>> rose: welcome to the program, we begin with jeffrey goldberg and the president's speech last night. >> no american president and i think would delude himself or herself into thinkin g that you could repair the breach between the shi'a and the sunni. so you're seeing that worsen and worsen and worsen so the president of 2009 who wanted to make things better, i think now, is just in a kind of damage control mode where he is saying i'm going to try to keep things from slipping further into chaos. a chaos that will overspill the middle east and eventually come to hurt us. >> rose: we continue with a new look at a movie called this is where i leave you, directed by shawn levy and written by jonathan tropper. >> you know, drama you just got to be real and in comedy you have to be real but heightened level of realism. so you have to go through a believable level of execution into something that is so exaggerated that

it becomes funny. >> rose: we end with james galbraith, his new book is called "end of normal" the great crisis and the future of growth. >> the slump that we were going through was qualitatively dip from the ones we previously experienced if my lifetime. most of which have been caused by policy changes or shocks from the outside. whereas this one had a large element of internal institutional collapse in the united states, mainly in the financial specter. and so it seemed to me that it was going to be much harder. this was much more like 1929, 1930 than it was like 1974 or 1982. and you couldn't tell that by looking at the statistics am you had to know something about the context. >> rose: jeffrey goldberg on the president's speech, a new movie and james galbraith when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:

>> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: president obama addressed the nation on wednesday night, he explained his plan to broaden a offensive against iraq and syria, he said he would not hesitate to order strikes against isis targets in sirria. here's a look at some of what the president said. >> so tonight with a new iraqi government in place and following consultations with ally as broad and congress at home i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to rollback this terrorist threat. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. this is american leadership at its best. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security an common community. >> rose: the president added that he already has the authority to ago but he welcomes congress's support for his planses, joining me is jeffrey goldberg from the atlantic magazine and

bloomberg view. jeffrey, you know these issues well and you have interviewed the president a number of times tell me your take away from this and put where he is now in context of where he has been. >> well, where he's been for the past six years is wanting to get out of the middle east. i mean he sees the middle east as a place where hope goes to die, that is a more as-- morass for the united states and wants to think about other issues including other geo political issues including and especially asia. so yesterday in a way represents a kind of tragic moment for him, a tragic realization that no matter how hard he tries to get the united states out of the swamp, out of the morass, there's no possible way that that is going to happen during his tenure. you know, and obviously, in part because he's wanted to get out for understandable reasons, by the way, wanted to get out of micromanaging the middle east.

he hasn't probably paid sufficient attention in the years leading up to where we are right now. and you know, there's obviously a big argument in washington about whether more attention paid over the past three or four years, three years with the syrian civil war in particular might have had some, made some sort of difference. but right now he's in this mode of saying, you know what, i've got to stop islamic state, isis. and unfortunately, this is where we are. i'm not going to, you know, achieve greatness here. but i'm going to try to keep things from getting worse. i think that's the way i would put it. >> rose: he said the united states is going to lead this. what does that mean. >> one of the things i think the president has realized over the past month is there is no substitute for american leadership in the middle east. in the gaz az where we saw the israelis and egyptians were making their own plans on how to deal with it without american participation. we saw the united arab-- in egypt attack islamicist

positions in libya without american involvement. that scared people in washington that leaders are making their own decisions now because the feeling is that they're going to go freelance, they're going to go rogue, do all kinds of things to make the middle east even more dangerous. so i think that there is a realization, even though people who don't want to realize this, that you know, there is no substitute for the, you know, american organization, american management, if you will. >> rose: an he can also, i assume, make the argue or at least be convinced by others that if he didn't do something, nobody's going to do it and therefore it could emerge as a threat to the united states. >> right, he's very careful and this is to his credit. he's very careful about not overselling the threat to the homeland or to american facilities overseas. and he's not talking about eminent threats or concrete plans. there's two things here. the first is that he recognizes that as a group that grew out of al qaeda that's been actually rejected by al qaeda for being too extreme and brutal which is quite something,

obviously, that it has, that the core jihadist ideology, it's expansionist, viscerally anti-american as we can tell obviously from the tragic and horrible beheadings. and that eventually guys like these decide that america is the great target. so he's looking at history and making that assumption that if they're not a threat at the moment, they will be later. especially because they have so many of these foreign fighters who have european passports, including passports from countries that participate in the u.s. visa waiver program. so it's very hard to keep track of this. you've got to stop it in its track. the second and more urgent issue for the president, i think, is the danger that isis poses to our close allies in the region. the kurds, obviously, who have an autonomous region in northern iraq and are very pro-american. jordan in particular, a linchpin sunni moderate state that if it were il fill traded or overrun by

