paul krugman does not agree. yellen giving her first speech to wall street's, a key on slack her speech was the idea -- can we delineate between short and the long-term unemployed? i spoke with all krugman about the new "new." the nation has millions of long-term unemployed. >> the basic problem with the u.s. economy is there are not enough jobs, and then given that, employee or skid to be picky. who do i want to offer a job? preferably somebody who already has one or who lost a job recently. so the long-term unemployed get ruled out. there has been nothing like this since the 1930's. this is a completely new thing for almost everybody. people who remember this in america were children when i last saw it. >> the long-term unemployed really don't have a voice in washington? i amthere are many things a grave out, but that is certainly one of them. we can try to do things to make them more employable, but mostly what we need is more job so that employers have an incentive to go out of look for qualified people ignor

what's goingi igagging krugman? that's coming up next . >>> it's time for -- >> greg's super awesome fantastic evil genius of the universe award. >> where did this come from? >> today the award goes to "new york times" blogger and obama's favorite economist paul krugman who just got hired by the city university of new york to drop by once in a while. apparently the school will pay him 25 grand a month to show at modest events. this is genius. for is there no better way to point out the absurd extremes of inequality than getting paid eight times what other professors get? and no teaching. this is pure performance art. a stroke of masterful self perpetuating employment. like a fireman get paid for arson, a doctor spreading the flu so he can treat it. he creates the problem and arrives on the scene to provide the solution. he's like alcohol. one question, though, will he rage against his own contribution to inequality? a thing that he roundly conde condemns? and what are the professors getting by on 36 gs a year, not a

what's goingi igagging krugman?'s coming up next all stations come over to mission a for a final go. this is for real this time. step seven point two one two. verify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. as a police officer, i've helped many people in the last 23 years, but i needed help in quitting smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix varenline is pron to help peop quit smoking. chantix reduced the urge for me to smoke. it actually caught me by surprise. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking, or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after opping chantix. ifou notice any of these, stop chaix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental-health problems, which could get worse whe taking chantix. do

this is only a portion of what krugman makes. i like people to make a lot of money. >> with income equality and with ceo's of corporations when they make $25 million and the guys on the plan are making $25,000 a year it is infuriating, but what are you going to do? especially if paul krugman says if globalization is a myth we are all going to be fine. we should out source all jobs. we should leave -- give up on the manufacturing, and then it blew up in his face and he went went -- paul krugman said i was wrong. his act quote was globalization has a dark side, but i won't say no to a massive amount of money to talk about something i know nothing about. >> that was per accept tiff of you. thank you. >> thank you. >> joanne, you get paid in wine and more wine, and you seem happy or at least drunk. does it matter that krugman rails when cashing huge checks? the checks allow him to fight the fight more, right? >> he needs this money. what else is he gonna write about? this is a part of the bigger plan, people. this is a part of the pl

paul krugman has been writing about the book. it's called a tour deforce, a magnificent sweeping meditation that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics. now scholar, author of many books and widely read columnist and blogger paul krugman has changed a lot of thinking on politics and economics. welcome back. >> hi. >> inequality has been on the table for a long time. you have written extensively, others have too. what explains that this book has now become a phenomenon? >> a lot of what we know about inequality comes pr him. when you talk about the 1%, you're actually reflecting his prior work. but what he's really done now is he said even those of you who talk about the 1%, you don't really get what's going on. you're living in the past, you're living in the '80s. you think gordon gekko is the future. he's a self-made predator. we're talking about his son or daughter, we're talking about inherited wealth playing a role. he's telling us that we're on the road not just to a highly unequal societ

paul krugman is not only in the 1%, he is the .00 percent. melissa: how much of a paycheck is he collecting. studying income inequality, james, what do you think? >> teach something clearly rewarding in many ways. melissa: he is not teaching. that is what so beautiful. in email this, was a letter put out by the city university. they released the email for whatever reason. perhaps i'm premature or forward i wanted you to have no doubt we can provide a not just a platform for public interventions and stimulating economic community but also relatively comfortable perch because he is not expected to teach a really do anything. those are our taxpayer dollars at work. >> city university? melissa: city university of new york, will not be expected to teach or supervise students. >> i would say if he wasn't such a limousine liberal. was real old time hippie liberal like bill de blasio -- melissa: mayor has a mansion. >> you would think he would give the money to charity, right? melissa: let's challenge him to do that or to the government. >> we'll tel

