typical krugman decries any tax cut as "partisan" and "completely crazy" and then goes on to say that he is basically in favor of all taxes, and more of them. krugman is a columnist posing as a professor, and a commentator posing as an economist.
Reagan and Bush aren't really fiscal conservatives though. I mean if you actually believe when they say they're fiscal conservatives, you're just stupid, because that's just political rhetoric. They weren't, their track records before their presidency proved this, and their record when president proved this as well.
Krugman just wants more stimulus he's more of the same... we just need to get out half the globe and we'd save a ton of money. Krugman just conveniently blames tax cuts and capitalism in general, the real problem is the astronomical debt that grows by the second and have no manufacturing/industry to every pay it.
He wants to just print more magic money and throw it into circulation-- that has not worked and merely kicks the can down the road. It buys a little more time.
@bobshenix im sure he'd be for cutting the military too, but the tax cuts sure aren't helping. republicans need to come to terms with that and start basing their policies on economic reality, or they risk becoming irrelevant
Right. The Federal government simply hasn't taken enough money out of the private sector-- the PRODUCTIVE, SELF-SUSTAINING part of the economy -- and that's why we are in debt.
I am a small business owner operating in one of the least business-friendly states. I used to entertain plans of expanding the business but today i am hurting and will may be forced to lay off workers. The LAST thing i need is more Federal taxes that will be funneled into the pockets of war profiteers.
@bobshenix the lAST time the GOp had a balanced budget was in 1956 With 91% taxes and the Federal Highway act, reagan cut taxes then had to raise taxes 9 times. Bush cut taxes and borrowed from China.
The reason you are failing is because you are a /small/ business owner. The lobbying industry doesn't care about you. The GoP doesn't care about you. Even the 'moderate' Democrats don't care about you.
They only care about Big Business.
The only people who care about you are actual liberals. You know, the guys who actually want the private sector to be fair and open enough to allow innovation and hard work to succeed.
That will never happen the more you vote for corporatists.
I understand what you mean but, with all due respect, you must be quite naive if you believe that the Democratic establishment is serious about breaking the cycle of lobbyist influence and 'crony capitalism' that has rendered Washington a corrupt whorehouse.
The major players in BOTH parties are more concerned with perpetuity than anything else. And winning the next election of course! Obama is just another warmonger whose primary contributor was GOLDMAN SACHS... go figure!
Healthy private sector activity generates real wealth, and private initiative will always make it more efficient than any government bureaucracy.
Addressing your comment-- I agree the crucial problem today is the size/power of the NON-PRODUCTIVE finance industry. The Wall Street gamblers, speculators, and money manipulators feed off the productive energies of the real working economy-- now their phony paper "assets" account for an inordinate portion of GDP. And then they get bailouts!!
Why is it these leftist economists always blame tax policy for the economic crises? It has nothing to do with all the bad loans and speculation on derivitives that caused the crises. They follow the typical Leftest strategy of using a crises to try and manipulate the public into believing the class warfare BS.
@ninthave That's not true about Krugman. He absolutely blames the speculation and derivatives. Maybe you didn't watch the video, but I don't think Krugman said anything like what you're saying.
@baigandine Well, I think he is saying lowering taxes is a "disastrously wrongheaded" policy, and inferring they are part of the cause of current economic troubles, and that higher taxes will help the economy, when he is referring to McCain wanting to continue Bush policies. He may not be saying it directly here, but I have definitely heard Obama say point blank, that Bush tax cuts are too blame for the economic crises. I believe this to be a totally false statement, not related at all.
@ninthave Krugman said a package that relies on 100% tax cuts to fix the economy after the Recession was disastrously wrongheaded. I think you have to consider the economy on the one hand, and the deficit on the other, and sometimes people conflate them.
@baigandine Fair enough. Thanks for being reasonable, and non attacking. In the end, in my opinion, Krugman and his economic/social ideology will cause more harm than good.
Paul Krugman is a fraud. He's supposedly some genius but thanks to idiotic economists like him we got the housing bubble disaster and will soon suffer a dollar crisis. His arrogance is astounding. He was awarded the nobel prize for being a partisan hack.
His solution to economic disaster and bankruptcy? Print and SPEND more money!!!! This guy is a nut. Central economic planning has failed and his guy should be thrown out on the street
Funny how you just assume I'm a redneck of some sort simply because I disagree with Krugman and his ilk's central economic planning fantasies.
Central Economic planning is failing in the United States, it failed in the Soviet Union, and it's failing in in the European Union. Look at the debt disaster all across Europe and the economic collapse of Greece
It's all thanks to arrogant pinheads like Krugman.
This isn't a partisan issue pal. Both Republicans and Democrats are adherent to the exact same monetary and economic policies that have given us 14 trillion dollars worth of debt and massive malinvestments in particular markets leading to bubbles. "Intellectuals" like Krugman are partisan hacks who simply blame one side instead of looking at the real issues and challenging policies.
Keep on living in your dream world where Republicans are to blame for everything.
@bschou The problem as I see it is career politicians playing to voter ignorance and making exorbitant promises that are frankly unsustainable--all in a bid for reelection. It is true that this is everyone's problem, but you can't blame people of a certain political bent for not seeing the bigger picture, on the ground level it looks like we've had 30 years of Reagan-omics and our debt has increased fourteen-fold.
Krugman is a smarmy little wimp ass schmuck. Who ever said a liberal college professor knows anything about politics or real world economic issues? He's a conservative hater because of his personal anti-christian views on gays and abortion...period. He's a fraud of the first order. he feeds the lie machine knowing he's not really an objective economist. HIS HATERED FOR ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE OR CHRISTIAN IS PALPABLE. I can only hope he is forced to endure his shame on national TV some day.
@baigandine in a secondary way yes, I would in fact question the judgement of anyone who says being gay is good or normal which I'm 1000% he does. Krugman is a snake oil salesman, my fav is the derogatory Greenspan reference ...forget the tremendousgrowth in the dow while her was FED chairman. This little worm is a disheveled commie simp and being a real American that makes me SICK.
@tonytocanova Actually its not Obama is on pace to spend more than the other presidents combined,and atleast most of the money bush spent was productive Obama is just spending money and not even thinking about it.
Have to agree with Mr Krugman on this one, Mr Scarborough seems to forget the ugly politics of The early to mid 90s and the total gridlock that came from it.
We need a bold step? What we have is gridlock AGAIN as if that wasn't the goal all along of the RNC/ FNC/ media juggernaut. Fiscal responsibility is reserved for when the RNC is out of power. Very convenient. Obama had to give away the store to even get the START treaty passed much less unemplm't extensions.The Republican gridlocked economy will make O unelectable which is what he expected in 08 going in. The average person doesn't know that events are shaped calculated 5 yrs in advance.
If this dolt was so smart about economics how come he isn't a billionaire lounging on his own island instead of working at the NY Times and appearing on this show?
krugman is such a hack... almost everything is says in this is propaganda with only half truths. who to tick off krugman and make him blow his gasket? agree with him. he is the super genius ya know... dude doesn't no crap and the only reason he even has a job is because he pushes crazy leftist propaganda for the ny times. that is a prerequisite there ya know.
Krugman has dangerous ideas. To learn what "the new world order" and "globalization" and "social justice" means, study "United Nations Agenda 21." Everyone should know what this agenda means to their everyday life. It's happening NOW!
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
reagan cut taxes on wealthy result. debt tripled and near 13% unemployment.. bush cut taxes on wealthy result,, tripled debt and near 10% unemployment so it looks like if you want high unemployment and triple the national debt vote republican
Joe would still be fighting for America in Congress if that staffer hadn't been found dead in his office. He's a pillar of modern conservative morality. Pay no attention to those stories on the Google search about Lori Klausutis. Why did you abruptly resign from the House of Representatives, Joe????
Paul Krugman is a clown. To say that tax cuts are disastrous is completely idiotic. Why ANYONE takes this fool serious is beyond me. For starters, when you cut taxes, the government gets MORE revenue, not less because you have more people paying in instead of lying on their tax forms and claiming reimbursements *which shouldn't exist in the first place* that they shouldn't be.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 tax cuts have never worked...reagon did it, never worked...w. bush did it and it was disasterous...clinton raised taxes and he balanced the budget...can you prove otherwise?
@oceans19711 Reagan never cut taxes, and neither did Bush. When politicians "cut taxes", they don't really cut taxes. Tax reform is nothing more than a shell game. I'll give you an example; Reagan lowered taxes on the rich, but broadened his tax base to make up the difference, so taxes were really just shuffled around, rather than actually being reduced overall. Reagan's SMALL GOVERNMENT polemic was just that. Polemic. And the Clinton years was all due to the NASDAQ bubble, not Clinton.
