouldn’t even know what the firm’s position is, and--

CARL LEVIN: Oh, yes, they did. Oh, yes, they did.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Senator, we have got 35,000 people and thousands of
traders making markets throughout our firm. They might have an idea, but
they might not have an idea.

CARL LEVIN: Now you say they might.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And the next day it might be different.

CARL LEVIN: And what do you think, by the way, they have an idea more
than an idea in these cases. But putting that aside. What do you think
about selling securities which your own people think are crap. Does that
bother you?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think they would, again as a hypothetical .

CARL LEVIN: No, this is real.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Well, then I don’t.

CARL LEVIN: We heard it today.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Well .

CARL LEVIN: We heard it today. This is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) deal,
this is crap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: And joining me now is Lloyd Blankfein, chairman & CEO
of Goldman Sachs. I’m pleased to have him on this program. Welcome.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Thank you, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think the public is so outraged?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: With respect to--

CHARLIE ROSE: With respect to your firm, with respect to Wall Street,
with respect to the financial sector, with respect to government bailouts?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think the financial system failed the American
people. I think people on Wall Street did well, carried themselves in a --
you know, in a very proud way. Some might say haughty way. When things
were going well. Talked about the contributions they were making to the
wider society, and to the economy, and to the country and to the world.

And guess what? When it didn’t work well, how could you not blame the
people that were getting -- that had awfully nice lives with when things
were going well, how could you not blame them when things turned badly.
Then to compound it, you know, people see -- people see some of the people
who did well when things were going well, not do so badly when things were
going badly.

And that absolutely infuriated people. And then that goes into the whole
system of whether people’s actual compensation was really being correlated
to performance. And that led to situation where how rigged is the game.
And so people got very, very, very upset and very, very angry.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what would you say to them?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I would say that if you look at this, there is --
the anger is -- is totally understandable and justified in many cases. Not
in every case. And not in every case to the same extent. But I -- you
know, I looked at some of the -- you know, I share the point of view.

But I understand now, if you ask why Goldman Sachs, they were five big
investment banks at the start of this period. Bear Stearns, Lehman,
Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Now there’s Morgan
Stanley and Goldman Sachs. And given how we performed in the market, there
was a lot of focus on us for doing -- you know, for doing well.

By the way, we did well largely not because we got this right or that
right. We did largely well because we didn’t lose as much money when a lot
of people were losing money. And not because we were so smart, but because
we have discipline of hedging.

CHARLIE ROSE: On housing you had the discipline of hedging and you
saw early on what was happening.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: By the way, we .

CHARLIE ROSE: . and then you had a bad position, you changed it to a
better position.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: By the way, we lost money in housing. We just
didn’t lose a lot.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. In terms of what the government did, there
is also a big question comes up. And one, the culture of firms who used to
be dedicated to the allocation of capital. The culture of firms. The
other question has to do with the -- with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Without what the government did, would Goldman Sachs have survived?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Hard to know. I’m not sure. But the risk was
enough so that I’m glad to not have tested it. So let me just take you
through the sequence. In the week after Lehman Brothers fell, and that was
the week in which there was a run on money market funds. That was the week
that AIG was bailed out. There was an issue with prime brokerage activity
in London. There was a lot of stresses and strains.

That, the Monday after that week, after that Lehman Brothers -- the
week following Lehman, we went to the markets ourselves. We did a
transaction with Warren Buffett in which he made a big investment in our
firm. And then we went to the capital markets the next day and sold equity
in our firm. And we effectively recapitalized ourselves. The government
talked (ph) bailout was some weeks later. So we took initiative. We
weren’t waiting for a government action. We thought we were pretty well
capitalized at the time, but we weren’t taking any chances and went to
private sources, Warren Buffett and the market, to recapitalize ourselves.

There was still a lot of volatility. Still a lot of uncertainty and
still a lot of systemic risk. If the government had not done what it did,
would the system have blown up? For sure if the system had blown up,
everybody would have been in trouble. Certainly us. Would that have
happened? I don’t know. No one will know.

You can’t go down two tracks. The history won’t let us have two choices.
We can’t look back. But I will tell you the risk, the consequences would
have been so great and the risk was so high that it was -- I would say it
was critical that the government took the actions that it did for the
benefit of the system. The risk was just too high. Who would have gone
under, who wouldn’t have gone under? We’ll never know. But the risk was
too high for everyone.

CHARLIE ROSE: At that time, did -- you have no problem in terms of
selling your paper?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We had access to the capital -- we had access to the
capital markets on any -- on every day. One day would have been better,
one day would have been worse. But certainly in the week and a half after
Lehman Brothers, we certainly were able to raise equity and raise preferred
-- and raise -- raise capital. But that still wouldn’t have been a
safeguard.

Let me tell you, the most important thing that the government did, at least
as far as we’re concerned, was not the injection of the TARP money, which
gets all the focus. You know, gave most banks 25, we were mark to market
firms so our capital needs were perceived as less, and so we got $10
billion. But we had a lot of excess, we had a lot of cash.

That wasn’t the most important thing for us. What was the most
important thing was the general embrace of the government of the financial
system, including the nine banks that basically calmed the market down.
The amount of dollars they put in was much less important. It was not
important, really, at all for us. But--

CHARLIE ROSE: Or JP Morgan.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But they did other -- or JP Morgan. But what they
did was important for us and everyone else.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: They settled the market. They stopped the run.
There was a bit of a run on the bank. Credit froze. People weren’t
lending. People were insecure what other institutions were worth. For
some cases, some element of what they did in injecting capital assured
people.

But they also made credit available through the FDIC, if you wanted to take
it. They also did some activities that stabilized money market funds. And
they, in general, embraced the financial system. That was critical. I’m
not -- I’m not -- by saying that, I’m not diminishing the consequence of
the TARP. I am just saying that other things they did at the same time
were very, very consequential, and consequential to the point of
criticality, I think.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is there anything about the financial regulation that
is being offered, the Dodd bill, and the Volcker rules as they even may be
modified that would be injurious to the future of Goldman Sachs?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think that it’s hard to know. It’s hard to know.
It feels -- the points feels fluid. I’m not even sure myself what’s in and
what’s out. And even to the extent that certain words have been in for a
long time, I’m not sure every element of interpretation. I could tell you
that there are aspects that directionally I agree with, with everything
directionally, maybe 90 percent.

CHARLIE ROSE: Of the regulations, 90 percent -- of the reform--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: For sure it has to be reformed. But even the
outline of the Dodd bill, I’m very, very constructive and very positive on
all the aspects. There are parts of it that depending on how it goes, I
think could be improved.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. How about the Volcker rules as defined by Paul
Volcker?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Again, I’m not sure entirely what they would apply
to. But I think that, look, I think there are aspects of the Volcker rule
that go too far. I don’t think in a cataclysmic--

CHARLIE ROSE: So do you -- what would happen to Goldman Sachs if you
could no longer engage in proprietary trading?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think that if we eliminated all the activity that
is unrelated to client activity at Goldman Sachs, we would probably do away
with about ten percent of our revenue.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you wouldn’t care then. I mean ten percent--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I care about--

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, no, but in the great scheme of things, if it is
only ten percent of your revenue, if that reform would only eliminate --
would only reduce your revenue by ten percent --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I would care very much about the -- I work very hard
for the ten percent of our revenue. And I would say that if the activity
that it would otherwise eliminate is otherwise benign activity that is
diversifying and doesn’t create a risk for the system, then I think it’s a
bad idea.

CHARLIE ROSE: Goldman Sachs for a long time was a partnership.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Uh-huh.

CHARLIE ROSE: Would it be better as a partnership today?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: It would be impossible to be a partnership today.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because .

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: . and accomplish -- and accomplish--

CHARLIE ROSE: Because as you know what -- the argument being made by
some people, they look at it and said, when those firms were partnerships,
they looked at risk differently.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You know, let me say, Charlie, we run the firm as a
partnership. Our top 400 people we call partners. We act together. The
teamwork is in the same way. Compensation for the partnership is of a
certain kind of way. We have the compensation that all the observers of us
say even think of it as the partnership. But why did we stop being -- we
were the last firm to give up being a partnership. We liked being a
partnership. But partnership does not have permanent capital when a
partner retired, he took his capital with him.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And the firm was unstable. Companies, corporations
have permanent capital. We are a big financial firm. We’re not big --
just big in the United States. We’re one of the biggest in every country
in the world. Where we advise companies, help people.

Listen, it suits American business that we have a very big business in
China that allows, you know, just helps to facilitate their investments
back and forth between China and the United States. These things matter.
We could not do those activities unless we have a balance sheet that had
permanent capital. That was why reluctantly with much observation and much
fanfare and much regret and tears and -- the firm stopped being a
partnership in 1999.

CHARLIE ROSE: And some in the firm were opposed to it at the time.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Most people were opposed to it. It was a concession
to necessity.

CHARLIE ROSE: But the question I had asked was when the firm was a
partnership, it was much more careful about what it did and how it managed,
and how it looked at risk.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think we are -- we are totally careful about how
we look at risk. I think we are, frankly, our reputation is as effective
risk managers -- I think the whole dialogue about the question you asked me
about betting and clients, is a function of a failure to appreciate how we
manage our risk. In other words, if we accumulate risk in one way, we’re
going to work very hard to distribute that risk.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, but then you are saying is those kinds of
transactions, while they may not be about allocating capital, they may not
have some societal benefit--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, no, no. They have -- these are -- these are all
transactions -- how did we get those positions in the first place? Through
client positions. Let’s -- even within the home, where did all those
positions, that all those firms had that lost all that money, and the firm
positions that we had. Those were secure -- those were holding on to
securities of mortgages. Those had huge -- how do commercial banks lend --
how do community banks lend money to, you know, to their people. Remember
Bailey Savings & Loan from "It’s a Wonderful Life."

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: They lent out the money. And once they lent out all
the money, where was the money? Remember Jimmy Stewart, it’s in your home,
your home, your home. Well in modern finance, they don’t just lend out the
money once. After they lend out the money, the banks take those mortgages,
wrap them together, and sell them to financial institutions like us who
resell them to investors. The money then goes back to the banks, cash.

And they lend it out and put it into new homes again. And that cycle gets
repeated. Those securities are supposed to be distributed. Many people
just accumulated them. And the accumulation of those securities created a
lot of the excessive risk that almost tore down the system. Our process--

CHARLIE ROSE: The creation of those securities, created the excessive
risk that almost tore down the system.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: The accumulation, what they -- what you are supposed
to do, whether it’s risk in mortgage-backed securities or risk in
government bonds or risk in equities is you are supposed to manage your
risk. If you -- the way a market maker like us works is we hold ourselves
-- now we have different levels of business.

We have advisory businesses. We have asset managed businesses, we are a
fiduciary. We have a market making business where we hold ourselves out to
facilitate transactions that other people want to do. So if you want -- we
wouldn’t deal with you, we deal with the big institutions.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. OK.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And big companies. If you wanted to sell something,
we would give you a price where you could buy it. If you wanted to buy
something, we would give you a price where you could sell it. Now the way
the world works, it’s not like you come into buy, somebody comes in to sell
and we match you off. Firms like us are always getting risk in one way.

