23 Burst results for "Paul Krugman"
"paul krugman" Discussed on The Al Franken Podcast
"Let me ask you about the state and local governments because going forward. We're talking about Mcconnell is telling the states to go bankrupt yes which which can can they legally can okay. I didn't think so. People were written today. Sango states have gone bankrupt. Mississippi went bankrupt in the eighteen thirties. Or something that's been illegal since one thousand nine. Thirty seven states cannot infect declare bankruptcy. I think McConnell is is if it hasn't hit him already it will soon It's not just a blue states with with their generous social programs. It's in some ways. Actually it's looking as if places like New York and New Jersey which California which have income taxes are going to hold up better than states that rely entirely on sales tax like like Florida and Texas. So this is going to be a crisis. All across the states they're laying off people right Public we've lost a million jobs in state and local government in month of April and and when we say jobs and state and local government think schoolteachers which half of them Firefighters police officers. These are not. We're not talking about bureaucrats doing nothing that you care about. We're talking about people who educate our kids who put out fires and who protect us and it's shocking that we lost any jobs in that sector though that should be expanding to deal with the crisis. But it's GonNa be much much worse if we don't get some heat out to the state and local governments. Obviously we're paying the price. Everybody in this country is paying the price for the two months that went by while Donald Trump wanted. I guess wanted to keep the stock market up. Is that wanted owning his. Yeah he was. He didn't WANNA or Jared Kushner told him and he agreed that we shouldn't order any extra medical supplies. We shouldn't Talk about any kind of contact limitations because that would spook the stock market so member. Reagan said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Well now the eight most terrifying words are I'm jared Kushner and I'm here to help yes. It is amazing. He's got the reverse MIDAS touch everything he touches turns to words. I can't use on on air and shit all right okay. Yeah and And and people don't know this I know Paul and he has a really bad potty mouth right. Yeah I'm sorry that's that's not true not enough to be interesting but anyway but this is a guy who have really has never done anything right and but then other countries are actually reopening in South Korea. Had its first case the same day that we did but they responded quickly with a partial lockdown a massive wrap up of testing to Pasadena and the other day of Korea had those one guy who was infected to win to nightclubs as so they had a second outbreak of a couple of hundred people. They flooded the zone. They tested something. Like ten thousand people found a bunch of cases isolated the people and they brought it under control without having to that to shut the nightclubs for awhile again. Probably a good idea but they. They're not having to shut their economy so we could be there. You know we're sophisticated advanced country. Lots of capacity to do stuff But instead we ignored it was. There's a lot of people infected then. You need massive testing capacity to do that kind of thing and we don't. We haven't gotten there so we have no national plan You've made the point that you know after Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and asked the states to address that they moved immediately to establish national control over key strategic resources strategic production. Because that's what you do when you have an emergency Instead of a free for all in which states are competing with each other but having a national plan would mean taking responsibility and so. That's that's a if there's one thing the guy in the White House doesn't do is is He himself says I I take no responsibility for anything so we have not handled this at all with the seriousness and the constant desire to just sort of wish it away. Obviously it means a lot. More people have died in probably lots and lots and lots more people will die because of this also means that the economy is going to you know even if if there's an attempt to open it's probably going to fail we don't know this for sure but the odds are that will see an uptick in infections and will be an economic limbo for much longer time than we would have been if we taking this seriously from the beginning and again. That's what epidemiologists say right they don't talk about. The economics are absolutely terrified of the results of premature opening. Obviously you're right having and so many people said this we should be testing and contact tracing. That's in the House bill. We we have to do that. But this president is He I think you wrote somewhere that that he just will not ever admit that he made a mistake not that he just screwed up those first two months. He just screws up everyday right and he refuses to admit you even implicitly admit I mean an actual decent leader would say okay. I was wrong about something. But we're GONNA fix that trump. Now the truth is he previous. Bush never did that either But at least the Bush administration with slink away you know what they would abandon failed policy and and pretend they never happened but trump doubled down on the mistakes. Had this disastrous. I don't know where this came from. This disastrous recommendation that everybody take Hydro Queen which doesn't help it and will kill you other ways. But he says well. I'm taking it now. Which really is. I probably museums for that. But but he won't admit that he was wrong about something I mean it was. That was too much even for. Fox News hosts. I liked the one about injecting yourself. Lysol even that one. He didn't go like okay. I had a brain freeze and that was ridiculous but no he said I was being sarcastic. And it's on tape. He just never miss a mistake because he keeps making them. I Wanna I want you explain something to Me and to folks which is the Fed buying assets because we hear that all the time and the Fed stepped up and bought unprecedented amount of money. And right yeah so. Please explain for For us what that means the Fed by assets literally what the Fed is doing is in fact buying them it. It goes to a bank private bank and says why would we want to buy one billion dollars of US treasuries and we will pay for by crediting your account at the Fed. The bank has an account that the Fed with with one billion dollars that that account didn't come from any place the Fed just waved digital over it and and there. There was so the purpose of this. If I'm right is to provide liquidity. Is that right? Yeah it is to to make sure that money is flowing. That people aren't all trying to hoard cash one way to say. Look if everybody tries to Howard more cash and not spend the money on something. Then you're spending is my income. My spending is your income south. Everybody tries to hoard cash What we have is is a recession. And what the Fed is doing is going out there and buying stuff and it's only allowed to buy assets. It can't just go out and buy groceries to keep the money flowing so if the economy doesn't crash Phil let me give an example. Because I want try to wrap my head around most Let's say a corporation needs some money to keep going right? Can the Fed essentially give them alone? Maybe not directly but through a bank or something like that is that what's happening yet. Roughly speaking It's that's good enough. It's good enough I mean. Put it this. The the Fed can't lend to a corporation but it can lend to the corporate sector basically the way to put it so it can. It can put money places then ends up being used to lend money to corporations. Is that called the credit market if you strip it down to its essence. Yes right now. The Fed is lending money to corporations is not favoring any particular corporation that would be a violation of the rules. But it's corporations can go and get a loan from the money that the Fed put in these accounts of banks. Yes Cross okay enough. That's me in the money. Fluffy fight by by making sure. That money doesn't pile up uselessly. In BANKS BUT INSTEAD GETS LENGTH OUT TO BUSINESSES. Okay and and it can you win also to like municipalities. Yes they can and that they had And that's one of the things that they are doing a little bit of now now municipalities themselves have limits on Vacation barberry much because a balanced budget rules but they there's enough wiggle room in there that that's really important and yes. The Fed is is out there buying some unions and a and keeping the money flowing to cities great. How about for states states? I I wanNA tell you a story. I try to make the short when we were having a debate on the ACA part of what we were doing was making trims in Medicare advantage which didn't suffer from this at all And extending the life of Medicare and I had a Republican senator. Come up to me and say well. That's not real money. It's just treasuries and I said Treasuries are like real money there right. I said Let me ask you something. Do you have treasuries in your portfolio? And this way said your probably bigger than mine okay. Well nevertheless Let me tell you my kids went to college. I A laggard treasuries and that paid for their college education. Do you have any he goes? They're not money I go. Well let me ask you this. What would you do with the you know the extra funds that are coming in would would you get a warehouse and have freezers the input stakes in there? Or what? What are you talking about? And he goes. They're not money. I go well. Yeah they are the fact the safest money there is the safest thing their US treasury. They're not money. Okay what would you put in there? And then fight. This is what he finally said after pressed him and pressed him he said. Cds Certificates of deposit. Now I could say this guy's name and I'm tempted but I'm won't but how frigging stupid and embarrassing that I know and actually asked what is the CD. It's a claim on a bank. What does the Bank on owns? A lot of treasuries I will name a name that there. There've been a lot of stupid things in this crisis but I think the the stupidest thing stupider than hydrochloric was Lindsey. Graham saying that because this virus is China's fault maybe we should disqualify or default on the Treasury's that that China owns. Jesus which yeah I mean right now if? Us Government debt as the safest asset in the world. But if we start saying well except we don't repay the debt that we don't like you. That's that's a way to really destroy that world financial system and the US economy. Lindsay's kind of gone off the tracks. They're not my not my department. I really WanNa know what happened to him. I'll tell you I'll tell you They have something on him. And it's kind of an open secret in Washington. He's a compulsive shoplifter and they have video of him lifting gravy boat from Pottery Barn. All right that's what it is. I'll I'll let.
