mr. bernanke go to the parthenon and genuflect in gratitude? >> well, he should, larry, because the european economy, remember, is much worse off than the u.s. economy. they've got no high-tech exports. germany doesn't ship high-tech goods to asia. it ships commodity dws goods to the periphery of europe. so they're down by a quarter. the european economy is sagging. greece is a place where if you take away corruption, you destroy the social fabric of society. it's a banana republic, which for a short time had a aaa credit rating. >> does that mean the euro is going -- i appreciates theagek actives. does that mean the euro is going south? euro by the way, just hit a low today against the suisse frank. david is the euro going to continue to go south and the dollar becoming more king dollar? >> the europeans, according to robert mundell want the euro at around 1.25 to deal with their export catastrophe. so i think that's about right. i see 1.25, gradual fall. i don't believe the fed is going to tighten and push the dollar up further for a simple r

mr. bernanke and then mr. volcker? >> if we of the regulator of only the banks, we are thinking that is a bad idea. we need to see a broad financial system. we need to have the information about the broader economy and know what is going on across the country, not just in the great state of new york, for example. there is a close connection between the need for the federal reserve to look at banks of all sizes, and our regional structure. exactly why we have a regional structure -- we have policy makers from 12 regions to speak to local people, including local bankers, to get information about what is happening in their part of the country. but the regional structure of the federal reserve and the supervision of small and medium- sized banks, both of those things together provide us with information, qualitative the information, which cannot be obtained it nearly any other way. >> it's important to monetary policy to have the supervision of all the banks? >> also of financial stability, because we need to see what is h

mr. bernanke a lot of zero interest rate running room as far as the eye can see. so the question is whether a high dollar is in fact good for stocks and economic growth because oftentimes a rising currency can be deflationary. you have a lot of people on wall street today shying away from the so-called risk trade, meaning stocks, in favor of the dollar trade. now, let's stay with the deflation theme. is the chinese rem nimdy going to be revalued in order to choke off inflationary measures in china? if you're confused about all this, join the crowd. the dollar is rising against the euro and also the japanese yen. on the other side, the dollar might fall against which chinese currency. that's a possibility. now look, summing up as a good free market supply sider, i want king dollar, aka, a reliable currency, and i want low marginal tax rates to spur economic growth incentives. i might get the one, but as far as the tax cuts, dream on, larry. then again, then again, hope springs eternal. despite mr. obama's obamacare tax and spend big government policies which remind

mr. bernanke and then mr. volcker? >> if we of the regulator of only the banks, we are thinking that is a bad idea. we need to see a broad financial system. we need to have the information about the broader economy and know what is going on across the country, not just in the great state of new york, for example. there is a close connection between the need for the federal reserve to look at banks of all sizes, and our regional structure. exactly why we have a regional structure -- we have policy makers from 12 regions to speak to local people, including local bankers, to get information about what is happening in their part of the country. but the regional structure of the federal reserve and the supervision of small and medium- sized banks, both of those things together provide us with information, qualitative the information, which cannot be obtained it nearly any other way. >> it's important to monetary policy to have the supervision of all the banks? >> also of financial stability, because we need to see what is h

mr. bernanke, i think, again, we're looking at things changing again rapidly soon. we're going to get an indication of that coming out today and that's what traders are focused on in terms of the immediate activity. >> all right, ben lichtenstein, president of tradersaudio.com. stay with us for another quick thought. >> thank you. >> meanwhile, we'll get a final thought from james bevan. we heard ben there. we closed up at our highest levels on the european stock markets since june last year. is that wide around where it's going to continue? if it is, where do you stick your money? >> i'm going to be more selective around here. i think we have to look at fair value. we assume that the profit share of gdp can remain elevated. i like companies like apple, amgen, and i like some of the cheap health care companies in the global context where with i see real value. >> why cheap? >> because the capitalization value of the dividend alone is share in many companies presently. >> okay. >> james bevan, chief investment officer at ccla management. james, we appreciate your tim