ice wise lead to a catastrophe almost unimaginable. a humanitarian catastrophe and also it would involve israel because israel would come in and try and rescue the jordanians and that would put ice el in direct confrontation with isis. the one of the goals is avoid using ground troops, in a situation where american allies were directly threatened than all options are on the table to borrow language that we hear from time to time on other issues from the white house. >> rose: there is also the arab state. what are they going to contribute. there is a report today that a number of the arab states okay, we're in, we will do what we can. what can they do. >> there is a profound frustration in all corners of washington is which this is a moment where the gulf allies could step up and dot job of combatting isis and protecting innocent arabs if from isis. but they're not going there. >> rose: why not? >> but there is, you're going to have to ask them. because they're scared. because they know that their capabilities, they have the

toys but they don't necessarily have the capabilities. in saudi arabia, you know, it has to do in part, i think, to be blunt, a lot of the air force pilots are princes. it's kind of a country club in a way an they're to the going to risk their own princes for this kind of mission. and of course they don't want-- they would prefer as everybody in the middle east, they prefer the u.s. to kill their enemies for them to sort of be able to stand off from their enemies and say no, no, that wasn't us, that was the united states. there's another issue, of course, in that there is a lot of support in these gulf countries, subterranean support at this point but serious financial support for groups like isis. and so they don't want to alienate their very, very-- they have radical jihaddists in these countries too. most live within the framework of the systems that have been created by the monarches. but you know, they don't want to alienate their own people by going and attacking people who some of their citizens at least think are rightous muslims. so there is a whole host of reasons why that's not going to happen. that said, there's going to

be contributions of money and material and of course there is going to be some training components that saudi arabia might even host some training for so-called moderate forces that might fight isis. and let me be fair. there are some countries in the gulf that play a negative role like qatar which is playing all sides of this game. there are some that are playing kind of ambivalent roles or trying to step up a little bit in kind of a modest fashion like saudi arabia. other countries like united arab emirates the uae which has come out pretty strongly and openly saying that, you know, there has to be a worldwide coalition against radical islam and we have to participate in an open way. they're a small country, however. i mean it's the u.s. that has the capabilities. the u.s. that has the lodgistics command and control, intelligences, the special forces knowledge, all of the things that you need in order to wage what is already a very difficult fight against isis. >> rose: so the question becomes much more complex when you move to syria.

>> this is already devilishly complex. right, in iraq, remember, we're invited by the iraqi government, we've been invited to fight isis on their territory. syria is controlled by bashar al-assad. remember, this is one of the sort of head-spinning aspects of what we're going through right now, where we're watching. a year ago, exactly a year ago, president obama was on television talking about the need to fight bashar al-assad. one year later he's on television talking about the need to fight bashar al-assad's enemies. so it's enormously complicated. the russians make it even more complicated. they're not going to be able to stop. what the u.s. does in this situation. but of course the russians have an indirect way of getting back at us by cutting deals with iran. remember we're also not to make this too crazly complicated but we're also trying to do another very sensitive and important thing in the coming couple of mondays, which is negotiate a nuclear deal

with the iranians who are, of course, bashar al-assad's allies and enemies of isis. russia could make that a much more difficult process if it wants to. and so this becomes a kind of 3d chessboard and it's not at all clear that we have the sophistication or wherewithal to play this game out over a number of years. >> is the free syrian army up to this? >> well, you foe, this is one of the ironies of the moment. the past three years president obama has been saying in an interview with me, he said in sper views with others. he has talked about the moderate syrian opposition is a bunch of farmers and carpenters and pharmacist. and no matter how well meaning they are, to argue that they could defeat assad's army, combined with hezbollah which is helping assad, combined with the iranian revolutionary guard corp. which is helping a saad, it is a fantasy. this is one of the key disagreements he's had with

hillary clinton is you know, was there some hope of supporting these guys. and he is, let's say, he has given short shift to this argument. now we're in a situation where the moderate syrian rebels that we've spent a lot of time ignoring or marginalizing or at least not giving sufficient help to, now they're a linchpin, one of the linchpins in this grand anti-isis coalition. so we're starting in a hole because we could have helped build them up a couple of years ago and we didn't do it. so no, i mean if you look at the coalition lined up against isis, it's not very impressively, the iraqi army is dysfunctional, the peshmerga, the kurdish guerrillas have had only intermittent success against isis. the free syrian army, obama is not wrong saying this, this-- so what you are trying to do if you are obama is defeat isis on the ground without having to resort to using iranian

allied forces. very complicated. >> rose: but iranian allied forces have been the most effective fighting sources in iraq, have they not? >> absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. they're all in, hezbollah is a hardened group of fighters. and they're in a-- they're in a very, very deep conflict with isis. look, this is why, if you are's president obama you're sitting there and you are getting these briefings and you are saying really? like i have to, i have to fight these terrible people and use other groups of terrible people to fight these terrible people and if i succeed against this group of terrible people then another group of terrible people will come in and take advantage of that? i mean of course if you are an american president you're wary of this. but that's the fundamental issue. i'm not sure you can actually roll back in some significant way isis without becoming, in effect, iran's air force. >> rose: will iran somehow become a silent partner with most people looking away in