So, for example, if the equity market was going, it was going down. You
would be selling equities to us. Everybody in the world would be selling
equities to us. We would be accumulating equities unless we could find a
place to sell it. So at some point before we could buy any more from you,
we better find somebody else to who want to buy it. And so we keep having
to lower to a price where that person wants to buy it. That’s a market
making function.

CHARLIE ROSE: And how crucial is that to your business?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: It’s crucial to the American capital system. It’s a
part of our business. It’s one of the activities that we do. It is a very
important business. But if people couldn’t get into and out of their
securities, they would never buy them in the first place. If a big company
wanted to sell its bonds to finance its construction project, they’ll want
to sell it to you. If you thought you had to hold that security forever,
whatever the fortunes of the company, if you thought you can never get your
money back, if you thought whether you, if you thought you wanted to take
your money out and put it into something else and it would be hard to do,
you wouldn’t invest in the first place and they could never raise the
money.

The ability of the capital markets to help companies and businesses and
institutions raise money when they want to, invest their money when they
want to, at the core is a constant churn and movement of positions around
and around and it’s the market makers that provide that access and that
liquidity.
CHARLIE ROSE: The question is not whether Goldman Sachs did something
illegal or not. That legality other people can decide--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Sure.

CHARLIE ROSE: Even President Clinton said "I’m not sure Goldman Sachs
did anything illegal." But people raise questions as to whether there was
any wrongdoing. Difference in right and wrong, when they say that to you,
do you understand what they are saying?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, Charlie, of course I understand what they’re
saying. I think, listen. When I was sitting there at the Senate hearings
and after having given over 20 million pieces of paper, emails--

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: . conversations and other documents which were
basically snippets and conversations, there were some e-mail where some
people were projecting I would say at best an indifference, and at worst a
callousness to the fact that we had sold something in time and maybe
somebody had bought something that didn’t go well. And one of our clients
lost money.

Now our clients didn’t lose money because of security didn’t do what
it was supposed to do. It lost money because the security provided a
certain kind of risk that the client sought, actually functioned the right
way, but the market and the risk and the -- in other words, people got the
risk they sought.

And again, when I talk about people, these are all sophisticated
institutions, and didn’t do well. And in a couple of the e-mails, a few of
the e-mails that came out, there was more of an expression of relief that
we didn’t do badly, and not a regret that a client did do badly as a
result, after the fact. That kind of indifference and that kind of, and as
I said, callousness in some cases, is something that was very disturbing to
me. And doesn’t represent--

CHARLIE ROSE: And where do you think it came from?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I just--

CHARLIE ROSE: Was it just simply one exception on the part of an
individual? Or do you think it had to do in the end with the kind of
culture that had developed?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You know, we have to be thoughtful about that. And
you know, I can’t -- I can’t at this point -- I can’t exclude the latter.
Look. We have--

CHARLIE ROSE: But explain that. You can’t exclude the latter--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I can’t exclude--

CHARLIE ROSE: It may very well be--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We’re going to have--

CHARLIE ROSE: That there was a callousness and a sense of things had
become blurred as to what one ought to do.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I would say in a particular case, in those
particular things but as I said, there is 35,000 people at the firm. There
was 20 million e-mails. I assure you, when those e-mails were revealed and
this was a very humbling experience. And it was a very difficult, you can
imagine how much fun it was sitting there, even though was appropriate that
we do. But I’m sure that those e-mails were selected from those millions
of e-mails because they were the worst things.

I at the core, believe that is not representative of the firm. That is not
who we were. There was a selection. Do I know that those were all, but I
will tell you we’re not stopping there. We’re going to soul search. And
we’re going to look through this. And it’s inexcusable if ten people think
that way or thought that way. We’re going to have to be very, very--
introspective.

CHARLIE ROSE: And perhaps do what?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And make sure that we adjust people to understand
that our fortunes, that it’s not only the right thing to do to be more
aligned with the interests of your client, but that it’s essential to our
legitimacy and ultimately therefore to our success.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. Let me speak to that for a second. Legitimacy, I
mean what is at risk today for your firm? In the court of public opinion
and in the court of its future?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think legitimacy is a good -- is a good word.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because some people have said to me knowing you were
coming here, they are at great risk because if their clients don’t believe
them.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: They’re out of business.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think that’s right. But I .

CHARLIE ROSE: If your clients don’t believe you and you lose
something in this engagement that is taking place now, Goldman Sachs is at
risk.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Goldman Sachs -- yes, we are not -- we are not -- we
are not in a good place, that’s for sure, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: But there is now discussion about a criminal suit.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I’ve read -- I have read the newspaper reports.

CHARLIE ROSE: Just--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But that’s -- but that’s, you know, listen. There
are a lot of -- I’m telling you, it is -- we hate it. I said in my opening
statement in the Senate it was the worst day when I received that civil
suit. But--

CHARLIE ROSE: It was the worst day because, in your words?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: It was the worst day because it was the idea that
our government accused us of a fraudulent act. This was a very specific,
this was a specific -- let me say, this was a specific case involving a
specific -- a fine--

CHARLIE ROSE: You got up in the morning and the headline said SEC
charges --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, it was in the middle -- it was -- I didn’t get
up in the morning.

CHARLIE ROSE: No, no, but you saw it the next day, too. I mean, you
know.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Well, I saw it the next day, by then I already had
it. It was in the middle of the morning. It was stunning. It came over
the screen. I saw it over the screen. I read it and my -- I just -- my
stomach turned over. I couldn’t -- I was stunned. I was stunned.
Stunned.

But to your point, of course, but I would say but we live in the -- we
live, rely on the opinions of our clients and have for 140 years. This
didn’t start yesterday. It didn’t start last week with the lawsuit from
the SEC. We are judged every day. I will tell you, this market that we’re
in has a lot of things. But one thing for sure, it’s the most competitive
market and our clients understand what we do. And they validate us every
day by doing their business with us.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think Goldman Sachs does better than
everybody else?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: To you the question. Why do you think Goldman Sachs
does better than everybody else?

CHARLIE ROSE: I will tell you what I assume.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yeah.

CHARLIE ROSE: I assume you hire the best people.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Because we recruit and hire the best people. And
more importantly, because we retain them. And the reason why we retain
them and the reasons why we get the best people is, and I believe this, let
me say.

CHARLIE ROSE: I want you to say. No, no--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You got to let me say this. Because we get people
who are really interested in doing something that they think is good for
the public, for the world they are in. If you look at, you mentioned
earlier my predecessors who became secretaries of Treasury. I could take
you back and give you a hundred -- the people, we get a kind of person at
Goldman Sachs who really wants to be an influential person, who wants to do
something that is important. Who feels that the job .

CHARLIE ROSE: Who wants to make lot of money and then go out and do
good.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You know something, the people that we have would
like to do well for themselves also.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do well.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But most of them at the height of their careers go
into public service. I mean the record is .

CHARLIE ROSE: Is the record ...

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Not just in the U.S. but all around the world. Not
just at the top of the firm but in the middle of the firm.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you are saying is the secret of Goldman Sachs is
that they hire the right people.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And we hire -- right, we hire the right people.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And retain the right people. And at certain times,
lose the right people and make room for other right people to come in.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you thought your resignation as CEO would make a
difference in terms of the future of the firm, is that something you would
do?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Of course. But first of all, it wouldn’t even be a
choice I would have. I serve at the pleasure of a board of directors.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But if they thought--

CHARLIE ROSE: No, no, that is different. Of course, they could fire
you. But I’m saying, if you thought it, if you decided, would you do it?
Is that what you would do?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Sure.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you decided that you being there, notwithstanding
whether you had done anything and hadn’t given great leadership, but if you
thought that it was injurious for the firm for you to stay as CEO, you
would leave.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes, I serve the interest of the firm. The firm is
not there for my benefit. The firm is not there for my benefit. I’m there
for -- I’m there -- I’m there in service of the firm.

CHARLIE ROSE: And so what’s the challenge for Goldman Sachs today?
To move beyond this?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Well, the challenge--

CHARLIE ROSE: I know you got to meet legal actions and you have to
respond by--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Sure. And by the way, the firm is -- listen, this
is a big preoccupation for me and a big preoccupation for a lot of members
of our management group, but--

CHARLIE ROSE: You have no choice.

LB: But -- and we have no choice. But 35,000 people at Goldman Sachs
are coming into the office every day and helping to manage people’s money,
advising companies on how to grow, helping to raise capital for them.
Helping companies in the United States expand overseas.

We -- you know, in other words, I am living in this world, you know, this
week, and you know what my schedule was this week and how much time I’m
spending on these matters. But I would say, the overwhelming preponderance
of the firm are serving the interests of the, you know, are working there
17 or 19 hour days, serving the interests of their clients. And that’s
going on right now. So that’s-- all that is going through.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do you have to do, and what does Goldman Sachs
have to do?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: The challenge is that we have--

CHARLIE ROSE: To get back--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: -- we have to -- we have a lot of work to do. We
are in a hole, I think--

CHARLIE ROSE: The hole is what? I want you to define the hole for
me.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think that there is a lot of resentment and anger
over the financial crisis, of which a partial cause was financial
institutions, of which -- and that is a community of which we are a member.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the most prominent.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: The most prominent. I don’t think we did anything
uniquely wrong as far as financial institutions are concerned.

CHARLIE ROSE: So in other words, you are saying whatever we did that
might be considered wrong, everybody else was doing it.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But we’re bigger and we are--

CHARLIE ROSE: So we want to be a leader.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And we are a leader. We want -- listen, yesterday -
- you know, Wednesday I didn’t particularly want to be a leader when I was
sitting in front of the Senate. We are a leader, like it or not. And most
of the time we like it. And so obligations come with that. And so we have
our share of responsibility. Maybe more than our share.

But at the same time, it seems a bit disproportionate that we’re-- we’re
the firm that probably managed our risks very well and that we have a
disproportionate share of all the burden that financial institutions in the
United States and around the world should have to take for this. So I
don’t claim -- it’s not a matter of fairness, but it is a matter of
proportionality.

The challenge that we have is to repair that reputation. And one of
the complexities that we have -- and maybe this is an oversight of us, it’s
our own fault-- but for 140 years, Goldman Sachs is an institutional firm.
We transact with corporations, big institutions, governments, states, where
we buy bonds from the United States government. Who don’t we deal with?
For the most part, we don’t deal with the American public. We don’t have
banks on the street corner. We don’t do credit cards. We don’t have
checking accounts. We’re not involved in the lives.

The things that we do that support the American economy, that at the
core, we are a very important catalyst for economic growth when you think
of the money we raise for industries, the tech firms we take public, the
bonds we raise to finances (ph). We are very important. But the public
doesn’t see that, the way they see their credit card company, and the place
where they get their mortgage. We don’t do that. So for 140 years, we
didn’t focus--

CHARLIE ROSE: I know, but--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: -- on the Americans. Now we have to take a damaged
reputation with the American, without the contact with the American public
to build on. And that’s, you asked me what the big challenge is.