mr. bernanke did a little saber rattling, steve liesman was right, i thought he came off hawkish yesterday. >> this is a whole new larry. >> think about this. i'm being mischievous here. >> we'll see the fed hiking interest rates this year. the outlook for inflation isn't as bright and perhaps this is what the market is getting a sense of. >> maybe the dollar is doing it for them, michelle. think about that. >> obviously, all these things working together and in the right drekdz. i have to say, i think we have a long way to go in terms of the dollar strengthening before we think about the fed being restricted or deflation or anything along those lines. but i do think it is all part of the same story where you have the markets now beginning to go from, you know, thinking the fed was never raising rates and the economy was weak and the dollar was under pressure to now the u.s. story is improving. >> how high are bond rates going to go? how high? the treasury is what today? 3.80 and change. how high will it go? >> i think it will go up to 4% and 4.5% next year. >> i think even higher. we have

mr. bernanke woos -- mr. bernanke was supposed to be so great and they brag about him. where was he, if he's supposed to be so smart? so our people are suffering today because of bad decisions, and i have a simple view: that is, nothing comes from nothing. nothing ever could. everything you take today somebody has paid ford and bought. if you don't have the money today, and you grasp something of value, somebody is paying for it. and in our case, we're borrowing the money. so, i just would want to say, mr. president, that we can do better. we've done better in the 1990's. we're not going to be able to slash spending in record amounts, but i think in some of our accounts, we absolutely could eliminate spending. some of the government programs have been independently evaluated as to be not worth the money we're spend on them. they should be ended. you shouldn't be spending money hon a program that doesn't produce a return, worthy of the investment we're putting into it, even if you call it a jobs bill. we're going to help people have jobs, but if it doesn't produce jobs,

mr. chairman. i have a question for chairman bernanke.ng the early part of the decade a lot of the economists kept setting the interest rates are too low and there was a financial bubble and a housing bubble and there had to be a correction and there was in 2008. since then, many mainstream economists have more or less agreed with that assessment. we frequently hear them say interest rates were held too low too long. i think even secretary geithner made that statement. do you think they were held too low too long? >> i've given a speech on this. the bottom line is nobody knows for sure, but that the evidence is quite mixed. i would say that even if they were too low too long, the magnitude of the error was not big enough to account for the crisis. what caused the crisis was the failures in regulation. i would fault the said. some of the failures were ours in the sense we did not do enough on mortgage regulation. so i think it was the weakness of the regulatory system, not monetary policy, that was most important. >> of course, i don't a

mr. poe. >> i have a question for chairman bernanke.ing the early part of the decade, a lot of the free markets and would say that there was a financial bubble and there had to be a correction. we did in 2008. since 2008, many of the mainstream economists have more less agreed with that assessment, because we'll hear them say interest rates were held too low to long. even secretary geithner has made that statement. where you come down on the perfection -- where did you come down on that perspective? >> i had given a speech on this. the bottom line is nobody knows for sure the evidence is quite mixed. i would say that even if there were -- they were held to low too long. management of the error was not enough to account for the huge crisis that we had. what caused that was the failure of regulation. i would toss the fed in there, too, because we did not do enough. we did not do enough regulation. i think the weakness of the regulatory system, not arbitrer policy, that was important. >> i cannot agree with that, of course, but if you assu

mr. bernanke, my understanding is that you have lent out trillions of dollars at zero interest loans to financial institutions. trillions of dollars. can you please tell me and the american people which financial institutions received that money and what the terms were? i don't think that that was an unreasonable question, trillions of dollars. he said no, senator, i'm not going to do it. and we have since introduced legislation to make them do it and so forth and so on. it is beyond my comprehensive -- comprehension that we do not know which financial institutions have received trillions of dollars of zero or close to zero interest loans. we don't know about the conflicts of interest that may have existed. mr. president, in that regard, let me just talk about a scam which is quite unbelievable that goes on today. what goes on today is that companies like goldman sachs borrow money from the fed -- and i have no reason to doubt that goldman sack also was on the receiving end of these zero interest loans, and they borrow this money for .1%, maybe .25%, and then they take that money and then they in

mr. bernanke, head of the fed, and by his secretary of the treasury and they both told him if he didn't do something very drastic like passing tarp that we were going to see an economic collapse because the banks were going to die. and so we had to do that. but george w. bush, a very conservative guy, reviewed that he couldn't make hoover's mistake and fail to see to it that the banks remained viable. so, the economy worries me. i'm, of course, concerned about world peace and the terrorists. i have environmental concerns, global warming, pollution, danger to the great lakes from invasive species and pollution. these are all concerns. but they are concerns that every american shares. we have some differences on what ought to be done >> our guest has been john dingell, the dean of the house of representatives and congressman from 1955 from the fifteenth district of michigan. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal." "pianin about -- eric pianin talks about job numbers. michael shifter reviews secretary of state clinton's trip. and we discussed what can be done about the rising dropout rates in t