krugman, the old blog versus the new blog. >> it was satire.tereo type of bat data analysis basically. when we start aid week and a half ago i told my team you are in the big leagues now. the internet is crazy sometimes. they are brushing things off really well. i'm there managing a staff of 20 people and someone is like kind. throwing apples at your kids or something. >> jon: heavy is the head that wears the crown silver. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> jon: that's why i wear the jester's crown it's made of felt, much lighter. [laughter] here is why i think your site is important. statistics and analysis are pundit-fuel. >> yeah. >> jon: and if your site. if the purpose of your site could be to refine to help vet the type of statistical analysis or the type of numbers that these pundits use as their fuel it's an incredibly valuable resource because part of the difficulty of analyzing things based on numbers is you don't really know the efficacy of many of these statistical studies, no. >> we're saying look, we're just trying to be right a little

so is paul krugman.litz, the aureate is writing about it, and he says we have got to do something about it, and that really gets the attention of people thinking about what to do with regulation. >> but they are so skeptical of wall street. the flipside is that it has an better for consumers? >> yes. it is nice to say that the laureate krugman and the laureate stiglitz are skeptical of the land of finance in the land of jamie dimon. arthur levitt takes a more balance you, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. there is benefit to hft. the framework is don't touch it, it will fix itself. that is a quiet that right now. >> fix itself how? >> you would arbitrate some profits. if there is a profit of e had an high-frequency trading, everybody will dive into it, and when they dive into it, that delta, that profit goes away, and some will say that have occurred in the last number of years. >> is it surprising, tom, that it took a book to really draw attention to high-frequency trading? >> and that is no

krugman is mean and nasty as he can be.listen to this conversation, remember two things, fiscal consolidation is when economists mean budget cuts and kanzianism. >> what do you think of paul krugman. >> he's taken the time to comment on may views. >> he would say there's incredible proof that austerity has failed. >> what i like to say is the following. that europe has undergone to fiscal consolidation number one. let's not waste the benefits of that, it's been successful. has been to adjustmentment periphery. this has been painful but it's beginning to bear fruit. we are looking at the banking and credit marking and we are repairing that. what's left? growth. how do you generate growth in the european union? growth is a long-term structural problem, therefore, you need structural measures. >> he would say the fiscal consolidation is the problem? >> fiscal son solization is almost ever. why waste the benefits of that? it's delivering benefits in terms of much lower interest rates. levels of interest rates. and this is hugel

is not just paul krugman.rugman and his peers and followers. >> there are many who agree with paul krugman and his analysis him of the keynesian -- analysis, the keynesian line. krugman is not the only keynesian. the surprising thing is how many people subscribe to these createts that protect -- doom and disaster for any countries that try to do fiscal stabilization. that's why you don't want to person out. >> let's turn the question inside out. who should we be paying more attention to question mark -- more attention to? attentionld pay more to people who don't just talk about economics. the biggest writing force -- >> you mean people who actually put money at risk. >> very few economists -- i don't think the economists i mentioned have any experience of running businesses or managing money. my point is a more profound one than that. to a large extent what is driving economic volatility is not economics. it is politics. it is international relations, domestic all addicts. politics.c there are those who see a

we'll talk about this roundtable now with abc's matthew dowd, alicia menendez, bill kristol, paul krugmante a review in the new york book of reviews. where you wrote a review on the book. piketty's been known to economists like you for a long time, now he's breaking out. >> lot of what we know about the 1% ultimately comes from piketty and his circle of associated economists. now, he's put it together. it's an amazing book. it really changes the way you think about a lot of things. that are going in the world right now. >> what a chord it struck, matthew dowd. >> it's a sign where the country is -- we have elizabeth warren who basically, she wrote the book before this book came out obviously, that talks about a lot of the same principles. i think it's a sign that actually washington, d.c., today, where we don't have a lot of leaders, actually leading a movement that's related to this on how to fix this problem. the question is, as we have all the facts, we know the situation and nobody as of yet has stepped up. >> one of the thing that paul krugman wrote, bill kristol, that it's catching