"paul krugman" Discussed on The Peter Schiff Show Podcast
"I mean I'm not even sure what he got it for But I'm sure whatever it was I would disagree with it but in any event they're very opposite guys yet. They're on the exact same page. When it comes to the Federal Reserve both Paul Krugman who supposedly believed in sound money and the gold standard and Paul Krugman right. Who doesn't believe in a goal set at all right but these two guys both want the Federal Reserve to print a ton of money keep on printing right. They're both advocating government deficits right. I'm sure Steve Moore would prefer the deficits resulted from tax cuts. But he doesn't carry wants deficits so even if it means more government that's a trade off. He's willing to make because he wants to fed to print more money. Because Steve Moore according to Him. The prosperity killer is the flation. That was his article. His op ED. That I read it was like the real prosperity killer is deflation right so we can't have deflation so the most important thing is that the Fed saves us from this man is of deflation now. Of course I've talked about that. This on the podcast. Deflation is not something that we have to be saved from the in doesn't kill prosperity. Deflation Causes Prosperity Right. At least when he's talking about deflation he's talking about falling prices. Falling prices are what we want because when prices go down we buy more stuff right which is good. We want to have more stuff that cheaper better right and I know people say well. That's bad for business. No is great for business because their cost. Come Down Right. There cost Sir also prices and when your costs come down and your prices go down you can maintain your margins but what you can do on. Your prices are down as you can sell more stuff so you do more volume. You make more money. Selling more affordable merchandise so deflation is not a prosperity killer. Now the mistake they make right they go back and look at the Great Depression of the Nineteen Thirties. Right Oh prices went down. Yeah prices went out. That's not what caused the depression. They want to act like because prices went down in the thirties. That's why we have depression. No that's not why we had a depression. It's the depression that caused prices to go down but price is going down. Weren't the problem. They actually mitigated the problem. They cushioned the blow for people to see that the cost of living wind down to try to blame the depression on the fact that prices went down. That's like you know blaming the rain on web sidewalks. The sidewalks are wet because it rain. It didn't rain because the sidewalks are wet. Depression because prices went down. You gotta pack. Words prices went down because we have the recession. The depression and you know the same thing happened. I talked about that. On one of my podcasts. Not Too long ago when I saw the airfares right airline prices ticket prices just collapsed right. I was taught. I think I mentioned on the podcast. I saw like a three dollar or dollar fair from San Juan to To Boston I mean just crazy price ridiculously low prices. That was the knee-jerk reaction you know. All of a sudden nobody was flying so the airlines just cut their prices and that actually hit the CPI we got such low print was because of the collapse in airfare. Well Anyway I happen to go on the Internet couple nights ago because I want to fly back to Connecticut. I've been here in Puerto Rico and I WANNA come back in early June and go back to Connecticut and so I'm looking online and sure enough. The air fares have gone way up. I mean there are more than they used to be right. The coach Fares I was looking at were anywhere. I can get sometimes. You can get a flight for that. Cheapest I saw was one eighty five hundred eighty five dollars one way but most of the flights were to twenty five to fifty three four hundred. That's not what they used to be if it wasn't a holiday right so obviously if you WANNA go. Thanksgiving weekend or something like that. Yeah they jacked fares up but to just go on a normal day. The cheapest fares one way coach. We're usually around one hundred fifteen one hundred twenty five dollars. There are plenty of them that you could find one hundred fifty one hundred seventy five. Mostly those are gone and a lot of the flights there used to be jetblue had a direct flight to Hartford. Sometimes you could take that because it's not that bad. They canceled all those flights. They don't exist. The only way to get the Hartford. Is You have to connect and it takes forever but the business class seats. I like to fly business class. Delta's the airline. I typically fly. They had generally the best business class. Go in between New York and Puerto Rico and the last time I flew I checked. I looked at my receipt. I paid three hundred and forty five dollars. One way for business that tells you how cheap it was because coach. I probably could've got a coach ticket for one fifty but I pay three fifty three forty five for business right. The cheapest business fair I saw for Delta was one hundred eighty eight thousand nine hundred dollars like eighteen hundred change and there were barely any flights to choose from. Most of the days weren't even any flights at all. I mean they had flights every day before so they have completely reduced to flights even coach on Delta. I couldn't find a one way coach fair on Delta for less than twelve hundred dollars in fact the one flight I was looking at that had eighteen hundred dollar business. The coach was almost seventeen hundred. There was only one hundred dollar difference between coach and business. So what's happened is after the airlines you know took a lot of planes and put them off in the desert somewhere right and storing them and they cancelled all these flights now. The prices have gone way up. I said this was going to happen. The knee jerk reaction is that prices went down but now prices are way up now. Our consumers better off now that the prices are way up course thought they were much better off before they went up now. Of course. Most people still aren't flying. So what difference does it make right if you work in a fly anyway? It doesn't matter what the price of ticket that you're not buying is but if anybody has to fly or they WANNA fly. It's a lot more expensive now than it was before cove and it's way more expensive than it was in the immediate weeks after coverted but according to like more. The problem isn't that airfares went up and said that they went down that the falling price was the problem. Now it wasn't the problem. It was a consequence of the problem but for the economy. Are we better off? Now that we have to pay more to fly course thought but those are the realities of a falling standard of living but the reason that Steve Moore is trying to set up this phony. Boogeyman OF DEFLATION IS. He wants to fed to print more money and so the way to justify wanting more inflation is by saying that deflation is terrible and we have to prevent that and we need these defended print. More money now. Of course what Steve Moore really wants is the Fed to help trump get reelected and he thinks the best way to do that is to prevent the stock market from going down prevent the real estate market from going down and just print a bunch of money to finance all these tax or increases in government spending to put a band aid on this cancer long enough to to re elect trump but it is amazing to see a guy like Steve Moore. Who's a nice guy? I know him personally. I met him many many times. We we speak at a lot of the same conferences or we did before they all started to get canceled. Now that people are going to them but to see him advocating for massive deficit spending and money printing because he thinks that we need to be saved from the ravages of a fallen cost of living. We don't need to be saved from that. We need to be saved from big government. It's the increased government spending. That is the problem and monetize that dead paying for that. Spending by printing money is an even bigger problem. And Steve Moore should know that but no instead he wants a Keynesian stimulus and he wants to pay for it by the Federal Reserve printing money to supposedly saved us from collapsing prices. That aren't even collapsing. A. It's not even a bad thing but it's not even happening. Yes it happened a little bit initially but you know that's going to go away once all the going out of business sales or finished. Well I mean once you deplete the inventory and you don't restock it. Prices are going up right. What's happening in the airline industry is just a taste of what's going to be happening in the overall economy and so the problem for the. Fed is what happens when we have an inflation problem as measured by the CPI. What can they do about it? Nothing now how they gonNA fight inflation. How are they going to raise rates? They can't how they can shrink their balance sheets in order to raise rates they gotta start selling a treasuries they gotTA START SELLING. Muny bonds they gotTa Start Selling Corp how they going to do that when now. Everybody is counting on the Fed to buy all this crap having to turn around and sell it. And who the HELL'S GONNA Buy? Then what price? So they have really put themselves in a box but now you know I want to get to to Paul Krugman right because Paul Krugman. He wrote his article and Croghan is now being critical of trump and other republicans who are anxious to get the economy going again right. They want to reopen and Krugman is like. Oh this is reckless. You're risking causing a depression right. The biggest mistake we could make is go back to work too soon right. We don't want people going back to work because they might get sick right. We might spread the virus so in order to make sure that we don't in fact more people then we gotta stay sheltered at home longer and if we come out of hiding too soon that is the risk right and the Republicans are just. They don't care they just trying to make it look good so before the election and so they're risking depression by bringing people home to quickly. What Krugman wants is everybody to stay home and not work and have the governor to keep on printing money because he was saying that. Fortunately it's fine. Nobody has to work. Nobody has to do anything because we could. Just send out all these checks. We print all this money and give it to people and so. Craig was not worried about that at all. Somehow that's not a problem. There's a big difference between working for money and just having the government printed you see when people go to work they do something at least most of the people right. Not The government workers but the people that work in the private sector. You go to work and you are producing something. You're helping to produce some good. You're helping to provide some service that has value and what you're paid is a percentage of that value that your labor is helping to create so for adding something into the pot. You now get money that allows you to take something out of the pot right. We all put in with our work and then we get to buy some of the stuff that we help produce right if everybody just sits at home and doesn't produce anything but the governor just replaces. They're lost income by printing money. There's a big difference there because you're getting money and you're not doing anything you're taking out of the pop but you put nothing into the pot so all it's happening is we're bidding for stuff. That's not there right so Krugman doesn't think that's a risk at all. He is not worried about the consequences of not sending people back to work and about continuing to run the printing presses continuing to pay people to do nothing because he doesn't see a with that because he loves government spending he thinks government spending creates wealth. And Right. Now I guess Stephen Moore is on the same page because they both advocating for the same policies. Nobody out there on either side advocating sound money saying no no. No this is wrong. We can't do this. We print all this money. We can't run these deficits we have to cut spending. We need sound money because nobody wants to deal with the short term economic and political consequences of doing the right thing so instead we do the wrong thing and because we got away with doing the wrong thing from two thousand and eight until the present people think we can get away with doing the wrong thing indefinitely well we. Can't you know the people who were worried about the problems in? Oh Eight. Oh nine like me. We were right. We were early but we were right. The people who weren't worried we're raw. They don't realize they were wrong because the consequences were delayed and because they were delayed guys like klugman think that they were vindicated right because nothing bad supposedly happened and guys like me were proven wrong. Well what's about to happen is going to prove guys like me right anyway before I get into the questions and we got plenty of questions which I've been answering on Friday. I want to talk a little bit more about our sponsor express. Vpn So what make sure you know express VPN the the the thing about it is your your ISP Internet service provider right when you just browsing the Internet. Your Internet service provider knows every site that you visit..
"paul krugman" Discussed on P&L With Pimm Fox and Lisa Abramowicz
"As well as at Bloomberg Dot Com when you think about the broader sap for the peak to trough when this virus really hit the markets we had about a thirty four percent decline in the SNP the markets kind of carve backer clawed back about half that and for a lot of investors. That seems a little bit unusual. Given or incongruous with the date or seeing the economic data the jobless data and the data that were certain to see over the coming days weeks and months to get a sense of how. That's really playing out in that. Relationship is there between the equity markets and the economic environment. We welcome Paul. Krugman distinguished professor of economics at the City University of New York. Also New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul. Thanks so much for joining us again. A lot of our listeners. A lot of investors are not sure whether or square it with. What's going on in the economy? The pain they're seeing the economy yet. The stock market seems to be pretty solid. Yeah well the first thing to say. Is that stock market as I like to say there are three rules about the stock market and the economy. Which is the stock market is not the economy. The stock market is not the economy and the stock market has comedy I actually beyond the fact that there's a whole lot of psychology in the market and All kinds of things can move stocks There's the simple fact that There were there's another market that is much more closely linked to economic prospects which is the bond market the bond market has been telling us something very clear they do look at as long term interest rates. You see that The ten year is falling from almost Actually a little over three percent At at the beginning of Twenty. Nineteen and Well over two percent of You know not not very long ago to To fracture percent now thirty year rates down by half since Since last fall So the bond market is is signaling economic weakness That has a bearing on stocks. Because you know bonds are the alternative stocks. A stock is a clean. Future profits not just prophet for the next year profits some ways into the future and if you're a discount those future profits at much lower rate because interest rates are down That's an upward push for stocks. So why don't you take into account the full and interest rates? It's not so peculiar. That stocks have held up pretty well despite these calamitous economic numbers. Paul is what I'm hearing from. You support of the Fed bottle the idea that the lower the interest rates the more people will just be pushed into stocks because the relative earnings that you get ultimately pro proved that they Become attractive regardless of what the economy seems to be showing me. That's not I mean that's sort of obvious right if you think about it. There are stocks are competing with with other assets And for money. You can't tell what stock is worth until you tell me what. What are. The alternatives and the alternatives are are actually looking pretty grim Market just saying there's not much yield. Well you say it's kind of obvious and yet we see that the earnings yield is falling dramatically on stocks as they cut their dividends. They cut their payouts just in general share buybacks because they are running out of money so at what point is getting your money back a preferable outcome than risking it with a company that faces a very blake outcome. Well I remember the the earnings yield on bonds also very long now again. It's a really long term PAS. Half what it was Before the corona virus hit and so You would extend remember also that For the value of the stocks depends a lot on expected. Future Deals NOT JUST THIS YEAR. But but three four five maybe even ten years out so they it's really not that accuser of what the all the question is at what point do people say. All of these yields are so low that I'm going to. I'm scared I'm just GONNA Coen's into cash And that's That actually was happening for a couple of weeks arch. We had a point there. Where everything froze. We'RE WE'RE BOND. Prices and stock prices both still have where we're corporate bonds were selling at the yield on corporate bonds. Shot up because people work Afraid of default and the stocks cratered That came to a pretty abrupt end In late March and stocks rebounded making up or something like half losses that they've experienced but that's the story the as long as people are not afraid of a real financial crisis and at the moment that that fear has receded of then it makes sense for socks to hold up pretty well despite the a truly ghastly really economy talking about the the real economy Paul. We've seen obviously the second quarter. Expectations are for just crushing crushing contraction in GDP. But then I guess the real discussion becomes to what extent and over. What time period will the US economy recover? We've had the fed very aggressive. We've had fiscal stimulus from Congress and more likely to come. How do you think the recovery plays out? I won't ask you to give me a letter or wwl or anything. But how do you think this is going to play out? Actually I won't give you. It's not a it's not a letter. It's a swoosh is very very steep decline and then a client the only which is clearly going to be much lower than the crash And it's the question of how fast rise Going to be is actually one of the hardest things we we really don't have experience with this that the we you can tell stories going all directions. I I have no confidence at all in in any prediction including my own on this On the one hand or could be pent up demand. people raring to go on the other hand There's probably a lot of financial damaging taking taking place down businesses Business can't come back if the business gone under of consumers may be wanting to rebuild their balance sheets after After the beating they've taken in it at the peak of the crisis And also the the epidemiology is highly uncertain. You said well we're going to be ready to go back to business. Are we mean everything I see? So that If you take out New York which had a very steep peak and in cases and it's now falling the rest of the country things are still getting worse and so your guess is really as good as mine I I. It's used to certainly. They can't count on a rapid recovery. Flying Blind is the way a lot of analysts. Have put it. And that's definitely how I feel right now. Paul Krugman distinguished professor of economics at the City University of New York New York Times columnist Nobel laureate and really a really helpful insights into this issue joining us on the phone from New Jersey. We are expecting a truly horrific jobs data figure on Friday when we get the April jobs. Numbers were expecting more than twenty million jobs to have been lost and we saw number similar to that this morning from the eighty.