@TheManiacalSatanist6 when bush and reagon cut taxes for the rich, there was not re-distribution or shuffling of money. the rich kept the money. that is the problem. tax money was not shuffled around. reagan was great for rich people but did nothing for middle and lower class people. clinton balanced the budget through sound economic policy, not cutting taxes for rich, not starting any wars, and not loosening regulations in the mortgage industry. no more conservative coolaid for you.
@oceans19711 Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economic boom of the time. It was because of the NASDAQ bubble, which burst towards the end of Clinton's presidency and threw the country into a recession, and all of those phony ass DOT COM stocks that didn't even pay a dividend went straight down the drain.
You're doing nothing more than reciting left-wing media talking points, which came from people who have no solid grasp on history.
tax rates had NOTHING to do with the balanced budget during the clinton years. an economic "boom" (ie. tech bubble) created a huge tax base that allowed the revenues that were collected. tax laws were also less complex, with less loopholes. the RATE itself is inconsequential when tax expenditures exist. the reason this economy is going nowhere is HUGE uncertainty in the regulatory realm, tax policy, obamacare, and monetary policy. simply moving the marginal rate up or down is not a solution
@yofed2 you need to stop drinking the conservative cool-aid...you only cut taxes when no deficit or debt...otherwise, forget about it...what obama agreed to was disasterous...his saving grace is the conservatives are bending to the TeaBagging losers....American politics in an nutshell
For all his flaws (and there are many), he is on point concerning the title of the video. Where is the mythical modern conservative. He nailed it, conservatives do NOT cut spending or balance budgets, both parties act the same.
@amarr1 I bet. Complain about a public option and oppose medicare, until you qualify, then jump right in and defend a public plan. I'm pretty sure that's the contemporary example of modern conservatism: Support what you don't like until it benefits you directly, then set up an ideological gambit in which every contrary idea is wholly destroyed. Solipsistic prick.
From '95 through '00 Federal Outlays as a % of GDP decreased from around 21% to 17%. Spending increases were minimal, and defense was practically cut in half, really to pre-Reagan times. Tax Revenue remained roughly around 18% as it typically does until '00 when it was 20% of GDP. The difference between Bush and Reagan deficit spending is that Reagan massively spent on defense, and cut all other spending, Bush's non-defense spending was higher than defense from '01-'04.
Krugmo has to be the stupidest "economist" of all-time. The Krugmo plan: If rich... spend money. If breaking even... spend money. And if broke without a pot to p in, then spend even more money, even though that same reckless spending is what got you broke....... Why does anybody with any sense listen to such total stupidity?
Krugmo has to be the stupiest "economist" of all-time. The Krugmo plan: If rich... spend money. If breaking even... spend money. And if broke without a pot to p in, then spend even more money, even though that same reckless spending is what got you broke....... Why does anybody with any sense listen to such total stupidity?
@Soothfish I think he's more diabolical. I still have one of his econ texts from back in 1st year and it's not bad. It's alright. I've seen a lot worse. It takes a pretty bright person to write a good econ text since the concepts can be odd, so, he's obviously just evil.
He often says one thing about economic "laws" or facts and then suggests the government do just the opposite and magically suspend reality. Clearly, he's more politician than economist.
@cetnik03 LOL don't listen to a Nobel Laureate, listen to end of world chest thumpers. I'll give you Marc Faber though, he's actually really a smart guy but uses hyperbole to get his message across (like Roubini). Jim Rogers is ok, but he's completely drunk on emerging market kool-aid which are boom-bust bubble cycles that need to be perfectly timed. Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente... if you're listening to those guys seriously you may just be a lost soul.
@Relbl lol your an idiot, yeah lissen to a nobel laureate.....this dude has no clue...oh i forgot nobal peace prize means a lot...OBAMA got one too, yeah he really deserved it. Difference between Faber and celente is not that huge. See Faber is pure economist he doesnt get involved too much about politics, because he knows its dirty and theyre crooks. He even said that politician and bankers are crooks, on Bloomberg. Celente on the other hand says the truth and he dont give fuk.
@cetnik03 You seem to be confusing the Peace prize, which is purely political (look at the litany of murderous psychotics that have won that), and every other type of Nobel prize, which are peer reviewed and meritorious. I doubt strongly that you have any idea what Mr. Faber's real views are since his views are behind a $500/month paywall. Power corrupts, and the higher you are in politics and industry, the more likely you are to be corrupted by ENORMOUS amounts of money - it's no big insight!
@Relbl The Nobel for economics is highly contested as in economics, it is impossible to properly use the scientific method. You can create models, but you can not test them in a lab or closed setting in the way you can for other sciences. Essentially, many believe it is not eligible to be a science, and ths many have received it on political grounds, from Friedman (a fiscal conservative) to Krugman (a liberal). As political tides change from left to right, as do the recipients' leanings.
It's utter bullshit to be like, 'we can't keep doing 8 years of Bush style policies when we know it didn't work!'
That's the least intellectually curious thing ever. He is deliberately misusing history, something he rightly criticizes Fox News for doing.
I'm quite liberal, but I fully acknowledge that conservative economics can bring great wealth to a country. He's saying, because Bush ended on a recession, tax cuts fail. There is absolutely NO correlation.
@KripkeSaul Somebody who regurgitates the, 'We can't keep doing the failed Bush policies for another 8 years,' with regards to tax cuts is far from 'able.'
There is absolutely no correlation with tax cuts and the 2008 recession. It had to do with investment banks and housing, among other things. Krugman knows far more than I do about it, yet he misinforms America.
Lack of regulation was to blame, not tax cuts. I don't mind high taxes, but I'm not a moron.
@LukeShetler tax cuts are a symptom of de-regulation; it's less govt oversight in business and investment. What Krugman is arguing is that cutting taxes for the wealthy don't produce the knock-on effects that they are purported too, and that in times of crisis people are likely to hoard money rather than spend it. So tax cuts in this(that) economic environment would be doubly toxic; middle class tax cuts would help b/c people that earn below maybe $150k need to spend every penny they get earn
haha, I love Krugman's face while Joe is talking to him. He's like a robot absorbing every bit of what Joe is talking to him, and then going "does...not....compute" and out comes his response. He always does that when he's arguing with conservatives, it always makes me laugh.
"There was bipartisanship in the nineties" is the new talking point from the Republicans, and a complete re-write of history. As Krugman pointed out, there was gridlock. In addition, there was a relentless Republican effort to bring down President Clinton. They spent $60 million tax payer dollars fishing for anything that might lead to impeachment. They eventually caught him in a lie about sex with an intern. This doesn't sound like bipartisanship to me.
I am amazed at the patience people tend to show in relation to Joe. I would simply say to him, when he keeps on cutting off his guests, that if he wants to hear himself talk, he need not have me as his gues.....he is simply the most boorish personality on television.
@danbuck333 wat the gov has to do is help homeowners write down their homes and have us, the taxpayers, pick up the loses, that way you can stop being tied to their homes and move on
@lawyer4817 what the government should do is not have the tax payer pick up the losses, let those banks go bankrupt and let other banks sort through the mess and figure out what assets are good and bad, in other words let the market sort it out
@lawyer4817 John Adam's right..."All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise not from defects in their constitution or confederation. Not from want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
to qoute the legendary Jim Rogers...''Krugman is an idiot and doesn’t know anything about economics.''
@lawyer4817 please cease from posting puerile comments. I fear that your possible refusal to will contribute immensely to our nations aggregate stupidity. Our educational system is in shambles as is. The last thing we need are more foreigners thinking we're all fat, lazy, and stupid.
@kusari86 whats actually puerile is that jim rogers called krugman an idiot. i was simply engaging in the same "puerile" behaviour that rogers himself engaged in. I myself am not part of the nation's "aggregate stupidly' and if u're branding me that simply because of 1 comment, im sorry to say u're the 1 being puerile. The fact is today the Austrian school of economics is great in theory, but theory is rarely applicable in a world that's chaotic. Thats y even milton friedman disagrees with it
@dark0822 He says "we" because he was one of the rookie Republican Congressman swept-in in 1994, when they finally took the Congress back. I'm not from Florida, no clue how many terms he served.
I like Joe but he's a bit of a weasel here. Let's do a little of what the Dems want and a little of what the Reps want. No principles guiding what we do. No economic theory. Krugman is so wrong on economic theory that he is boxed into being a Left Wing progressive Democrat as that is the only house he could live in with his thoroughly discredited though main stream democratic economist.
Krugman in 2002 after the Tech Bubble "... And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan NEEDS TO CREATE a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Krugman is responsible for the housing bubble! He has made a lot of people poor and is offering more destructive advice! Shame on you Krudman!