that was nobel laureate paul krugman.ently took a job at the city university of new york to work and to study center. we sat down with him and discussed the issue. >> there is zero evidence that the kind of extreme inequality that we have is good for economic growth. there is a lot of evidence that it's bad for economic growth. since inequality began soaring around 1980, the bottom half of america has been left behind. it has not been a rising tide that raised all boats. >> the political history of geopolitics, how does this get solved? >> american history is very encouraging. in america, we have leadership and people from the affluent classes themselves who said, this is too much. if we could have modern politicians speaking about the danger of high concentration of wealth as teddy roosevelt did in 1910, we would be a long way towards having a good solution to this. i believe that america has a tremendous capacity and ability to take a look and say, what are our ideals? we don't have to become this oligarchy that we are

now you had a bit of a rout with paul krugman over this very issue about two years ago krugman called me and dodging his money crowd at banking mistakes and you have quoted words for that view now krugman also said that banks create money what's the distinction between your conceptualizations of the monetary system and. well the main difference is that proven is that he's actually changed his tune a bit in. some place say by finally admitting in one paper that banks create create money by creating loans but he argues this is massively constrained and irrelevant and you can continue modeling the economy as if banks lend out the reserves they have and that's the conventional model all the money on model that people think happens right now that you know you go put one hundred dollars in the bank the bank and something in dollars lends out. and then that money gets deposited in other banks and they have gone to nine wounded eighty one and so on and you finally get ten thousand dollars being created from the underdog at the polls if that's what they teach students in your economics and tha

oceanography of krugman's being put in there and that's what they thought they heard another thing onthursday but it turns out to be. i'm not coming from the black box so this is what some of the bigger obstacles that pole also say thahat t t y recorded get thihihihihihihihio the missing flight in a pre seventies the data. he explained that malaysia is leading the investigation. but the country does not have the expertise to analyze the data from the black boxes fan fan. we now turn to the latest of elements of the major water scare that has affected already millions of people for a second day in north was sydney's northwest china's gansu province investigators the blame in the oil leak from a subsidiary of china national petroleum corporation course mter and diluteeeeeee the chemical line joke of the tap water dead residents use regularly originates from china's yellow river where water is transported to a water treatment plant for processing in filtering the water here is the first treatment plant and it is require to meet standards for industrial use. from herewowowf constitutional

referendum held on to the parliament obstacles to justify the reputation since that is going to krugman's including many telephones have fled in a phase of russia connecting the kinds of blocks the peninsula british celebrity chef nigella lawson has been prevented from boarding the u s bound flights an hour re apply for these appalling stumbled toward compassion in a recent court case. the fifty four year old was due to catch flights from london's heathrow airport to the side's innings last sunday but was time to lay off checking in on costs and security according to british media the rejection could jeopardize the recent entrants into the american tv market which is carly and jace on the cocaine need to tell and show it to taste wilson is reported to have registered with the u s officials prior to flying acknowledging she had not been to tangle convicted of taking an illegal narcotics she has now been invited to apply for a visa which the us embassy in london says will be handled pretending and expeditiously. it's expected olsen will have to um to get it all just assessment to pray she's

his situation was with a guy named krugman, bernanke, michael woodford. i don't know anyone who had a trial by fire like you did against those three heavyweight. how do you define stagnation and slot? >> the question up until now has -- this mightsing drag on for longer. indeed it may. that is a lot of possibility. >> you studied with michael woodward when heated interest no one reads it but everyone loves it. as any modern economics and woodford's book or krugman's book? are we on original territory? >> do you mean the current situation we are facing now? >> is it a textbook meeting the fed has today or are they on original ground? >> if we find ourselves in the situation for much longer it might pose challenges we did not anticipate in the book of .oodford in 2003 we have some answers during that time with japan. there were certainly solutions people provided at that time. perhaps it is time to take a closer look at those. >> if we dig into the data ahead of the fed, we might get a sense for what they are going to say. i will show two charts. gary lange