Feds should call Big Tech to fight COVID-19, says Silicon Valley lawmaker Ro Khanna
"Microsoft has created a chat. Bot THAT CAN HELP. Us S Kobe. Nineteen symptoms the. Cdc is using that apple has designed and is shipping a new type of face shield for healthcare workers. Ibm is loaning supercomputing power scientists and universities trying to understand the spread of the corona virus and tech billionaires ranging from Bill Gates. Jeff bezos. Most recently Jack Dorsey have pledged donations to food banks and other resources supporting people through the pandemic but should companies be taking on roles that governments could be playing and more importantly is our government prepared to actually use the tech industry effectively to combat. This crisis congressman Ro Khanna Represent Silicon Valley in the House of Representatives. He says there is still a lot of untapped. Potential apple just has helped with procuring. Twenty million masks and face shields. Tesla's of course producing ventilators. Google is trying to get information out but there are a few other things that we could be doing if we listen to them. I we could be Enlisting some of these tech companies to get the money out faster. I mean Paul Krugman at a great column about how the money is getting to the people who need it. Let's having national database. That's crowd source of for the covert crisis where we can use a I to draw conclusions. We don't have something like that. People in the valley could do that. Let's get a platform that can help for Telehealth Again that's something that Silicon Valley could contribute to and then we need for more funding if there's one thing. This crisis has told us far more funding for basic science research on vaccines and developments in antivirals and a lot of people in University of California San Francisco and other places of the valley could assist with that. So what does it take for that to happen? Are you saying that those companies should step up? Offer that or that. They should be asked to do that or both. That they are offering it so cases it requires a coordinated response. I mean part of me wishes that just for this period Bill Gates were president. I mean it Bill Gates were president basically warned about all of this in two thousand fifteen and he would. He would convene all the people in a room and say. Here's what I need you to do. And he understands science and technology. But if you don't have a understanding and appreciation for science and technology you're not harnessing all of the tools that actually are accessible to do you have a sense from talking to these companies. And all that. They're just like itching to get in here and there not being called there. It's worse than that offering. Things aren't being taken up a for their offers. One of the entrepreneurs designed an ingenious platform to allow hospitals to signal whether they need medical equipment and allow people to supply them in. They haven't been able to get this implemented You've had people saying. Let us help with creating a national database. Or let's help telehealth and I applaud them for that but what we need is a far more technologically sophisticated response and the irony is. We've seen that response in places like South Korea and China. Now they've had problems there. They became almost surveillance states. And I'm not recommending that we adopt sort of surveillance technology but we should know what technology can do and then harness that a while recognizing in respecting people's privacy. Right the same concerns over. Privacy have always been there and in some cases you know. Surveillance and data collection may be expanded by. What feels like necessity. Do you think some of those concerns. Go by the wayside now. No I think those concerns are there. I mean I would not want us to have a situation like South Korea China where you have cameras in a smartphones monitoring My movement so when I go out the government knowing whether I'm violating social distancing rules. I think that's way too intrusive and I certainly wouldn't want my health records going to the government or other entities but do I have a problem with a data going and being anonymous and then having a sense of whether Washington DC has an aggregate is sheltering in place correctly or not and where we need may need greater policies. No I think that's a useful so what I would say is. Let's use data in a constructive way. Let's have the guardrails for privacy But right now. I think you have to extremes. You have some countries using it as a surveillance state and then unfortunately in our country. We're not using it. Well enough
"paul krugman" Discussed on The Axe Files with David Axelrod
"Nobody actually those weren't places where rich people lived all those grand old mansions had been converted into nursing or museums or something because we were a middle class society and nobody could afford to maintain a place like that anymore and it was so they were they were nice to visit to and it was kind of fun was It was also something. They were relics of an era. That wasn't gonNA come back until it did. You've written quite a bit about that period of time when you were growing up and that the sort of middle class boom between World War Two and like the early seventies yeah and rather than becoming sort of the template for the future you describe it as kind of an interregnum between periods of great inequality. Yeah we thought a lot of people who communists thought any. Everybody thought that Middle Class Society was was the way the future was going to look and it turns that it wasn't that That it depended upon a bunch of specific things. Strong Unions A coalition of of labor and and people of Color. And so on. That made it possible to have that kind of society. And now we're back to. We can argue about exactly what the numbers are but we were basically back to something like the gilded age or Actually European comments people like Pity Cola taste is like the PUCK. We're not only back to an era of great fortunes but increasingly of inherited great fortunes dominating society. That's not that that is what America sometimes has looked like but it's not the America that I grew up in. We were sitting down and and this is a podcast and not a television show. But I'm guessing you weren't the captain of the basketball team You've described yourself as kind of a loner and yeah I wasn't very nerdy very nerdy young guy. What was it that you did that? Pre cursed what you were to become where you a writer. Then or non not particularly. I mean say I was So the silly stuff I I was a science fiction reader and some of your listeners may know the classic foundation novels by Isaac Acid of which are about how mathematical social scientists save galactic civilization. So that's what I wanted to be in beginning comments as close as I could get But also I did go to Yale. Harvard term down. But I didn't go to Yale and you've got to let that go. Yeah and and had the just really good luck. I found a mentor there. Bill North House who wanna Nobel and Just had really good luck to find my way into Really in the idea that economics could be really interesting and Got To go to. Mit for granted. The ASIMOV were were. You envision yourself as this nerdy superhero maybe a little bit but also just. I actually found the stuff interesting and thought I was Turned out I got. I got some precocious work as a research. Assistant coach turned out to be pretty good at digging. Through vast piles of statistical publications and figuring out which numbers could actually be useful For for the guy for bill who has working for Yeah and then When off to Grad School I say useful? What is it about economics that how did you see it? What did you see it as a vehicle to do? I mean or was it just that there were intriguing problems that you could solve. I mean did you see applications. That were pragmatic. Oh Yeah for sure. I mean economics is I mean. It's got its own. It can be beautiful. That's hard to explain to somebody who doesn't really do it right. It doesn't look like a beautiful field but it can be there. There are beautiful ideas in economics but also it's about society if you think about look we. We had the Great Depression and everything was in chaos and society was collapsing and a lot of people thought that we needed a dictatorship to deal with it and along comes John Maynard. Keynes who says okay? Here's how this thing can happen. And if you want to solve the problem actually push this button Government spending in in the depressed economy is exactly what the doctor ordered and he himself said that his purpose was not to destroy capitalism but to save it and that the fact that you can do that actually one of the biography of Kane's classic biography one of the volumes of it is called the economist a savior and so there is something to that. This is this is a field. That is intellectually interesting but has huge real world applications. Yeah I I lived through a small bit of that When we arrived in the White House in two thousand nine and one of the most chilling meetings that I've ever attended was before we came here and people who you know Christy Romer and And Larry Summers and Tim. Geithner were briefing us Before the country really at fully gripped where we were and they said and I remember very distinctly. Remember some saying there's one in three chance of a second great depression. Yeah and it's like you never kind of imagine that you'd hear that you know in two thousand and an eight which is when we late in that year. I I think I was more ready for that possibility. Than maybe even than Larry was known each other yes our entire adult lives but the I guess as you guys have had some spirit conversations yeah although most important things we end up agreeing and but the thing was I i. My specialty has always been international economics and lots of other countries have had crises. And so if you spent time I used to call myself an ambulance chaser. I go off to crisis in Indonesia crisis in Argentina Having seen these things happen to other countries and understanding that there's nothing magical about being American that means they can't happen here I was not as shocked. I think there's a lot of people Were by the fact that it wasn't fact happening here that we didn't take in fact that kind of risk and you wrote a lot about Leading up to it. The housing bubble that ultimately led to the crisis. The debate that you hear always is between those who argue that it was the government that provoked that that the inclination during the Clinton years to promote home ownership particularly in minority communities. was responsible at. Fannie and Freddie led the economy into this. There's a fair amount of evidence that that is not true overwhelming. That's what I when I talk about arguing with zombies that's an example of his Ambi- idea an idea that should have been killed by evidence. We every piece of it. You can refute. You can say. Look the the lending that really drove. The housing bubble was not by Freddie. It was not by banks that were covered by the community reinvestment. Act It was by more. You know mortgage originators. That were unregulated was unregulated lenders Private sector lenders that were leading the housing bubble also. There was a housing bubble in Europe. Spain had bigger housing bubble than we did. That wasn't liberal. Democrats forcing Spanish banks to make bad loans. The housing bubble was clearly a case of private sector overreach and the fact that people are still repeating this Dr this claim which of course is politically useful to the right but that it just goes on despite being thoroughly refuted as anything in economics ever can be. That's that's that's those army phenomenon. Here's a an undead idea? Should be dead but it it's just shambling along an eating people's brains so it is an example of where under-regulation can create a crisis. That's right we went for. We're all seeing the movie. It's a wonderful life and there's the bank run and in fact at the time that movie was released. That couldn't have happened because by the time that that movie was released we already had banks. That were protected by the FDIC. So that whole thing with Jimmy Stewart. May Ray drama because people have seen things like that during the nineteen thirties but it was no longer possible. Thanks to FDR and the reforms that he put in but we allowed those reforms that made banking safe to gradually erode partly deregulated the banks but more importantly we failed to regulate nonbank institutions that were basically banks and so we had created this whole system of shadow banking that was basically the wild west in terms of of the financial risks and eventually it came crashing down on us. The you talked about The keynesian antidote to economic depressions and recessions and the Obama team basically followed that playbook. You've been critical of you. Thought that the stimulus that was enacted should have been larger. Yeah it was. I mean I was all in favor of the stimulus obviously i. I was tearing my hair because I thought it was. It was way underpowered and that that would be a big political problem later on which I think that that is how it turned out. Yeah I mean the the political problem in the moment was for reasons that were more optical than than logical there were people who said we'll go this far and not farther and that was and you had to pass through recovery. Act so well that that we could go on. I mean if they said well we need. We need to do it. Without invoking reconciliation. We need sixty senators and you know in two thousand seventeen. Republicans rammed through a two trillion dollar tax cut by using reconciliation. So it's the the cost would reduce the number needed just a majority. Yeah and so the the fact that that I people in the your team. We're not willing to stick their necks out far enough politically and I think in the end. It was a big mistake. But you know that's all water under the bridge. Yeah interesting though you've written in here about your you're evolution in terms of understanding government and how some of the barriers there you wrote about that particularly relative to healthcare but it's complicated in a democracy to implement anything of substance on a large scale. It's counter intuitive to people in a financial crisis in an economic crisis. That what you have to do is spend more money. Yeah that the the temptation to use the analogy of a family. The John Bainer Then speaker of the House said people are having to tighten their belts so the government should tighten its belt to and we also had God. That's stupid stupidest thing we've ever heard and then that same mind that would test very well. I think with voters we know it did because it started showing up in it. President Obama speeches a few months later and now in practice. He didn't do that in fact. The Obama did the right thing. Just not enough of it. But the that's that is a problem at the economics of of dealing with a with a depressed. Economy is really strongly counterintuitive. It's one of these cases where what if it economics teaches them. What the Natural Reaction. Most people are are just wrong. We we know this. I mean in the thirties polls had people really concerned about the budget balanced. Fdr listen to them in nineteen thirty seven and with disastrous results in some fiscal austerity kind of created the second leg to the Great Depression. Yes which was resolved by World War Two which became. That's right. Well I I one point. I wrote the book but the I suggest that we should invent a threat from space aliens requiring us for some reason to build a lot of infrastructure to counter the space aliens because that if anything that would US spending enough to get out of that slump. Now we're going to take a short break. We'll be right back with more of the X. Files.