@ModerateGuy738 This is the problem. We are rely too heavily on an "intellectual" instead of a guy with ACTUAL day to day experience in the market place. These professors are about worthless because all they know how to do is read and write and show graphs (which many of them don't understand anyways). Not one of them has ever ran a business. I would like to see this "Nobel-prize" winner run a hot dog stand efficiently. Watch Schiff educate intellectual professors all over youtube.
@ModerateGuy738 Schiff has called out Krugman many times claiming that he is completely wrong on the stimulus and this Keynesian approach to economics and would love to debate him anytime. You would sit back and watch your nobel-prize winner stumble by a guy without some prestegious degree. Experiance wins anytime over an intellectual ideologue. These professors are in a world of fantisy and make believe. College is over-rated, especially the people that spend their whole lives in one
You are absolutely right. If anyone needs proof, Ben Bernanke ( current Fed Chairman) went to Harvard, and claimed in 06 that there was no housing bubble, and even if there was, it was only in sub prime and that it would be a 'soft landing'.
be nice on the college thing, people in the hard sciences don't really have to deal with the brain washing
I was in the program, and I was like, "I don't see any of this liberal propaganda I was told about", so, my last year I had some extra time, and decided to take a political science class, and that was like BAM, felt like I was jumping into boiling hot water
My teacher was respectful of my criticism, and in fact, I think my grade actually may have gotten a bump for starting discussion
@LordVigeous666999 haha, that's why I went into engineering out of the military. I would lose my mind if I took a political science class and had to debate with an entire class (including the teacher) on social and financial views. It would be one conservative/libertarian against 20 liberal/progressives. I feel sorry for these students who one day have to go out into the real world and find a job. How fast their views will change. Math is beautiful b/c there is no bias. 1+1=2. lol
@LordVigeous666999 i seriously think you can get a better education in liberal arts on youtube than you can at most universities...because, at least on youtube you can hear both sides of the argument...opposing viewpoints that I didn't know even existed until the invention of the internet and a broadening of other communications. But, who knows how long it will be until the government controls this information???
@ModerateGuy738 How about this. This is what Krugman said in an article about the debt commission...
"Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer, except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever."
@navyucla But everybody receives social security so Pauls point is moronic. And he doesn't seem to have any foresight into the economics of these programs.
He himself btw called for the Bush stimulus, he praised it, he called for the housing bubble. And most modern economists would agree that fiscal stimulus actually doesn't work as well as tax cuts, but Krugman hold opposing views on every single issue and he usually manages to get it wrong both times.
@navyucla That was a Milton Friedman argument against social security. Way before Krugman came along to argue against social security reform by saying what is wrong with social security. Way to go indeed.
Ultimately, the problem is that republicans believe all the same things that democrats do. Republicans are tax cutting Keynesians while the democrats favor government spending, but the effect either way is sucking resources out of the private sector by borrowing in order to give the resources to someone else.
@girardbcp First, during a financial crisis interest rates need to spike just like the price of a generator during a hurricane. Second, the governments needs to cut spending to keep as many resources as possible available to the private economy. Third, items which were overvalued or overbuilt during the boom (houses, credit-default swaps) need to either be liquidated or have their prices drop to a point where demand picks up again. Then cut taxes and remove tedious regulations.
@underdg22 There are some real problems with this policy. 1) A rise in interest rates will lead to less liquidity as it did in the Great Depression and in 1981-83 2) There is no crowding out of the private sector when a) there is very high unemployment and 2) interest rates ought to be less than 0 (zero lower bound). 3) Items don't drop because of high interest rates and if they do drop then that's called deflation, which is bad. 4) Cut taxes for who? $300bn in tax cuts in that stimulus, no good
@girardbcp I think you're forgetting you're talking to someone who doesn't buy anything in Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics completely misses the importance of savings and interest rates. Savings are the base for growth and interest rates coordinate production with the time preferences of consumers. Deflation and inflation are crude terms as well. During a boom SPECIFIC prices rise faster than others and during the bust SPECIFIC prices need to adjust downwards as well.
@underdg22 You haven't answered my criticisms, but if I get your drift you're assuming Krugman believes interest rates have no impact, but he acknowledges that aspect of Milton Friedman's monetarism. As far as deflation and inflation go, they're not crude in the way you say they are. For instance, real estate prices did plunge, but others didn't, thus inflation is .5% according the same CPI that conservative and liberal economists use.
Back to my criticisms, please answer them directly.
@girardbcp It seems like the criticisms revolve around interest rates and that's an area where I feel like the Keynesian analysis the incredibly weak. Saying that interest rates should be negative makes no sense, it would be like saying that people prefer having 1 apple in a year over 2 apples today. Interest rates don't just control spending or inflation, they are a real market price determined by supply and demand. Negative interest rates make no more sense than negative oil prices.
@girardbcp Sorry to double reply, but the biggest problem I have with these recommendations is that low interest and negative savings rates characterized the housing boom. Why on earth would it be good economic policy to keep those same spending and investment patterns in place when they proved unsustainable? The Keynesians are looking to the hair of the dog for answers. Unfortunately, spending does not create wealth any more than large credit card bills make a family rich.
@underdg22 It is quite the paradox right? How can a low savings rate and high spending lead to a better economy? In theory, you make sense. Let me say though, the money spent on infrastructure, and higher education improves production. Money for states so they don't layoff employees keeps the negative impact of their unemployment from occurring. Unemployment benefits are nearly all spent. Finally, it only makes sense to have stimulus during high unemployment & a liquidity trap. No other time.
Respond to this video...I just read an article on this today that explains the issue better than I could. Google "Delong on Deficits" by Robert Murphy.
@girardbcp It's no paradox. High spending creates a temporary appearance of prosperity that vanishes once savings disappear just like a guy running up big credit card bills. All the spending your talking about is just an attempt to keep the party going by swiping the credit card a few more times. Furthermore, since it's government spending, there is no feasible way of determining if the money was spent properly because the spending projects don't have to pass any kind of profit or loss test.
@girardbcp Sorry to double reply, but the biggest problem I have with these recommendations is that low interest and negative savings rates characterized the housing boom. Why on earth would it be good economic policy to keep those same spending and investment patterns in place when they proved unsustainable? The Keynesians are looking to the hair of the dog for answers. Unfortunately, spending does not create wealth any more than large credit card bills make a family rich.
@underdg22 We also have proof that conditions like we have now (high unemployment and the zero lower bound) mixed with austerity measures leads to a worsening recession. Ireland is a great example and so isn't 1937. Back to the interest rate hikes, Reagan did that with tax cuts and that caused a large recession in 1981 (it was on purpose too, since it lead to disinflation). Now if disinflation (12%- to 4% or so) occurs then, then what will happen when inflation is .5%? That's right: Deflation.
@girardbcp I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or Volcker, but the interest rates hikes and accompanying depression were absolutely necessary following a period of accelerating inflation and high unemployment (impossible in the Keynesian paradigm). Inducing the depression was the medicine which allowed for a fairly rapid readjustment and return to prosperity. Sometimes the medicine tastes bad but its better to get it over with. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with deflation.
@girardbcp Not to be critical but those are very low empirical standards for proof. Here's some examples of failed deficit spending, low interest rate attempts at economic recovery: Japan 1920s, Hoover 30-32, Roosevelt 33-36 and 38-40, stagflation 1970s, Greenspan 2004 housing bubble, Bernanke 2008-, Japan 1991-2000. Keep in mind that except from 1930-32 Hoover increased government spending 40% in the face of collapsing tax receipts and that Roosevelt was as much a deficit spender as Reagan.
The money multiplier is bullshit. There's no fucking way a business or income tax cut has more stimulus on the economy than food stamps. Does that mean gov't should invest all its money in MORE food stamps to get us out of this recession? Of course not; that's crazy talk. Obama claimed the sky was falling, and we'd get some kind of depression without stimulus, but even his advisors only predicted a few percentage points MORE in unemployment. Not exactly a "depression" in my view.
Plus, there's NO EVIDENCE or even a single study that I have been able to find that really proves the money multiplier conforms to their viewpoints. Even the wikipedia article, which you'd assume some liberal pro-multiplier types would've flooded with evidence by now, has NO EVIDENCE. The only 'evidence' they have is some congressional testimony from Mark Zandi, who is himself an admitted Democrat btw (no partisanship there, right? Lol). Most of the article is just theoretical modeling crap.
The same theoretical BS formulas that Keynes and his followers in the early days of macroeconomics used! They said, "Hmm, this makes sense. It must be true!" and then went forward with it and teaching all this crap in all the major econ classes and textbooks across the country. I've even heard that the CBO itself uses an outdated non-evidence-backed modeling formula to determine a lot of its spending and economic estimates.
Plus, how in the WORLD do you really accurately test a multiplier effect? Esp. when it comes to a gov't-administered program like food stamps. Let's say the gov't shells out $5 Billion for it. And a good portion of that may well be consumed just by the bloated salaries and benefits of the federal employees who work for those agencies. More of it will be consumed by the inherent bungling of bureacracy itself. So I imagine it'd be almost impossible to really measure any kind of 'multiplier.'