. >> paul krugman discussing current u.s. economic conditions with tom keene. the congressional budget office, congress's non-budget scorekeeper, has reviewed the obama 2015 budget and the results are in. yang yang is in washington with the details. no major surprises in this latest cbo scorecard. budget request's would boost tax revenues and in turn cut deficits. if enacted, taxes over the next decade would increase by nearly $1.4 trillion and deficits would be cut a little over one dollar trillion. that is -- over $1 trillion. when you look at the baseline and the residents plan side-by-side, you see the deficit as a percentage of gdp would actually be higher over a three-your period under the obama budget and then lower for years 2017 to 2024, staying close to 3% compared to the baseline 4%. so the president's plan has that going for it. it cuts the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years but it would only keep with current deficit trends. >> the white house came out with its own projections when it was released last month. how does that stack up with the cbo?

in nation, paul krugman talks income inequality and jobs.till something left over for a list of things that makes him very angry. in company, earnings-palooza. the good, the bad and the ugly of earnings season. turning a penniless nonprofit in s

and urges 80% tax on those at $500 million or and paul krugman said that the conservatives are terrifiedthe response is name calling, and claiming that he is a marxist, and so is anybody who considers equality and wealth as an important subject of you had the cannonization -- canonization of two popes in rome yesterday, and then to have the inequality that has given the conservatives pause about him, which is intriguing. >> right. for the post popularity is rather than focusing entirely on the social issues e which were animated, but looking at what animates people around the world. are they able to make the needs meet and address needs by income, and in particular, he argues that the political wealth gap is harmful to everybody, and some are debating how much of it is happening, and it is the what the are the effects of it happening? and it is a a legitimate view. but one thing that author does not do is that for much of the world outside of europe and united states, there has been massive wealth increase and also massive wealth inequality meaning that in china, a few people at the top

impacts are discussed by an all-star list of thinkers including president obama, senator warren, paul krugmanthe show jared bernstein and david k. johnston also the book's editor and pulitzer prize-winning writer. i first heard about this book through a serialized essay in the boston review which was titled inequality kills which gripped me. i mean, once you read that, once you see that headline, you have to read all the way through. does inequality lead to a shorter life for some of us? >> yes. it's very clear that in countries where we have less inequality, life spans are improo i improving at a much better rate than the united states. the university of washington today, i attended a lecture about this very point by the author of that chapter. inequality kills in youth, every day in america, 47 babies die who would be alive if we had the infant mortality of sweden and norway. and by the way, if we had the infant mortality of cuba, 15 babies a day would not die in the united states. that's how bad inequality is in this country. >> that is unbelievable. and david, there's a really compelling

. >>> it's been called perhaps the most important book of the decade by economist paul krugman. the economist magazine is live blogging their reading of it. the national review freaked out, calling it the left's dearest fantasies confirmed, begging in another review for someone, anyone to counter it by defending economic freedom. and msnbc's krystal ball said i'm obsessed. we have to talk about it on that show. >> how did you get that quote? >> so what is this book that has everyone riled up? it is this. it is called "capital in the 21st century." here it is right here. in it piketty compiles data for the last 200 years and comes to a stark conclusion that without dramatic political action, income inequality is here to stay. joining us now is susan ox, a senior fellow at the aspen institute, to help us understand the craze around this book and what i've been saying is it really fundamentally changes the way that we view our economy and the way that income inequality is growing and what it will look like in the future. >> that's exactly right. and this book is like the harry pott

and that they have to say, well, we have to live with this even though, you know, people like paul krugman say we're still fighting over the new deal. >> well, that moment may be coming. there's something that say democrats are going to -- they may not be confident of actually gaining any seats, but they're going to feel good about themselves in a way they haven't before. >> you look at the ways -- the president, they're talking about the waves of acceptance and what it's going to take for the republicans to get with the program. there are waves of fights over there as well. when this started out, of course, it was a capitalist program. how do we work with the private insurance market, something many republicans have talked about. i was looking back at some of your coverage from then. 2009 when this debate was active, and you wrote biparti n bipartisanship is a fine sentiment and an appealing tactic, but where health care is concerned, it was never a great idea. that was true then when it came to putting together the votes to get this bill through. seems to be true today still. >> yeah. th