CHARLIE ROSE: That is why you are here, and that is why you--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: That is a huge challenge. I have to say, it is my
deficiency, but how often have you seen me on television on general
interest news shows?

CHARLIE ROSE: Never.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You know something?

CHARLIE ROSE: What?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: That was probably a mistake. But now it -- you see
that we have a lot of work to do explaining to people what it is that we
do. And we’re starting from a hole.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here is what one person said to me. Has there ever
been a time -- this is a respected journalist in the world of finance --
Has there ever been a time--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: That is redundant, respected journalist.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you were looking for that one?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Has there ever been a time when Goldman’s investment
advisors bought securities from Goldman for a client and at the same time
Goldman was simultaneously shorting it?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I have to explain -- see, this is a problem. As a
market maker, we are making -- buying and selling a thousand times a
minute, probably. That’s what I -- that’s what I -- that’s the detach and
that’s why--

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, but I mean -- but see, that is the question.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But not--

CHARLIE ROSE: You are saying that is our business. And other people
are saying is that -- should that --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, but let me--

CHARLIE ROSE: I mean, and your answer always was before -- here at
this table and before this interview -- you know. That’s who we are. We
are a market maker. So we are buying over here and shorting over here and
investing over here, and advising over here--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, no, no, no. Stop, stop, stop. Stop. Advising
opportunity, advising is where people are coming to us for advice.

CHARLIE ROSE: On mergers and acquisitions and raising capital.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Right, let me explain. Right. That is an activity
where people are asking us for our opinion, where we have an obligation and
a duty and relationship. And I’m not talking about law. I’m talking about
people’s expectations.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what we are talking about.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: When we are explaining our market maker, somebody
saying what is the price on IBM? What is the price on this, what is the
price? Simultaneously someone is buying, someone is selling a thousand
times. They’re not asking us for opinion. We’re not providing. We are
simultaneously sell, buy, buy, sell, sell, buy -- think of the New York
Stock Exchange.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Let’s make believe we were the New York Stock
Exchange. That’s a market.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. It is.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Like a market maker. Ask the question, and instead
of Goldman use the word New York Stock Exchange.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Can someone go to the New York Stock Exchange, buy a
security, the same time they are selling and at the same time they are
selling a security?
CHARLIE ROSE: No, they need someone to help them do it, a market
maker.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Let me ask you a question. Can the -- would the New
York Stock Exchange sell you the security and simultaneously buy it from
someone else? Would they?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Of course, that’s what a market maker does. All day
long. It’s just we’re like a machine that lets people--

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: --buy and sell what they want to buy and sell.
That’s not the advisory business. That’s just a facility for market
making. That’s what has -- that’s what the detach is. And I am telling
you--

CHARLIE ROSE: That -- the detach meaning that’s where the breakdown
in understanding--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: -- Goldman Sachs is. And that’s where--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Not Goldman Sachs, every firm like us.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, but you are the one under scrutiny right now.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We’re under scrutiny, but that doesn’t mean we are
the firm--

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: In other words, we have the burden of explaining it.
But in any way, that is what I’m saying. So if you just used instead of--

CHARLIE ROSE: All right, but let me--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: New York Stock Exchange.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you imagine circumstances in which that would be
wrong?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think it would be--

CHARLIE ROSE: In a sense where you are shorting something that you
are advising somebody to do something?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Not advising, again--

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. All right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: It’s a different, it’s a different thing. We’re--

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you imagine, I’m trying to get at this notion why
people have a perception--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We are not working against--

CHARLIE ROSE: Every senator up there had some perception that there
was wrongdoing. And it wasn’t just about the SEC suit either. It was
somehow there is something going on. That’s one argument. The other
argument they were making, other people are making, and I think some
friends of yours--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Let me ask you, if you went into, again, who we --
who are, by the way, who is this market? The biggest institutions, mutual
funds. Could you imagine a market where somebody came in, the trades that
get done are hundreds of millions if not billions of trades a day. This is
not -- this is just a facility for being the other side of what people
wanted to do. Anyway.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right, but let me just ask you that--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Since you mentioned that, in terms of putting together
securities, you know, and if -- if the people who were buying those, these
very sophisticated people you are talking about, if they knew, if they knew
that Goldman or people who helped put the securities together believed they
were going to fail--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We would--

CHARLIE ROSE: -- would they have -- would they-- would they have
bought them or not?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: If they believed they would fail, they wouldn’t buy
it. If we believed it would fail--

CHARLIE ROSE: We wouldn’t sell it.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: -- the security wouldn’t work, we would not sell it.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you believed that a bundle of securities you had put
together were going to decline in value, fail --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, that’s -- no--

CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, you want to--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, that’s very important.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: We -- look. The equity markets, do you think the
equity markets are going up or down from here? We just went up 70 percent.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do I think?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: What do you think?

CHARLIE ROSE: I think things are going to go up because I believe in
America. That’s sort of--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Me too.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But I don’t know. But let’s say I thought they were
going to go down.

CHARLIE ROSE: I mean, I think we’re coming out of--

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: And I thought your buying -- you’re buying an
instrument--

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: . that-- buying equity would lose your money, I
would sell that to you. That’s not failure.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: A security that would fail is a security that was
not going to work the way you wanted it to work. In other words, the basis
of markets is that everybody makes a decision in the professional-- in the
way markets work, is that you want to get a risk that you want. If you
understand the risk, and you are suitable to take that risk, the New York
Stock Exchange doesn’t ask who are you or what you think or what the New
York Stock Exchange’s opinion is. You could buy that risk.

We would never, we would let you buy a tech stock even if we had an opinion
that tech stocks were going to go down. That is not our business. Are you
not looking for our opinion to that. You are looking to buy a technology
stock and you know what you want to buy and you come to us and sell it.

CHARLIE ROSE: But suppose --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But if you want to buy something that wasn’t going
to work, that you thought you were buying a stock and the company was a bad
company, and it wasn’t going to deliver or it was a-- or it was, or the
security wasn’t going do what you thought it was, we wouldn’t sell it to
you.

CHARLIE ROSE: Maybe that’s what I am asking you.

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: You may just have answered it. Suppose I’m at Morgan
Stanley. I’m going to sell you a security because I believe, I believe
it’s going to go up.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: I will sell you a security, and you are believing it is
going to go up. At the same time somewhere else in Goldman Sachs, we’re
shorting that same security. There’s no problem there, in your judgment?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No problem.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s just the nature of making markets. That’s the
nature of markets work.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: By the way, we wouldn’t even know. First of all, A,
you might have your own opinion. B, if somebody at Goldman Sachs is
selling that security, they might plan to buy it back in two seconds, you
might be investing in that security for five years. You don’t know. In
other words, we have rows and rows of people who are answering people’s
requests to buy and sell securities all day. They’re not going around and
say, what was the last trade long or short. The market wouldn’t work.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you are also saying we would not go out and advise
somebody to buy a security at the same time we are shorting it, or that
doesn’t bother you either.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Again, you know, again, I don’t want to get trapped
in the technicality.

CHARLIE ROSE: I know.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: But that’s not how a market-- the market makers
work. When we are advising, then we have a fiduciary obligation and a
duty. And I’m not talking-- it happens to be a legal expression, but it is
also the ethics of the market. When we are just a facility to facilitate
other people’s transactions, they are not asking us our opinion and they
wouldn’t care about what we-- what some other trader down three seats away
did or didn’t do.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here is what I believe you are saying about the housing
crisis, and correct me, that was at the core of the subprime crisis and the
housing bubble, was that at the core of a global economic meltdown,
correct?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes, it was at the core. It probably wasn’t the
only thing at the core.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. And --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: It might not even be the first cause.

CHARLIE ROSE: What was the first cause?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: If you want to make it more general, there was a
general overleveraging on everything, the housing was a symptom of it. But
it wasn’t-- consumer credit was overleveraged. The federal government was
overleveraged. Corporations had borrowed too much money.

CHARLIE ROSE: Everybody had lost, there was too much debt and
everybody had lost sight --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Including.

CHARLIE ROSE: Of risk. Everybody lost sight of risk.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Including housing, not limited to housing.

CHARLIE ROSE: How would you fix that so that we don’t do that again?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Well, I can tell you we can improve our chances of
not doing it again.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because it is reducing risk.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: There are a number of things that we are going to
do. But if you-- you will not absolutely rule out excess. You can pass a
law against excess, and somewhere down the road some excess will appear at
some point from some direction and no one will know it at the time and
everyone will know it in hindsight.

But some of the reforms that are being talked about today will improve the
chances of having-- make it less likely to happen. So for example, a
systemic regulating council people to look out around corners and say where
are these excesses taking-- maybe I won’t see all of them. But maybe I
will see more than we would have thought before.

CHARLIE ROSE: How about a consumer protection aspect of it.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: A consumer protection aspect to make sure that
doesn’t build up in consumers.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Derivative legislation to make sure that leverage
doesn’t come--

CHARLIE ROSE: Transparency.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Transparency. Those are all things designed-- .

CHARLIE ROSE: That are you in favor of.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Of course. Those are all things-- .

CHARLIE ROSE: But you know, the characterization is that the Wall
Street is down there lobbying against it all the time, as you know,
spending millions of dollars.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: You know, Wall Street just like academics, just like
corporations are not only, you think I’m saying entitled. I’m going to go
further. Are invited by staffs of legislators, can you explain this to me,
can you explain that to me. What are the consequences of this? If we pass
this rule, could these people tell me what you think the consequence is,
good or bad.

So let me tell you, if you call it, if you call it lobbying all the
time, you have one image of it. And maybe there’s excessive petitioning
and it turns into that. But I will tell you, even in the Senate hearing
that we had, there was a lot of entreaties by the senators saying, I hope
you will work with us to pass the right rules and not the wrong rules and
to work with us. What do you think that means? That means going in and
giving-- making recommendations.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you are not going to sit here and suggest, I don’t
think though, that all lobbying is simply trying to explain and help them.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: No, but all lobbying isn’t invidious. And a lot of
it is explained.

CHARLIE ROSE: No, exactly, OK. It depends on what --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes, sometimes -- yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you are in favor of the Dodd bill, is that what I’m
hearing you saying?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I’m in favor-- the Dodd bill is still being-- I’m in
favor of, frankly I’m in favor of a bipartisan bill, which will incorporate
the bulk of the Dodd bill. But elements of refinement to it. So I’m in
favor of a bipartisan bill.

But as we started ticking through it, some of those things in the bill are
designed to make a-- a bubble less likely. Some of those things are
designed to make the consequence of being caught up in a bubble less
dangerous, like having extra capital to absorb losses when they occur. And
some of the things in the bill are designed that if everything else fails,
let’s make sure the consequences of failure aren’t so great again. And
that’s the resolution authority, ending the too big to fail element.

So there’s a number of elements in that bill that let’s avoid the
problem, let’s make sure we could absorb the problem, and if we can’t, and
if one and two fail, let’s make sure we can, you know, put a company out of
business in a way that won’t affect the whole system. Those are three very
important elements. And of course consumer legislation is very important.