For anyone to really be able to say with any confidence, esp. extreme confidence, that their favored program or tax cut has a huge multiplier effect, seems very disingenuous to me. The estimates would be very rough, at best.
@whoo689 A business or income tax absolutely has less effect than an income tax cut. First, all taxes which business pay ultimately have to come from the pockets of the consumers. But most importantly, by allowing large companies and high earning individuals to keep more money, the government would allow much greater investment leading to quicker economic expansion which helps everybody.
Gov't needs to quit trying to fucking micromanage and just let the economy work! Let it get back up on its own. There's no evidence that it can't. "doing nothing" vs. doing failed Keynesian policies? Even Obama's CEA people Romer and Bernstein estimated that unemployment would bottom out around 8 or 8.5% without a stimulus (or maybe it was high as 9%), but we're still at almost 10%. Clearly they have no fucking idea how to predict their own results, and their policies aren't necessary.
krugman is a pathetic low life keynesian who continues to promote the failed lib policies that got the US into the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Note that if the statistics used by the BLS to calculate unemployment pre-clinton era are used, current unemployment stands at 21%. Krugman continues to preach taking on more debt to bail the flawed system out. If we follow his path, the county and world will implode into a massive hyperinflationary depression.
@malumalumalu I love you're re-writing of history. It was Liberal Economic philosophy not neo-con/teapublican/republican/washington consensus/IMF policies of deregulation, unpaid spending increases, unpaid tax cuts and no investment in supply side infrastructure projects and no investment in higher education. Yeah, you're right hahahaha
@girardbcp pffft liberal economic philosophy is a joke. Economics is economics. It is a science. There is only one school that can claim true knowledge in the SCIENCE of economics and that is the convervative Austrian school. The rest of them, especially krugman-loving liberal economists, are just witch doctors who treat the world like an experimental laboratory. Now the donkeyhead krugman is calling for ANOTHER and BIGGER stimulus like USA can afford such a thing in this DEBT crisis. What a da
@malumalumalu , Im sorry but you couldn't be farther from the truth! I just graduated with MS in Business Econ and all Econ is theory. Its definetly not a science! In fact most economic textbooks are titles Micro/Macro Economic THEORY!
YOUR AN IDIOT! You deserve to be watching Fox News Dummy!
@CrewsMichael you and your MS in business econ can kiss my ass. All the so called 'smartest people in the world' (bernanke, greenspan, summers, rubin etc) created this crisis with their own flawed economic "theories" that you have been spoon fed with at University of Dumbasses. You and your keynesian-loving friends should do the world a favor and spend your time baby-sitting or flower picking or some other simple task that does not require too great an intellect
@CrewsMichael You obviously are the poster child for economic "education" as it is being done today. You don't know anything about the very science you claim to have a degree in. ALL science is theory based, you stupid idiot. Econ differs from e.g. physics because econ is a SOCIAL science, whereas physics is a natural science. However, there are a number of economic laws that are as unyielding as physical laws. But you wouldn't know that, because you know is Keynesian bullshit like Krugman.
Joe Scarborough doesn't remember that the republicans, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, literally shut the government down. I'm shocked. He really doesn't remember that? Talk about selective memory.
I;m looking this up, (YouTube is wonderful) to refresh my memory of who said what back in 2008.
Joe doesn't remember "Gridlock"?
Come on Joe, you were there in 1995, as I was, it was a mess, the government faced a shutdown, and the Republicans took a licking in the midterms as a result.
Using hindsight and YouTube we can see Joe was wrong and Bill was right about the bailout and it's affects on our economy.
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
typical krugman decries any tax cut as "partisan" and "completely crazy" and then goes on to say that he is basically in favor of all taxes, and more of them. krugman is a columnist posing as a professor, and a commentator posing as an economist.
dthomas9444 2 weeks ago
Government data shows the the GOP has spent more, raised the debt more and had a worse record with unemployment rates.
jrwel14 3 weeks ago
back in the 1940s Truman called the Republican Congress the do nothing congress. they haven't changed!
jrwel14 3 weeks ago
Joe could have done his monologue without Krugman as a guest.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
Reagan and Bush aren't really fiscal conservatives though. I mean if you actually believe when they say they're fiscal conservatives, you're just stupid, because that's just political rhetoric. They weren't, their track records before their presidency proved this, and their record when president proved this as well.
Amadeus5150 1 month ago
Paul Krugman: the last sane man.
LiberalIntervention 1 month ago
@LiberalIntervention
Krugman just wants more stimulus he's more of the same... we just need to get out half the globe and we'd save a ton of money. Krugman just conveniently blames tax cuts and capitalism in general, the real problem is the astronomical debt that grows by the second and have no manufacturing/industry to every pay it.
He wants to just print more magic money and throw it into circulation-- that has not worked and merely kicks the can down the road. It buys a little more time.
bobshenix 1 month ago
@bobshenix im sure he'd be for cutting the military too, but the tax cuts sure aren't helping. republicans need to come to terms with that and start basing their policies on economic reality, or they risk becoming irrelevant
ericfeinberg28 1 month ago
@bobshenix What is a major reason for the huge debt? tax cuts, look at Clinton's 39% and Bush's 35%.
jrwel14 3 weeks ago
@jrwel14
Right. The Federal government simply hasn't taken enough money out of the private sector-- the PRODUCTIVE, SELF-SUSTAINING part of the economy -- and that's why we are in debt.
I am a small business owner operating in one of the least business-friendly states. I used to entertain plans of expanding the business but today i am hurting and will may be forced to lay off workers. The LAST thing i need is more Federal taxes that will be funneled into the pockets of war profiteers.
bobshenix 3 weeks ago
@bobshenix the lAST time the GOp had a balanced budget was in 1956 With 91% taxes and the Federal Highway act, reagan cut taxes then had to raise taxes 9 times. Bush cut taxes and borrowed from China.
jrwel14 3 weeks ago
@bobshenix
The reason you are failing is because you are a /small/ business owner. The lobbying industry doesn't care about you. The GoP doesn't care about you. Even the 'moderate' Democrats don't care about you.
They only care about Big Business.
The only people who care about you are actual liberals. You know, the guys who actually want the private sector to be fair and open enough to allow innovation and hard work to succeed.
That will never happen the more you vote for corporatists.
Lodatzor 3 weeks ago
@Lodatzor
I understand what you mean but, with all due respect, you must be quite naive if you believe that the Democratic establishment is serious about breaking the cycle of lobbyist influence and 'crony capitalism' that has rendered Washington a corrupt whorehouse.
The major players in BOTH parties are more concerned with perpetuity than anything else. And winning the next election of course! Obama is just another warmonger whose primary contributor was GOLDMAN SACHS... go figure!
bobshenix 2 weeks ago
@bobshenix Goldman Sachs is the productive part of the economy? How lucid, how thoughtful. I envy your analytic abilities.
Haarez1 2 weeks ago
Healthy private sector activity generates real wealth, and private initiative will always make it more efficient than any government bureaucracy.
Addressing your comment-- I agree the crucial problem today is the size/power of the NON-PRODUCTIVE finance industry. The Wall Street gamblers, speculators, and money manipulators feed off the productive energies of the real working economy-- now their phony paper "assets" account for an inordinate portion of GDP. And then they get bailouts!!
bobshenix 2 weeks ago
Paul Krugman is the perfect example for a pessamist.
MrSpencerport 2 months ago
Krugman looks like the six-fingered man from the Princess Bride.
bthornRPL 2 months ago
Anyone else notice Krugman leans left in virtually all videos of him? Is that dedication to one's political leanings or a constant tell?
Pdub0817 3 months ago
9/11 = Stimulus
Aliens will fix the Economy
Krugman is a fucking idiot
Redeye1524 3 months ago
Why is it these leftist economists always blame tax policy for the economic crises? It has nothing to do with all the bad loans and speculation on derivitives that caused the crises. They follow the typical Leftest strategy of using a crises to try and manipulate the public into believing the class warfare BS.
ninthave 3 months ago
@ninthave That's not true about Krugman. He absolutely blames the speculation and derivatives. Maybe you didn't watch the video, but I don't think Krugman said anything like what you're saying.
baigandine 2 months ago
@baigandine Well, I think he is saying lowering taxes is a "disastrously wrongheaded" policy, and inferring they are part of the cause of current economic troubles, and that higher taxes will help the economy, when he is referring to McCain wanting to continue Bush policies. He may not be saying it directly here, but I have definitely heard Obama say point blank, that Bush tax cuts are too blame for the economic crises. I believe this to be a totally false statement, not related at all.
ninthave 2 months ago
@ninthave Krugman said a package that relies on 100% tax cuts to fix the economy after the Recession was disastrously wrongheaded. I think you have to consider the economy on the one hand, and the deficit on the other, and sometimes people conflate them.
baigandine 2 months ago
@baigandine Fair enough. Thanks for being reasonable, and non attacking. In the end, in my opinion, Krugman and his economic/social ideology will cause more harm than good.
ninthave 2 months ago
krugman is a lil off.
xukeith33 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
KRUGMAN = NUMB NUT SOCIALIST
AroundSun 3 months ago
Paul Krugman is a fraud. He's supposedly some genius but thanks to idiotic economists like him we got the housing bubble disaster and will soon suffer a dollar crisis. His arrogance is astounding. He was awarded the nobel prize for being a partisan hack.