so i don't understand what he's saying, krugman.hat saying that there's not -- just to imply that the nasty business owners and the republicans just aren't hiring people because they want to keep them down, basically? >> yes. that's pretty much part of the argument. but he does cite -- he cites a stud from from m.i.t. -- >> de facto, there's a skills gap. you know there's companies that would please, come and hire us. and we they'd engineers. we need visas. we need immigration. >> his argument is if there really was such a skills gap, you'd see higher pay for some of those jobs. >> there still is. they're offering great -- phil lebeau has been in a factory talking about $80,000 a year they will pay. >> and he argues for better or worse than companies have talked about the skills gap over and over again. and yet in truth, the idea that there are remaining jobs out there has always been the case. he says it's the lowest it's ever been. just what it is. this next story's amazing. >>> coming up today, autism awareness day. up next, we'r

paul krugman notes a need for immediate stimulus. forget drones any tools who wear cool glasses.. good morning, everyone. this is "bloomberg surveillance." we're live from our world headquarters. i am tom. joining me adam johnson. olivia sterns event for scarlet fu this morning. very important, incredibly busy day. let's get right to the brave. >> the brief is brief because overnight we learn that japan's consumer confidence joined to drops to the lowest level. that is your only economic number overnight, but that is plenty inave america. 9:45, homework consumer comfort index, 1

our larry summers and paul krugman write that now is not the time for fiscal consolidation in the united >> the u.s. needs both sides. in the long term, the u.s. needs credible fiscal consolidation policy. u.s.e short term, the needs investments to pick up. we should start with the private sector because it is sitting on a pile of money. if you look at the u.s. economy, it is not too bad for the projections. this is a big issue. housing still continues to recover which is good but you are looking for the supply side to wake up. >> thank you so much. great to see you. >> thank you for joining us. >> he is the deputy managing director of the international money fund. >> we will be back to talk with barry sternlick. >> we will talk scandal and the l.a. clippers in los angeles. ♪ >> welcome back. controversycourt may have the l.a. clippers in some hot water. allegedly, team honored donald sterling made some racist comments in a taped conversation to his girlfriend. it is not confirmed that it was him. just yesterday, the team silently protested by wearing their warm-up jerseys inside out. th

i had the experience last year of reading charles murray's new book right after reading paul krugman's. they start in the same way, pure nostalgia for the 1960's, and almost in the same terms. and they are right. those are years we should miss. those are -- there is a lot about them to miss. but our policy has been geared around how to bring them back as opposed to how do we deal with today. both parties are intellectually exhausted at the same time in a way that is very bad for the country. >> the government was big. big labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the same time. that's true, but it doesn't mean we could do it today. >> so what is the future? the 60's were pretty good to me. i know you guys don't remember it. >> we weren't born then. >> that's why i enjoyed them. [laughter] >> one way to think about that is that an important difference between the two parties now is that democrats tend to think about the future in terms of large institutions. republicans, when they think about it at all, which is not enough, tend to think about it in more decentralized te

i had the interesting experience last year reading charles murray's new book after reading paul krugman's conscious of a liberal. the book start exactly the same way with an introduction that is pure nostalgia for the 1960s and almost in the same terms and they are right. those were years that we should miss. there's a lot about them to miss that our politics is far too oriented around how can we bring that back rather than thinking about what does the world look like now and how can we make the most of america strings today? i think of parties or failing that. that's not just a conservative problem. both parties are intellectually exhausted and at the same time in a way that's very bad for the country. >> there is 50s the salsa. >> the government was big. if labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the same time. that doesn't mean we can do it today. >> so what is the future? the 60s were pretty good to me. [laughter] i know you guys don't remember it. you guys are are busy and nothing you call the internet. you say we are not looking back. >> technically we weren't look

experience last year of reading charles murray's new book right after reading paul krugman's. they start in the same way. they have an introduction that is pure nostalgia for the early 1960's. they are right, those were years that we should miss. politics is far too oriented around how can we bring that back rather than thinking about what is the world look like now and how can we make the most of american strength today. both parties are failing now. that is not just a conservative problem. both parties are intellectually exhausted in a way that is very bad for the country. >> there is 1950's nostalgia. >> big labor was buried. there was a lot of economic dynamism. that is true. it does not mean we could do it today. >> what is the future? the 60's were good to me. [laughter] you guys do not remember, you were busy on the internet. >> technically we were not born yet. >> that's why i enjoyed them. [laughter] on themore of the panel future of conservatism and i used to on c-span -- tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. president obama and vice president biden traveled to pennsylv