terms of trying to defeat isis in syria? >> it depends on what you mean by partner. will there be open activities with them, no for a couple reasons. >> rose: surreptitious means for shared military objectives. >> it's completely plausible to imagine intelligence information being surreptitiously slipped in one direction or the other, it is plausible that there will be communication to make sure that when u.s. planes are flying over a certain place that iran understands that those are u.s. planes. and on that level, remember, though, it's very important for the u.s. not to ally openly or too deeply with iran because it's very, very-- it's crucial that the u.s. have sunni moderates across the muslim world on their side, on the u.s. side. and so if we're seen as making an alliance in any kind of way with iran we'll

lose all of the sunnis who of course fear iran more than they fear almost anything. >> tell me about the mood of the president about this. what would you say is his mind-set. he reluctantly knows he has to do this. >> i think that president obama of 2014 is not the president obama of 2009. think about the cairo speech. at the very outset of his presidency. he was elected in part to reset and improve our relations with the muslim world. he went to cairo. he gave a very optimistic speech. it was a speech that implicit in that speech that he gave was we want good, but low maintenance relations with the muslim world because, and the arabs because i've got a lot of stuff to do at home. but he was hopeful that his biography, his demeanor, idea, et cetera, would kind of combine to smooth things out a bit. but this is of course before the arab spring revolutions. before isis, before the syrian uprisings, before a lot of things. now i think he looks at the

middle east and says, you know, he sees like an unmitigated disaster. he sees barbarian organizations like isis chopping people's heads off. he sees leaders that are affectless. even among allies, allies of the united states he sees affectlessness. he-- fecklessness. he sees a shi'a sunni split in half a dozen or more countries that he knows he can't fix. no american president i think would delude himself or herself into thinking that you could repair the breach between the shi'a and the. so he is seeing that worsen and worsen and worsen. so the president of 2009 who wanted to make things better, i think now is just in a kind of damage control mode where he is saying i'm going to try to keep things from slipping further into chaos. a chaos that will overspill the middle east and eventually come to hurt us. >> where is turkey in all of this? >>s this's an interesting

question. you know, one of the ways, one of the main ways these foreign fighters, these european young disaffected muslim men who are looking for excitement with isis, one of the ways they're getting into syria and iraq is across that open turkish border. now turkey is a nato state. and you would think that they would try a little bit harder to keep these young men from going to isis and becoming radicallized and then returning back to fellow nato countries. turkey is in a real spot. there's a lot of talk about how turkey's leadership is, you know, islamists, sympathetic to the muslim brotherhood and therefore obviously opposed to assad and therefore sympathetic to isis am but what's really going on, what's really keeping turkey more on the sidelines than obviously the u.s. would like to see it, because turkey has a very obviously powerful military what is really keeping there is that isis has, i think, about 48. i think that's the number.

48 turkish hostages. and-- and i think isis made if clear that it is capable of limitless cruelty and sadism. and i think turkey is extremely worried about these hostages-- hostages an understands that if it crosses to borrow a phrase certain isis red lines, that there is a consequence to that. so turkey is another frustrating, for the american, from the american perspective, frustrating player in all of this. >> rose: then there's the question what is victory here. >> well, let me say, i will tell you what failure is both politically and strategically. failure is january 20th, 2017 when president obama is getting in the helicopter to say good bye to the american people f there are significant al qaeda style safe havens scattered across the muslim world and especially a large isis safe haven strat ed-- straddling the borders of syria and iraq, then that will be a

profound national security failure. because this is a guy of course who was elected to refocus america's fight against terrorism, to get out of the iraq diversion and refocus on al qaeda and jihaddism. so that would be a serious failure. but the immediate task is to stop forward momentum of isis. pushing them out of iraq is going to are far easier than ridding syria of these forces. and so as a short-term prospect, one of the things that they're going to try to do is obviously degrade them some from the air. and as a slightly longer-term prospect build up ground forces as this combination of iraqi army, free syrian army, and kurds and so on, that can become an actual potent fighting force. and the number one goal is to stop deterioration. i mean it doesn't sound dramatic and the president is going to obviously go out and promise degrading and

destroying. but the number one goal is to, is to quarantine the problem where it is and not let it spread. >> jeffrey goldberg, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> jeffrey goldberg from the atlantic and bloomberg view. back in a moment. stay with us. >> this is where i leave you with a new movie by shawn levy, dramatic comedy, adaptation of the best selling novel by jonathan tropper it tells the story of four group siblings who reunit at their childhood home after their father's dies featuring jason baitman, tina fey, jane fonda and adam driver. >> three months ago i had a great job and a nice apartment and i was in love with my wife. >> how long. >> a year. >> this is the first time. >> on our side. >> hello. >> i imagine by now you are well into the excessive facial hair face of your depression. >> it's not a good time, wendy.