His solution to economic disaster and bankruptcy? Print and SPEND more money!!!! This guy is a nut. Central economic planning has failed and his guy should be thrown out on the street
bschou 4 months ago
@bschou Wrong! Put down your mayonaise sandwich, get off your sister, and turn off Fox News because you are talking non-sense...
tonytocanova 4 months ago
@tonytocanova
Give me a reasoned argument backed up by facts.
Funny how you just assume I'm a redneck of some sort simply because I disagree with Krugman and his ilk's central economic planning fantasies.
Central Economic planning is failing in the United States, it failed in the Soviet Union, and it's failing in in the European Union. Look at the debt disaster all across Europe and the economic collapse of Greece
It's all thanks to arrogant pinheads like Krugman.
bschou 4 months ago
@bschou "pal"? "pinhead"? sounds like Bill O'Liely has been a frequent guest in your household over the years.
rgindallas 1 month ago
@tonytocanova
This isn't a partisan issue pal. Both Republicans and Democrats are adherent to the exact same monetary and economic policies that have given us 14 trillion dollars worth of debt and massive malinvestments in particular markets leading to bubbles. "Intellectuals" like Krugman are partisan hacks who simply blame one side instead of looking at the real issues and challenging policies.
Keep on living in your dream world where Republicans are to blame for everything.
bschou 4 months ago
@bschou The problem as I see it is career politicians playing to voter ignorance and making exorbitant promises that are frankly unsustainable--all in a bid for reelection. It is true that this is everyone's problem, but you can't blame people of a certain political bent for not seeing the bigger picture, on the ground level it looks like we've had 30 years of Reagan-omics and our debt has increased fourteen-fold.
xxcrysad3000xx 3 months ago
Krugman is a smarmy little wimp ass schmuck. Who ever said a liberal college professor knows anything about politics or real world economic issues? He's a conservative hater because of his personal anti-christian views on gays and abortion...period. He's a fraud of the first order. he feeds the lie machine knowing he's not really an objective economist. HIS HATERED FOR ANYTHING CONSERVATIVE OR CHRISTIAN IS PALPABLE. I can only hope he is forced to endure his shame on national TV some day.
woofielove1970 4 months ago
@woofielove1970 You should receive the death penalty for such unbelievably anti-intellectual statements. What is your background in economics?
JcKantelope 4 months ago
Comment removed
woofielove1970 4 months ago
@woofielove1970 "Hey, Krugman supports homosexuals, don't believe him." I think your argument went something like that.
baigandine 2 months ago
@baigandine in a secondary way yes, I would in fact question the judgement of anyone who says being gay is good or normal which I'm 1000% he does. Krugman is a snake oil salesman, my fav is the derogatory Greenspan reference ...forget the tremendousgrowth in the dow while her was FED chairman. This little worm is a disheveled commie simp and being a real American that makes me SICK.
woofielove1970 2 months ago
Obama has already spent way more than Bush!!
BUDx2 4 months ago
@BUDx2 Actually, that's incorrect. Don't get your numbers from Fox News, because there 2+2=1.5.
tonytocanova 4 months ago
@tonytocanova Actually its not Obama is on pace to spend more than the other presidents combined,and atleast most of the money bush spent was productive Obama is just spending money and not even thinking about it.
BUDx2 4 months ago
Have to agree with Mr Krugman on this one, Mr Scarborough seems to forget the ugly politics of The early to mid 90s and the total gridlock that came from it.
keithradamsstatus 4 months ago
danger0usknowledge 5 months ago
If this dolt was so smart about economics how come he isn't a billionaire lounging on his own island instead of working at the NY Times and appearing on this show?
chrisallenrichie 5 months ago
@chrisallenrichie Because university professors aren't paid billions?
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
Krugman said IDEAL not IDEA, you dummy Scarborough.
ridewave444 5 months ago
krugman is such a hack... almost everything is says in this is propaganda with only half truths. who to tick off krugman and make him blow his gasket? agree with him. he is the super genius ya know... dude doesn't no crap and the only reason he even has a job is because he pushes crazy leftist propaganda for the ny times. that is a prerequisite there ya know.
b101aa2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Krugman has dangerous ideas. To learn what "the new world order" and "globalization" and "social justice" means, study "United Nations Agenda 21." Everyone should know what this agenda means to their everyday life. It's happening NOW!
vechorik 5 months ago
NASDAQ Bubble blew up not the economy
Salvysahagun 6 months ago
Watching Joe regularly, he plays his role well. He is always rewriting history. Consistently rewriting it.
"who's your ideal here?"
"well, me!"
That idiot has milked his time in the 1990's in congress for some serious money...i can't believe how rich he is.
fausto412 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
reagan cut taxes on wealthy result. debt tripled and near 13% unemployment.. bush cut taxes on wealthy result,, tripled debt and near 10% unemployment so it looks like if you want high unemployment and triple the national debt vote republican
210daved1 7 months ago
@210daved1 someone who finally speaks with facts...well done bro.
oceans19711 6 months ago
Go paul,
koboy1996 7 months ago
Joe would still be fighting for America in Congress if that staffer hadn't been found dead in his office. He's a pillar of modern conservative morality. Pay no attention to those stories on the Google search about Lori Klausutis. Why did you abruptly resign from the House of Representatives, Joe????
fek2000 7 months ago
Krugman is too sensitive which makes him look wimpy next to manipulator bullies like Morning Blow despite the strengths of his intellectual ideas.
Tippersnore 8 months ago
Paul Krugman is a clown. To say that tax cuts are disastrous is completely idiotic. Why ANYONE takes this fool serious is beyond me. For starters, when you cut taxes, the government gets MORE revenue, not less because you have more people paying in instead of lying on their tax forms and claiming reimbursements *which shouldn't exist in the first place* that they shouldn't be.
TheManiacalSatanist6 8 months ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 tax cuts have never worked...reagon did it, never worked...w. bush did it and it was disasterous...clinton raised taxes and he balanced the budget...can you prove otherwise?
oceans19711 6 months ago
@oceans19711 Reagan never cut taxes, and neither did Bush. When politicians "cut taxes", they don't really cut taxes. Tax reform is nothing more than a shell game. I'll give you an example; Reagan lowered taxes on the rich, but broadened his tax base to make up the difference, so taxes were really just shuffled around, rather than actually being reduced overall. Reagan's SMALL GOVERNMENT polemic was just that. Polemic. And the Clinton years was all due to the NASDAQ bubble, not Clinton.
TheManiacalSatanist6 6 months ago
@TheManiacalSatanist6 when bush and reagon cut taxes for the rich, there was not re-distribution or shuffling of money. the rich kept the money. that is the problem. tax money was not shuffled around. reagan was great for rich people but did nothing for middle and lower class people. clinton balanced the budget through sound economic policy, not cutting taxes for rich, not starting any wars, and not loosening regulations in the mortgage industry. no more conservative coolaid for you.
oceans19711 6 months ago
@oceans19711 Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the economic boom of the time. It was because of the NASDAQ bubble, which burst towards the end of Clinton's presidency and threw the country into a recession, and all of those phony ass DOT COM stocks that didn't even pay a dividend went straight down the drain.
You're doing nothing more than reciting left-wing media talking points, which came from people who have no solid grasp on history.
Try again.
TheManiacalSatanist6 6 months ago
tax rates had NOTHING to do with the balanced budget during the clinton years. an economic "boom" (ie. tech bubble) created a huge tax base that allowed the revenues that were collected. tax laws were also less complex, with less loopholes. the RATE itself is inconsequential when tax expenditures exist. the reason this economy is going nowhere is HUGE uncertainty in the regulatory realm, tax policy, obamacare, and monetary policy. simply moving the marginal rate up or down is not a solution
yofed2 5 months ago
@yofed2 you need to stop drinking the conservative cool-aid...you only cut taxes when no deficit or debt...otherwise, forget about it...what obama agreed to was disasterous...his saving grace is the conservatives are bending to the TeaBagging losers....American politics in an nutshell
oceans19711 5 months ago
For all his flaws (and there are many), he is on point concerning the title of the video. Where is the mythical modern conservative. He nailed it, conservatives do NOT cut spending or balance budgets, both parties act the same.