i had the experience last year of reading charles murray's new book right after reading paul krugman's. they start in the same way, pure nostalgia for the 1960's, and almost in the same terms. and they are right. those are years we should miss. those are -- there is a lot about them to miss. but our policy has been geared around how to bring them back as opposed to how do we deal with today. both parties are intellectually exhausted at the same time in a way that is very bad for the country. >> the government was big. there is 1950's nostalgia left for the unions. >> big labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the same time. that's true, but it doesn't mean we could do it today. >> so what is the future? the 60's were pretty good to me. i know you guys don't remember it. [laughter] you are busy on the internet or in >> we weren't born then. >> that's why i enjoyed them. [laughter] >> one way to think about that is that an important difference between the two parties now is that democrats tend to think about the future in terms of large institutions. republicans, when

examples the six i had an interesting experience of reading charles murray's new book after reading paul krugman the conscience of the liberal. it starts the same way. they start with an introduction that is pure nostalgia for the early 1960s. and almost in the same terms. and they are right. those are years that we should miss. there's a lot about them to miss. but our politics is too oriented about how can we bring that back rather than thinking about what is the world look like now and how can we make the most of america's strength today. both parties are failing at that. it's not just a conservative parties. both are intellectually exhausted and at the same time in a way that is bad for the countries. >> there is a 50s nostalgia that right. >> the government was big. big labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the time but that doesn't mean that we can do it today. >> what is the future? the 60s were pretty good to me. [laughter] i know you don't remember, you were busy on your thing called the internet created using we are not looking back -- >> we weren't there yet. [laug

interesting experience last year of reading charles murray's new book, right after reading paul krugman's the conscience of a liberal. those two books start exactly the same way. they start with introduction with pure nostalgia for the early 1960s. almost the same terms, and they're right. those are years we should miss. there is lot about them to miss. our politics is far too oriented how we can bring that barks instead of thinking about what does the world look like now and how we can think about america's strength today. both parties are failing that. that is not just a conservative problem. both parties are intellectually exhausted at the same time in this country. >> there is '50s no, sir tall gay for the economic. >> big labor was big and there was economic dynamism. that is true but that doesn't mean we can do it today. >> what is the future? the '60s were pretty good to me. i know you guys don't remember it, you guys were busy on the internet. >> we weren't born then. >> that's true. >> technically, we really weren't. >> that's yes enjoy them. [laughing] >> you can see more of the

. >> he's being embraced by krugman.e says, he's not going to think socialism works but at the same time he has serious questions about long-term, what happened with capitalism as well. a distribution that isn't equal. and his point was that capital always grows at 4% to 5%, but the economy if it only grows at 1.5%, that's what real wages grow. so people who have the capital will continue to do better, and that's not sustainable long term. >> it's hard to argue with that, though. >> but it is politically naive. >> if they have money to make money, right. >> as people get older and there's more people that have assets that appreciate to go -- you have to have the story. >> you have to have money to make money. >> you do. as the population ages, those are the people who have the assets. >> i think by now it's pretty well underand there are social implications because of that. >> do you know his name? >> no, i don't remember. >> i skimmed. educated and friends -- like you are surprised this is his -- do we have forever? no

liberal economist paul krugman.how sweet is that? way to go, paul. >>> if you read the headlines, you've heard the dire warnings. people are dying from climate change and it will only get worse. >> our next guest says he plans to cheer for fossil fuels on earth day because those headlines are all hype. john stossel, from the "fox business" network, is here to explain. hey, john. >> die cheer for fossil fuels because that's the only way poor people and there are billions still in poverty, can lift themselves out of poverty because the other stuff isn't good enough. >> the symbolism without solution, right? >> mostly, yeah. and scares without solution. you get the scientists who -- headline writers say they're all going to die! >> in the '70s we were hearing the skies are dirty. the ground water is a mess. we're never going to be able to drink clean water again. what ends up happening? >> that was true. and god bless government, government came in and cleaned the air and cleaned the water. it used to be awful. but the

