not a problem of macroeconomics so all that roubini and stiglitz and nobel prize winning economist krugman says there are macroeconomic solutions are worthless but this is not a macroeconomic problem this is a micro economic problem micro economics concern to some things with things like price discovery and supply and demand issues curves meeting and what the price is that generated by these two things meeting in the open free market society and what you've just described and i completely agree with you is that the price discovery mechanism the micro economic plateau upon which this global economy sits is totally corrupted and this is the he this insidious. bit about why bore is that it's the macroeconomic grain of sand upon which is built civilization which is now dissolved thing because it is on anchored to anything but the fraudulent intent of those who are manipulating that price in ways that tilt the free market. pool table of wealth in ways that were all the balls of wealth go into the pockets of the few it suits my career nomics to start macroeconomics and as we see the pick up in t

and we'll be back. >>> up next, a debate on the economy, paul krugman and ken economy, paul krugman and rogoff join me.ut we try this d of fiber one cereal? joo auto h had rookie. okay. ♪ nutty clusters and almonds, ♪ ♪ almonds. ♪ fiber one is gonna make you smile. ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing new fiber one nutty clusters and almonds. with 43% daily value of fiber for you. crunchy nutty clusters and real almond slices for your taste buds. but what about your wrinkles? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair. its retinol formula visibly reduces wrinkles in one week. why wait if you don't have to. neutrogena®. starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news. >>> as the american economy continues to disappoint, an old debate has resurfaced. is there anything the government can do to get things moving again? or is it all in the hands of the private sector? to talk about this, i have two economists, paul krugman, columnist for "new york times," professor at pr

we are headed towards a big deflation, paul krugman for example. the fed should be more activist, more quantitative. other people think waiting minute, they set up a situation where they may be able, rising inflation in the future. what they are really debating is a, we don't think the purchasing power of the dollar will be stable to some of us think it will default, some of them think it will be rising depending on they think whether there will be a deflation or inflation. can you guarantee that in edison's analogy that when you buy a poker chip at the table for a dollar, that when you catch a backend you get 1 dollar for it? poker chip analogy. sadly i think the answer is no. you have to put your faith and trust in the federal reserve's creation of money, and the fractional reserve banking system. being able in a sense to get where people's desire to hold money is going to go, where the rate of production of output are going to go, and then the short run is, you are trying to do something that can be done. in the longer run, there's probably hope

going to happen you're brain dead i might add that many commentators out there and keen scenes like krugman are saying those negative interest rates are a sign that the market wants these governments to borrow more. well he's an idealogue that we're going to get it back to the top of the show he's totally trapped in his academic theory and no matter how much reality knocks that theory to the ground he's doubling down on his faulty assumptions if you were managing money he would have gone bankrupt decades ago and we would never have heard from paul krugman ever again but because he's an academic and he's a journalist is a writer and it can write all kinds of nonsense all day long without any accountability whatsoever people buy into this nonsense even though it's theoretically preposterous and it's on a practical basis completely meaningless but talking about micro economics we have the micro problem of banks' toure's who have become a global macro problem they're very interlinked they're little crimes here and they're adding up to a big macro global problem corrupt allegations major fraud i

up next, a debate on the economy, paul krugman and ken rogoff join me. day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. ♪ it has more of seven antioxidants to support cell health. that's one a day men's 50+ healthy advantage. to support cell health. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank. [ music plays, record skips ] hi, i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat! hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine gram

so paul krugman would start to wonder if government spending became fifty percent of g.d.p. reactions you want to pile on here oh sure i'll be happy to pile on and add france is a fifty percent right now so you know where's it going to go on your own line and france has an unemployment rate in spite of all other social burthen spite or are they nor do i as an unemployment rate of ten point one percent as a ten point zero anyway it's over ten percent or now all of europe is over is struggling out on employment and they have more government spending than we do someone somewhere is going and i have to laugh at that one comment that came from spain because i had someone e-mail me last week you know who am i supposed to believe you or a nobel prize winning economist way one is nobel prize for trade and a lot of the things that bergman has actually said on trade in the past historically agreed with kirkman wasn't one time a big proponent of free trade now the interesting thing right now is he's dropped that stance he wants the united states of you know let's i'm mistaken there he'