Obama pushes Trump’s button on the economy and Trump responds
"President trump is fighting back at former president Barack Obama who's taking credit for the trump economy Obama tweeted Corey Levin years ago today near the bottom of the worst recession in generations I sign the recovery act paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history end of quote president trump's national press secretary respond it quote president trump reversed everything failed obamacare economic policy and with that reverse the floundering Obama Biden economy Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history end of quote let's explore the showing that what you hear over and over and over again is how Obama laid the foundation for the trump economy but for the wonderful things that Obama did lord knows where we would be may I remind you of some of the things that so called experts like mark Cuban the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and experts like Paul Krugman the economist who also writes a column for The New York Times both predicted economic disaster in the event the president trump came in great to have you with us and let's put politics aside we're just talking about this notion on the street that seems to be early prime one out there that the trump presidency could actually hurt stocks what you're calling for though is very dramatic and drastic a fifty percent decline over his presidency would be four years so let's get through the the back of the envelope calculations here how do you get there it it would definitely fall yes for two reasons I mean you saw it when they call me email came out with a with the market and and so trump's temperament which I think is a significant issue for the market whenever you have a clue I would handicap if trump wins I would handicap the the likelihood that the probability that he would say something stupid and offensive during a four year term multiple times at a hundred percent because markets were reassured Marley Clinton was doing okay it markets markets would be very destabilized by conflict for instance particularly as if the on likely event happens and trump wins you will see a market crash of his star performer proportions I thank them for causing it it's made for the incoming trump was to be elected it would be a rise in on the stock market arrives Russian until that I mean I I have my trumpet John in the event Donald wins I have no doubt my mind the the market thanks and now the reason this is relevant is because Donald Trump of course a plan to reverse obamacare lower taxes lower corporate taxes those are not the kind of thing for the point was promising so therefore they assume that by doing those things he was going to crash the economy I find it fascinating that Obama and the Democrats taking credit for the economy more with a set up that the trouble due to economy and how many times have you heard them say that president trump has been quote undoing Obama's legacy even doing a bomber's legacy how do you take credit for having undone his legacy left wing black host of shows on be on PBS and on NPR Tavis smiley in twenty sixteen I'm sad to report that in every single leading economic category black America has lost ground over the last decade in every major economic category we've lost ground to this book comes out he said in two thousand six so clearly this book was out before mama shows up to win two thousand eight so the book was never about Barack Obama being this ten year update it's not about him now but it is true that doubt over these last ten years most of that on his watch black America has lost ground in the major economic indicator categories that is true given the credit this is B. E. T. founder Bob Johnson last July I'm wondering I'm giving your position in the U. S. and and your familiarity with what many have called trump's brinksmanship when it comes to politics I'm talk me through a little bit how do you feel about the economy today well I think the economy is doing absolutely great and so African American unemployment is at its lowest level Hispanic unemployment women so I I give president trump and I've said this before on squawk box and the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that's benefiting a large number of Americans Thomas Dyer a billionaire a late entrant into the race appeared on ABC's Sunday chat show and started downplaying the Tropicana me and surprisingly Martha Raddatz the host pushed back a couple times is that Mister Starr you say that you can take on Donald Trump on the economy but the latest Quinnipiac national poll again released just this week says seventy percent of voters described the nation's economy as excellent or good so how do you convince them that a change is needed when they think they're doing so well under Donald Trump I think if you take a look at what he says everything he says superficially sounds right but is actually alive so when he says the economy is growing I can show that in fact all the money's going to rich people but I want to go back to that seventy percent number you want to talk about the wealthy they're not all wealthy people seventy percent say the economy is good and they're doing well well I'm just sitting here here we are on a show and you're standing up for Mr trump's version of the economy I'm telling you about a national poll I'm not standing up for anybody I'm try I'm telling about a
"paul krugman" Discussed on Masters in Business
"The the the angels were smiling on me. I've had an optimal career that never been up. Anything that that everything broke the right way for me in ways that are just I had no right to to to expect us. So it's not that What I there is now a major Sort of scandal Has Pretty much come up in economics where we're realizing just how strong the misogyny within the profession as bills. How badly People are badly women have been treated not Harvey Weinstein level. But but lots Of of discrimination is this in terms of hiring or publishing or polishing the the way that they're treated and seminars and of course then Thanks to We have you know anonymous social media. We know the way that some male economists talk about Their female colleagues And I was oblivious I maybe had some sense but I didn't realize I don't think I was ever doing it but I wasn't Campaigning to say. Let's stop this so I I really wish that I had been more aware. I was sitting there comfortably. You know it super comfortable environment. I mean I was. I had all the cough case at the right school. I was white male. I was Jewish which our skin in economics my generation was sort of normal right and And had no idea what a lot of people were going through and so I regret if I if I had a better sense of what was really going on maybe I could have contributed a little bit to making it better. An interesting observation was lines..