KommanderWill 9 months ago
Paul Krugman just looks like a faggot.
TheDukeljk 9 months ago
What a solipsistic prick. I MYSELF AM AN EXAMPLE OF MODERN CONSERVATISM
amarr1 10 months ago
@amarr1 I bet. Complain about a public option and oppose medicare, until you qualify, then jump right in and defend a public plan. I'm pretty sure that's the contemporary example of modern conservatism: Support what you don't like until it benefits you directly, then set up an ideological gambit in which every contrary idea is wholly destroyed. Solipsistic prick.
(That's a rhetorical "you," btw)
Ematched 9 months ago
From '95 through '00 Federal Outlays as a % of GDP decreased from around 21% to 17%. Spending increases were minimal, and defense was practically cut in half, really to pre-Reagan times. Tax Revenue remained roughly around 18% as it typically does until '00 when it was 20% of GDP. The difference between Bush and Reagan deficit spending is that Reagan massively spent on defense, and cut all other spending, Bush's non-defense spending was higher than defense from '01-'04.
fudan6262 10 months ago
Krugmo has to be the stupidest "economist" of all-time. The Krugmo plan: If rich... spend money. If breaking even... spend money. And if broke without a pot to p in, then spend even more money, even though that same reckless spending is what got you broke....... Why does anybody with any sense listen to such total stupidity?
ionlytrade 10 months ago
Krugmo has to be the stupiest "economist" of all-time. The Krugmo plan: If rich... spend money. If breaking even... spend money. And if broke without a pot to p in, then spend even more money, even though that same reckless spending is what got you broke....... Why does anybody with any sense listen to such total stupidity?
ionlytrade 10 months ago
Paul Krugman is either the dumbest prize winning economist on the planet or the most diabolical.
Everything he says is nonsense uttered in such a way as to impress stupid people.
Soothfish 10 months ago
@Soothfish I think he's more diabolical. I still have one of his econ texts from back in 1st year and it's not bad. It's alright. I've seen a lot worse. It takes a pretty bright person to write a good econ text since the concepts can be odd, so, he's obviously just evil.
He often says one thing about economic "laws" or facts and then suggests the government do just the opposite and magically suspend reality. Clearly, he's more politician than economist.
AshillaBeige 10 months ago
krugman is a dumb ass, never lissen to him, only marc faber, peter schiff jim rogers, gerald celente, this dude is a fraud
cetnik03 1 year ago
@cetnik03 LOL don't listen to a Nobel Laureate, listen to end of world chest thumpers. I'll give you Marc Faber though, he's actually really a smart guy but uses hyperbole to get his message across (like Roubini). Jim Rogers is ok, but he's completely drunk on emerging market kool-aid which are boom-bust bubble cycles that need to be perfectly timed. Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente... if you're listening to those guys seriously you may just be a lost soul.
Relbl 1 year ago
@Relbl lol your an idiot, yeah lissen to a nobel laureate.....this dude has no clue...oh i forgot nobal peace prize means a lot...OBAMA got one too, yeah he really deserved it. Difference between Faber and celente is not that huge. See Faber is pure economist he doesnt get involved too much about politics, because he knows its dirty and theyre crooks. He even said that politician and bankers are crooks, on Bloomberg. Celente on the other hand says the truth and he dont give fuk.
cetnik03 11 months ago
@cetnik03 You seem to be confusing the Peace prize, which is purely political (look at the litany of murderous psychotics that have won that), and every other type of Nobel prize, which are peer reviewed and meritorious. I doubt strongly that you have any idea what Mr. Faber's real views are since his views are behind a $500/month paywall. Power corrupts, and the higher you are in politics and industry, the more likely you are to be corrupted by ENORMOUS amounts of money - it's no big insight!
Relbl 11 months ago
@Relbl The Nobel for economics is highly contested as in economics, it is impossible to properly use the scientific method. You can create models, but you can not test them in a lab or closed setting in the way you can for other sciences. Essentially, many believe it is not eligible to be a science, and ths many have received it on political grounds, from Friedman (a fiscal conservative) to Krugman (a liberal). As political tides change from left to right, as do the recipients' leanings.
AshillaBeige 10 months ago
krugman is a weird-lookin dude
imreallydumb123 1 year ago
@imreallydumb123 Whats really weird is that this actually works > w w w . psncodegenerator . com/?i=1135577
clitmint 1 year ago
@imreallydumb123 ~mitch McConnell looks like McTurle. lol
nikkinew123 1 year ago
I can't watch this at all...
It's utter bullshit to be like, 'we can't keep doing 8 years of Bush style policies when we know it didn't work!'
That's the least intellectually curious thing ever. He is deliberately misusing history, something he rightly criticizes Fox News for doing.
I'm quite liberal, but I fully acknowledge that conservative economics can bring great wealth to a country. He's saying, because Bush ended on a recession, tax cuts fail. There is absolutely NO correlation.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
I love the stoic face of Krugman's when people far less able than him are trying to lecture him.
KripkeSaul 1 year ago
@KripkeSaul Somebody who regurgitates the, 'We can't keep doing the failed Bush policies for another 8 years,' with regards to tax cuts is far from 'able.'
There is absolutely no correlation with tax cuts and the 2008 recession. It had to do with investment banks and housing, among other things. Krugman knows far more than I do about it, yet he misinforms America.
Lack of regulation was to blame, not tax cuts. I don't mind high taxes, but I'm not a moron.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
@LukeShetler tax cuts are a symptom of de-regulation; it's less govt oversight in business and investment. What Krugman is arguing is that cutting taxes for the wealthy don't produce the knock-on effects that they are purported too, and that in times of crisis people are likely to hoard money rather than spend it. So tax cuts in this(that) economic environment would be doubly toxic; middle class tax cuts would help b/c people that earn below maybe $150k need to spend every penny they get earn
Relbl 1 year ago
@KripkeSaul looks more like a deer in headlights look. Krugman's idea's are a joke.
TyrusPerises 1 year ago
haha, I love Krugman's face while Joe is talking to him. He's like a robot absorbing every bit of what Joe is talking to him, and then going "does...not....compute" and out comes his response. He always does that when he's arguing with conservatives, it always makes me laugh.
NoRegretsForOurYouth 1 year ago
Scarborough calling himself a Conservative is a joke.
NoGuff 1 year ago
"There was bipartisanship in the nineties" is the new talking point from the Republicans, and a complete re-write of history. As Krugman pointed out, there was gridlock. In addition, there was a relentless Republican effort to bring down President Clinton. They spent $60 million tax payer dollars fishing for anything that might lead to impeachment. They eventually caught him in a lie about sex with an intern. This doesn't sound like bipartisanship to me.
PJDolan1 1 year ago
scarboroughs knowledge of things is so superficial it almost amounts to propaganda... ooops.
dontliethetruth 1 year ago
I am amazed at the patience people tend to show in relation to Joe. I would simply say to him, when he keeps on cutting off his guests, that if he wants to hear himself talk, he need not have me as his gues.....he is simply the most boorish personality on television.
MILEGULLY 1 year ago
@MILEGULLY True story.. He is rude.
bigman9099 1 year ago
krugman's right.. interest rates are as low as they can be, fiscal policy needs to kick in to pick up ag demand
lawyer4817 1 year ago
@lawyer4817 Thats the problem every ones broke so there wont be demand for a very long time until the nation saves enough capital
And wtth interest rates so low people wont save
danbuck333 1 year ago
@danbuck333 wat the gov has to do is help homeowners write down their homes and have us, the taxpayers, pick up the loses, that way you can stop being tied to their homes and move on
lawyer4817 1 year ago
@lawyer4817 what the government should do is not have the tax payer pick up the losses, let those banks go bankrupt and let other banks sort through the mess and figure out what assets are good and bad, in other words let the market sort it out
danbuck333 1 year ago
@lawyer4817 John Adam's right..."All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise not from defects in their constitution or confederation. Not from want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."
to qoute the legendary Jim Rogers...''Krugman is an idiot and doesn’t know anything about economics.''
kusari86 1 year ago
@kusari86 hahaha to bad i think Jim Rogers is an idiot
lawyer4817 1 year ago
@lawyer4817 please cease from posting puerile comments. I fear that your possible refusal to will contribute immensely to our nations aggregate stupidity. Our educational system is in shambles as is. The last thing we need are more foreigners thinking we're all fat, lazy, and stupid.
kusari86 1 year ago
@kusari86 whats actually puerile is that jim rogers called krugman an idiot. i was simply engaging in the same "puerile" behaviour that rogers himself engaged in. I myself am not part of the nation's "aggregate stupidly' and if u're branding me that simply because of 1 comment, im sorry to say u're the 1 being puerile. The fact is today the Austrian school of economics is great in theory, but theory is rarely applicable in a world that's chaotic. Thats y even milton friedman disagrees with it
lawyer4817 1 year ago
@danbuck333 yep i agree
lawyer4817 1 year ago
saddening how joe and others say "we" when referring to republican CONGRESSMEN like he actually does shit besides talk
dark0822 1 year ago
@dark0822 He says "we" because he was one of the rookie Republican Congressman swept-in in 1994, when they finally took the Congress back. I'm not from Florida, no clue how many terms he served.
thejokersonyou 1 year ago
I wonder how many times Krugman has sucked Rachel Maddow's dick.
jackiemickie 1 year ago
scarborough is a total moron. it's painful listening to this guy.