i'm not talking about krugman krugman-esque responses but some movement towards-- >> just stability.ility resolution, answers, making it look like congress is working together to resolve it. >> eliot: krugman keeps saying we need a stimulus to generate demand. catherine, you've talked about the multiplier effect. if localities were in position to spend the money that would generate a multiplier. plain what that would do and why that would be so important. >> when you talk about cutting back government spending, not only that the government spends less and there are fewer workers on the public payroll and these things, but the ripple effect. that's what you're referring to with this multiplier effect. let's say i'm just a teacher laid off. i don't have a paycheck coming in. i'm probably not going to buy a new car if i'm expecting to buy a new car let alone some smaller scale purchase. the businesses that i would have patronize don't have the same amount of orders. they in turn might layoff workers or freeze their hiring because they're a little bit concerned about what might go on nex

that does not constitute plugging krugman's book? someone wrote in on a tweet yesterday that they went back and found one of paul's diaries when he was 9-year-old and said i had my birthday a bunch of people were singing at me then they burned my birthday cake with candles. bastards. that's what he wrote. we gave him a celebration of his book and turned around and call you a zombie. >> coming up on "squawk box" -- >> he called me a zombie. >> we'll talk about jpmorgan. still ahead, "squawk" special we're calling searching for solutions avoiding the fiscal cliff. warren buffett, alan simpson and erskine bowles. live from sun valley. how about for the rest of your life? [ male announcer ] feeling like a shadow of your former self? c'mon, michael! get in the game! [ male announcer ] don't have the hops for hoops with your buddies? lost your appetite for romance? and your mood is on its way down. you might not just be getting older. you might have a treatable condition called low testosterone or low t. millions of men, forty-five or olde

krugman wrote, unless romney does reveal the truth about his investments, quote, we can only assume he is hiding something seriously damaging. >>> the arkansas "democrat gazette" reports democratic congressional candidate ken aden dropped out of his bid for a northwest arkansas seat after the newspaper found documents disproving aden's claims he was in special forces in the military. "the washington post" reports swing states are about to be slammed with a summertime blitz of new ads from conservative karl rove's super pac crossroads gps. the group bought $25 million worth of anti-obama ads that will air in nine battleground states starting today. >>> "the huffington post" reports the department of justice argued in a trial yesterday the voeder i.d. law in texas would disenfranchise 600,000 minority voters who don't have the approved form of identification. >>> on fox news, texas governor rick perry says his state rejects medicaid expansion in the health care reform. perry argued "to expand this program is not unlike adding 1,000 people to the titanic." on the mclaughlin group pat buch

. >> dick cheney and paul krugman. the odd couple. krugman is for borrow, borrow borrow. dick cheney said deficits don't matter, don't worry about it. >> this is not the only inversion we see. republicans are saying no, we can't cut government spending, ie, defense, because that will mean millions of job lost, imply that if you cut government spending, you lose jobs. the democrats are the ones saying we can't let taxes go up on the middle class at a time like this. which leads me to believe that movie you showed of the train, i think you should have put up the "titanic." it hits the iceberg and has that kind of crash. going into this election season, there's going to be no grand bargain now. hard to see one happen during a lame duck session. i think we will begin to see some of those sequestered cuts kick in. which will ironically make the budget deficit picture look a little better. >> that's true. they may hurt. maybe, peter, that would make it worth it, we take those sequester cuts. you let the bush tax cuts expire. it's painful, yes. but you do get more money. is it t

krugman -- growth doesn't come from the demand side. it comes from the supply side.e that. he thought that he knew the answers. what i told him and didn't like, that i thought he was a great international trade economist. and i used his textbook to teach international trade. but sometimes he spoke about what he didn't know. and this was one of those times. >> that's not uncommon for some nobel laureates. in fact, i think we have -- you're pretty eloquent in that, and i'm sure you've heard it before, but we're going to run that sound bite right now, professor. we have it ready. >> often nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled. and they have this mantel of authority whereby whatever they say, whether it's sensible or perhaps a bit utre, is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others. >> now, that -- i don't know whether that's insulting or not. i think i was even more insulting. i actually referred to it at the beginning of the interview, i preferred to professor krugman as --