"paul krugman" Discussed on Masters in Business
"I have an extra special guest. His name is Paul Krugman and you probably know him from his ubiquitous New York Times columns If you don't know him from that you must know him. From from television. From all of his books including his textbooks he was the two thousand eight winner of the Nobel Prize as well as just too many honorifics to list If you are remotely interested in any of the following economics Income inequality climate change the history of economic development and thought how public policy affects the population. Health Care Law. Climate Change logo to go down the list. We just walk out on everything and it's just an absolutely fascinating conversation so with no further ado my interview with Paul Krugman. This is masters in business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg radio extra special guest. Today is Paul Krugman. He is the winner of the two thousand and eight Nobel Memorial Prize for his contributions to new trade theory new economic geography. He is a distinguished professor at the Cuny Graduate Center of the city of New York. He spent much of his career teaching at MIT and Princeton. Where he focused on economics he has either authored or edited twenty seven books published over two hundred scholarly articles. Most recently his book arguing with zombies economics politics and fight for a better future just came out. He is the second most cited author on the College Syllabi for Economics and is perhaps best known as a columnist for the New York Times. Paul Krugman welcome back to Bloomberg. Are there? It's good to see you again? Let's jump right into this so I recall you telling a story that you were a science fiction. Geek as a kid. How did Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy Lead You to Economics? Isaac Asimov wrote this. You know these these books Things nineteen forty or thereabouts Which are you know? It starts to Galactic Empire People Use blasters and have spaceships but actually the science fiction. Part is the least of it. It's social science fiction. The core of the story is there's this group of mathematical social scientists the cycle historians who have figured out that. Galactic civilization is falling and have discovered that if they intervene in just the right way they can limit the period of barbarism so basically social scientists save the universe. I wanted to be one of those guys and economics was close. I could get. That's pretty amusing. People may not know that you are an economics textbook author you and your wife wrote. What is today the Second Most Popular Economics Textbook in colleges today? Who who's the lead is at bank? You Yeah I'm afraid is Greg man-kyu he's so whatever led you to write a textbook that sounds like a lot of work. Actually yes so. The first thing about it is that nobody writes one of those principles book except out of ignorance of how much work it's going involve the actual the Labor that's involved in producing especially the first edition but even the revisions is enormous. Partly it's It's reasonably honest way to make a living since it is. My teaching is not well. It's supplemental so this is my wife is my co author. Our in house named for the book is economics. 401k Funny but it was also. We thought that we have a different kind of textbook that people most students come up thinking. Economics is totally dry subject. And yeah some of it is Eric. Got Admit that but there's stories so we thought we could try to write a textbook which was as much as possible story driven. There was about real world things and then we say. Here's how economists helps you make sense of these things and so we wrote a textbook that was different and a lot of people like it. And you're you're still doing the revisions on the textbook while you were in Stockholm For the oil. Is that that that edition? That was second edition and the financial crisis broke as we were going through pages so we already were in in galleys and suddenly nothing. In the money and banking chapter was true anymore as so we were frantically working to revise that that chapter in pages so every replacement passage to exactly physically fill the space of the stuff it replaced. So yeah we I had a lot of stuff I had to do. In Stockholm Robbins spent a large part of the time on the floor of our hotel room crawling from one set of papers to another doing the revisions. That was insane. You had written or maybe I read it in an interview about a decade ago. That at the top of the DOT COM bubble. You said Gee stock market doesn't make any more sense. I'm going to pull out of equities it was a is that true with the. How did you that was true? Then we have in fact gotten back in some still I think. Probably our portfolio is less equity heavy than than probably the average but well twenty years ago. You were what early fifties late forties I was no twenty years ago I was late forties late forties so you should have equities then and now less equities. Yeah yeah so I mean. I don't claim to be a great investor in fact Robbins got the better head for detail which is important. So we We own a lot of selective Real estate not not the things where we think we know something okay. Well real estate goes up over time as well so eight when you say you've partially gotten back in Zamin your some stocks some bonds some real estate. So you have a different. We have a diversified portfolio. That makes a whole lot of sense. There's another issue I have to ask you about. Which is that of media bias? Lots of people. These days have accused the media of being fake news or biased. Whatever you take a decidedly different perspective on bias. Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah the biggest so by and large the media get facts right the former me. I mean that's not obviously true of Breitbart or signed but the but the New York Times gets facts right and The what it doesn't do very well is that it doesn't know how to handle things where there really aren't too size to debate. When when there's a I one of the very first collins I wrote back during the two thousand election said that if if Bush had had said that the earth was flat The the headline would probably read. Views differ on shape of the planet right. The media are really terrible and that's very hard to. That's a real problem when you have not just a highly polarized political environment but an asymmetrically polarized political environment where one side of the debate is peddling. Zombie lies And the other is is not And so it is very. There's a real failure. I think to inform Unwillingness to I mean when I started out I was literally forbidden to use the word lie in my columns and that's no longer true but even so there's a tremendous bias towards even-handedness even when the hands are not remotely even so you get this false equivalence where both sides are equally the the other thing that you have referenced as a form of bias that I'm always been amused by is the concept of quote very serious people. That's right. What what are the very serious people so very serious people the phrase actually a lot of it comes from the build up to the Iraq war when all the serious people thought it made. This was a good idea which it wasn't obviously But very serious people are people who buy into what is a conventional wisdom of the time something that important people say and everybody thinks it's serious because all of the other serious people are saying and they'll nod their head and it's not so like the you know the. Us debt levels are major ranch. Even though there's not really true or the We have a real problem of a a a a a skills. Gap in the workforce. And so these are things So I I I stole it. I think stole it from the blogger each year but the it really works these things that and by the way we're the media drops its even handedness on this so a lot of reporting on debt it was uncritically. Bowles and Simpson our great national heroes So yeah remember but the but the whole so funny that the one place where the the news media really dropped the false equivalence and start saying one side is right is in fact wherever that side happens to be wrong. But they're very impressed by titles and by positions and by some academic credentials. And if you're the head of a think tank they think you're actually thinking when really you're not thinking well they yeah. They are impressed by think tanks Which is really a bad idea because There I think tanks and then there are think-tanks. Thanks don't actually think They're very impressed by Rich people powerful people. So if you're you know if Jamie diamond says we have a skills gap that must be serious whereas and Jamie diamond is no doubt a great business person but he doesn't know anything about macroeconomic so It it it say really It is a real problem at the many issues. The going to important people is absolutely the worst place to get information because there are people who have a stake in a particular point and Or or they're too busy to actually thin cards so it it is a you know. That's those are the places that's gotten better. I have to say the The Times Now has several people writing who actually do understand economics. Uncritically accept stuff. We've got a whole section the upshot which tends to be analytical pieces from multiple disciplines. So it's better than it was but still So those are the biases is not liberal bias. it's not even actually conservative via so there does very serious people tend to be somewhat right of center. But it's it's mostly it's it's seriousness and evenhandedness on things which are in fact not serious. I in fact where you shouldn't be treating equal both sides equally. Let's talk a bit about free trade. Which is what you won your Nobel for free. Trade has been the cornerstone of US economic policy. Why has it gotten such a bad reputation? Among some economists and a lot of people in this administration economist Love free-trade for some good reasons and some not so good reasons we love free trade because in fact there's a lot to be set for it. There's a it's particularly important really for the smaller poorer countries trying to think about what would happen to. Bangladesh without the ability to export clothing would probably literally starving to death so trade open markets doesn't have to be precisely Friday but open markets are really important for a lot of the world. It's always been the case that if you did it right You understood that while Free. Trade generally makes all countries richer It doesn't make everybody within the countries richer and has effects possibly strong effects on the distribution of income Now we tried to quantify that a little bit and then no question that it it's growing world trade has been some a source nowhere near the dominant source but a source of rising inequality within the US What we really missed an which has been. We're a lot of the academic research has gotten. We missed how concentrated the negative effects are right so you you take a look and you say look okay. We're importing livestock from China when you didn't use to import One of the things that's furniture so we're importing lots of furniture from China Cheer Clothing Toys. I like furniture as a particular example. Because if you ask all right how many jobs were displaced by Chinese imports of Chinese furniture? Maybe it minds more. Probably more than one hundred thousand Maybe even two hundred thousand but you know the other jobs were created lower price to consumers. How big a deal is that. Well if you happen to be in Hickory North Carolina which is a city that is built entirely around the furniture industry all of a sudden for that community. It's a devastating impact shoe so we missed the extent to which the US economy is gigantic And it's churning all the time a million and a half people are fired every month so you say how much difference can this trade. Well the trouble is that the the impacts of trade have tended to fall quite heavily on specific communities near Culpa. I didn't see that and really took a A very good paper Published in twenty thirteen. I think On the China Shock That among other things written by one of my students And to to point out how much we were missing that affect so lots of countries have an industrial policy? Shouldn't there be some sort of. Hey if you're in west. Virginia coal country or in North Carolina furniture country or in the broad loom and fabric areas. That are specific to certain states. When it's a parent that a region is getting decimated coastal global trade advantages were essentially global labor arbitrage and some of the improved technology that becomes specific to elsewhere in the world. Why don't we do a retrain reeducate give people new skills so they can compete even if it's no longer in coal or furniture. Well we try and actually that we've had trade adjustment assistance at various points in our histories..
"paul krugman" Discussed on Amanpour
"Tax cuts pay for themselves but the second biggest ultimately much more important as climate denial and we have a majority of Republicans in Congress simply denied neither climate. Change is happening of those who admit that maybe something that's happening. Essentially all of them oppose any significant action to do something thing about it the IMF and many others talk about how the fossil fuel industry might not even exist if it wasn't for the enormous amount of tax benefits benefit out now cash injections tax incentives and subsidies and not being required to pay the cost of the damage. It inflicts even if you leave a site site. Climate Change The the health costs and the economic costs of air pollution created by burning. Fossil fuels is enormous. It's really the if you take the US fossil fuel sector it basically Once you take account of these things basically destroys about twice as much value added as as as the as the value of the industry so It is a Zombie industry with if we had appropriate pricing and didn't have the subsidies most of the fossil fuel sector after which is go away. So what do you say you are for the greening of the economy and globally. It looks like that's what should happen. What do you say though to do? Voters in Pennsylvania key swing state where fracking exists and even tenant governor who's a Democrat has said a Democrat who comes in like Bernie or Elizabeth is Warren. Who says we're going to? Ban fracking overnight is basically saying we're going to ban your jobs overnight and somebody like Biden new says yes. It's been needs to be changed. But it has to to be done you know Kathleen and with with the you know the correct view of people's jobs and livelihood. What do you say about that? I would say that it's climate change is a massive cumulative problem see. Don't have to fix everything on on day. One so it's okay to have a transition it's also really important to package The climate change package restrictions on fossil fuels with job creating programs Agreeing new deal is a great idea. Not just because there's a pretty good economic as for a lot of investment but also Because it means that. It's not just eat your spinach it's also. Here's here's some here's some people say it will be a Christmas tree with some for everybody. Well yes it would. And that's a good thing so I'm I'm for a a sort of broad based east And and somewhat gradualist approach just because. That's the only way we're going to get this done. So that's that's really interesting because it's not what the very far left of the party is saying and obviously young people like Grettenberger and young people in this country and in many others want a right now approach to it. I mean they're right on. The substance is there every year that we don't stop Greenhouse gas emissions is contributing significantly to the future but On the other hand one more year is not going to be make or break for the planet and it's it's much more important that we get moving on addressing climate change than that we do it the perfectly right way. Now you've of of basically written a large in your book and elsewhere in your columns and interviews about the Republicans bad faith on on this issue. You've obviously probably read the article that Sebastian Mallaby Economics correspondent has written for the Atlantic. Cool it Krugman. He says he basically says he takes issue with what you say. Republicans lukens don't just have bad ideas at this point. They are necessarily bad people. He's basically saying if everybody into that. One basket you. Aw Aw forfeiting the ability to influence even the Republicans and you're not making a distinction between Republican rank and file people or you know the the vested interest leadership who are climate Mala actually is the one who failed to meet the distinction. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that. It's that we're talk. I'm talking about the professional politicians and basically anybody with any principles has been driven out of the Republican Party as a professional politician. Now if we look at all of the people in America who say that they are Republicans. There are a lot of flexibility. They're they're they're quite a few people who don't adhere to the Party line one of the funny things. It's actually really that less informed. Republican voters often have more sensible views than well informed Republican voters. Because they don't know what the Party line is supposed to be so I think the chance of reaching out to a number of people who think that they are Republicans. is Israel and I wouldn't be insulting them But the the chance of reaching out to any Republican member of the House any Republican member of the Senate is minimal. You're just not going to get so. That's the distinction you need to make. But what about the numbers. In terms of votes we see the number of Republicans. Let's say on campus and elsewhere who believe in manmade climate change in that something needs to be done about is increasing. We see what voters are saying about this issue. It is a voting issue for young people both on both sides. What will make you know the people who you despair of the leaders change? Oh I think nothing. Short of repeated massive electoral defeat They they're they're just very very powerful incentives It's anyone who breaks ranks is going to see his or her political career destroyed and post political career destroyed as well. Because you know all of the consulting opportunities will go away so it. It's going to have to come in it. What really comes down? And you have have to convince these relatively conservative voters Who however do care about climate change that voting Republican looking is ensuring that nothing will be done? We've seen. I mean it was interesting. I Greg Thank you center right to Communist Former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers recently declared that he he can no longer called himself a Republican because of climate change. And that's good for him. He's he's he's he's at least acknowledging reality there so I wanna ask you this because again one of the items in this I I find it fascinating reading the research I find it fascinating eighteen. The yourself came out of university talking about being a technocrat and in fact I never knew that you worked in the Reagan. White House trying to You know bring facts. I think by ten o'clock you meant facts and evidence in the economy rather than than politics. Yes I was the senior international economist. The Reagan Council of Economic Advisers Sup Olitical level. The senior domestic economists was I named was the Larry Summers what happened to him. So but that's interesting listing. Yeah but that was so what happened. What happened because you have become much more political you occupy a very important place in not only in the New York Times? Obviously is a columnist is but in in progressive politics. Well partly it is that I have a different job now. No writing reports boards inside the government and writing newspaper. Columns is a very different a very different thing but it's also the Republican Party itself has changed. I mean the they even even under Reagan years. There was a lot more flexibility a lot. More openness to ideas the process of Zomba vacation the the the Zombie ideas taking over the party was was already underway but it had not gotten this far as it has now so there were still a Lotta reasonable Republicans in the Senate and house in the nineteen eighties. There aren't any now. Well on that category statement Paul Krugman. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you how do you judge someone not by what they say by what they do. We're a nation of doers. What's Mike Bloomberg about doing things? A middle class kid worked his way way through college and Entrepreneur Bloomberg built a global news and information business from scratch mayor of a diverse progressive sitting Mike Bloomberg rebuilt after nine eleven in creating nearly five hundred thousand jobs improving health care and public schools. So now he's running for president. And Mike's the change. We need from chaos into steady leadership from.