>> dad's dead. >> what? >> hi, sis. >> pollee. >> what's different about her. >> the would bes, she had a little touchup. >> your father had one final request and we are going to honor it. he just wanted his kids under one roof. so for the next seven days you are all grounded. ♪ . >> hey. >> what? >> oh no, no, no, no, we're just sitting in awkward silence? >> whoops. >> we've come apart there, mom. close that robe. >> it's just breasts, john. >> same ones you suggest eled at. >> no, mother those are not the same ones you nursed us at. you have bionic breasts now. >> what has it been, 7, 8, 9 years. >> she slept with my boss. >> well that will do it. >> yes, it did. >> done. >> right. >> is it the whole world or just this family. >> you need to put a baby in that woman like yesterday. >> have you had your man parts checked because you may have emptied them over the years. my room is next to yours, my

room was next to you are whyes. >> in is the guy that slept with my wife. >> who are you. >> i'm wendy altman. >> yeah, that's the princess cut. >> you guys are idiots but you're my idiots. >> we made love on our first date. >> mom. >> i don't mind telling you, the man was hung. >> that should have been the headstone. >> clearly she loves more than a husband. >> starting over is complicated and you don't do complicated u never have. anything can happen, anything happens all the time. >> yeah! i've been chasing this idea about a perfect life. but life is unpredictable and irrational. and complicated. and i want a complicated life. >> i left the baby monitor on upstairs. >> turn it up, turn it up. >> stick a baby in there, stuff a baby up there. >> circle of life, everybody. let's go altman.

>> joining me now is the director shawn levy, screenwriter and author of the novel jonathan tropper and two of the film's stars jason baitman an tina fey. i'm pleased to have them here. jonathan, did you think this was a film when you wrote this move snell. >> no, i actually thought the exact opposite. >> rose: there would never be a movie. >> very episodic, seven day structure, that something, i did not actually expect it to be a film. >> rose: where did the idea come from for the move snell. >> i was writing about jason's character judd and just this man who loses everything in one, in the moment he sees his wife having an affair with his boss. he loses his marriage, his job, everything. and i just couldn't get my arms around the novel until i brought in his nuclear family and then i needed an excuse for them to stay together for more than a few hours. so i converted them to judaism and. >> so that's how novels are born. >> exactly. >> you need other characters to make it more than just one conversation. >> yeah. >> rose: i read somewhere that it's perfectly cast.

tell me about casting. >> this cast gets a lot of nice reactions. i found the novel in jonathan's screenplay so vivid in all its characters, that it felt like i needed an all-star for every single role because there are no dismissable characters. so everyone is fully realize. and therefore every acker, i just picked them kind of one by one based on who could bring them to life with full dimension. >> rose: it's great to see james done -- jane. >> it great to see jane. and this is jane in a kind of certificatio-comedic role. she's very funny in the movie. she really enjoyed this kind of new breed of comedy that we had on set. which was we certainly shot the script but also opened to improvisation. and after the first week or two jane really got into the spirit of that as well. >> rose: so you read the script and said this is for me? >> yeah, i read the script. and i met with shawn. and i really liked the character of wendy. i thought she was funny. and i thought her story was very sweet and heartbreaking

and not a story that i felt like-- i had not seen that story before. >> rose: what is her story. >> well, whenee's story is that she met the love of her life across the street, a guy, and she has the high school sweetheart. and then some thing bad happened when they were young and in love, that made him not quite a guy that she could really marry. he has like a brain injury. and he's still really handsome and ville very sweet but he can't really function. and at some point in her past she had to make the painful and pragmatic decision to move on. and so she's coming home. and she's married a much more outwardly successful guy, businessman, handsome guy. but she's constantly haunted by the fact that she maybe didn't do the right thing or also that the man that she really truly loved was taken from her in a way. >> rose: and your character. >> brother of, previously mentioned story line. >> it seems like --

>> my guy is, he walks in on his wife sleeping with his boss. >> rose: we saw that in the clip. >> gets a phone call that his dad's dead, got that in the trailer too. and then i'm out, really. in most of my scenes-- , i narrate the final crawl, that's about it. after that. i play a character in this film that's not too dissimilar from that which i really like to play. which is a guy in the middle that's trying to kind of figure it all out and get on with it. and make better decisions than he has while navigating the excentricities around him, usually in form of family, which is the case here. and there is certainly those excentricities present in jonathan's book. >> rose: what informed the development of the characters for you. just your imagination or -- >> i mean a lot of it was trying to figure out which characters would push the right buttons with the other characters. >> rose: yeah.

