Great quote at 19:45. A priori at least (and backed up by my anecdotal experience) this leads to a situation where people are in professional roles that they're not smart enough to execute well. There needs to be a second stream of education / professional credentialing that is test driven and based on publicly available data (the GED is a good example). If someone has the intelligence and drive to pass the tests, that's what should count. Universities (especially top tier) are primarily an arbitrary barrier to the upper middle class that the wealthy throw money and time at to get their kids of often mediocre intelligence through.
Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error. - Andrew Jackson More people need to admit when they are wrong. Like Krugman said no one is infallible.
***** they can and do buy diapers for their babies DESPITE constant economic warfare by the US. By any rational measure Valenzuela is a success story you stupid dumbfuck.
I can accept progressive income tax, up to 50% ( which is already approx. in place ) and to increase dividend tax to 25% ( which is also in place, for millionaires ) but the US corporate tax, has to come down. US Corporations pay 35% in tax, on profits. The highest rate, in the World.
I think the U.S. spending has to be changed and the policy, too before changing the tax rate on the wealthy. I thought the government just spend as they collect a tax. none of the wealthy people don't want their money to be taxed. Especially, when the government spends in a waste.
Paul Krugmans world of the 90ties would work, if there was a real decoupling of growth from fossil fuel consumption, and if we could have ever growing supply of energy to use. What economists don't get is that exponential growth ever comes to en end. Either in the form of total collapse or a stagnant economie around 2100. Only fusion plants on a gigantic scale could put that trainwreck into the far future. But we could live in harmony with the earth if we got a mainly solar & wind based society that stops pure growth in numbers and consumption. Krugman does not see energy as the most existential thing. Energy is just another parameter or input to him, but nature does not work like that.
Sometimes, you hire a gardener and then they lift something on the way out. Some professors pay no income tax (if you gave then a 25% paycut, and no 25% taxes, would they know the difference) and offer no services I want except give brainwashed liberal students that are out to put me in a grave. nw = w -.25w = .75w all w came from taxes. w is set such that all deficits, revenues, are maxed out to the point of revolution.
soooo what exactly has Paul Krugman done? I don't mean just think about how things should be, what has he actually done in a business sense? Has he managed payroll for anybody? Has he managed a budget for some sort of enterprise? Or has he just sat at a "CUNY" school for 30 years and think up ideas about economics? You people who latch onto a man-child like Paul Krugman need to wake up, this guy has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about.
Count me a cultist as I have studied economist Hayek and Von Mises and I can tell you if you think Krugman makes sense you have absolutely no background in econ. I am neither right wing or left but to impress me you damn well better make sense. Krugman doesn't
This isn't necessarily true. Krugman gets a good bit right, but Democrats are not 100% following Krugman. He is a free trader, until he started with NYT he was skeptical of minimum wage increases (even after reading Dube, I am also. Modest, local minimum wages may not hurt employment, but a massive increase in the federal rate has and will). Regardless, there are things Krugman gets wrong also. He predicted spiraling deflation that never happened, his grounds for fiscal stimulus in the recession fell through when it was discovered that interest rates can go negative, and a lot of the benefits he predicted for NAFTA back before NYT weren't as strong as he predicted (though there were massive benefits in areas that he did not predict).
He is an expert in one particular area: international trade relationship, but he is not an expert in many others. Therefore, take his opinion with a ton of salt lol...
Okay, what's the difference between "free market Keynesian" and a Marxist? It's very hard for me to draw the line. This entire interview sounds like he wants to engage in a class war
Well you clearly have no idea what Marxism means then. Marxists want to replace capitalism, establish worker run enterprises and abolish private property. I don't know how you can listen to this and thinks he wants to replace capitalism and turn everything into a worker run enterprise.
Dave Hobbs lol so Marxists never talked about class war? You're talking about Marxists in Soviet Union. That is a very specific kind of Marxism. There have been Marxists outside of Soviet Union. And Marxism has never been about the "workers". Ask any former workers of Soviet Union what rights they had. Marxists say it's about the workers but that is a flat out lie. Marxism is state-run. And income tax of 70%? That is getting very close to state-run society. Sure, Krugman may not be a pure Marxist but he sure sounds like he was at least influenced by it.
TheCounterpointer Income tax above 70% existed in the United States during a time of huge economic expansion and was as high as 92% Are you saying the United States from 1945-1980 was a "state run society?" Whatever the hell that means. And yes, you just proved you know nothing about Marxism. You know there are different interpretations of Marx's work right? No Marxist wants to preserve capitalism, and Krugman doesn't want to do away with capitalism. He is basically just advocating new deal policies. Just because someone advocates for welfare state policies it does not mean they are a Marxist or influenced by Marx. At the very least Marxism is about state run or worker run enterprises (aka no private sector) and abolition of private property. You need to understand the difference between someone promoting social democracy and a Marxist.
Any coincidence that the debt has ballooned since Reagan dropped the tax rate on top earners dramatically? He literally transferred wealth from the average person to the rich. Sure the economy grew under Reagan, but when you look at it, it was all debt fueled growth.