How a Strong Job Market Has Proved the Experts Wrong
"US economy created two hundred sixty six thousand new jobs in November also they revise the numbers from two previous months adding another forty thousand so that is a a whopping three hundred thousand plus new jobs and houses for a headlock thanking the just popped up on the New York times website hello strong job market has proved the experts wrong The New York Times says all of the experts were saying we were already at full employment we couldn't possibly create more jobs without sparking inflation so they're saying the economic experts including the federal reserve were wrong and the experts with their attitudes about the tax cuts were wrong according to The New York Times yeah that's that tells you the numbers are really doggone good if the New York times even has to fall on the sword it was our own columnist Paul Krugman who was predicting doom and gloom when president trump got elected employment used to be you know sort of a guy down around five percent unemployment mark and that was full employment and here we are at three and a half percent it had been for quite some time now yeah inflation is under control wages are going up hiring continues at a very strong pace three point five percent unemployment and still more job openings than there are the qualified workers you can only imagine what the numbers might be if there were enough qualified workers to fill some of those jobs and if the terrorists had been a part of the equation for the last year and a half or so couple yells yeah that that is an interesting point Kitty if if you don't have the battle over trade with China yeah where would we be it could really be on fire and police released and and it could it could you know main there were inflationary times and the and the fed will be looking to try to increase interest rates instead of on a pause or considering lowering further so it's just it's a hypothetical but it
Elizabeth Warren's latest big idea is 'economic patriotism'
"Show. So we're talking about. Elizabeth Warren's new economic patriotism plan as I say. When anybody says it's time to get patriotic, and they don't mean for a war, hold onto your wallet. Because what they really mean. They want to manipulate the economy like fury. So what is her actual proposal other than Colin corporations un-american, if they earn money and hire Americans her? Actual proposal involves the following options. She says we need to more actively manage our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing. She's other countries have, actively managed the value of their currency to boost exports, and develop their domestic indus- industries. So what she's talking about? Here's inflating the currency. So if you like your savings say goodbye to though, she's going to inflate those so that it is quote, unquote, cheaper for us to make products in the United States. We can then export and more expensive frosty. Byproducts from other countries. Now, this sort of play with the currency doesn't have any long term impact except to destroy savings in the United States. What else Sean so leverage federal research and development to create jobs to sustain. Ainable investments in the future. She says, when American tax payers, do invest in our d, we often see American companies take that research and use it to manufacture products overseas, like apple did with the iphone. You're right. Because if I can think of a group of people who have not benefited from Apple's iphone. It's Americans, we've totally been screwed by apple manufacturing, the iphone in a variety of different places around the world. You know, it's, it's too bad that apple only employs tens of thousands of people in the United States, we really have to do is if they're gonna use any of the RND, that was discovered in the course of government researcher university resource research. We have to make sure that they only produced in the United States, and then trying to reverse engineers, the same product and sells its back to us at one tenth the price. Perfect mix perfect sense. Elizabeth Warren, great job, also production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States. That's just an extension of that particular bad idea. She says taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if there is often profitable enterprises. So maybe taxpayers. Get an equity stake in any company that relies on. Intellectual property, these investments, create because nothing Spurs innovation, like finding companies for using publicly available. Research makes perfect sense. She's our investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on a few coastal cities. She's their talented Americans in every part of the country, but too often cities and towns experience brain, drain in shrink, because corporations move jobs and opportunities overseas or to a small handful of American cities, we have to allocate our funding across the country. So, in other words, if you have a great university in California, that can do the research best, instead, you should probably do this in the middle of, like Nebraska. So that won't be efficient for the tax payer in and anyway, this, basically, just a system of subsidies to her favorite voters. That's all this is which is not free market economics is not freedom. It's penalizing certain voters in favor of others. It's hilarious. The same Democrats who claim that the electoral college needs to be abolished because people in small states are disproportionately benefiting say that we need to tax people who are living in industrial hubs to pay for people who are now living in industrial hubs, weird. She says we have to increase export promotion to match the efforts of our competitors. So she says in two thousand seventeen our main export promotion agency the Export Import Bank provided two hundred million dollars in total medium, and long-term financing to support America's exports, by the way, we should kill the EximBank, a waste of money if we have good products, they do not need government help. She says China's equivalent agency provided more than one hundred times as much support about Germany's agency provided more than three times as much support. Now last I checked who has the most powerful economy among those three and close. Oh, yeah. That'd be us. So why would we imitate China's economy? Exactly. Here's the thing about fascism fascism boost economic fascism. Hit government corporatism, which is what fascism is the term fascism comes from the Italian term officiously. If it's just he was the idea that I it, it's a bundle of sticks by Mussa leading is the idea. They bundle of sticks together is more powerful than any single single sticks. What is a form of collectivism, and it was closely tied economically to a philosophy. Corporatism corporatism was based on the word corpse. Based on the idea that the economy was like a body, and that the entire body had to work together you wouldn't want your fingers competing with each other into the government had to carve out protections for each individual part of the economy. It ends up subsidizing certain industries at the expense of others. The economy is not a down peration run by a few brilliant minds. It is instead, a seething, current, it is an ocean of information that is flowing in editing. That's why cool stuff gets produced not, because Hitler mornings provide the VW bug. But I guess that according to Elizabeth Warren, we have to copy, China, Great idea just deploying, the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American made products. She's talking about autarky now. She's talking about the, the old European notion. They are stronger if America only buys American products if, if taxpayer money never goes toward buying anything, that is not an American product except for the fact that tax payers are spending more for the same product. She says we have to restructure worker training programs. Bob, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that rework re worker training programs worker reeducation has been a giant fail in the United States in terms of per capita expenditure, Justice scale says we should scale up apprenticeship programs. We should do that. But corporations already offer those things people need to take them up on it. News sectoral training programs. Then she proposes a department of economic development has new departments have been just a boon to the United States. The department of education has made our kids, so much smarter. Oh, wait. And their apartment of homeland security men, don't you feel safer. Now that we've got the DHS overseeing the TSA, I know, I do new departments always make things clearer and better. They don't just make more bureaucracy that never dies. They're great. We need a department of economic development. China's made in China twenty twenty-five plan aims to dominate advanced manufacturing in the coming decades using various incentives and hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies. Germany, and Japan have also developed plans that identify long-term goals for domestic production put real money behind the cheating them. You know, Japan actually did this in the nineteen eighties. It was great for five minutes, and then Japan was no longer an economic rival to the United States. And I just wondering what makes Elizabeth Warren think that she is qualified to determine which industries are going to be successful ten years from now. If you had told Paul Krugman, back in the nineteen nineties, that the internet was going to completely remake the economy, he would have said your fool. In fact, he did say you were full, he said, the internet would not radically change things, and then the internet radically changed things why anyone thinks that we have a good idea of, what sort of technology will be available in ten years is beyond me. Elizabeth Warren wants to dump money into ethanol like look, look what the government is dump money into don't money into ethanol. Ethanol has not been productive use of the money. Natural gas was much more productive. Use in the money. Could you have predicted that when you were dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into ethanol, of course, not what makes Elizabeth Warren and government actors so ehre that they think they know more than the collective intelligence of the American people. She goes on, like this for a long time, and then she concludes, it's becoming easier and easier to shift capital and jobs from one country to another. That's why our government has to care more about defending in creating American jobs than ever before, not less. Why agree you know how you create American jobs by creating a business friendly environment with low corporate taxes, low penalties on people who want to invest here and cheaper regulations. That's how you create an economy worthy of the name, you wonder how Singapore went from a poverty stricken country to perhaps the friendliest business climate on earth by making it friendly business climate. No one noise, Switzerland is wealthy. Hong Kong, which is basically a rock is wealthy on a per capita basis without any natural resources. It has something to do with the business climate, Elizabeth Warren wants to kill if you think you can create a sufficient business climate by cutting off relations with other countries by increasing taxes and subsidies, then a test for you. Hey, here's your test for this week, you want to you think that keeping. Things in house is what makes you wealthier don't shop at the grocery store this week. Don't buy from a store this week. Everything that you want this week. I, I want you to produce in house all of it. You gotta grow all of your own goods. You gotta Thrush your own weight. You got a it if you want some bread if you want meat, you got a shock to your own Cal. I take it out back and kill it. If you feel like you want to take a bath, then presumably, you're going to have to make your own soap in the backyard. No going to a market. You know where that soap has been produced. There's a study that was done awhile back trying to determine how much money and time, it would cost to make a sandwich for yourself. Meaning you grew all of the products that you needed for the sandwich. It turned out it took a year and cost almost two thousand dollars to produce a sandwich if you wanna do it all in house, or you could just go down to the local, evil corporation. And by sandwich for five bucks. This, this stuff is so dumb. But again, if people follow file for it, because it's patriotism to yell at other countries. Yeah, that's such an ignorant view of the economy. But ignorance is the name of the game. It's amazing the same people who suggest that Swiss that Denmark, socialism, the Nordic countries, they're socialism is, what makes them more emulating, ignore the fact that these are all countries that seek a free market that have free trade that are working to lower business regulations. So they want the worst part of the countries in terms of what helps the economy and they don't want to keep all the