it's kind of like paul krugman. and you may debate against a guy who was reading "sports illustrated" in the back of a economy 101 class. >> i still can't believe you did that. >> i read good "sports illustrated." >> my dad called right before and says, does joel know that he's a nobel prize winner? >> yeah, but he's a nobel prize winner on the wrong side. so david axelrod, i want to talk about rick perry here. years ago, we don't know how the reinvention is going to work. but i must say, it's not like he has just gone to safe talk radio shows. he's been on jimmy kimmel. he's gone on our show. we absolutely massacred him in 2012. i don't think we made fun of anybody any more than rick perry. i personally was downright mean. and a sign of a great politician is a guy that comes back. smiles. you know. >> yeah. >> his wife has written -- his wife has written me a note, very gracious. but he's coming back with a smile on his face. and i don't know, this guy may -- may have a shot at least at a very respectable run. >> y

and he sends his communist economist over to america who is embraced by the left in america, paul krugmank on track. >> based on his plan, their plan doesn't seem so bad. is that why? >> he's saying the way to get rich in this country more and more is to inherit it. those people are keeping their money and not sharing it. i don't know where he gets that calculus but that is his theory. >> for somebody who was un-american for many years -- >> with a voice like this i can say it. >> he's on from 11 to 1. we're going toç be watching. coming up next for president obama, immigration. can republicans win on this topic? senator mike lee joins us live next hour. >> his message about the second amendment sparks a standing ovation. >> i would add these seven words at the end of the clause, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. keep your hands off our guns. >> the sherrif joins us live next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (vo) oh. my. tongue. finally. (announcer) all-new friskies saucesations. a taste experience like no other. in cheesy, creamy, homestyle, or garden sauce. friskies. feed t

mainly because of the misunderstanding about the nature of money if you think money is simply as paul krugman has argued bank is acting this intermediaries between savers and borrowers then you have a view of the very limited amount of savings in a very limited about borrowing but if you understand as we do and as the bank of england does that banks can create money by entering numbers into a computer and charging it to someone else's it can you understand that actually credit can be inflated can be exploded into vast amounts which can then have a very deep stabilising impact on the economy but because of this florida understanding of money. economists and in many cases regulators haven't come up with the right forms of regulation to manage and and and stabilize the financial system so we're back where we were effectively before two thousand and seven in the euro zone we have a different monetary setup where fiscal space is more limited so what's your view on how this monetary system has affected ordinary citizens in your own land. well this monetary system in the euro zone is is a deeply unf

being twenty years putting his cows on federal land and not paying for it and the fact that paul krugman did a great piece of this in today's times the fact that if you want to graze your cows on private land most private landowners will charge six or seven bucks a calm month right federal and it's like a buck thirty five i think that it hasn't gone up much in about eighty years right and and so i mean here's the older welfare queen who over the last twenty years has been you know taken the checks and not even i don't i can't come up with a metaphor but. but now. now the issue has shifted to his being a racist and we're not talking about that anymore is that it's not a problem but i think it is a loss in some ways to focus on his obvious manifest racism in the ridiculous absurd offensive comments he's made on the other hand the right wing chose to make him its hero chose to elevate him as a hero not withstand the fact that he was ripping us off by not paying his fair share of grazing fees and thinking that he was above the law you know this is a situation in which the real issue isn't ev

ringing bells and making them salivate the other nobel prize winner that i want to talk about is paul krugman who writes for the new york times ok so paul says the economy is fine and everybody in washington like larry summers jumps to the keynesian tune of let's print more money and it will be better but you can't print your way to prosperity it's not the way forward and bail out infinity is not the way forward neither is q.e. infinity with no exit plan the fed's balance sheet in the us is swollen to four point two trillion dollars so ukraine needs a bailout but is the u.s. the u.s. can't bail them out one billion is not going to help it's going to be hundreds of billions they've got to enter into and honor the commercial agreement they have that cast probably has with nafta gas you know that's contract law i know that the general motors contract agreement was thrown out the window and the senior bondholders were put in a class with the common shareholders but that was then that was in the credit crisis so those are special circumstances but do i do i think that you know i don't think that t