. >> and paul krugman. >> who's coming on at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. i know. it's going to be an interesting interview. don't cry just yet. >> i'm not going to cry. i have priors. i don't want to do anything that gets me, you know -- >> back in jail? >> -- back in touch with my -- i'm worried. a few other -- really, what gets me is when you try -- you have the miles, you're ready to do the upgrade, seats available. those aren't upgradable seats. i've looked at the seats. they're all the same. they're not different. they're not fatter, slimmer, wider. how do you decide whether it's a -- have you tried that? >> i have this problem all the time. >> you do? all right. >> don't you? >> yeah. >> are you -- did you ever say -- how are you getting to paris? >> on a plane. >> yeah. on a slow boat. >> i have kids. >> do you get to upgrade? >> can you upgrade? >> do you upgrade the kids? >> that's a rough one. >> you live on the upper east side, do you. >> would you go in the front and leave kids in back with a nanny? >> no. the question is, do you upgrade the nannies? >

krugman. >> krugman on wednesday. a. >> no, i have a krugman question. >> i'm talking about something else. >> i'll cover that. >> friday we had judd gregg in a debate with congresswoman, i can't remember her name. anyway, what is it? ann chukowsky. one side says the spending cuts are completely unacceptable and the other side doesn't really like the tax side of things. we're nowhere near any type of agreement on that. >> here's what it's going to take. >> do you think the democrats will agree to 23% rates? they have to go back to the clinton -- they got to, even if we only do it for a month we got to get back to 40%. it's in their dna that it has to be done for fairness. >> if we want to solve the problem, two things have to happen. number one, this presidential campaign needs to be about substance and solutions. we need to make sure at least one of the debates is focused on the economy, jobs and fiscal responsibility, with a format that will facilitate a substance of exchange, and with a moderator or moderators who

paul krugman, for example. the fed should be more activist, more quantitative easing. other people think, well, now, wait a minute. if they set up a situation where there may beyou kw, asi atin fe. 'r really debating, hey, we don't think theurchasing power of the dollar's going to be stable. some of them thinkt's going to be falling, some of them think it's going to be rising depending on if they think there's gown to be la fln. ed's aogat when you buy a poker chip at the table for a dollar, that when you cash it back in, you get a dollar for it? he loved this poker chip analogy. that way i think the ansr is, no. yo have to put yr aus cron oonand the fractional reserve banking system. being able in a sense to get where people's -- guess where people's desire to hold money are going to go,nd in the [iibn is a u'rytooet atcat be done. in the longer run, there's probably hope for a stable current -- currency. but that may rely on different stdards or different prinples, orati pci r ntlafo a tautrity or for a move towards competing private monies with some totally differen

and krugman says bain didn't build businesses, it bought and sold them. sometimes its takeovers led to new hiring, often times they led to layoffs, wage cuts, lost benefits. none of this sounds like the kind of record that should reassure american workers looking for an economic savior. if things are not going with obama, romney, as rick santorum would say, is not the guy to make the difference. >> yeah, but in november -- first, if these are the jobs numbers in october, then there's a significant problem. it's not very early, it's about halfway through. i mean, conventions are literally around the corner. we have olympics and then we have the conventions, and then it's game on and it's sort of race to the finish. but you're right in that june numbers are not the same as october numbers. but to a person, i mean, when you look at the polls, this income inequality narrative, which is really where obama's trying to go with the bain attacks, this is not what voters think about when they go to the polls. they think about, do i feel richer? do i feel poorer? wy

country for energy. [ applause ] i had a debate with that very popular and renowned economist paul krugman who once -- who wants to have another $800 billion borrowed and another $800 billion stimulus. there's now $2.6 trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets. that's about 1.7, 1.8 trillion more than normal, and it's sitting there because there's no confidence or certainty about the future. the best way to have that money invested is to create expectations and confidence about the future through our tax code, through our energy and through our refinement of our entitlement programs. we can keep commitments to seniors, but we have to change how we do that, and that requires rigorous leadership, but it also requires honesty and an apolitical answer when the political questions are asked. and i would put forward to you the stance that we can't ever have a tax increase puts us in a place where we're going to guarantee there's going to be a tax increase in this country because it's called final repression, and when all of a sudden your 401(k) or your i.r.a. or your son-in-law or your daught