"paul krugman" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Don't you dare stop me because on this show? We boldly go where no financial show has gone before. And therefore at about ten til we will have our estate tip of the week. And this week we're going to talk about the power of attorney documents that you may want to have. Okay. So in the event of your incapacity in the event of your health changing, those kinds of things these are documents that I think just about every body listening to this show should have. Okay. So we'll talk about that at about ten till? So we have a lot of talk to talk about this week. But before we go anywhere. I just have to tell you that Valentine's Day was actually my thirty sixth Valentine with my beautiful beloved and very smart smarter than me. Why fake? Yes. And we met in one thousand nine hundred eighty two and we got married thirty three years ago. So. Interesting. Longer than I I remember when being thirty three thirty three years old was old let alone being married for thirty three years and soon to be thirty four she loves pink roses. So she's an easy. It's easy to make her happy on Valentine's Day. I just get her a big giant bouquet of pink roses and she's happy as as punch so anyway. Let's talk about this article that I saw and I agree with it. So that's why I'm going to read it to you. You know, it's like, I'm in an echo chamber. Anybody who agrees with me? I agree with them. It's an interesting dynamic that goes on there, but Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman. This is an article from Bloomberg said the US economy, maybe heading into a recession at a time when the Federal Reserve does not have the firepower to properly combat a slump. Okay. To quote, there seems to be an accumulation of smaller problems and the underlying backdrop is that we have no good policy response. He said in a TV interview the headwinds facing the economy prompted the Federal Reserve this month to halt its interest rate hiking cycle, which Krugman said was never grounded in the data to begin with and to continue to contain continuing to raise rates was really looking like a really bad idea. And you know, what I agree with that? And and you know, the Federal Reserve decided we saw way Powell. Came out and said, you know, we're going to essentially not raise interest rates at the same pace. He did an about-face on that. And the market the stock market the S and P that very well. And went up a lot of points on that news. But think about the message that they said that they were giving. Okay, we're not gonna be raising interest rates as aggressively as we planned on. Now, why on earth would they do that? Because things aren't as good as they thought they were going to be. That's why you have to look at the not what they say. But why they said it, and if if they're saying it because they think that we are not doing as well as we as an -ticipant it. That's not a good thing. And so right now, if you are in equities, if you're in the stock market, if you're invested in stocks, I would be very very. Anxious. If I were you, okay. I would be looking at that with great trepidation. And I would start thinking about what plan. Do I have if things turned south? I'll give you another statistics. I think that what's going to cause the big bear market is all the debt. We have around the world. And two very large Chinese borrowers missed their bond payments. Okay. Mr. bond payments. These are massive this is the Chinese market is the is an eleven trillion dollar market. And if China ends up this company called China Minsheng ends up defaulting it may rank alongside win time. Energy is one of China's biggest failures with two hundred and thirty two billion Yuan in debt that's thirty four billion US as of June thirtieth. So these are massive defaults that could be happening here they missed their bond payments. Okay. And so if they don't restructure their debt and all that they could actually default on their debt. And if that happens, you know, you may recall what happened with Lehman when they were going to default on their debt. And how that started a whole domino effect that brought down almost the entire bond market and certainly brought down the stock market. The s&p was down fifty seven percent and all that in two thousand eight. So I think debt is the big problem. We have right now and a scene statistics that tell us that the global debt, right? Now is two hundred thirty three trillion trillion dollars that number is so big I can't even fathom it. But just to put it in perspective. The the subprime mortgage crisis was three trillion dollars. That's how big Dow one was when it was all said and done we now have two hundred and thirty three trillion globally of debt. This is the response to the two thousand eight credit crisis was to take on more debt. How you get out of debt? You borrow more money to pay off the debt that you had originally. That's what we did. And the number has escalated and is still going up and up. I think the risk right now is the biggest I have ever seen it. And and you know, we told people to sell in November of two thousand seven get out before the two thousand eight market crisis. And we right now our counseling our clients at the risk is so great you should be on the sidelines. Now, we look at trends. So I just want to be sure you understand. We look at trends. So if the trend is our friend, then we may go back in and participate in the Trent. There are trends within big bear markets. Okay. So if. Listen to this show. And I tell you we're going to be going back in it's not I've reversed my opinion is just that the trend is favorable right now within a bigger picture of a bear market. Okay. So stay tuned on that. But if you are over fifty if you are retired or retiring soon, I would encourage you to go to our website. It's moneymatters dot net. Moneymatters dot net. And we have seminars near you. You can sign up for a seminar. They are designed for those of you that are over fifty who are retired or retiring soon. I know there's a lot of you out there. So that's you then go to the summer, I December. We will talk about our by hold that protect strategy the one that we employed to tell people to get out in in in in late two thousand seven we'll also talk about wind. Should you? Take your social security benefits. We have a whole bunch of information on that that hopefully, you'll you'll learn from we also talk about should you roll over your 4._0._1._K, we have five strategies to reduce your income taxes. So we have a lot of information there that I think would benefit you if you are in the mode of retired or retiring soon, if you're one of those people, then moneymatters dot net is our website money matters dot net, and you can sign up for the seminar on our site. All right. We're gonna take a break..
"paul krugman" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"And all these leaders with no children. I think it's a it's an fascinating insight into the present present world that the leaders in Europe. The leaders. Note and Justin Trudeau is married with three kids they go. That's that's a perfect example in the opposite direction of a man with no wisdom who is both married and has children. It is. It is amazing it it's a phenomenon. But I'll tell you why he has no wisdom though, because he he's committed to an ideology that has no wisdom leftism contains no wisdom, it is impossible to have wisdom and be a leftist. It is it is literally impossible. You can be kind personally you can be a wonderful father. You could be a whole host of good things. But you cannot be wise. Leftism is if so facto on wise. The more wisdom, you have the more alienated from the left. You will come. Namie a wise leftist seriously, not not bright, not intelligent. There are many bright and intelligent leftist me, a wise leftist. I read them all the time. I read the left more than I read the right? It doesn't exist. Paul krugman. I'm trying to give the best example. I can't and there's no wisdom in a Paul Krugman column. This just this emotion. And emotion is the antithesis of wisdom. That is why the book of wisdom called the bible B I B L E for those of you who went to regular secular schools. You might think it's B I B E L. So I just thought I would spell a frac-. You could look it up. That book warns you about not relying on your heart. Repeatedly. The more. You rely on your heart the less wisdom. You will have. One eight seven seven six is the number that you agree with the thesis? Do you grow up you get wiser through marriage and children? Is it just a coincidence? That all these European leaders have no children and one presumes. It's not a coincidence. I presume it is not a coincidence. That's the ultimate issues topic for today the wisdom. The maturity that marriage and children confer on people. Women who were dating complain.
The Probability Of A US Recession
"Other issues out there that that are causing concern sometimes legitimately Brexit Italy. Roberto the global versa, QE potential trade skirmishes and wars that affect conference stuff like that. So there will be another recession. It doesn't mean it has to be early in two thousand nine hundred and may very well be twenty twenty or twenty twenty one. And and obviously got to be prepared for that. Obviously, you hopefully, the policy makers will when that happened to a a ways of at least damaging to to the economy. Can I ask you again because you know, you? Aknowledge that that a lot of people were angry about the financial crash. A lot of people paint pointed fingers at Wall Street and another people felt that that was not accountability. And they still have not fully recovered from the great recession. So I just wanna play a little bit of a sound bite from an interview I did with Paul Krugman on this issue last month. And then I wanna get your your view of it. It was necessary to rescue the financial system. It's not clear that it was necessary to rescue the bankers and the way it was structured was one that did not we didn't. We certainly didn't prosecute any. And there were certainly people who could have been prosecuted, but we also didn't make sure that the upside of the rescue is going to go to tax.
"paul krugman" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM
"Saw that there were there, would you tell us. Yeah. You would. What do we know? We know. Now, we live in an ever-expanding universe. We know that there are billions of stars and planets literally out there and the universe is getting bigger we know from our fancy telescopes that that's in the last two years more than twenty planets have been identified outside our solar system that seemed to be far enough away from their sons and dense enough that they might be able to support some form of life. So it makes it increasingly less likely that we're alone all your trying to give me a hint that there are. So many of you familiar with those speeches Ronald Reagan giving his speech, and of course, Bill Clinton, literally mimicking the same thing. The Ronald Reagan said on Jimmy Kimmel live Bill Clinton talking about Donna Jimmy Kimmel live a lot of people don't know that even on a show devoted to the economy. Guy by the name of Paul Krugman was on an interview with parade Sakaria. Paul Krugman is a Nobel laureate economists. He he writes for the New York Times, and they had a very interesting conversation about how they could basically fix the economy and unite the people infrastructure spending it or well-spent that's great. I'm all for that. I'd borrow for that assuming we're not paying Boston big dig kind of prices for the infrastructure. But even if you were wouldn't John Maynard Keynes say that if you could employ people to dig addition than fill it up again, that's fine. They're being productively, employed employed. They pay taxes. So maybe the big maybe Boston's big dig was just fine after all think about World War Two, right? That was not that was actually negative social products spending. And yet it brought us out. I mean, partly because you want to put these things together if we say, look, we could use some inflation. And I are both saying that which is of course, anathema to a lot of people in in Washington. But is in fact, what the basic logic says it's very hard. Getting flation and depressed economy, but if you had a program government spending, plus an expansionary policy by the fed, you could get that. So if you think about using all these things together, you could accomplish a great deal. If we if we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive buildup to counter, the the space alien threat and really inflation and budget took secondary place to that this slump would be over in eighteen months. And then if we discovered looks we made a mistake, there aren't actually any. So we need Orson better. What's your side? That's a there was a twilight zone episode like this, which scientists fakest the alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we don't need it. We need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus. Well, it wasn't really a twilight zone episodes outer limits episode, and friend of you that are familiar with the watchman. That's that's a comic book. They also in the comic book series, the watchman, the main character imagined. He made up a threat of a hostile alien invasion. This would prevent World War. If you saw the movie independence day, basically, there was a scenario where an invasion actually happens and the citizens of the world have to work out all their differences and unite against a common enemy, and that would be the alien threat. So. That was brought up eighty years ago. This last month on war of the worlds with Orson Welles it panicked. A lot of people. Now, it's becoming more realistic in his eighty year cycle, we are economically on the on the edge. We are politically minded, and we're not paying attention to you know, how how likely this is how likely these things are happening with the with reports of things like, you know, a memorial space and the space force and everything else. But yeah, okay. An alien invasion. Probably would be something that would be a precursor for a unified and harmonious world. But you know, it depends. I mean, if we're so caught up in our own politics, and we can't see the patterns. I mean, you know, there are other things out there that are happening. We have disasters that are happening everyday. Wholesome associations being wiped out. We have the impact of asteroids. We have our telescopes in our.