Now, we happen not to be a consumer firm, so we have less to say about it
and less experience with it. So we tend to talk about it less. But
obviously consumer legislation in some form is essential as well.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think the country is headed in the right
direction in terms of -- and the president in terms of what he is trying to
do about the economy, about jobs, about the whole range of issues that
affect the economy and the economic recovery of the country?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think there is consensus around the direction. I
think most of the debate, even though the debate is strenuous and at times
to somebody who, you know, is not used to, is not as a keen observer as
some other people, looks sometimes aggressive and bitter, but if you look
at the actual issues, I think the directions in which both parties are
going in are pretty consistent. And a lot of this dispute and a lot of
disagreements are around small percentage of the whole outline. Now they
have consequences and some of these things may be worth fighting for, but I
would say on the whole, most -- they are quite consistent in the direction.

CHARLIE ROSE: Goldman Sachs will survive.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Thrive.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thrive. Lloyd Blankfein will survive?

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Lloyd Blankfein, yes, I’ll be here.

CHARLIE ROSE: As CEO of Goldman Sachs.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: That’s my-- that’s my-- that’s my expectation and
that’s my-- that’s my duty. And I feel that.

CHARLIE ROSE: And Goldman Sachs a year from now will be essentially
the same company that it is today, doing the same things.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Goldman Sachs, I don’t think has ever been the same
company two years in a row, ever. In any moment. We are always evolving.
Look, in the last 10, 15 years, we went from a private company to a public
company, a mostly U.S. company to a global company. A most -- a small
balance sheet to a big balance sheet. We -- a private partnership to not a
private partnership. We are always evolving to meet the needs of the
markets and our clients. And we will continue to evolve in order to
accomplish that.

CHARLIE ROSE: There is misunderstanding in terms of the functions of
Wall Street, in terms of how people have been hurt. In terms of the whole,
are you agreeing with me or --

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I’m agreeing and I want to add something. Because I
don’t want to leave you. It isn’t all the misunderstandings are on the
other side well. We have soul-- in other words, we, I sat there and it
wasn’t just trying to parry every thrust. There are things -- when I say
we have to evolve, we have to take into account, we have to read these
things, and that the callousness of some of the e-mails I listened to,
which I don’t think are representative but were still there, we have to
make adjustments also. And I-- if I-- if your summary, if you were done
with your summary, then I have done a bad job of telling you that we are
listening also and that we know we have to make changes.

There are ways in which I have to do a better job of informing people
about markets and what we do and the contribution we make. But it’s not
one way. We-- let me tell you, there are a lot of-- we’re getting a lot of
communication these days. And we have to be awfully thick not to pick it
up. And so we are going to have to go--

CHARLIE ROSE: And not to say that what, that we have to change.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: Yes. Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: I don’t understand, I really don’t. You know, you
mentioned the e-mails and clearly that represents something, if that
represents something at Goldman Sachs, we want to do something to make sure
it’s not. But what is it Goldman Sachs has to do to change? I still don’t
understand.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think we have to engage more. We might have to,
well, we’ll look at all of our business practices. But we have to do more
about examining the crosscurrents and we have to look at the conflicts
inherent, by the way, inherent in the business where you’re a go-between
between buyers and sellers. People who need to invest money and people who
need those investments. We’re always intermediating in our business
between interests that are in conflict, and we help to resolve those
conflicts. But in some ways, we’ve taken those conflicts on ourselves.

The conflicts themselves aren’t a bad thing because there are buyers
and sellers. They have to meet. The buyer wants it to go up. The seller
wants it to go down, there is an inherent conflict. But we have to do a
better job of being transparent and examining our processes to make sure
that the society is in tune to the way in which we’re making our decisions
on those outcomes.

And I know it sounds -- it’s not as concrete as you would like it to be or
as I would like it to be. But I’m just indicating to you that we are going
to have to go through our processes with a view to making people appreciate
in a more positive way what we are doing. We can’t -- we can’t, we can’t
exist in the current state that we are in. And we understand that. And so
we have a lot of work to do.

CHARLIE ROSE: The perception, and you know, and I think you just
spoke to that better than I have ever heard you say that, the perception
too, beyond an individual transaction, is that Wall Street is making a ton
of money in transactions that A, people don’t understand or B, that don’t
have economic benefit. That it’s become one great big casino in which a
bunch of selected people have gotten rich.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: I think, you know, we touched on this before. You
can characterize anything as a bet. You can call it a casino. People call
futures markets, they call the stock exchange a casino. The stock exchange
a casino? Well, people can make and people can lose. But really, there’s
an extraordinary social purpose in allowing people to take--

CHARLIE ROSE: To bet on anything.

LLOYD BLANKFEIN: To, think of it, you can characterize it that way
and some people did characterize it that way. But to take a risk or to
hedge a risk. Look, if I’m an auto company and I want to build plant and
equipment in South America, I might not do it if I can’t hedge that
currency. If I’m trying to -- if I’m trying to-- if I’m trying to finance
an offshore oil well, well, that oil well may work if oil is trading at
$80, if I can sell the oil that comes out of the ground or out of the ocean
at $80 a barrel. But if it comes out at $40 a barrel, I will go bankrupt.
So no one will give me financing unless what, unless I can lock in the
price of oil at $80 a barrel.

So I am going to go to a market. I’m going to go to Goldman Sachs and
say, I would like to sell oil forward at $80 a barrel. Is that person
betting on the price of oil? I guess you could say that. But what is that
person really doing? They are hedging a risk that will allow that company
to go out and invest $10 billion in extracting oil out of the market. That
person is selling oil, but as a result of selling oil forward, what does
the world get? It gets more oil. Because now that person will invest in
digging that well, and prior to that, they wouldn’t be able to invest in
digging the well, because they don’t know what the price of oil will be in
seven years.

Now, in order to do that, you really need somebody to be on the other
side. Who is going to buy that oil seven years forward? It could be
another client. It could be somebody who uses oil. It could be a
speculator. It could be Goldman Sachs taking the other side. But there’s
a real social purpose in doing that. This idea of transferring risk has a
very big -- you could call it a casino. But if it is, it’s a very socially
important casino.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you again.

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, as I said. There is-- we’re talking
about an area in which a lot of people have a lot of misunderstandings or
an absence of understanding. And it is complex. It is difficult. And we
hope that this advanced at least some the idea of what is taking place and
how some of this has fallen on the shoulders of Goldman Sachs. Thank you
for joining us. See you next time.




END

RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


Cordially,
Robert
http://class.englishcentral.com/wikiwalker
sixaroundtheworld@skype
Be well, Do good work ,and Stay in touch !

My Blog URL:
http://globalnpnplus.tk/
http://twitter.com/wikiwalker
http://webmaster.en101.biz/
--

A supply chain CEO on the global downturn

A supply chain CEO on the global downturn
Noble Group’s Richard Elman explains the domino effect of the financial crisis on moving commodities around the world.

FEBRUARY 2009

Richard Elman, founder and chief executive officer of global supply chain manager Noble Group, has more than 40 years experience in Asian trade and markets. He spoke with McKinsey Quarterly editor Clay Chandler in Hong Kong in November 2008 about the economic downturn’s implications on global trade. Watch the video or read the transcript below.
Video: A supply chain CEO on the global downturn









Noble Group’s Richard Elman explains the domino effect of the financial crisis on moving commodities around the world and his company’s approach for managing it.
Back to top

I think the interesting thing was that, in 1997, we had a crisis that was the Asian Crisis. It really didn’t affect Europe that much. It didn’t affect Africa particularly. Didn’t affect the United States so much. This time, we have a crisis—which seems to have started in New York—that’s creating recession globally.

So I think the interdependence on everything in the world, or everybody in the world, is getting deep. The US consumer doesn’t buy electronic goods unless they’re made in China. And the Chinese factory doesn’t have any employment unless it can export [these goods].

In fact, you’re seeing today a large number of factories in southern China closing down, for a number of reasons. One, they don’t have enough business. And two, they also became very expensive. But somebody else will fill that slot. Whether it be the Indians or maybe it goes to Romania or Bulgaria or some other country. But somebody’s going to fill those slots.

We’ve learned how to manage a lot of volatility. But it’s very, very difficult when there’s a breakdown of the financial system of the world. And you simply don’t know.

The charter rates for cape-sized1 ships have gone from a peak, a very short period, of $250,000 a day. But let’s take the top-end average; let’s say it’s $150,000 a day, down to $10,000 a day. So people [who] have made commitments of $150,000 have an asset that’s nearly $10,000 today. That is major. You’ve lost 90 percent of your asset value. Equities, many of them. Fifty percent is nothing. Sixty percent, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent—these are major, major impacts.

We were fundamentally right in our thinking. And we have always said if we don’t understand it, we shouldn’t do it. And I think we avoided doing a lot of things we didn’t understand. And we avoided spending a lot of money on buying businesses at exorbitantly expensive prices. In fact, we never bought a single business; we bought assets and we built the business around the assets. So I think that the model is good. We naturally have debt. Fifty percent of our debt is nonbank. The rest is committed. And we paid for it. We paid commitment fees for it. So it should be good. So I think we did—you know, in retrospect—maybe not with great foresight or great intelligence, but subsequently we can see we actually did some things—maybe because we were so conservative, I suppose. We’ve actually done some things that are right.

When we look at things, we say, “Does it make any sense? Is it real? Can we trust it? Can we rely upon it?” And that to us is the acid test at the end of the day. Because whether the VAR2 is 1.5 or 1.9 or 1.7, that tells you something, but it doesn’t tell you everything. It doesn’t tell you who the customer is, what his background is, how reliable he is, how’s he behaved in the past whatever number of years. And these are the things that you really have to look at much more closely. It’s not the intellectual risk. It’s the practical risk.

Sunday, May 09, 2010

A look at Apple's iPad with David Carr of 'The New York Times' and Walt Mossberg of 'The Wall St. Journal.'

http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/10948


A look at Apple's iPad with David Carr of 'The New York Times' and Walt Mossberg of 'The Wall St. Journal.'


CHARLIE ROSE: The iPad goes on sale tomorrow. Finally. It is hard
to remember when the announcement of a commercial product got so much
attention, almost as much as the president did this week. The iPad was on
the front page of "The New York Times" on Thursday. It is on the cover of
two national magazines this week. This is "Time," "Inside Steve’s Pad"
this is "Newsweek," "What’s So Great About the iPad? Everything."
Following the announcement of the product in January this was the cover of
"The Economist," "The Book of Jobs."