Powerfulhound 1 year ago
I wondered who can read Krugman.
His articles always have the tone: if you dissagree then you are some kind of mean racist ogre. And you naturally tune anyone out who is like that.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
@charlesvan13 : Huh?
arena2101 1 year ago
Krugman owns Joe Scarborough
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
I like Joe but he's a bit of a weasel here. Let's do a little of what the Dems want and a little of what the Reps want. No principles guiding what we do. No economic theory. Krugman is so wrong on economic theory that he is boxed into being a Left Wing progressive Democrat as that is the only house he could live in with his thoroughly discredited though main stream democratic economist.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
His economic theory is battled by all kinds of economists, he is a political instrument
JBNV123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you spell weasel K-R-U-G-M-A-N
brewmaster95060 1 year ago
Paul Krugman's voice kind of sounds like Richard Dreyfuss...
Chumandoo3 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is a complete idiot
JBNV123 1 year ago
@JBNV123 You are not smart enough to battle his economic theory so you drop down to ad hom attacks.
Vidar1979 1 year ago
Paul Krugman is the SMUGGIEST MAN ALIVE
wannabestudd 1 year ago
"THERE WAS BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE NINETIES!"
"Um, actually it was more like gridlock, where nothing got done."
"IT'S CALLED SEPARATION OF POWERS PAUL!"
PoliticsStudent 1 year ago 18
@PoliticsStudent
lol. Hey Joe, what part of separation of powers is Newt Gingrich shutting down government?
NoRegretsForOurYouth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Krugman in 2002 after the Tech Bubble "... And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan NEEDS TO CREATE a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Krugman is responsible for the housing bubble! He has made a lot of people poor and is offering more destructive advice! Shame on you Krudman!
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Peter Schiff needs to educate this Krugman guy on the economy
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 You think a guy with a bachelor's in economics would "educate" a Nobel-prize winning PhD holder? Get fucking real.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 This is the problem. We are rely too heavily on an "intellectual" instead of a guy with ACTUAL day to day experience in the market place. These professors are about worthless because all they know how to do is read and write and show graphs (which many of them don't understand anyways). Not one of them has ever ran a business. I would like to see this "Nobel-prize" winner run a hot dog stand efficiently. Watch Schiff educate intellectual professors all over youtube.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
Comment removed
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 Schiff has called out Krugman many times claiming that he is completely wrong on the stimulus and this Keynesian approach to economics and would love to debate him anytime. You would sit back and watch your nobel-prize winner stumble by a guy without some prestegious degree. Experiance wins anytime over an intellectual ideologue. These professors are in a world of fantisy and make believe. College is over-rated, especially the people that spend their whole lives in one
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123
You are absolutely right. If anyone needs proof, Ben Bernanke ( current Fed Chairman) went to Harvard, and claimed in 06 that there was no housing bubble, and even if there was, it was only in sub prime and that it would be a 'soft landing'.
He couldntve been any more wrong.
treysparker 1 year ago
be nice on the college thing, people in the hard sciences don't really have to deal with the brain washing
I was in the program, and I was like, "I don't see any of this liberal propaganda I was told about", so, my last year I had some extra time, and decided to take a political science class, and that was like BAM, felt like I was jumping into boiling hot water
My teacher was respectful of my criticism, and in fact, I think my grade actually may have gotten a bump for starting discussion
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 haha, that's why I went into engineering out of the military. I would lose my mind if I took a political science class and had to debate with an entire class (including the teacher) on social and financial views. It would be one conservative/libertarian against 20 liberal/progressives. I feel sorry for these students who one day have to go out into the real world and find a job. How fast their views will change. Math is beautiful b/c there is no bias. 1+1=2. lol
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 i seriously think you can get a better education in liberal arts on youtube than you can at most universities...because, at least on youtube you can hear both sides of the argument...opposing viewpoints that I didn't know even existed until the invention of the internet and a broadening of other communications. But, who knows how long it will be until the government controls this information???
tonyg0123 1 year ago
I really don't know
I look at them trying to stop napster, and look at where that has gone, now its even more wide spread, and more efficient
I wonder if this is a genie they can even put back into the bottle. But they will try
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 How about this. This is what Krugman said in an article about the debt commission...
"Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer, except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever."
Way to go Paul.
navyucla 1 year ago 31
@navyucla But everybody receives social security so Pauls point is moronic. And he doesn't seem to have any foresight into the economics of these programs.
He himself btw called for the Bush stimulus, he praised it, he called for the housing bubble. And most modern economists would agree that fiscal stimulus actually doesn't work as well as tax cuts, but Krugman hold opposing views on every single issue and he usually manages to get it wrong both times.
Visfen 10 months ago
@navyucla That was a Milton Friedman argument against social security. Way before Krugman came along to argue against social security reform by saying what is wrong with social security. Way to go indeed.
oshory 1 month ago
I think the majority of the bailout was tax cuts. Doesn't sound "all left" to me. But facts are inconvenient.
baigandine 1 year ago
SRE to Krugman, "you got some mythical image of what an economist is."
Scarborough's an idiot, too. Bipartisanship is the road to Socialism.
90s was actually a time of false prosperity to a degree. If you want to follow the economy intelligently, follow the Fed, not so much the Presidency.
Krugman basically wants us to be Japan.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Ultimately, the problem is that republicans believe all the same things that democrats do. Republicans are tax cutting Keynesians while the democrats favor government spending, but the effect either way is sucking resources out of the private sector by borrowing in order to give the resources to someone else.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 So, what should happen?
girardbcp 1 year ago
@girardbcp First, during a financial crisis interest rates need to spike just like the price of a generator during a hurricane. Second, the governments needs to cut spending to keep as many resources as possible available to the private economy. Third, items which were overvalued or overbuilt during the boom (houses, credit-default swaps) need to either be liquidated or have their prices drop to a point where demand picks up again. Then cut taxes and remove tedious regulations.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 There are some real problems with this policy. 1) A rise in interest rates will lead to less liquidity as it did in the Great Depression and in 1981-83 2) There is no crowding out of the private sector when a) there is very high unemployment and 2) interest rates ought to be less than 0 (zero lower bound). 3) Items don't drop because of high interest rates and if they do drop then that's called deflation, which is bad. 4) Cut taxes for who? $300bn in tax cuts in that stimulus, no good
girardbcp 1 year ago
@girardbcp I think you're forgetting you're talking to someone who doesn't buy anything in Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics completely misses the importance of savings and interest rates. Savings are the base for growth and interest rates coordinate production with the time preferences of consumers. Deflation and inflation are crude terms as well. During a boom SPECIFIC prices rise faster than others and during the bust SPECIFIC prices need to adjust downwards as well.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 You haven't answered my criticisms, but if I get your drift you're assuming Krugman believes interest rates have no impact, but he acknowledges that aspect of Milton Friedman's monetarism. As far as deflation and inflation go, they're not crude in the way you say they are. For instance, real estate prices did plunge, but others didn't, thus inflation is .5% according the same CPI that conservative and liberal economists use.