"paul krugman" Discussed on Monocle 24: The Globalist
"Some are saying his prioritizing the euro in italy's future within the european union over the microscope completely wrong in you know i understand that many people all around the world including for example a noble prize winner paul krugman on than your times obliged to know the talian costa toossion law but may be when you command on other countries i was listening to the attention while you were covering saudi arabia for example it's useful at least two to get the bidding formed the president republic in the republic east the defender of the coast to shen is role is to find the constitution a in the past many many precedents objected to single ministers president scalfaro did not know mediate bruce coney on lawyer privaty to minister of justice he said i won't do that president for eternal objected when rainsy as prime minister gave him weak candidate for a minister of foreign affairs he said like no you're active to the minister of economy that ranks presented like no no you need a strong guy here not the week guy and so the president is the defender of course itution that's what matter did this may have a political price but in the long run i think that is good for the rule of law was upheld a little bit more the for what the implications are many people in you have just mentioned as well the prospect of fresh elections the only way out of italy's political cog ma and this man cal rally who has absolutely no experience of politics but knows very well about working for the imf and being an economist.
"paul krugman" Discussed on WVNJ 1160 AM
"You know at number ten or or number eleven and and count down we're not doing that we're just going to take you write to the kingpin the new york times paul krugman blamed on the day of president trump's historic landslide victory that the economy would never recover new said three point zero growth was impossible it's now on its way to three point three it's at three point three shut to hit shelvin to ten within one year show absolute total and complete turnaround number one paul krugman sharing that you would never bring the economy back and you know i think i'm the only person yesterday during that four our transmission than i did that shared that the fake news news sharing that he never bring the economy back and that he never get over three percent growth rate who would've thought he trump cares most about delivering to you and that means put money in your pocket and and have good jobs in a good future 'cause you gotta have a job to feel good and not just sit there on welfare beer ruined person it look at the animals that get domesticated you not parks you feed him there obese they're mentally ill or hateful her grab slowly oyo out of control whether it's monkeys or squirrels look what it does to people show another curve ball from the trumpster in the trunk dimension where he goes with the economy about you betting you'd fail now we had one caller that shed bet on america they said we failed but trump batum american we had brought economy back we had one call'red and what was he his name or her name was a man joe was choosing who's winning now for the people's choice that lines up with trump style the that's the best way judge so paul greg monroe says markets will never recover from plant dow hits record high twenty six thousand i think right there that is absolutely on target not just the russia gay because that's all fake about trump not not other things but the economy stood while that smart so a number two abc news brian laws choked that i thought this will be number one number two and fans markets in a downward spiral with false report ab sheet demotes brian ross after he lied and said that.
"paul krugman" Discussed on KHNR 690AM
"Obamacare did they get anything right well not really but here's another one this is another sweetheart prediction they made this epo was off in the medicaid and roll lease with obamacare obamacare expanded medicaid they were often the number of people that would roll medicare would expand that they were only off by 50 percent fifty percent more people in all the guy no big deal not five percent not seven percent ten percent not 25 percent fifty percent more people had role that they predicted so again do i look what buddies after listening when you cite the cbo for the trump tax cuts please pardon us why we all breakdown and hysterical laughter slapping arodys gave us all a break on your nonsense about the cbo okay you feed them garbage they pump out garbage a knock on them personally i don't know i'm i'm sure they're nice folks the bottom line is if they were in the betting business i would ask them who they're betting on and in bed on the other guy and win every single time all right here's another sweetheart prediction the bunking silly dopey liberal myths of 2017 so yes the cbo you can pretty much discount any of their predictions they're never write anything f one paul krugman although we is say liberal pseudo economists that the new york times is actually an economist i take pseudo economists because this is another guy who seems to predict things an economist that never come true so my advice when it comes to paul krugman is this just like the cbo if you read is columns of the new york times wherever he says about the economy bet against that you'll probably be rich you've got you say you need some evidence about that after the trump election it was widely reported they krugman put out there stock her plunging well when white me expect the stock market to recover krugman added a first pass answer is never yes yeah you know the stock market's at a pretty rough run it's only up to twenty five thousand and it's only appreciated what double digits repeatedly every single but's it's the trump election so again if you are one of if you want to take some advice from paul krugman take his advice and bet on the.
"paul krugman" Discussed on WRVA
"Happens with obamacare did they get anything right now not really but here's another one this is another sweetheart prediction they may the cbo was off in the medicaid and roh lease with obamacare obamacare expanded medicaid they were often the number of people that wouldn't role and medicare would it expanded they were only off by 50 percent fifty percent more people around the guy no big deal not five percent at seven percent ten percent 25 percent fifty percent more people had role that they predicted so again to our liberal parties out there listening when you cite the cbo for the trump tax cuts please pardon us while we all breakdown in hysterical laughter slapping arodys gave us all a break on your nonsense about the cbo okay you feed them garbage they pump out garbage santa knock on them personally i don't know i'm i'm sure they're nice folks the bottom line is if they were in the betting business i would ask them who they're betting on and in bed on the other guy in and win every single time all right here's another sweetheart prediction the bunking silly dopey liberal bits of 2017 so yes the cbo you could pretty much discount any of their predictions they're never write anything our friend paul krugman you although who is say liberal pseudo economists that the new york times is actually an economist i say pseudo economist because this is another guy who seems to predict things as an economist that never come true so my advice when it comes to paul krugman exist just like the cbo if you read is columns of the new york times whatever he says about the economy bet against that you'll probably be rich you say you need some evidence about that after the trump election it was widely reported the krugman put out there stock markets are plunging well when white me expect the stock market to recover krugman added a first pass answer is never yeah you know the stock market's at a pretty rough run it's only up to twenty five thousand it's only appreciated what double digits repeatedly every single but's it's the trump election so again if you wa wanna if you want to take some advice from paul krugman take his advice and bet on the opposite.
Gop, President and Congress discussed on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
"Have on it which of america's most prominent economist paul krugman nobel prizewinning economists now a columnist for the new york times distinguished professor at city university of new york and glenn hubbard dean of the columbia business school chair of the council of economic advisers under george w bush we just saw president trump right there he also put up a tweet yesterday saying that tax cuts will increase investment in the american konomi and in us workers leading to higher growth higher wages and more jobs paul krugman your response lots of people all basically all serious studies say not so much there's gonna be maybe a little boost but not very much we had the university of chicago survey forty two economists provole political persuasions only one thought it was going to have a significant effect on economic growth and i've been looking at what are the markets thick which kind inching so we have a chart here if you can short so never mind the stock market right he's going to cut taxes on corporations you'd expect stocks to go up a better judge would be look at the dollar because if this bill does what it they say it's gonna do skads money will pour in corporation will bring money back home invested here all of that should lead to a surge in the dollar in fact the dollar has done nothing the dollar rose when trump was elected because they thought the people thought the infrastructure plan was going to happen then went back down again it's actually lower than it was on election day and what the markets are saying is this is a big nothing burger the markets are saying they don't really expect any significant economic boost from this
"paul krugman" Discussed on The Ezra Klein Show
"And i hope you are enjoying all of it and as always you can email me with feedback on the show ideas for guests whatever it might beas were kind show at boxcom again that is as reclined show at voxcom all that said here is paul krugman paul krugman welcomed by gust are there so let's begin with taxes i i was talking to glenn hubbard the the columbia collumnist whose was george w bush's chief economist and he made a point about taxes and tax bills that i felt was interesting he said the way to assess a tax bill is to ask if this is the answer what was the question so if this bill the just past senate the other night is the answer what was the question on taxes republicans were trying to ask well i think there's the question they'd like you to think they were trying to ask and there's probably the question there were actually trying to ask so in practice it this looks a whole lot like god it we've got gotta pass something uh otherwise we've been in control of the government for you and we have an accomplished anything whatsoever a lot of work when down is like the old yes minister joke writer we must be something this is something therefore we must do it but look there's there's a real issue uh how big an issue is in dispute that us has a pretty high a nominal face value tax rate on corporate profits the headline number's higher than than in other countries doesn't translate into higher overall taxes on corporate profits because we have all of these loopholes excluded sent exemptions but clearly that's gotta be a little bit unhealthy probably has some distorting effects on incentives and a move to fix that by bringing the the headline corporate rate down to something comparable to other advanced countries is something that in principle has a lot of support even from democraticleaning economist and get so let me let me bracket this because i think there are two pieces of the bell when i began talking to people about it.
"paul krugman" Discussed on Talk 1260 KTRC
"Paul krugman rice today about something the jet that is really been bug in the heck out of me with all the ongoing discussions of the tax breaks tax cuts tax reform break for the rich however use the it according to your own political party and philosophy not a lot of discussion recently about the children who being left down have not reauthorise congress had not reauthorise the cheer program which provides health insurance for small unhealthy poor citizens of the united states paul krugman rise today in the new york times actually this was from yesterday excuse me paul krugman yesterday's new york times the republican warned children paul krugman rights and i think this absolutely positively nails the holy cillian important point about this whole thing to listen up paul krugman rights let me ask you a question take your time in answering it would you be willing to take healthcare way from thousands of children with a bad luck to have been born into lowincome families.
"paul krugman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"It's flattening these tent which is flattening on such a gradual pace of of of rate hikes and i think that that's where people are becoming a little concerned do the models work and i'm talking about basic macro 101 i and paul krugman at a brilliant essay on his wbc skill which is internationally kinama cced to the models we have work or are we so international so global in our florida's speed of transfers of money goods and services that the old models don't work the you know that that's where i think a lot of central bankers are beginning to question their their testing their models and particularly related to inflation and that they're models told them that inflation would have picked up by by more than than we're so international like in our labour or economy that we're not getting the wage growth yet i think that's critical because obviously think most people would agree that that globalization and the the extent to which global value chains have have increased that something that's been a deputy factories upon and odd inflation technology has been a deafening factor on inflation but uh you know we we've we've talked about before the the phillips curve in the way the fed the fed looks at that that is really nothing that's if you look at the phillips curve particularly the phillips curve for prime working age uh people the phillips curve still looks very similar to to to an as in the past so my my expectation is that we are going to see some up in wage growth are the federal start to doubt its inflates inflation models a little bit less and that's not necessarily because that builds wages are going to feed through into higher inflation also have a lotta things going on um i think powell is fed chair is going to just be a continuation of yellen but there's one area where that's not the case and jake that's on regulation we've already started to see some moves there so now that's another issue that the breakdown on the credit multiplier thing has something to do with regulation and it's something that's beginning to shift so we've seen a lot of tightening on the credit side postcrisis the pendulum has swung swung from if you could father mary you get a mortgage to we're going to make everybody jump through.