The level of attention some say is unusual even for Apple. A "Wall
Street Journal" columnist quipped earlier, the last time there was this
much excitement about a tablet, it had some commandments written on it. At
last month’s unveiling Apple CEO Steve Jobs described the iPad as a magical
and revolutionary product.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE JOBS, APPLE: And what this device does is extraordinary. You
can browse the Web with it. It is the best browsing experience you have
ever had. It’s phenomenal to see a whole Web page right in front of you,
and you can manipulate with your fingers. It’s unbelievably great. Way
better than a laptop. Way better than a smartphone. And you can turn iPad
anyway you want, up, down, sideways, it automatically adjusts however you
want to use it. And again, to see the whole Web page is phenomenal. Right
there, holding the Internet in your hands. It’s an incredible experience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: So what is all this saturation coverage about? It is
about this device. The iPad is half an inch thick, has a 9.7 inch screen,
and weighs 1.5 pounds, only 1.5 pounds. Today’s models cost between $499,
all the way up to $829 depending on whether you get 3G and the amount of
storage. The device offers a new platform to consume music, photos,
movies, games, books, and more. Apple expects more than 1,000 new apps for
the iPad by the release on Saturday. "Time" magazine, NPR, Netflix, game
from "Electronic Arts" and scrabble will be among them. The iPhone’s
150,000 apps will also work on the device. Let’s take a closer look at
what you can do.

The first thing you notice is that it’s about touch. You can go from
page to page to page, on and on as you look at applications, as you look at
a whole range of things. It’s touch, it’s the ability to move from page to
page. The second thing you notice is that there is Safari here, which is
the way to join the Internet. Go to Safari, and it will take you to your
home page. In this case it is "The Wall Street Journal" of which there is
a special application. Also you will notice that you can go to "The New
York Times" and a whole lot of other things. But when you go back here,
you will find that, for example, you can go to a series of apps, that if
you wanted news there is Reuters news probe. If you wanted to go to
Scrabble, there is Scrabble. If you want to go to Marvel there you go.

This is an extraordinary thing. Look at this "Marvel" comics. There
it is, it has all kinds of capacity to look at the different comics that
are available there. And you see the ease of the experience. And the
experience is what makes this in a really interesting way.

Now, also as you go from page to page to page, here’s "Time" magazine
from a particular time. What health care means for you? There it is. The
look of "Time" magazine in its extraordinary colors. There are also photos
you can go to, for example. If you go back here there is, let’s see,
photos right here.

Now, what’s interesting about the photos, again, the experience of
this, it is the ease of the touch. Take, for example, here, there’s a
whole series of pictures that have been put together for this sample called
"Weekend at the Coast." You can squeeze it in with touch. You can bring
it out so you see it later. And you get specific ones you can go to, it’s
all the ease of use that makes it fascinating.

The whole range of applications of which I have shown you some of them
include YouTube, it includes iTunes and then there is an app store what you
can go to. And the app store as I said earlier will tell you not only new
iPad applications but also you will be able to access all the applications
from your iPhone that are available from your iPhone.

Let’s take a look at one of the applications that is here. I will
mention again "Marvel" comics. There is an application, that is how you go
to that. Going back to the page, there is a whole series of things that
have to do with the ability to go way beyond what you have been able to do
in the past. There is also iPod comes up here, the ability to access your
music that you have and your music and your audio books and a whole range
of selections. Movies, videos, suppose you want to watch a movie on a
flight. Go to video, here it is. In this case you see three movies.

Let’s go to up. First thing you see is a whole series of descriptions
of the movie and what it is about. And then when you hit play, take a
look. The sound and the quality of the picture. Then if you want to turn
it around and look at it, there you go.

So we’ve been watching movies and now we decide we’re going to go to
Safari and see magazines or newspapers that we might want to read. So I go
to Safari. There my home page at "Wall Street Journal," I can take a look
here, and see some of the other magazines and newspapers. There is "The
New York Times." I can go to see "The New York Times." Notice that it
loads pretty fast. Then go to here is "The Wall Street Journal." I mean
"The National Geographic." And look at the level of the color which I find
amazing to me. And up here, is eBay. So when you’re operating this just
go back to this one place here that takes you to your menu.

For example, maps. You want to see maps. This is a map of obviously
New York City. And it’s pretty much close to where we are on 58th and
Lexington. So then you can open it up. There is Bloomingdales which is
very close, there is 59th street, you can take it up pretty high. And this
is, in fact, the building that we’re in right here as we take this segment,
this particular building here, right exactly where the blue dot is, is
where we are located. So it is a remarkable ability to take you around the
world.

One of the most talked about, written about aspects of the new iPad is
books. Part of that is because of the comparison with the Kindle. Let’s
take a look. Here you go.

There is your book library. And there are your books. Let’s pick
one. "Winnie the Pooh." Chapter Four, we are going to into Chapter Four,
having read chapter one through three. We turn the pages like this, look
at the graphics and the color that is present. Turn the page. Notice the
clarity of the light as well. The other thing that you find in an iPad
that many people want in any new device is games.

We’re going to take a look now at one of the interesting and popular
games that you see. It’s called "Real Racing HD" Here it is. Turn it
this way so you can get a wide view. There you go. It’s loading up now.

So this is fun even at my age. Take a look at this. Oops. And there
it is, one of the popular games. You get a sense of why so many young
people are increasingly wanting to have more and more games. Not done very
well but a lot of fun. No matter how good the maps and the movies and the
music and all the other things that you can access, the one thing that most
people want from their connection to the Internet is e-mail.

And here’s how you do it with the iPad. There you go right to your e-
mail, scroll up or down to see what you want. Then you want to read a
particular e-mail, and let’s assume either you want to reply or you want to
create a new e-mail. All you do is turn it there. And come over here and
you see a keyboard that is easy to use, it’s spread out and you can then
write without needing anything else, right here on this keyboard, the
response or the new e-mail. What’s interesting there is no mouse here, it
is all contained in this one, 1.5 pound tablet.

So what do the reviewers think? Some of them have described the iPad
as sleek, beautiful and a game changer. "Time" magazine’s Lev Grossman
says that the iPad will be the first true home computer. "The Wall Street
Journal’s Walt Mossberg we’ll see him later says it has the potential to
change portable computing profoundly and to challenge the primacy of the
laptop, but this iPad is not perfect for everyone’s expectations. The
device now does not have a camera, allow multitasking or view videos
through Flash.

Some have questioned whether users want to carry another device. "The
New York Times" David Poke summarized, "the iPad is so fast and light, the
multi-touch-screen so bright and responsive, the software so easy to
navigate that it really does qualify as a new category of gadget." Some
have suggested, he says, that it might make a good goof-proof computer for
technophobes, the aged and the young. They are absolutely right.

And the techies are right about another thing, he said. The iPad is
not a laptop. It’s not nearly as good for creating stuff. On the other
hand, it’s infinitely more convenient for consuming it, books, music,
video, photos, Web, e-mail and so on. For most people manipulating these
digital materials directly by touching them is a completely new experience,
and a deeply satisfying one.

The bottom line is that the iPad has been designed and built by a
bunch of perfectionists. If you like the concept, you’ll love the
machine." That from David Poke.

It is obviously much too early to say whether the iPad will be a huge
commercial success like the iPhone. Creating a market for tablets could be
a big challenge, an area where Microsoft and others have tried and faulted.
Media and publishing companies have high hopes for the iPad. Many are
betting it will offer a new way to showcase their content and charge for
it. Joining me now to talk about the iPad and its future are two
journalists who were present at the unveiling of the iPad in San Francisco
in January. Over the past week, they have put it through the paces. Walt
Mossberg of "The Wall Street Journal" and David Carr of "The New York
Times." I am pleased to have both of them back at this table in the cosmic
sense.

What does it represent in your judgment?

WALT MOSSBERG: Charlie, in my judgment it represents a potential
fundamental new kind of portable computing. Not just e-reading or the
things that the media publishers want, as important as that it is, but it
is really an overall computer that can do a zillion things. And so I think
it represents a potentially huge challenge to the laptop. And a potential
challenge to the user interface, we have all become used to on computers
since the first Mac was unveiled in 1984. And that user interface, by the
way was invented in the late ‘60s and the early ‘70s by Xerox’s lab in
Silicon Valley. The mouse, the icons, the menus.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: This is, of course, multi-touch and gesture, which we
all know about from the iPod and the Android phones and the other things,
but now it’s on this big screen, and it really competes with the laptop.
So in a cosmic sense, that could be, if it succeeds, that is the impact of
it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here is what you wrote in the paper this morning.
Laptop killer, pretty close. iPad is a game-changer that makes browsing
and video a pleasure, challenge to the mouse. And then you go on and say,
I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the
potential to change portable computing profoundly and to challenge the
primacy of the laptop. It could even help eventually to propel the finger-
driven multi-touch user interface ahead of the mouse driven interface that
has prevailed for decades. So that’s what Mr. Mossberg starts off with.
What do you say?

DAVID CARR: Well, I think his trumpets are pretty well warranted. I
think for sure, it is a mouse killer. The idea that we are now going to be
noodging around with something on a cord already seems almost quaint,
because you -- I’m a PC user. And I don’t have an iPhone. But there I am
typing at work after a night of navigating, you know, maps that I can pull
open, I can practically see you sitting right there, Charlie. And then
scale down to see how busy traffic is. When I’m typing away and I see
something I’m interested in, I start grabbing it and trying to spread it.
This is an instinct, a gesture that sets in fairly quickly, and I think
renews the romance of not only reading -- it’s a great device to read on --
but I’m with Walt in that, you finally earn the term surfing where you are
going wheeee across .

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly .

DAVID CARR: And you are not drilling down, down, click, click, click
where you are zooming across a lot of content in a friction-free manner.
You are not being punished for backing into this corner or that corner.
You can just keep going. And I think it’s going to be enormously
seductive, partly because it’s not an application where -- it’s not like
the iPhone ,people are always menacing you with their phone and seem, look
at this. This you sit next to, you want it. And it’s going to market.
You can’t be on the airplane next to the guy and not go, I want that thing.

WALT MOSSBERG: But I have to say two things. One positive for -- for
Apple’s efforts here and one that might not be so positive. The positive
part is David may not have an iPhone, and obviously people have all kinds
of phones. But there are 75 million, roughly -- and that may be a
conservative number because Apple doesn’t announce these numbers very
frequently -- iPhone and iPod touch owners who have used this interface.

CHARLIE ROSE: ITouch is an iPhone without the phone.

WALT MOSSBERG: Itouch is an iPhone without the phone and a couple of
other things. So they have a big base of people who already know this user
interface. It is obviously not nearly as big as the number that know the
mouse interface, but you know, a lot.

The downside thing, I would say is this really, people are still going
to carry their phones. And what I also said in that article and what I
believe is people are unlikely to carry a third thing. This is not very
big and it’s not very heavy and it is beautiful, I think at least. But
they are still not going to want to carry this and their laptop, and of
course they will still keep carrying their phone. So the game has got to
be to persuade people to carry this, at least let’s say 60 percent of the
time or some number you want to make up, instead of their laptop.

And I have to tell you, I have had this for about a week, and I’ve
been using it almost full-time night and day. And I basically -- I wrote
this this morning -- opened my Thinkpad and my MacBook about maybe 20
percent as much as I would have normally. So I was able to work, you know,
do e-mail, read all my Web sites that I read, run the apps that I read, do
social networking on this. And if you so, if you are someone like me, you
might answer yes, I can -- I can use this instead of my laptop a lot of the
time.

DAVID CARR: This .