>> and it all started with judd, jason's character which was, you know, somebody who's realizing halfway through his life that the script he has followed hasn't served him well. and having to question the decisions he's made and you know, then bringing him back to see the damage caused by his family that may have sent him in that direction and having to come back to terms with that. and make a new plan at the age of 40 something which is, you know, not an easy thing to do. so once i had that done, everyone else was more easy to figure out around him. >> rose: is it some idea that i read somewhere that you two are want to collaborate on other books together. >> when i read this book five years ago i fell in love with it instantly. at that time i couldn't get my hands on the movie version. so it's-- . >> rose: meaning with what? >> meaning the movie was looking like it might get made with other actors and other directors. and so to console myself, and i was also doing bigger, more adventure action

comedies at that time. so i called jonathan and i said i'm now officially a fan. let's do stuff together. so jonathan first adapted steve martin's novel the pleasure of my company for me. then we worked on another screenplay, father son kind of redemption story. so by the time it came back around to us working on this together, we had a friendship and a shorthand. and, indeed, i hope this is the first of many collaborations that we can bringed to screen. because it works. >> rose: you said this about jason's performance, that it is a microcome of th the-- microcosm of the film tone. >> it pivots between funny and poignant. and jason as an acker is uniquely skilled, are you waiting to see if this is going to into a kind of -- >> hoping it is coming to the right track. >> here it comes. watch this. jason is able so fluidly to be funny and heartbreaking, often in the same moment. and so that's there in his performance. and that's there in the movie at large. >> rose: tell me more about

the relationship between the two characters that you both play. >> i play-- . >> rose: you break the news to him that dad's dead. >> yes, i play judd's older sister. who is seemingly very invasive in her sibling's lives and opinionated and stuff. and i also, in the movie i'm the only one in his, immediate family that knows that his wife has left him so-- . >> rose: under the circumstances. >> under the circumstances under which it happened. so i torement him with that. >> rose: what does that mean? >> i just, i really-- . >> rose: you let him know you know. >> i can't keep a secret. i really can't and it's killing me. >> rose: so you want to say guess what happened to jason. he must not have been very good because she was hanging out with his boss. >> yeah, so i urged him to tell everyone. >> rose: here it is, roll tape. >> oh my god, would you just take the call. >> oh, put out. >> this is crazy enough without you keeping your divorce a secret. i mean who does that. >> quiet, mother sitting.

>> if you can't tell your family, than who. >> i would rather tell anyone. god, why don't you go upstairs and take a nap. >> i can't do this any more. this is already like a new record for me keeping my mouth quiet. you are stressed out and you're grieving. either you tell them or i will. >> i will pinch you, i will punch you. >> judd, where is that beautiful wife of yours. >> she's gone. gwen is gone, it's over. >> maybe it's not that complicated. she's been sleeping with my boss. i walked in on them having sex in my bed so i guess it's not that complicated. it's simple. i'm divorcing her as. >> how are you doing, mrs. applebaum. >> rose: what shall we say about that scene? >> it was fun to do. my guy doesn't really get to blow his top that much. yeah, he's sort of-- his mo is really trying to keep things tamped down. >> rose: you like a scene like that where you can let it out. >> yeah, although i really

enjoy, as an audience member i like watching actors in characters that are trying to keep things bottled up so when i get a part that's somewhere in there, i kind of jump in. >> rose: you said that you found similarities between the family and your own family in montreal. >> yeah. and i feel like it's a dicey statement. but yes, it's true. i have many siblings. and they all have fairly big personalities. and they can really push each other's buttons. but they're also fiercely loyal when the chips are down. and so in many ways i wanted to hold a mirror up to the dysfunction of my own siblinghood experience. but also write a bit of a love letter to those connections that i think sometimes long after our parents fail to live up to our ideals about them, our siblings who are born witness can be our life preservers. and that's been my own experience with my brothers and sisters and i love that the movie kind of

articulates that. >> seven days of-- gave you a narrative device that you could use. >> that was pretty of the whole idea. i really struggled with it when i was writing the book. i didn't want to do anything that i felt would limit the readership. i worried that shiva might be too esoteric and a little too narrow. but what i found out subsequently was that family is family and whether it's a shiva or a wake or something undefined, everybody comes together during those times and does the exact same things to each other. >> there's very little religion in the film. i think we're at temple once and-- you. >> it sneaks out. >> i have asked this a thousand times at this tablement but is drama easy to do if you a have done comedy well and you have great timing? >>. >> well, i do think comedy is harder to do. and i say that from the outside of you know mostly i say that as an observation of people, of working at

