Paul Krugman - Income Inequality and the Middle Class

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2007/10/30/Paul_Krugman_Future_of_the_Middle_Class

Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman discusses the history of the American "middle class," and argues that growing income inequality may threaten its existence.

-----

Paul Krugman discusses "Losing Our Way in the New Century: The Future of the Middle Class?"

Krugman brings a sharp political, social and economic analysis of what happened to the middle class of the 20th century and where America's social policy is headed in the future. Krugman is the most widely read economist of our time and was named Columnist of the Year by Editor and Publisher magazine. - The Commonwealth Club

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• economy
• income
• tax
• cuts
• taxation
• policy
• progressive
• brackets
• reagan
• bush
• trickle
• down
• thatcher
• business
• workers
• unions
• nobel
• prize
• winner
• wins
• economics
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[H1TMANactual]

@inquisitive871 Nope. Post war (WWII I assume) govt was cut by 40%, largest govt cut in nominal terms (adjusted for inflation). Budget was balanced. That's what created prosperity.

[H1TMANactual]

@inquisitive871 You have a weird definition of productive. If that's the case then govt should use deficit financing.to hire everyone and have them dig a hole and fill it back in. That's not very "productive" is it? Neither was spending during WWII when it was spent on making bombs. That didn't raise the standard of living. Your claim that WWII period was the most productive, is factually wrong.

[Endstation]

@H1TMANactual

The US government funded the development of the internet, computers, high quality transitors, most moderns medicine, the first systems for mass production (developed at places such as Springfield Armory), Nuclear Power etc. etc. Also, the government cut after World War 2 led to a drop in GDP. The the economy started to grow again. ANd it grew a lot faster than it did during the neoliberal decades. The same is true fpor the rest of the world. Read some economic history please.

[H1TMANactual]

@Onepretentiousdude The other way around moron, did YOU even read it? Economic policy didn't even develop until the early 20th century. Not to a "certain degree", laissez-faire" is what was practiced (according to your own website). "Their" supremacy was challenged? "Invisible hand' is "their"?? You have NO idea what you're talking about do you? And a central bank is SUPPOSED to provide credit you moron. Wow what a retard of epic proportions!!

[Onepretentiousdude]

@H1TMANactual

Did you even read the thing I talked about? . Lastly, Britain's government, a long-time constitutional monarchy, was just right for the situation. The government was flexible enough to support the new system and to a certain degree accepted Adam Smith's capitalistic "invisible hand." With the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, their supremacy was challenged.The government and the bank provided incredible backing to new ideas, which soon turned into new wealth.

[H1TMANactual]

@Onepretentiousdude Sure did. It lists "capitalism", "Adam Smith", "invisible hand" & "laissez-faire approach taken by govt" as the main causes. You do know what "laissez-faire" means, right retard? Utter #FAIL

Btw learn to read, I already stated TWICE that I am not an Austrian. It's NOT my problem that you're an economic illiterate & know only two schools. Try again.

[Onepretentiousdude]

@H1TMANactual

google british government industrial revolution and click on the second link. The British Government was one of the biggest causes of the revolution. Austrian economics is for edgy teens, not actual rational people. It's funny to see you have no defense though, poor kid :(

[H1TMANactual]

@Onepretentiousdude Wrong. Other than your retarded self, no one would say the govt brought about the industrial revolution. If anything the Monarchy restricted it. Read a book & try again.

[Onepretentiousdude]

@H1TMANactual

LOL. Dumbass. I never said mercantilism was a good economic system. Do you know your history? You know the Industrial Revolution took off in England because the government stepped in and helped speed it up right? Right? Oh wait, you don't. Go back to school kid.

[H1TMANactual]

@Onepretentiousdude Wrong again. If anything mercantilism was debunked during the industrial revolution. You have NO idea what you're talking about. Ironically take your own advice and open a book. Try again.

[Onepretentiousdude]

@H1TMANactual

No, wrong. The Industrial Revolution was GUIDED by the states that it took place in. ALL developed countries have used Keynesian policies to speed up industrialization and advancement. Nice try though, you need to open a history textbook. 

[H1TMANactual]

@Onepretentiousdude Yes I know. What else would Austrian be than Austrian school. Pretentious retard indeed.

And wrong. Markets are the reason why we are here. Try again.