WALT MOSSBERG: If you answer no, then you are not going to buy it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

DAVID CARR: This would, I think, Walt and I might disagree a little
bit. I think it is a productivity device for the average user, it’s got
its limits. I think the onscreen keyboard is -- this is something for
consumer media, not making media. When I think of it as a portable device
.

CHARLIE ROSE: Explain that, consuming media, not making media. You
mean people .

DAVID CARR: It’s great to watch .

CHARLIE ROSE: .people that want to use graphic design are not going
to use this.

DAVID CARR: Almost -- almost anything. You want to answer a short e-
mail, great. If it is going to get much longer than that, probably not.
Your kid’s not writing a term paper on this keyboard. I think it’s
portable in the sense that it lives in rooms all over the house. For
people like me, for people like Walt, for people like my kids who are on
the computer way too much, you close the lid on the laptop, right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

DAVID CARR: And you go to the other room and you got this thing that
will only do one thing at a time, which is entertain you and suck time away
at so -- at such a breathtaking rate, it is that third place in terms of .

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. That is very interesting. You agree with that
too, don’t you?

WALT MOSSBERG: I do agree with that. And we -- we do disagree a
little bit. I say now and I wrote this morning that I wouldn’t do this --
I wouldn’t do heavy long complex documents on this. But I’m somewhere in
between. I’m somewhere beyond where David is. I wrote part of that column
on this. But I think, I honestly think there’s -- we should explain that
they are not including on here but selling for $10 each a totally rewritten
Touch, not mouse driven, word processor, spreadsheet and presentation
program.

DAVID CARR: Did they spend a lot of time in the presentation, they’re
very serious about it.

WM: In the presentation. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time
testing them. They are certainly not as powerful as a Microsoft Office or
something on your computer whether it’s a Windows or a Mac. And that’s why
I say if you are doing a thousand column spread sheet I don’t think this is
what you want. But I think you are going to find students taking notes on
this. I think you are going to find students writing papers on this. It
really all depends on whether you are comfortable typing on glass. And
unfortunately, whether it is an Apple product or a Google product or lots
of other products, I think even a lot of BlackBerries eventually are going
to be typing on glass. And I say unfortunately, it’s unfortunate for
people who have trouble with that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah. What trouble might they have?

WALT MOSSBERG: Well, I mean, you know, obviously there are people
that strongly, strongly prefer physical keyboards .

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

WALT MOSSBERG: . that are touch typists.

DAVID CARR: He’s talking about me, I type like Fred Flintstone, and
it’s not -- it’s not pretty to watch.

(CROSSTALK)

WALT MOSSBERG: Did you have trouble with it, Charlie?

CHARLIE ROSE: None, none, I don’t -- that is why I don’t understand
why there is an issue. I in fact found it just easy.

WALT MOSSBERG: You know, compared to a Netbook, that’s not that
different from the size of a keyboard.

DAVID CARR: It’s a great thing -- I agree.

(CROSSTALK)

WALT MOSSBERG: Some of these Netbooks.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

WALT MOSSBERG: And I’m not a fast touch typist, but I have watched
two during that period I have had this, sit down and fly on this thing
after adjusting. It takes, you know, maybe five or ten minutes of
adjusting, and then they just moved.

DAVID CARR: When I -- when I .

WALT MOSSBERG: And they were -- and they were accurate. The thing
has auto-correction too. But it’s very personal, David. I think we’re not
going to -- you know, it’s just either you are going to like typing on it
or you are not.

DAVID CARR: They have a keyboard that they give you .

WALT MOSSBERG: Right. They don’t give -- but sell it. Yeah, right.

DAVID CARR: That they will sell you that works beautifully.

WALT MOSSBERG: A physical .

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s a regular physical keyboard.

WALT MOSSBERG: You plug it in here.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, I’ve tried that. I found that more difficult
because it sits into the thing.

WALT MOSSBERG: And it also -- also if you have the case on it like
David does.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

DAVID CARR: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: A little better.

DAVID CARR: Here’s the thing.

CHARLIE ROSE: You’re on the plane. There it is.

DAVID CARR: It goes that way, but then there is also the very happy
thing .

WALT MOSSBERG: Video watching, yes.

DAVID CARR: . of watching on the airplane, there it is.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah. Exactly. You see the movie now.

DAVID CARR: They are sly devils at Apple, aren’t they?

CHARLIE ROSE: Those boys and girls.

WALT MOSSBERG: There are sly devils -- there is going to be leather
ones and whatever.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

DAVID CARR: Yeah, and we haven’t even talked about the apps, which
are really going to make this.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let’s talk about apps now. Then we will come to some
of the reservations people have. There are iPad apps, which they are
making specifically for this, and then you have access to all of the iPhone
apps.

WALT MOSSBERG: Almost all.

CHARLIE ROSE: Almost all.

WALT MOSSBERG: Almost all.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. And so what is the difference in the iPad apps and
those that are available now?

WALT MOSSBERG: Well, to me there are two differences. One, most
people I think would guess and the other they might not guess. The easy
difference is they were written for a smaller screen. So if you launch
them on here, and I’ve tested dozens of them already, they launch in the
middle of this screen.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right, right. Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: In the exact size of the iPhone, and it looks a little
weird.

CHARLIE ROSE: But they have a 2x .

WALT MOSSBERG: They have a 2x button that you hit and suddenly it
fills the screen. But there is a much more important difference. Their
developer tools for the, you know, for the software developers and the
media companies or whoever else wants to develop for this, include new
features that only work on this that don’t work on the iPhone or the small
Touch. Like if you are doing your e-mail and you turn it this way, all of
a sudden you’ve got a panel that lists all your messages .

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: . and a preview over on the right, so it looks more
like the way e-mail looks on your PC or your Mac, and less like the way it
looks on your BlackBerry or your iPhone. And that theme .

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s better, isn’t it?

WALT MOSSBERG: It is better, and that theme carries through I think
in many categories -- games, much more elaborate on here, not just bigger
because the screen is bigger, but new kinds of controls and menus, and
things you can do on here. And those are going to be characteristic of the
better iPad apps.

DAVID CARR: Well, I don’t think either of us are big gamers, but I
happened to drop this between two 13-year-olds. One of them mine. They
reminded me of feral wolves as they just made their way through app after
app.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

DAVID CARR: But there are grown-up apps. This happens to be Zillow,
which is a real estate app.

CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, it’s a great thing. Tell me about that.

DAVID CARR: OK. OK. Everything .

CHARLIE ROSE: You want to know the price of everything in your
neighborhood.

DAVID CARR: For sale around here. And here is the thing, you pull up
in front of the house, and you go, honey, that looks -- that looks nice.
And then you go in there. And you look, you see that their decorating
taste.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here you go. Go ahead, David.

DAVID CARR: Imagine being able to pull up in front of a house while
you are house hunting. You are on a 3G connection, and you see that it
looks nice outside-- in fact, the Addams family has been living inside that
house and you don’t want to go in there.

WALT MOSSBERG: You know that you can do that on an iPhone.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID CARR: Yes, but it isn’t this kind of presentation.

WALT MOSSBERG: Here’s something completely more frivolous. This is
called Touch Hockey.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

WALT MOSSBERG: And you can, you know, kids can play, or grown-ups can
play for hours. I’m terrible at it. But, you know.

DAVID CARR: You promised we were going to play afterwards.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right, here is one of the questions. Is this, this
iPad a Kindle killer? Will it eat deeply into the Kindle market?

DAVID CARR: Well, my Kindle bricked the day I got it. It was not a
device that I was .

CHARLIE ROSE: Excited about?

DAVID CARR: No, it just didn’t really do it -- do it for me. The
idea of pushing and waiting for a page. And I want to -- I want a device
with the more (inaudible) range of capabilities. I don’t want to carry
something that is only good at one thing. The book reader on this is
probably, I think, the sexiest app on here.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

DAVID CARR: To watch -- to turn pages on here .

CHARLIE ROSE: Right. Right.

DAVID CARR: . and you could tell it when Steve Jobs was showing it
around, where you grab the corner of a page.

CHARLIE ROSE: Look at that.

DAVID CARR: And roll it.

WALT MOSSBERG: Let me point out that that takes, as the tech guy,
that takes a lot of processing sophistication.

CHARLIE ROSE: To be able to do that.

WALT MOSSBERG: On a low power chip that they made themselves, that’s
pretty cool, I think.

DAVID CARR: It’s really cool. And I want a device that’s going to,
yeah, I can do some light work when I’m in the car. And then when the kids
act up, I want to be able to throw it over my shoulder and say, have at it,
you guys, and have it be -- do different things for different .

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. But let me come back to Kindle.

WALT MOSSBERG: This is the bookshelf.

CHARLIE ROSE: There is the bookshelf where all the books are.

WALT MOSSBERG: Where any -- the books you bought are stored.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

WALT MOSSBERG: So is this a Kindle killer?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

WALT MOSSBERG: I think this is going to sound strange, but it depends
how you define Kindle. If you mean Kindle the device.

CHARLIE ROSE: I mean -- first of all.

WALT MOSSBERG: If you mean the Kindle device .

CHARLIE ROSE: I know.

WALT MOSSBERG: I think this is -- and I have been, I have written
favorable reviews of it. I use it almost every day or I used it almost
every day until the last few days. And I think this is a better reading
experience than that.

CHARLIE ROSE: And people say two things about that. One they say it
is a better reading experience in a room. You are in bed, you want to
read. But they also say that if you are in light, it’s easier to see the
Kindle than it is to see this.

WALT MOSSBERG: If you are in bright sunlight .

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: . you might want a dull black and white screen. But
there is another Kindle. There is two Kindles. One is the device and one
is the service.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: And Amazon, which owns Kindle, has put software, book
reading software on the PC, on the Mac, on the iPhone, on I don’t know,
some other devices, maybe the BlackBerry. And they -- their app for the
iPhone runs on here.

So, you can get access to their books and their catalogs. And it would not
surprise me if Amazon put a full-blown iPad app with some of the features
like Apple has on here. So there is going to be not just Apple’s book
store, but I predict you, you will see multiple book stores on here. And
you’ll have your choice of slightly different reading experiences and
different catalogs of different sizes and types.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here is the other thing. The one that the three of us
have are only wi-fi capable.

WALT MOSSBERG: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: They have no 3-G.

DAVID CARR: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: So it does not operate like your iPhone does.

WALT MOSSBERG: Charlie, I know lots of people who live their lives 80
percent in wi-fi now, you know. At their work, their home, Starbucks,
wherever they happen to hang out. Lots of these people are in wi-fi most
of the day. So they probably won’t mind it.

If I were going it to buy one of these, I would buy one with 3g, just
because I would want to be able to use it for e-mail and social networking
which are important to me, or web surfing when I’m not in wi-fi. And
they’ve made the 3g part much less onerous than it typically is. First of
all, it’s about half the price for unlimited 3g data than it is if you buy
one of those 3g cards for your laptop. And secondly, there is no contract.
You can cancel it at any time without a termination fee. It is a month-to-
month thing.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here’s a couple of interesting things from Steve Jobs.
This is Steve Jobs cover of "Time" magazine, Steven Fry (ph) did an
interview with Steve Jobs. And Jobs reminded him, I guess, that at the
product launch, he had liberal arts and technology, two street signs. And
he said, this is where I have always seen Apple, at the intersection of
liberal arts and technology.