"saturday night live" and seeing actors come week after week, many of whom were stars of incredible oscar-winning dramatic performances. but it's a different thing to be able to do comedy. there's a secret precision underneath comedy. drama you could scream and cry and lose your mind and access a lot of emotion. but for comedy underneath that there has to be some sort of secret precision. >> rose: precision is what. >> like timing and saying the line fast enough or-- hitting the right word and not overlapping each other. >> it's also, not to get into any sort of science of comedy, i certainly don't know it. but my guess is that, you know, drama you just have to be real. and in comedy you have to be real but a heightened level of realism so you've got to go through a believable level of execution into something that is so exaggerated that it becomes funny. and that also has to be believable. so it's a bit of a higher

bar, i think. >> rose: i found this funny, i'm watching this movie and i'm laughing, so is it a drama or a comedy. >> it's both which is what life is, right, especially when you are in a situation where your dignity is in question. when chips are down and there's conflict, you can very quickly get into something that is dramatic or comedic on the same page. >> nass's pretty much where i think shawn and i found our common sweet spot ask that we both found like we don't want to tell this in an overly dramatic way or too comedic because we want to put it in that place where life really happens which is laughing at the funeral, you know, that's where life is. >> rose: you have been a director. when you appeared today as an actor, are you constantly thinking about directing as well, not about directing a film but watching and thinking about the techniques of different directors you know? >> no, i just, i am glad that i have learned even more about how this tricky process of creating a fake world, how complicated that

it is. and then as an actor you're in a great position to really help that process. because you affect it so clearly, so specifically, while you're literally while you're talking. you can kind of see that camera still moving. and you know you should wait until it stops rolling before you say your line. or if i'm shadowing tina i know to kind of like rock on to this foot so that you are out of her light. you can really help the process. >> rose: you are doing everything now, aren't you? >> not exercising. (laughter) >> rose: you stopped that. >> the first thing to goz are was it really? >> yeah. no money in it. (laughter) >> rose: doesn't pay, does it. >> for jane there's money. >> true. >> rose: but for few others can make those tapes. but i mean seriously, do you want to direct or do you -- >> i really respect directors. i really respect people who think in pictures and who

understand how shots and settups work. at this moment in time, i don't think that way and i don't have a strong desire to do that. when you work in television as a writer/producer you can do the fun parts of sdreking which is you can hover behind the director and talk to actors an adjust performance which is to me the more interesting part. >> rose: is there special chemistry f you are a comedic actor and people provide you a certain type of chemistry that others don't. >> yeah, especially coming from an improvisational background. you are used to putting all your energy, focusing on the other person in the scene. and amy and i certainly have a shorthand that is, it's literally 20 years now since, that we've known each other. and jason and i feel like we are able to access some of that same kind of shorthand just because we are a all in that same world. >> yeah, it's almost like, thank you for saying, i feel the same way about you, truly. we just finished doing a bunch of interviews

together. and there are certain people where we're like dogs. there is a frequency, right, where you can hear where the person is about to stop talking and you know that's your time to come. in it's like a braiding which is really fun to be a part of. and i certainly enjoy it when i'm watching it. >> rose: mike nichols once said to me, i said what do you expect from ackers. and he said i expect the same thing from actors that i expect from my architect. i want them to surprise me. i want them to take me to a place that i hadn't even imagined would come out of a scene, or a development of a character. >> that's the truth. it's all that you do, when directing a movie is you try and set it up and create an environment where those accidents and those surprises sometimes comedic, sometimes emotional, can take your breath away. and surprise you. and that's the special sauce that makes a movie great. >> rose: thank you for coming. great to you have. >> my pleasure. >> rose: when does it open. >> it opens september 19th. >> rose: this is where i leave you, on september 19th.

back in a moment. stay with us. >> james galbraith is here. he is an economist who teaches at the university of texas. he is the author of nine books. his latest is a provocative examination of the promise and limitations of economic growth. it is called, the end of normal: the great cries and the future of growth. i am pleased to have james galbraith at this table. welcome to our program, good to see you. >> thank you very much. >> rose: so this evolved out of washington monthly article. >> it did initially am i did something in march of 2009 for the washington monthly. that was a suggestion that things were going to be more difficult going forward than most people thought. and this book, yes, evolved out of that. >> rose: why did you think that? >> because it seemed to me that the slump that we were going through was qualitatively different from the ones we previously experienced in my lifetime. most of which have been caused by policy changes or

shocks from the outside. whereas this one had a large element of internal institutional collapse in the united states, mainly in the financial sector. and so it seemed to me that it was going to be much harder. this was much more like 1929, 1930 than it was like 1974 or 1982. and you couldn't tell that by looking at the statistics. you had to know something about the context. >> why the title the end of normal? >> because for most of our lifetime, particularly if you are an economist, you have a view of the future that's conditioned by the postwar experience. in two respects. one is that this is the time for which we have economic statistics and they have a certain trend line. and the other is that we developed economic theory in the postwar period which gave us the notion of perpetual growth as the normal condition. and i think we where at the end of the period where this is the good guide to what is going to happen going forward.