Dave Hobbs Of course income tax above 70% existed in the United States. The reason why they rolled it back was because it didn't work at all. Marxists did strike Western nations, though unable to turn the countries into Soviet Union. You're saying the US was not Marxist, so there were no Marxists in the country. That doesn't make any sense. Abolition of private property? When one nationalizes an entire industry, e.g. healthcare, what happens to private property in the industry? After nationalizing healthcare, what's next? Housing? Food? Internet? At least pure Marxists were consistent in their principles: nationalize everything. So called "social democracists" don't even have consistent principle. They just nationalize whatever they fit their agenda. In this sense, pure Marxists were even fairer than "social democracists". Even in Soviet Union, there were private properties. You're flat out wrong if you think there were no private properties in Soviet. In your logic, because there were still some private properties, do you think Soviet Union was not Marxist? Reagan's tax reforms resulted in more tax revenues, as well as more percentage of revenue paid by top 10% income earners and top 20% income earners. If anything, Reagan's tax reforms proved that the previous 70% tax rates didn't work at all, since nobody in the right mind was paying that. Why suddenly mention Reagan? I don't agree with all the things Reagan did, but the tax reforms was not the cause of the rising national debt. Raising tax rates do not always equate to bigger revenue, and decreasing tax rates do not always result in smaller revenue. "He literally transferred wealth from the average person to the rich" I would need some evidence for this. I think you believe that economics is a "zero-sum" game, that one's gain is another's loss. It's not.
Very interesting conversation. I can listen to Paul for hours
Maybe now we see what didn't happen with Ebola and Obama.
Nobody ever gets credit for what doesn't happen.
People call him a communist, but he really isn't any more communist than Eisenhower.
4:03 LOL Krugman is being facetious!
In all seriousness, great interview. Krugman is smart.
Yeah facetious
Great quote at 19:45. A priori at least (and backed up by my anecdotal experience) this leads to a situation where people are in professional roles that they're not smart enough to execute well.
There needs to be a second stream of education / professional credentialing that is test driven and based on publicly available data (the GED is a good example). If someone has the intelligence and drive to pass the tests, that's what should count.
Universities (especially top tier) are primarily an arbitrary barrier to the upper middle class that the wealthy throw money and time at to get their kids of often mediocre intelligence through.
"and there's ebola" LOL that pretty much sums up the amount of knowledge the average American voter has.
Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error.
- Andrew Jackson
More people need to admit when they are wrong. Like Krugman said no one is infallible.
KRUGMAN LOOKS TO VENEZUELA FOR INSPIRATION
(BTW AREN'T THE VENEZUELANS HAVING FOOD RIOTS)
***** they can and do buy diapers for their babies DESPITE constant economic warfare by the US. By any rational measure Valenzuela is a success story you stupid dumbfuck.
You are an idiot; where does Krugman say that? Now Jeb! and Cruz! that is another story.
hungwilliam Venezuela a success story?
Awesome
he is not a liar he is just a lot smarter than you are
Hey KRUGTRON: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." -Cicero
Yeah, except preparation is just as moldable as opportunity.
Funny and smart
he's smart
Jaehoon Lee smart as a third grader
i know , wait till after the election , but , do you thinkhillary is all that well ?????
IT ALL SOUNDS SO GIGANTICALLY RIVEN DOWN , SO BOUGHT OFF & SO IMMENSELY OUTNUMBERED .
YOU JUST KNOW THAT THE SAME BRUSH OFF IS COMING TO ALL OF US....
I can accept progressive income tax, up to 50% ( which is already approx. in place )
and to increase dividend tax to 25% ( which is also in place, for millionaires )
but the US corporate tax, has to come down.
US Corporations pay 35% in tax, on profits. The highest rate, in the World.
I think the U.S. spending has to be changed and the policy, too before changing the tax rate on the wealthy. I thought the government just spend as they collect a tax. none of the wealthy people don't want their money to be taxed. Especially, when the government spends in a waste.
Paul Krugmans world of the 90ties would work, if there was a real decoupling of growth from fossil fuel consumption, and if we could have ever growing supply of energy to use. What economists don't get is that exponential growth ever comes to en end. Either in the form of total collapse or a stagnant economie around 2100. Only fusion plants on a gigantic scale could put that trainwreck into the far future. But we could live in harmony with the earth if we got a mainly solar & wind based society that stops pure growth in numbers and consumption. Krugman does not see energy as the most existential thing. Energy is just another parameter or input to him, but nature does not work like that.
Isn't stealing a crime?
pirucreek when someone steals from you do you get services in return?
Sometimes, you hire a gardener and then they lift something on the way out. Some professors pay no income tax (if you gave then a 25% paycut, and no 25% taxes, would they know the difference) and offer no services I want except give brainwashed liberal students that are out to put me in a grave.
nw = w -.25w = .75w
all w came from taxes. w is set such that all deficits, revenues, are maxed out to the point of revolution.
Well tax has never been about approving of everything it is spent on. Think of all the people who don't want their taxes used on war and weapons.
The money delusion. It seems it is possible to suspend disbelief in flying spaghetti monsters
soooo what exactly has Paul Krugman done?
I don't mean just think about how things should be, what has he actually done in a business sense?