WALT MOSSBERG: Yes, I was struck by that too. I had never heard him
put it quite that way. I always think of them as being at the intersection
of software and hardware. But yes, in a way, if he thinks that, and he is
essentially the soul of Apple, then that, that was pretty interesting to
me.

DAVID CARR: Of course there’s repositioning, in corporate terms,
going on right now because he’s asking to create a gated community and the
service custodian of much of popular culture high and low. And so he
doesn’t want to be seen as a technologist. He spent a lot of time going
around your company, my company, other companies to demonstrate that he had
a great deal of interest in the future of media and that he felt he was an
enabler, and that what he was offering them was a bridge to the future and
not a gallows. In terms of, you know, him having the relationship with the
customer instead of us, I know it makes a lot of people nervous.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. You want to speak to that, Walter, or not?

WALT MOSSBERG: No, I mean, I think David’s right. Everything, every
CEO, especially a marketing savvy one like Steve Jobs says, you have to
look at, at its business perspective, but I honestly think he does think a
little bit that way. I never heard it expressed exactly that way by him.
But it made perfect sense from the many...

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me take this to the reality. Your newspaper, the
Wall Street Journal, your newspaper the New York Times, have been in what
they call, I guess, development projects or something like that, in which
Apple got together with them and helped them develop so that they could use
the iPad. What’s that about?

WALT MOSSBERG: There are all these media companies which are in their
own horrible crisis and transition and all these things going on, which
you’ve discussed in other shows. And they look at these tablets, not just
the iPad but the tablets in general, as a possible help to them.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: And so they are working on it. And Apple, of course,
wants big names on here, so they’re helping. That’s pretty-- pretty
unsurprising to me.

CHARLIE ROSE: This could save the newspaper business, David?

DAVID CARR: Well, it goes beyond rhetoric, because let’s look at the
example when the iPad got unveiled and digital books, 9.99, Amazon, said
that’s it. The week this got announced, all of a sudden 14.99 is just
fine. Did our content gain twice as much value? Our-- I think there is a
couple of things going on here. One is it gets you out of the rhetoric of
subscriptions and into the rhetoric of applications, right? Which is a
better word, digital subscriptions we haven’t had too much luck with them.
Applications.

WALT MOSSBERG: We have had pretty good luck with them over at the
"Wall Street Journal."

DAVID CARR: Touche, nicely done.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes. That’s true.

DAVID CARR: And you have done well, but it puts us in the application
world. The other thing that it does is you have an incoming cohort of
consumers. And if you look at, oh, it’s the New York Times, what a
coincidence, it is even.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. But look.

DAVID CARR: You know, the amount of sort of ease of navigation, the--
it is great. In an app world, it gives us a lot more opportunities to play
around in sort of design terms. It also offers, you know, advertises more
opportunity. One of the things that concerns me, though, Time is doing
something, Conde Nast is doing something, News Corp is doing something.

We’re all doing something different. There is no common standard. So when
Mercedes goes to buy an ad, if they go to like the Bonie Air Corporation
(ph) that owns a lot of Enthusiast magazines, they are not going to play
video. They go to Sports Illustrated, they are going to have a lot of
video, right in their ad. There is going to be no common standard. You
know how you can take one page ad, go to marketplace and put it in a lot of
newspapers, put it in a lot of magazines. We’re in a very customized world
now, where each company is going to have to be building out ads for each.

WALT MOSSBERG: Do you mind if I ask you a question, because this is
obviously much more your area than mine and I’m genuinely curious about it.
On the web, there have become standardized ad formats.

DAVID CARR: Right.

WALT MOSSBERG: And so somebody can put an ad in the Wall Street
Journal web site or the New York Times web site, and know that both web
sites offer the same size thing and some of the same capabilities and all
of that. Why would you assume that if this took off in a big way, that
those same kinds of standards wouldn’t emerge? And that your company and
my company, which may be rivals, wouldn’t both want to have that standard
unit so the ad agencies would want to buy it?

DAVID CARR: I think that’s not what is happening. Everybody -- Conde
Nast used Doby Air (ph) to build theirs, Time, Inc. built their own.

WALT MOSSBERG: So the ad guys are just going have to adjust, I guess,
if they want to be on these platforms. Maybe they won’t want to be.

DAVID CARR: See, here is the thing. Is right about the time sort of
platform stuff gets worked out, there is going to be different devices.
Your company is building a new one, News Corp is building a device, a bunch
of other people are getting -- you know, when Google comes flying out the
sidelines with the device, I don’t think it will be.

WALT MOSSBERG: Can I just suggest, based on what I know from covering
this tech stuff for 18, 19 years, there may be -- I’ve seen myself at least
eight or nine different devices. In the end, when the dust settles, there
are going to be two or three. That’s the way it is going to be.

DAVID CARR: With the common standard.

WALT MOSSBERG: I didn’t say a common ad standard. I don’t know about
the ad industry particularly. But there are going to be two or three.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. In ten years of reviewing tech products for
"The New York Times," I’ve never seen a product as polarizing as Apple’s
iPad, which arrives in U.S. stores on Saturday and the European Union by
the end of April.

The device is laughingly absurd, goes a typical remark on a tech blog’s
comments board. How can they expect anyone to get serious computer work
done without a mouse? This truly is a magical revolution, goes another. I
can’t imagine why anyone would want to go back to using a mouse and
keyboard once they have experienced Apple’s visionary user interface.
There are some pretty confident critiques of the iPad, considering that the
authors have never even tried it.

In any case, there is a pattern to these assessments. The haters tend to
be techies. The fans tend to be regular people. Does that make sense to
you? This is what David said this morning.

WALT MOSSBERG: No. I would.

CHARLIE ROSE: Or do you agree with it.

WALT MOSSBERG: I wouldn’t entirely agree with it. For one thing, all
of those comments he’s quoting came out before anyone -- any of these
people commenting could actually used it. I don’t think you are going to
know who is going to like it and who is not going to like it for some time.
And furthermore, I think it’s-- I don’t think the world divides so neatly
between tech -- the group of techies that blog that are self-selected, that
tweet and blog and make their views known before they’ve seen the product
when they just, you know, watched the intro is a self-selected group, and
they are worthy of respect -- and I do respect them -- but they’re not
necessarily representative of the population.

As for quote regular people, they’re going to have a lot of issues. I
know a lot of regular people who make it a rule, for instance, to wait
until the second version of something. I know a lot -- they don’t have the
money right now to buy something extra even if they might like it. So or
they just bought a new laptop so they are not going to buy another new
device. It’s a little hard. I think it is hard to generalize with as
basic a separation as that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Show me the picture of Bill and Steve.

WALT MOSSBERG: Sure.

DAVID CARR: Here’s one thing I want to say about this. The ability
to share, to hand back and forth, what you and I love in the newspaper --
Sunday morning, we can sit with this and say, hone.

CHARLIE ROSE: You couldn’t do it with the.

DAVID CARR: Did you see, look at these people. They look like a
science project, they don’t belong together. And you can share it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Look at this. Boys and girls. This is at his-- Walt
has a famous conference in which --what is it called?

WALT MOSSBERG: D. The D conference.

CHARLIE ROSE: The D conference, in which all these famous people come
and they talk about technology and are interviewed by Walt and his partner.
Here is what is interesting about it. Two things. Bill Gates tried,
understood that tablet was going to be a big idea. And tried to introduce
it at Microsoft. For some reason, too early, didn’t succeed, correct, so
far?

WALT MOSSBERG: That’s right.

CHARLIE ROSE: So the idea of a tablet has been in the back of the
heads of these smart people in technology for a time.

WALT MOSSBERG: Sure.

CHARLIE ROSE: Everybody has always understood this could be a game
changer if somebody got it right. Correct?

WALT MOSSBERG: That’s right. That’s exactly right. And my view on
what was called the tablet PC, which was the Microsoft-driven initiative,
was that they didn’t go far enough. So in other words, they took Windows,
which was-- which obviously was and still is the dominant operating system
for the mouse-driven world of traditional computing, and they enabled it so
that with a stylus you could operate it, you could-- it could do
handwriting and save your handwriting and even recognize your handwriting
and do a whole bunch of things.

And by the way, those tablets are still made. They are typically used
by companies in vertical application. My view on it, what I remember
writing back then is that it didn’t go far enough. It tried to take the
basic mouse-driven thing in Windows and kind of paste on a tablety kind of
architecture. And that is my guess about why.

(CROSSTALK)

CHARLIE ROSE: Here is my view of it. Here is my view of it right
here. The difference is Steve Jobs. And when you say Steve Jobs, you’re
talking about a team that he knows how to bring together.

WALT MOSSBERG: They have a brilliant designer there.

CHARLIE ROSE: Exactly. Who he came early to early on and understood
-- who was not exactly in a great place at that time, when he recognized
his talent. Steve Jobs understands not just the intersection of technology
and liberal arts, as he would like to say, but he also understands, it’s
often said, design. But he understands product. He is a guy that
understands a product and what it ought to feel like and what it ought to
do. And how it ought to take the next step into a new dimension.

DAVID CARR: Part of his gift, I think, is recognizing an inflection
point in time. When Microsoft came out with the panel, with the tablet
computer, we were not bathed in wireless everywhere we went. There was not
this deep, rich content around every corner. It was sort of hard to figure
out why would you end up using that. I think Steve Jobs has, you know, a
very good sense of when the right moment occurs when there is going to be
enough content, enough access, so that something that displays web content
in an easy to surf way is going to be extreme value to a huge whole cohort
of people, not just nerds.

WALT MOSSBERG: Well, I think that those are both good comments. I
would say one of the other things that has to be said is he’s been willing
to take big risks. Sometimes when he does things, it’s a little early, you
know. Put the CD-rom drive in every Mac, and built in sound. I mean, this
sounds ridiculous, but if you are an older person, you remember that when
PCs were sold, they didn’t have sound cards in them. But Macs did. And
they had CDs.

But he also took out the floppy drive about a year and a half before anyone
else did. And so sometimes he can be a little early, and for all of his
talent and risk-taking that we’ve discussed, I think we need to be careful
that we don’t know if this is going to be a big hit yet, the iPad that
we’ve been discussing.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK. We don’t know, of course not. But if you had, if
you were a betting man, would you bet on this or not?

WALT MOSSBERG: I would bet there is going to be a big initial surge
of sales. And yes, I would bet it would be a success. How big a success,
I don’t know. I don’t know that the...

CHARLIE ROSE: And what is big success?

WALT MOSSBERG: Well, I mean, you know, how many millions is millions
and millions? Apple is extremely, today -- it is a company that 13 years
ago was pretty close to bankruptcy. Today it is a hugely successful
company. But it’s not because it owns, you know, most of the market share
of computers. It doesn’t. It is because it innovates things that other
people follow. And it has this huge mindshare. And in the case of the
iPhone and the iPod, it has been much more successful in terms of revenue
and profits and that kind of stuff than it was for many years with the Mac.