mr. bernanke, head of the fed, and by his secretary of the treasury and they both told him if he didn't domething very drastic like passing tarp that we were going to see an economic collapse because the banks were going to die. and so we had to do that. but george w. bush, a very conservative guy, reviewed that he couldn't make hoover's mistake and fail to see to it that the banks remained viable. so, the economy worries me. i'm, of course, concerned about world peace and the terrorists. i have environmental concerns, global warming, pollution, danger to the great lakes from invasive species and pollution. these are all concerns. but they are concerns that every american shares. we have some differences on what ought to be done, but there is no difference if whatever his next up is, and there is some curiosity about that, it is clear that he is not finished with public service. ladies gentlemen, please welcome to the national press club, the honorable mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you for welcoming me here today. you tugged at my heartstrings as you talked about t

mr. bernanke, head of the fed, and by his secretary of the treasury and they both told him if he didn't do something very drastic like passing tarp that we were going to see an economic collapse because the banks were going to die. and so we had to do that. but george w. bush, a very conservative guy, reviewed that he couldn't make hoover's mistake and fail to see to it that the banks remained viable. so, the economy worries me. i'm, of course, concerned about world peace and the terrorists. i have environmental concerns, global warming, pollution, danger to the great lakes from invasive species and pollution. these are all concerns. but they are concerns that every american shares. we have some differences on what ought to be done, but there is no difference if something has to be done. host: our guest the last 40 minutes john dingell the dean of the house representatives and congressman since 1955 from the 15th district of michigan. thank you, sir. the house is coming into session in a pro forma session and which means we won't do much business but what is the purpose of a pro forma sess

mr. bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, said last week in his testimony before congress, our path is unsustainable. not the first time he's said that. virtually every economist who's ever opined in the last six months or more on our economy says our spending levels are unsustainable and threaten the vibrancy of our economic system in this country. and it's just a very troubling thing, and we know that. so i -- we don't need to go into a whole lot of discussion about it. the growth debt that our country al-hassan grown to a-- that our country has has grown to approximately $12 trillion, the high nest our nation's history, and the public debt, the amount of debt that this country owes outside its 0 own government -- some of this is internal debt. we owe social security and medicare and other trust funds that may be in surplus, but we owe trillions outside, and within five years our public debt will dull and in ten years the public -- will double and in ten years the public debt will triple. i would just show the chart on that before i go into the details of it. and one of the conseq

later, fed chairman ben bernanke testifies about federal supervision of banks. ♪ >> mr.peaker, a message from the president of the united states. >> president obama praised the senate today for passing and $18 billion bill aimed at creating jobs. his comments came after a meeting with irish prime minister bill cohen. the president will sign the measure on thursday. >> i just want to thank congress for passing this morning the hire act. it is the first of what i hope will be a series of jobs packages that help to continue to put people back to work all across america. this bill will provide tax cuts to small-business is that are willing to begin hiring right now, putting people back to work. it will also provide significant tax breaks to businesses for investing in their business, so hopefully at a time when we are starting to see an upswing in economic growth that will help sustain it. the bill also will continue to improve our ability to finance infrastructure projects all across the country. i also want to say to the republicans who voted for this bill that i appreciat

mr. stiglitz, could have you back on this program. >> nice to be here. tavis: i have not seen you since this was news, although it is old news at this point. did ben bernankeerve the honor of person of the year? >> well, he certainly get some credit for bringing us back from the brink, but he deserves a lot of blame for pushing us to the brink. it depends on how you balance that. the fact that the fed, he and his predecessor, alan greenspan, were largely responsible for the mismanagement of the economy, failing to have regulations that would have stopped us from getting into this mess, even as we have been pulled back from the brink. unemployment has soared. people have said we will not be back to normal unemployment until the middle of the decade. yes, it is great the banks are paying bonuses again, it is great they are making big profits. america is still in not good shape. tavis: how do you respond to the notion that i have read that the obama team, speaking of bernanke, that the obama economic team, tim geithner, larry summer, that group, there is not a stiglitz-like voice in that group? you hear the critique all the time of what is missing on the econ