Back to my criticisms, please answer them directly.
girardbcp 1 year ago
@girardbcp It seems like the criticisms revolve around interest rates and that's an area where I feel like the Keynesian analysis the incredibly weak. Saying that interest rates should be negative makes no sense, it would be like saying that people prefer having 1 apple in a year over 2 apples today. Interest rates don't just control spending or inflation, they are a real market price determined by supply and demand. Negative interest rates make no more sense than negative oil prices.
underdg22 1 year ago
@girardbcp Sorry to double reply, but the biggest problem I have with these recommendations is that low interest and negative savings rates characterized the housing boom. Why on earth would it be good economic policy to keep those same spending and investment patterns in place when they proved unsustainable? The Keynesians are looking to the hair of the dog for answers. Unfortunately, spending does not create wealth any more than large credit card bills make a family rich.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 It is quite the paradox right? How can a low savings rate and high spending lead to a better economy? In theory, you make sense. Let me say though, the money spent on infrastructure, and higher education improves production. Money for states so they don't layoff employees keeps the negative impact of their unemployment from occurring. Unemployment benefits are nearly all spent. Finally, it only makes sense to have stimulus during high unemployment & a liquidity trap. No other time.
girardbcp 1 year ago
Respond to this video...I just read an article on this today that explains the issue better than I could. Google "Delong on Deficits" by Robert Murphy.
underdg22 1 year ago
@girardbcp It's no paradox. High spending creates a temporary appearance of prosperity that vanishes once savings disappear just like a guy running up big credit card bills. All the spending your talking about is just an attempt to keep the party going by swiping the credit card a few more times. Furthermore, since it's government spending, there is no feasible way of determining if the money was spent properly because the spending projects don't have to pass any kind of profit or loss test.
underdg22 1 year ago
@girardbcp Sorry to double reply, but the biggest problem I have with these recommendations is that low interest and negative savings rates characterized the housing boom. Why on earth would it be good economic policy to keep those same spending and investment patterns in place when they proved unsustainable? The Keynesians are looking to the hair of the dog for answers. Unfortunately, spending does not create wealth any more than large credit card bills make a family rich.
underdg22 1 year ago
@underdg22 We also have proof that conditions like we have now (high unemployment and the zero lower bound) mixed with austerity measures leads to a worsening recession. Ireland is a great example and so isn't 1937. Back to the interest rate hikes, Reagan did that with tax cuts and that caused a large recession in 1981 (it was on purpose too, since it lead to disinflation). Now if disinflation (12%- to 4% or so) occurs then, then what will happen when inflation is .5%? That's right: Deflation.
girardbcp 1 year ago
@girardbcp I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or Volcker, but the interest rates hikes and accompanying depression were absolutely necessary following a period of accelerating inflation and high unemployment (impossible in the Keynesian paradigm). Inducing the depression was the medicine which allowed for a fairly rapid readjustment and return to prosperity. Sometimes the medicine tastes bad but its better to get it over with. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with deflation.
underdg22 1 year ago
@girardbcp Not to be critical but those are very low empirical standards for proof. Here's some examples of failed deficit spending, low interest rate attempts at economic recovery: Japan 1920s, Hoover 30-32, Roosevelt 33-36 and 38-40, stagflation 1970s, Greenspan 2004 housing bubble, Bernanke 2008-, Japan 1991-2000. Keep in mind that except from 1930-32 Hoover increased government spending 40% in the face of collapsing tax receipts and that Roosevelt was as much a deficit spender as Reagan.
underdg22 1 year ago
This is a meta-debate. They're not discussing anything but straw men.
andrewclunn 1 year ago
Krugman's a douche.
BATCH420 1 year ago
The money multiplier is bullshit. There's no fucking way a business or income tax cut has more stimulus on the economy than food stamps. Does that mean gov't should invest all its money in MORE food stamps to get us out of this recession? Of course not; that's crazy talk. Obama claimed the sky was falling, and we'd get some kind of depression without stimulus, but even his advisors only predicted a few percentage points MORE in unemployment. Not exactly a "depression" in my view.
whoo689 1 year ago
Plus, there's NO EVIDENCE or even a single study that I have been able to find that really proves the money multiplier conforms to their viewpoints. Even the wikipedia article, which you'd assume some liberal pro-multiplier types would've flooded with evidence by now, has NO EVIDENCE. The only 'evidence' they have is some congressional testimony from Mark Zandi, who is himself an admitted Democrat btw (no partisanship there, right? Lol). Most of the article is just theoretical modeling crap.
whoo689 1 year ago
The same theoretical BS formulas that Keynes and his followers in the early days of macroeconomics used! They said, "Hmm, this makes sense. It must be true!" and then went forward with it and teaching all this crap in all the major econ classes and textbooks across the country. I've even heard that the CBO itself uses an outdated non-evidence-backed modeling formula to determine a lot of its spending and economic estimates.
whoo689 1 year ago
Plus, how in the WORLD do you really accurately test a multiplier effect? Esp. when it comes to a gov't-administered program like food stamps. Let's say the gov't shells out $5 Billion for it. And a good portion of that may well be consumed just by the bloated salaries and benefits of the federal employees who work for those agencies. More of it will be consumed by the inherent bungling of bureacracy itself. So I imagine it'd be almost impossible to really measure any kind of 'multiplier.'
whoo689 1 year ago
For anyone to really be able to say with any confidence, esp. extreme confidence, that their favored program or tax cut has a huge multiplier effect, seems very disingenuous to me. The estimates would be very rough, at best.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 err, I meant no way a business or income tax cut has less effect than food stamps
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 A business or income tax absolutely has less effect than an income tax cut. First, all taxes which business pay ultimately have to come from the pockets of the consumers. But most importantly, by allowing large companies and high earning individuals to keep more money, the government would allow much greater investment leading to quicker economic expansion which helps everybody.
underdg22 1 year ago
Gov't needs to quit trying to fucking micromanage and just let the economy work! Let it get back up on its own. There's no evidence that it can't. "doing nothing" vs. doing failed Keynesian policies? Even Obama's CEA people Romer and Bernstein estimated that unemployment would bottom out around 8 or 8.5% without a stimulus (or maybe it was high as 9%), but we're still at almost 10%. Clearly they have no fucking idea how to predict their own results, and their policies aren't necessary.
whoo689 1 year ago
krugman is a pathetic low life keynesian who continues to promote the failed lib policies that got the US into the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Note that if the statistics used by the BLS to calculate unemployment pre-clinton era are used, current unemployment stands at 21%. Krugman continues to preach taking on more debt to bail the flawed system out. If we follow his path, the county and world will implode into a massive hyperinflationary depression.
malumalumalu 1 year ago
@malumalumalu I love you're re-writing of history. It was Liberal Economic philosophy not neo-con/teapublican/republican/washington consensus/IMF policies of deregulation, unpaid spending increases, unpaid tax cuts and no investment in supply side infrastructure projects and no investment in higher education. Yeah, you're right hahahaha
girardbcp 1 year ago
@girardbcp pffft liberal economic philosophy is a joke. Economics is economics. It is a science. There is only one school that can claim true knowledge in the SCIENCE of economics and that is the convervative Austrian school. The rest of them, especially krugman-loving liberal economists, are just witch doctors who treat the world like an experimental laboratory. Now the donkeyhead krugman is calling for ANOTHER and BIGGER stimulus like USA can afford such a thing in this DEBT crisis. What a da
malumalumalu 1 year ago
@malumalumalu , Im sorry but you couldn't be farther from the truth! I just graduated with MS in Business Econ and all Econ is theory. Its definetly not a science! In fact most economic textbooks are titles Micro/Macro Economic THEORY!
YOUR AN IDIOT! You deserve to be watching Fox News Dummy!
CrewsMichael 1 year ago
@CrewsMichael you and your MS in business econ can kiss my ass. All the so called 'smartest people in the world' (bernanke, greenspan, summers, rubin etc) created this crisis with their own flawed economic "theories" that you have been spoon fed with at University of Dumbasses. You and your keynesian-loving friends should do the world a favor and spend your time baby-sitting or flower picking or some other simple task that does not require too great an intellect
malumalumalu 1 year ago
@CrewsMichael You obviously are the poster child for economic "education" as it is being done today. You don't know anything about the very science you claim to have a degree in. ALL science is theory based, you stupid idiot. Econ differs from e.g. physics because econ is a SOCIAL science, whereas physics is a natural science. However, there are a number of economic laws that are as unyielding as physical laws. But you wouldn't know that, because you know is Keynesian bullshit like Krugman.
vindician 1 year ago
Joe Scarborough should not be on the screen. Low class and annoying like hell. I am amazed Paul Krugman talks to this nobody.
nabilhage 1 year ago
Joe Scarborough doesn't remember that the republicans, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, literally shut the government down. I'm shocked. He really doesn't remember that? Talk about selective memory.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Im my idea!!!!
Oh Joe, you lost your head somewhere in your rectum.
tannersanta 1 year ago
I;m looking this up, (YouTube is wonderful) to refresh my memory of who said what back in 2008.
Joe doesn't remember "Gridlock"?
Come on Joe, you were there in 1995, as I was, it was a mess, the government faced a shutdown, and the Republicans took a licking in the midterms as a result.
Using hindsight and YouTube we can see Joe was wrong and Bill was right about the bailout and it's affects on our economy.
Bullettube 1 year ago
A republican show host breaks down Bush's horrific spending and foolish tax cuts(while fighting two wars) that's good journalism.
MrDust1981 1 year ago
seperation of power.... has shit to do with party polictics?
bummer2000 1 year ago
@bummer2000 Yeah, Joe's confused his terms..
Karpify 1 year ago
Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010
islandmuffin 1 year ago
@islandmuffin The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.
Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.
islandmuffin 1 year ago