DAVID CARR: I think the execution is not just the technological one.
And there are some bugs to this. I don’t know if you noticed during the
week, but you end up in a.

WALT MOSSBERG: I listed them, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: What are the bugs?

DAVID CARR: You can -- the navigation on the web is somewhat limited.
Your ability to-- you can get backed into a corner, fairly quickly. The
only way to -- you have to back completely out of some things and shut them
down sometimes.

I think the big part of the execution was on price. What did the
Microsoft tablet cost, a bunch?

WALT MOSSBERG: When it came out, it certainly cost more than 499.

DAVID CARR: Okay so, I am-- I run a family, and at a certain point
Apple sadly will come and take this back. And I have to decide whether
this fits. If I amortize it over each family member that’s going to use it
and I go on the low end, the $500, $600 one, I think we’re probably going
to do it. And I’m not just responding to the device. I’m responding to
its price as well.

And, you know, at the announcement they did a lot of bragging about
the price performance. They hit their targets on this. Remember we were
all talking about this thing costing $1,000. And it cost $500-- you know,
maybe you don’t want the 500...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID CARR: So his ability to lean on his guys to work with the
designers and bring things in, you know, just stick the number, I mean
really hit it.

CHARLIE ROSE: So for all those reasons, David Carr thinks the iPad is
a big success. He likes most of it. And believes that Steve Jobs will
find a market.

DAVID CARR: Yes. And will it be as large-- I don’t buy certain of
his assumptions. He says Netbooks aren’t good at anything. I think
Netbooks, I was just at the South by Southwest Conference, there were a ton
of people there.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, I don’t -- I agree with him totally on that. I
thought Netbooks were never.

DAVID CARR: That they’re junk.

WALT MOSSBERG: Netbooks are small, cheap Windows laptops.

DAVID CARR: Which have a (inaudible).

WALT MOSSBERG: And that’s fine. And they came along during a
recession, when people were looking for really low prices.

CHARLIE ROSE: It was cheap and understandably.

(CROSSTALK)

WALT MOSSBERG: In fairness, people like small size, who are travelers
and things like that. But if you notice, you walked into BestBuy today,
would you see half as many Netbooks as a year ago. Computer companies are
very anxious to push people out of Netbooks.

DAVID CARR: Because the margin isn’t there. Let’s talk about what a
win would be on this.

CHARLIE ROSE: OK.

DAVID CARR: You know, there have been various estimates that they
maybe do-- move anywhere from 5 to 10 million units, right, first year. To
me, I think it’s going to be large because it isn’t so much what Apple is
going to do in terms of marketing. I think the evangelist who leaves the
store early with this, as soon as they walk out, I could not walk through
my office without people gathering like bees.

WALT MOSSBERG: I had the same experience today at the Journal.

DAVID CARR: And they don’t want to just look at it. They want to get
their hands on it.

WALT MOSSBERG: I completely agree with what you just said. Here is
the pattern I think you will see, Charlie. I think within about a week, or
ten days, maybe even less, could be less, they will put out one of their
famous press releases that says we’ve sold a million of these. And you got
to understand, there is a lot of new products.

Take the Motorola Droid, which has been a pretty successful phone which
Verizon put a ton of marketing behind. And I think it sold over a million,
I’m almost certain of that. But it didn’t do it in three, five, seven
days. It took a while, it took as much as the first iPhone or the first
iPad. But since then, Apple has been able to generate --like, the last
iPod they introduced, I think it was three days and they sold a million. I
don’t know if it is going to be three days here, but you are going to see a
release, ten days out, a week out, whatever it is, a million. Those
million people become saleswomen and salesmen and evangelists. And they
show it off.

Dc: Speaking of which, the elevator pitch is never going to be the
same. You get on an elevator, you are able to show the guy your whole
movie, your whole book. Everything.

WALT MOSSBERG: Or the "Wall Street Journal," just to even things it
up, the Wall Street Journal.

CHARLIE ROSE: Show photographs on it too.

WALT MOSSBERG: This illustrates a point that I was making before.
This is a much more sophisticated photo program, more like a Mac program or
a PC program than a photo program, even on a nice, a really nice phone like
the iPhone. This is much more sophisticated. I can tap one of these
collections of photos and boom, there it just -- and you saw how fast that
was, by the way. This is a very fast device. The screens move very fast.
You’re not sitting here thinking when is this going to respond.

DAVID CARR: It’s sick how fast it is.

CHARLIE ROSE: It’s sick how fast it is.

(CROSSTALK)

WALT MOSSBERG: I will tell you, this processor is made by Apple.
Apple bought a chip company -- you don’t think of them as a chip maker, but
they bought a chip company a few years ago. And this processor is made by
them. It is a much less powerful processor by any standard measure than
what you could get in even say a $600 dollar PC or $700 PC. But it has
been tuned to the software of this device in such a way that it is just
wicked fast. This thing runs wicked fast.

But I mean, there will be these evangelists, you will have a million
sales, whenever it is. And then you are going to have a ramp. And my
guess is that because it’s a new category, because people are going to
wonder if they want to carry another thing and have to be convinced about
using this instead of their laptop, I think the ramp may be slower than we
saw for the iPhone and some other things, that’s all. I don’t know how
slow.

CHARLIE ROSE: Fair enough. What don’t you like about it?

WALT MOSSBERG: I wish it had a web cam. I think the webcam -- it is
just, you look at it and you say, why can’t I use this to make video Skype
calls? And when people are making the list of things they do on their
laptop that they would like to do on this, for a certain percentage of
people, that’s important. So I wish it had a webcam.

I wish it did multi-tasking, which means that I could do more than one
thing at once. Now it actually does multitasking, but only with Apple’s
own apps. So for instance, 11 and a half hours of videos I was watching,
wi-fi was on and e-mail was running in the background and collecting. I
would check it every once in a while, so that is multitasking. But third
party apps, those 150,000 third party apps and the thousand iPad apps that
they hope to have available Saturday, those won’t multitask, so they need -
- I wish it did that. And I wish it played Flash. Even though I think
that there are ways around Flash and there are some of these media
companies.

CHARLIE ROSE: Did he not include Flash because of some long-ago
battle with Adobe?

WALT MOSSBERG: There’s bad blood between Adobe and Apple, there
absolutely is, Charlie. And I can’t imagine that that doesn’t play a role
in it. If you listen to -- his argument.

DAVID CARR: I think there is a little bit of a holy war there.

WALT MOSSBERG: His argument.

CHARLIE ROSE: Holy war.

WALT MOSSBERG: His argument is, it would reduce battery life, it
crashes the Mac browser more than any other factor. I can tell you there
are other companies like Mozilla, which makes Firefox and Microsoft which
not very happy about Flash either, it is not just Apple. But so if you ask
me what is missing, what do I wish? I wish it played Flash because on the
iPhone, if I go to a web site and there is a Flash video, and it doesn’t --
it won’t play, well, OK, it’s a little screen, I’m not as upset. Here,
it’s going to be a bigger hole in the middle of the screen.

DAVID CARR: It takes a little bit of the zing when you are zipping
across, you go, look what I can do, and there is a big black hole in the
middle of it. And you go, hmm, that isn’t-- I mean, it is great that it
got me there fast. I wish there was a video in that hole.

WALT MOSSBERG: But David, I will say this, on the other hand, some
sites including, I know this is true at the Journal, for all I know it may
be true at the Times and other places.

DAVID CARR: We’re almost done.

WALT MOSSBERG: Will put out simultaneously a Flash version of a video
and a version that will run on these devices.

DAVID CARR: I think that there are is so much of -- when I made my
arguments against this being a productivity tool on Twitter, people came
back and said, wait until the apps come. You don’t really know what this
device is and what it capable of. And so there is a whole infill of
America’s most creative minds that will come in behind this and make it do
all sorts of things that I never imagined it would. But for the time
being, I’m going to lean back and use it. I’m not going lean forward and
use it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well said, I think that is probably true. Last word
for you, Walt.

WALT MOSSBERG: I just would repeat what we said at the beginning. I
think if this takes off, it really -- you’re going to have to take a
20,000-foot view of what it means to do portable computing, and you will at
the very least see a mix of laptops and tablets.

CHARLIE ROSE: How does it fit in your life is the basic question
people are going to have to ask. The most interesting thing about it, I
think, in the end and why I think it has a really great chance of success
is the way it feels and how portable it is and how you can see it in
different ways. And because you -- it is the rise of applications. The
rise of apps have given us an access to a world that we could never have
imagined.

And you can do it with one simple little thing. You can see all over the
world. You can see inside information about everything. You can know who
is in your neighborhood. You can know what’s playing at the theater, what
restaurants are within several blocks. And it’s all right here, and this
thing weighs 1.5 pounds. Now you could say it’s also in an iPhone, but
it’s.

WALT MOSSBERG: Or a laptop.

CHARLIE ROSE: Or a laptop. But you’re not going to take a laptop
with you. You are going to take this with you.

Thank you, Walt. Great to see you.

WALT MOSSBERG: Great to see you, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: A pleasure to have you here.

WALT MOSSBERG: It’s an honor to be with Mr. Carr.

CHARLIE ROSE: Mr. Carr has a facile use of language, does he not?

WALT MOSSBERG: He does.

CHARLIE ROSE: So there it is, the informed views of Walt Mossberg and
David Carr.

What is remarkable for me is this -- 1.5 pounds, a remarkably clear
and beautiful picture. And what you can see and what you can do. You can
go to museums around the world. You can read books. You can play games.
You can see newspapers and magazines. And all those applications which do
things that we would not ever have imagined possible in a device that’s 1.5
pounds.

The thing you should do is investigate for yourself and see. If it
adds to your life, it’s something that you might not have known you needed,
but makes your own life more interesting, more satisfying, and gives you an
exploration of the world that you could never imagine before.

Thank you for joining us. See you next time.




END

RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

Stacy Summary: On the Edge; guest is Ellen Brown to talk about High Frequency Trading and more.













Stacy Summary: On the Edge; guest is Ellen Brown to talk about High Frequency Trading and more.

TheyCAntKillUs

What The . . . I Don’t Remember Buying the Red Roof Inn




Stacy Summary: Man I’m ’some fool!’ Hat tip to y’all for sending this link. And, actually, I also wanted to say thanks so much for the past two days as the comment threads have all been especially good, lots of interesting debates, opinion and information. Anyway, here is Alan Grayson on how we came to own the Red Roof Inn.

Personal Finance Minute: Tips for Job Seekers





Personal Finance Minute: Tips for Job Seekers
Whether the labor market gains or loses jobs in coming months, the loss of more than 8 million jobs in the recession means those seeking work don't have an easy road ahead of them. Here's one career consultant's job-search strategy. MarketWatch's Andrea Coombes reports.

Bike makes driving optional

'Storm' brewing over iPhone

PLAYTargeting your next job

Money saving cell phones

The future of radio

Penny-shooting business card

Flexible furniture

PLAYGood Earth Plants looks to grow

Treat employees like family

Tips from Tabasco's top dog

Mario Batali's recipe for success