>> and then beyond the tight thrill is the dedication to bruce bartlet, a brave and honored friend. >> bruce was my counterpart, the republican staff director of the joint economic committee in the early 1980s well. were both 29 years old at the time. i was the democratic staff director. we started out as adversaries and have become, became quite good friends then and have stayed so. >> he is a republican. de serve in the reagan administration. >> he served in reagan and brush 4-- bush 41. he is a guy who has had, taken, very courageous positions which cost him a lot in the political circles which he moved at one point. and while they in some sense he, what he, his depar ture from bush 2 was that he didn't find bush 2 to be a true conservative. which i any probably is correct. you know, the fact is he took a very brave stand and i think he should get a lot of credited for that in my book.

>> you wrote, you have a quote from your father which says politics is not the art of the possible. it is a consistent, choosing between its disastrous and the unpalatable, unpalatable. >> yes. >> i'm in favor of the unpalatable and i'm afraid the book is a long discourse on what the unpalatable is. >> and what it is. >> exactly. >> and why that's by choice and why that's our choice. >> yes. >> what's happened. do drill down on that, what happened. a lot of people, larry summers is now writing about secular stagnation and talking about growth and the absence of demand. and larry always said the problem is growth rather than the death of it that we have. >> secular stagnation is an idea, my understanding is primarily psychological, it has to do with whether businesses are willing to invest, where consumers are willing to spend, whether the incomes exist for them to do that. i think the issues now go

deeper than that. and i think some premises that grew up in the postwar period are now questionable. the first is that the stability and low cost of energy. secondly, the stability of the world system which was created by the united states and its allies in the postwar period and then evolved into a kind of single hegemon if you like after the soviet union coulds lad. thirdly the nature of technologies and fourthly the functionality of the financial system. >> how do you find the financial system today? >> well, it's a very concentrated system. >> most people don't think they're any more tools in the monetary tool kit. >> and i think that's a reasonable concern. i was involved in oversight of monetary policy for a long time. i was actually one of the people who on the

congressional staff started the process of regular hearings between the federal reserve and the congress. and so we have gone through a period from the federal reserve being a very closed organization to being one which val quite open and quite public about its goals. it uses every tool of signaling that it has available to it. and in recent years it's been using this tool of asset buying. these are really very limited instruments, very limited instruments and they're discovering now as they try to move away from the asset buying if from the quantitative easing that it's-- when you start and people become accustomed to these extremely hard to stop without causing massive disruptions. >> and so janet yellin is going very careful. >> she is rightly going very carefully and i think her margin of maneuver is much smaller than most people expect the central bank to have or been lead to

believe. >> rose: but-- in europe in his latest speech talking about the possibility of european. >> sure. >> bank doing that. >> sure. and again what he succeeded in doing was to quell the panic and the speculative action against some of the country's of -- >> they will not let them fail. >> that's right, moving the euro zone economy back to a steady course of economic expansion say much more difficult task and i don't think the european central bank has the tools by itself to do that. >> so what do we do? if we don't want to see, if we want to see a vigorous economy what must be the fundamental changes that we have to make whether they're structural or otherwise. >> we have to first of all be realistic about what the constraints, problems are. we're not living in the world where the goal of a vigorous economy is as easily achieved as it was for the whole world in the '40s, '50s or for the united states in the '80s and 90s

so we're in a more difficult period. that seems to me that we have to strengthen the social protections that we have. and which have played a very valuable role for us in the aftermath of the crisis, social insurance, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance. they become much more valuable in this, in these conditions. and then we have to focus our resources on the problems it that we actually have. we've gotten a reprieve in the united states on energy thanks to natural gas but there's still enormous environmental concerns associated with that. we need to put resources where the problems are in a very specific way. >> a discourse which is based upon what's the rate of economic growth. how much stimulus, monetary or fiscal do you need to get there is not drilling down to the questions that really need to be asked and answered. >> you know, i can remember people on this program, the conclusion of the economic crisis saying we will not see 4% gdp growth for a long time, if ever, if ever.