mr. secretary, i have about three questions here i'll try to put them all together so this may get a little complicated. but last month i asked federal reserve chairman bernankehether fannie mae or freddie mac served their purpose and whether we should be looking at a different way to finance mortgages since the problems when hwe had, and he said the fd has been vocal on this issue for years and we need to be cautious about going to conflicts between private shareholder and public objectives and suggested either privatization with government guarantees or a public utility approach. my first question is would you agree or could you comment on that assessment? my second question is using the federal home loan bank model, is that a -- is that something you can actually substitute for all this and in terms of what we're doing or are not doing as far as the future is concerned? they don't seem to have had the problems that the other gses have had? and what about soliciting all of the support systems, to a system whereby institutions which are making loans have to stand on their own in terms of what they are doing? i'm not necessarily saying i advocate that or you

mr. chairman. i have three questions here. i am going to try to put them together. it may get complicated. last month i asked federal reserve chairman bernanke fannie may and freddie mac are serving their purpose or whether we should look at different ways to finance mortgages, and he responded the fed has been vocal on this issue for years. he said we need to be cautious about returning to the existing model with conflicts between private shareholders and public objectives. he suggested that public utility approach. my first question is, would you agree or could you comment on that assessment? my second question is, using the federal home loan bank model, is that something you could actually substitute for all this in terms of what we're doing or not doing as far as the future is concerned? they don't seem to have had the problems that the other g.s.e.'s have had? and my other point is how about eliminating all these systems which is a system whereby institutions making loans have to make their own loans based on what they are doing? i am not necessarily advocating that or saying you do, but i am interested in your opinion. >> i amany inter

mr. chairman. i have three questions here. i am going to try to put them together. it may get complicated. last month i asked federal reserve chairman bernankether fannie may and freddie mac are serving their purpose or whether we should look at different ways to finance mortgages, and he responded the fed has been vocal on this issue for years. he said we need to be cautious about returning to the existing model with conflicts between private shareholders and public objectives. he suggested that public utility approach. my first question is, would you agree or could you comment on that assessment? my second question is, using the federal home loan bank model, is that something you could actually substitute for all this in terms of what we're doing or not doing as far as the future is concerned? they don't seem to have had the problems that the other g.s.e.'s have had? and my other point is how about eliminating all these systems which is a system whereby institutions making loans have to make their own loans based on what they are doing? i am not necessarily advocating that or saying you do, but i am interested in your opinion. >> i amany i

mr. camp as well for his work. in the fall of 2008, america did not know whether it was heading for a second great depression. those weren't my words, they were the words of ben bernanke, head of the federal reserve. since then, the work of the obama administration and the democratic congress has headed off disaster. most important has been the recovery act, which cut tacks for small businesses and 95% of families, funded thousands of job-creating projects across america, provided emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved states from laying off teachers, firefighters and police officers and much more. no matter what its partisan critics say, the facts say it clearly. the recovery act is working. the recovery act created some two million jobs and since president obama took office, monthly job losses are down 96%. from 7266,000 other a four-month average in the latter part of the bush administration to 27,500 over the last four months. 96% improvement in job losses. that's not success but it is progress. success will be when we grow jobs as we did in november. our economy is growing again. in the most recent quarter, it grew by 9.5%, the fastest

mr. chairman. i have three questions here. i am going to try to put them together. it may get complicated. last month i asked federal reserve chairman bernankee may and freddie mac are serving their purpose or whether we should look at different ways to finance mortgages, and he responded the fed has been vocal on this issue for years. he said we need to be cautious about returning to the existing model with conflicts between private shareholders and public objectives. he suggested that public utility approach. my first question is, would you agree or could you comment on that assessment? my second question is, using the federal home loan bank model, is that something you could actually substitute for all this in terms of what we're doing or not doing as far as the future is concerned? they don't seem to have had the problems that the other g.s.e.'s have had? and my other point is how about eliminating all these systems which is a system whereby institutions making loans have to make their own loans based on what they are doing? i am not necessarily advocating that or saying you do, but i am interested in your opinion. >> i amany interested