pretty much what krugman argues is what you believe in terms of economic policy? >> we certainly, i can't speak for -- you know --ment. >> we differ about -- we agree on what his analysis zero is of what happen and we agree on what we have to do to get us out of the depression. and the voters saying the issue is not getting out of this recession. it is the three decades of income decline, stagnation. >> right. >> and job loss and rising debt, you know, and actually corruption -- >> rose: decades of what now? >> three decades of stagnant incomes, job loss, you know, out of america, and rising, both public and private debt, all of that problem precedes the crash, and getting us out of this depression is not enough. we say you have got to go -- >> rose: for democrats and republicans can contribute to the circumstances of the crash? >> oh, come on. >> leading up to the crash -- >> with the exception -- >> let me be careful here with the exception of the 90s, you have one democratic president from 1980 to the crash which occurred in the 2000 -- >> it was during that ti

. >> covering the network panels with paul krugman and elizabeth warn and online discussions with michelle mullikin and sarah palin. watch them online at the c-span video library. >>> three women won the nobel peace prize last october for advocating women's rights and participating in peace building. a panel of women from across africa and the middle east gathered at the john f. kennedy forum at harvard's institute of politics in cambridge to talk about their own experiences. this discussion runs an hour and 35 minutes. >> -- the work of politics but also of women's rights, the women in public policy program, the city for public leadership pe so i want to say a particular thank you to each of those groups for being part of the cosponsors here. you enjoyed, i hope, the title "why women won the nobel peace prize "and i have the enormous privilege of being in the entourage of president johnson surly, as you know, one of the three winners and graduate of kennedy school. it was so interesting why they chose two as women as a relative of arab spring and i think it was because of this -- this sta

adding there did not appear to be hostile intent well you know it was just a few months ago that paul krugman the new york times remember he wrote that story saying that the government should preclude we're being attacked by aliens and and to trigger one or two or three trillion worth of government spending as a way to get the economy jumpstarted by adding another three or four trillion to the debt of the economy so is our factoring large in this twenty first century economic model there is. no way for the economic activity of planet earth to cover the debt as a matter of fact if you were to burn every last barrel of oil left it would not generate enough global output. and extrapolating through the commensurate taxes to pay the debt the debt is on payable even if we burn every barrel of oil in the world there's not enough activity to pay the debt so i thought maybe if i look out there and see up above us what other dangers with possible hot hostile intent could be there and lo and behold i found hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives tweet from the new york post c.e.o. jamie diamond

paul krugman's column. the point he makes, geoff, is the one you are making.ney he avoided paying in taxes because he only gave us one year of his tax returns. when ms. father put out 12 years of tax returns, his father said you know, i am putting out 12 years because, he said one year tells you nothing. >> that's what he said. one year could be a fluke. you need to see a whole stretch. right? obviously. >> can i ask another question? >> yeah. go ahead. >> he was in charge of the salt lake city olympics. what happened when the olympic committee send the kids to college and stuff when they extorted money from the olympic schmidt. >> you know, geoff, i don't know anything about it. my impression is that romney did a pretty good job of shaky -- my recall, fuzzy. right? is that the olympics there were pretty shaky. they brought romney in and i think he did a pretty good job, my impression is running the olympics in salt lake city. >> that's not an endorsement for president. ron calling from springfield, illinois. hey, ron. >> how are you doing? >> bill. yes. >> ve

between debt and unemployment will and why is it significant it's the correlation according to paul krugman and all the liquidity trap people should be pretty much zero before we get the zero bound and then after we get this down you should find some sort of correlation over the period from not in eighty two two thousand and twelve the correlation is about point ok so what is that right that man has got it well it says when dick goes up unemployment falls involves supposedly negative correlation ok goes up unemployment fall yeah because people are going up buying shoes you know and up goes the number of people employed to still shoes of people buying shoes that's the that's the basic theory that the trouble is according to croon that shouldn't be an issue except when we have a zero lower bound but since not from ninety ninety two to two thousand and twelve the correlation is a lot larger than monis point i know that's a really big correlation the biggest of these minus one ok so rather than zero that's my mind of sight is the point i was a long way from zero is what it's saying is that it d