Has he managed payroll for anybody?
Has he managed a budget for some sort of enterprise?
Or has he just sat at a "CUNY" school for 30 years and think up ideas about economics?
You people who latch onto a man-child like Paul Krugman need to wake up, this guy has absolutely no idea of what he is talking about.
What did Einstein know about physics. Did he ever fly a plane? Why do we bother to study him? Wake up!
Did he build anything? Did Einstein ever do ab experiment? Wake up!
In the 90's he said the Internet will change nothing!!!
Ignorants think academics sit in the couch and speculate.
He collapses the conservative worldview on a regular basis. To remain republican after hearing Paul's truth-telling you would have to be a cultist.
Count me a cultist as I have studied economist Hayek and Von Mises and I can tell you if you think Krugman makes sense you have absolutely no background in econ. I am neither right wing or left but to impress me you damn well better make sense. Krugman doesn't
garybsg
lolol Hayek and Von Mises. You are what you eat. That makes you a stupid piece of shit.
hungwilliam lmao 😂
This isn't necessarily true. Krugman gets a good bit right, but Democrats are not 100% following Krugman. He is a free trader, until he started with NYT he was skeptical of minimum wage increases (even after reading Dube, I am also. Modest, local minimum wages may not hurt employment, but a massive increase in the federal rate has and will). Regardless, there are things Krugman gets wrong also. He predicted spiraling deflation that never happened, his grounds for fiscal stimulus in the recession fell through when it was discovered that interest rates can go negative, and a lot of the benefits he predicted for NAFTA back before NYT weren't as strong as he predicted (though there were massive benefits in areas that he did not predict).
fosponomot Hayek's capital theory was strong, and Mises did excellent work with the economic calculation problem. They were not awful economists.
KRUGMANIZATION!!!!
people don't have the skills and employers don't want to invest in training development.
He is an expert in one particular area: international trade relationship, but he is not an expert in many others. Therefore, take his opinion with a ton of salt lol...
Okay, what's the difference between "free market Keynesian" and a Marxist? It's very hard for me to draw the line. This entire interview sounds like he wants to engage in a class war
Well you clearly have no idea what Marxism means then. Marxists want to replace capitalism, establish worker run enterprises and abolish private property. I don't know how you can listen to this and thinks he wants to replace capitalism and turn everything into a worker run enterprise.
Dave Hobbs lol so Marxists never talked about class war? You're talking about Marxists in Soviet Union. That is a very specific kind of Marxism. There have been Marxists outside of Soviet Union. And Marxism has never been about the "workers". Ask any former workers of Soviet Union what rights they had. Marxists say it's about the workers but that is a flat out lie. Marxism is state-run. And income tax of 70%? That is getting very close to state-run society. Sure, Krugman may not be a pure Marxist but he sure sounds like he was at least influenced by it.
TheCounterpointer Income tax above 70% existed in the United States during a time of huge economic expansion and was as high as 92% Are you saying the United States from 1945-1980 was a "state run society?" Whatever the hell that means.
And yes, you just proved you know nothing about Marxism. You know there are different interpretations of Marx's work right? No Marxist wants to preserve capitalism, and Krugman doesn't want to do away with capitalism. He is basically just advocating new deal policies. Just because someone advocates for welfare state policies it does not mean they are a Marxist or influenced by Marx. At the very least Marxism is about state run or worker run enterprises (aka no private sector) and abolition of private property. You need to understand the difference between someone promoting social democracy and a Marxist.
Any coincidence that the debt has ballooned since Reagan dropped the tax rate on top earners dramatically? He literally transferred wealth from the average person to the rich. Sure the economy grew under Reagan, but when you look at it, it was all debt fueled growth.
Dave Hobbs Of course income tax above 70% existed in the United States. The reason why they rolled it back was because it didn't work at all. Marxists did strike Western nations, though unable to turn the countries into Soviet Union. You're saying the US was not Marxist, so there were no Marxists in the country. That doesn't make any sense.
Abolition of private property? When one nationalizes an entire industry, e.g. healthcare, what happens to private property in the industry? After nationalizing healthcare, what's next? Housing? Food? Internet? At least pure Marxists were consistent in their principles: nationalize everything. So called "social democracists" don't even have consistent principle. They just nationalize whatever they fit their agenda. In this sense, pure Marxists were even fairer than "social democracists".
Even in Soviet Union, there were private properties. You're flat out wrong if you think there were no private properties in Soviet. In your logic, because there were still some private properties, do you think Soviet Union was not Marxist?
Reagan's tax reforms resulted in more tax revenues, as well as more percentage of revenue paid by top 10% income earners and top 20% income earners. If anything, Reagan's tax reforms proved that the previous 70% tax rates didn't work at all, since nobody in the right mind was paying that. Why suddenly mention Reagan? I don't agree with all the things Reagan did, but the tax reforms was not the cause of the rising national debt. Raising tax rates do not always equate to bigger revenue, and decreasing tax rates do not always result in smaller revenue. "He literally transferred wealth from the average person to the rich" I would need some evidence for this. I think you believe that economics is a "zero-sum" game, that one's gain is another's loss. It's not.