you know, and then we are right about 2%. >> right. >> and yet when the person said that i thought that can't be true because it will switch back to that it will take four or five years to get employment at six percent and other things will happen and there will be growth and there will be demand and america's technological and innovative opportunities will present themselves and everything there be goo and now there's a lolts of pessimistic about where we areness everybody i think has been conditioned by economists to believe that we know what the long-term trend is. >> rose: right. >> and therefore when we're off of it we're going to go back. and again, that's the premise that i'm challenging here. what does it mean? to not go back there? it means recognizing that we

have an employment to population ratio which hasn't improved at all since 2009. it's basically where it was after the slump. some of that is because the population is getting older but a lot of that is because the jobs are simply not being created. well, let's face that reality now. and instead of expecting that things will improve on their own, think about how we best manage a economy, and a society in which we don't have a reasonable expectation that things will improve on their own. >> rose: i'm sure you saw this piece that i saw not long ago, maybe in the last threeo four weeks, roger and-- somebody else did a piece. >> old friend. >> roger. and here he is, a very distinguished professor at harvard and management consultant, saying that look, what's happened here, you know, the only people benefitting from this economy is very few at the top, the middle class is not benefitting. is that true?

is that-- did i sum up what he said. >> yeah, it's substantially true. but i might be even a little less pessimistic on that than roger is. what has happened, of course, when you have an economy whose forward movement has been based upon the stock market, based on asset prices, people who own stocks are definitely going have the best balance sheets and biggest income gains. >> and paying less taxes. >> yes, well, they will be paying more taxes as they-- as they have larger share of income. but we do have social protections which have continued to function. and one of the remarkable things about the united states in comparison with europe and the crisis period is the extent to which people's income at the bottom was replaced by social security, by disability, by medicare, medicaid, by unemployment since. -- insurance. that has kept us from a much worse situation.

and if you travel as i have to athens or to rome or to spain and portugal you will find society's are under much more immediate stress than they are here where the social institutions, the public sector institutions are really in a state of breakdown opinions what did you think of the picket book. >> i wrote an early review of thomas piketty's book in descent. the title of the magazine was well chosen. my review was a less skeptical one. i thought that his approach had a level of abstraction which prevented him from actually dealing with the crisis that we're in. because to stretch things out over a very long period of time and talked in very general terms about savings and the rate of growth and the rate of interests. and i don't think those are, that really gets to the

experience that we're actually having. so i ended up being one of the few piketty dissidents. >> and what is the futility military power? >> the postwar period was initially one in which the noncommunist part of the world had a stable framework that was created by the united states and its allies. and that he val of the after the end of the soviet union into a kind of unipolar world in which we were the gaur an tore of the world system. i think the experience of iraq and afghanistan has shown in certainly military professionals know this, that the actual use of military power has extremely limited possibilities. essentially that the balance of technologies has shifted in favor of the defenders and has meant that you, you condition replicate the experience of rebuilding germany and japan after 1945

in the modern world. >> whatever happened to the great debate about the deficit and long-term debt? >> i hope it goes away and stays away. because this was in some sense a great misunderstanding that the idea that the united states needs to have a balanced budget or it can as a practical matter, achieve a balanced budget, given the u.s. role in the world, where we supply capital assets, financial assets to the whole world economy. we are a country that has to run a budget deficit, a trade deficit. so we have been badgered for decades by people who say you can't do that. and the whole policy has to be to cut spending and raise taxes. and every time you do that you end up squeezing the economy. it happened this in 1999/2000. it happened again in 232006, 2007. >> and what happened in britain. >> how do you measure what

happened to their economy which is now the most productive economy. >> the major advantage that the british have had is that they are offshore from the euro zone and so they are d-- they have a real advantage as a magnet for financial activity, an if you look at i actually have done some work on the distribution of income in the u.k., amazing concentration of it in the center of london, in the financial zone, it's just phenomenal how much of the income of the whole region is focused in that little piece of territory. so this is clearly driven by its cut. -- u.k.'s special role as a financial center. >> what is the greatest contribution your father made to the ideas and the country. >> i think my father many ways framed modern liberalism. he gave it a voice and a whole series of objectives, that it didn't have before. as an economist, he

projected the corporation, a large orption into the center of our attention in the 1950s, just emerged as a dominant force in american society. and he carried that particular torch of, if you like, old-fashioned leb ralism and social solidarity to its end of his days, right up through the wave of conservatism, he never recan'ted. >> and he was a great friend of bill buckley as you and i began this interview. what did they agree on? >> they agreed on the magazine any sense of the english language amount of that was the major bond between them. they just absolutely enjoyed the play of words and style. and this shows up in their correspondent, it showed up in their conversation. >> it is an amazing friendship, it was. >> it was a very amazing friendship. i must say we all loved bill

buckley for his, particularly toward the end of his life when my father was in decline, bill's dedication to dad was a true act of -- >> of love. >> yes. >> the book is called the end of normal james galbraith, the great crisis and the future of growth. thank you. good to have you here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and early episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org and charlie rose.com.

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting it this program since 2002. american express, and charles that wab. additional funding provided by. and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ ♪ must have soup >> the pancake -- is to die for! >> it was a gut-bomb, but i liked it. >> i actually fantasize in private moments about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie? sweet potato pie?