>> i learned everything from krugman about this, and krugman thoug taut it only works if expectations go up. as long as its credible, you might as well just do the fiscal policy and have the monetary policy agree to be support niv some way. >> yeah. there's this idealized -- by the i'll call it the blanchard 4% target, although that's me too. we have a coordinated, a fiscal expansion, to get to, to that point which is ratified by monetary. that doesn't seem to be on the table anywhere. if we talk about actual coordination, i worry about who's coordinatestnating with him? i would be happy with mario draghi getting to set it p. i'm not happy with the german government getting to set ecb policy. >> olivier? >> i think the two dimensions of coordination, there is within a country fiscal and money, there is a coordination that can be done, simple coordination. you do something, tell a fiscal authority, you do something, and as a central bank, i react to it and make sure that i undo the affect if it's negative. i don't think it implies more than just that. greenspan is an example of that. c

paul krugman, always wrong, never in doubt.n continues to be wrong. refuses to give trump any credit for what's going on in the market and the economy. howard kurtz, host of "media buzz" is with us now. howard, do you agree with this? >> debate me, bro, i love it. stuart: debate me, bro. >> got to admit paul krugman has been consistent. he has been consistently wrong. this "national review" has a great headlines. august 1st, why trumpnomics is a flop. here comes the trump slump in november. the day that trump died.rugman,l prize-winning economist, princeton professor and smart guy, i have to think the disdain and everything donald trump stands influences his economic judgment here. stuart: am i right saying that professor krugmanthe most widely read of all "the times" columnists? >> that was true for many years. not in the age of impeachment. he is a very high-profile commentator. eventually he will be right. there has to be a reessential eventually, right? the expansion has gone on for a very long time. to keep betting, he is

others none of them were even people who just stiglitz paul krugman others and none of them were even approached the people picked to fix the crisis where those who created and approached the people picked to fix the crisis were those who created the robert rubin crowd the goldman sachs croak they created the crips the robert rubin. the goldman sachs croak they created the crisis are no more powerful than before the accident. no more powerful than before the accident well not when you pick those people to create an economic plan will not when you pick those people to create an economic plan and then what do you expect to happen. then what do you expect to happen. for the poor let market principles prevail. for the poor or let market principles prevail don't expect any help from the government the government's the problem not the solution expect any help from the government the government the problem not the solution and so on that's essentially neoliberalism . it's as it is dual care that's especially neo liberalism. it's as it is dual character which goods were right back in economic

others none of them were even a productive stiglitz paul krugman others none of them were even approachedthe people picked to fix the crisis where those who created the. people picked to fix the crisis were those who created the robert. altman and so they i think chris created through a crowd that sort of you know they created the crisis are no more powerful than the floor of the work is an act that is. when you will not when you pick those pick those old people to create an economic plan then and then when you would expect this back to happen. meanwhile for the poor little kid prince mean it was most prefer bill. let market principles prevail don't expect any help from any however help but from go to the debate over its promise to go to permit i would not support the road. that's essentially neoliberalism. it's as this dual character which goes freshly neoliberalism at its has this dual character which goes right back in economic history one set of rules for the rich offices were right back in economic history one set of rules for the rich office etc rules for the poor. and nothing else

and paul krugman, the economist at city university of new york and columnist for the "new york times." krugman is the guy who makes all journalists nervous because he seems to be more productive than the rest of us and that's kind of frightening given that he does all these other things on the side, but we ask discuss those things later. i wanted to start by asking each of the panelists what they took afwra the away from the conversation we had this morning. i want to start with olivier who makes the observation in the slide you see behind us that's been made about how the wage phillips curve behaves perhaps as one might have expected, but prices aren't rising. so the question >> is what the hell is going on? >> okay. so i had prepared a slide in anticipation. i think it has survived the previous three hours fairly well and coincides with the general message and tells us where we need to look and what implications it has. so the diagram onis familiar except it's not in familiar form. it basically has the inverse of the unemployment rate and the inflation measured by the employment cos

economics who significantly disagree with the course that we're following people like just stiglitz paul krugman others none of them were even approached the people picked to fix the crisis were those who created the robert rubin crowd the goldman sachs croak they created the crisis are no more powerful than before is that accident well not when you pick those people to create an economic plan and then what do you expect the haven't. been well for the poor let market principles prevail don't expect any help from the government the government the problem not the solution and so on that's essentially neo liberalism and it's as if his dual character which goes right back in economic history one set of rules for the rich office etc rules for the poor. and nothing surprising about this exactly the dynamics you expect if the population allows it to proceed she's going to go on and on like this until the next crash which is so much expected that credit agencies which kind of evaluate the. status of firms are now counting into their calculations the taxpayer bailout that they expect to come in after the

military budget so when krugman says it's only money we owe ourselves he's wrong of course the united states federal reserve bank cannot create assets they cannot create treasuries that is up to the u.s. treasury the congress to create treasuries so they cannot if you're if we're looking to this guy we're looking to jay power droom pal yes i have 2 names so everybody gets confused right if you were looking for him to you know basically stop flogging all he could do is flog a dead horse he's a monetary policy guy he's not a fiscal policy guy there's nothing he can do to change the situation that the horse is dead it's only you know you have to keep the horse from dying what in the treasury is debt it's a it's a short term loan it's a 30 day loan or a one day loan it's still debt if you look at your dollar bill it says the federal reserve note note if you look that up in the best of pedia it'll tell you it's debt debt is a note right there not creating this stunt has nothing to do with money it's created is for mal the high it's monetary formaldehyde and they're trying to and they're co

can only be sustained through force as paul krugman said so force is not that easy to apply you have to do it with intelligence and you have to be smart because at a certain point and we've seen this throughout history many dictators you can see in egypt for example mubarak he he he controlled the population for 30 years and then gone once that once the people once the system rejects you and they change their their thinking it's over it's over it was over for the kings of france when the people rose up and here is the same and what sherman said this is a weird statement but he said we stand to lose all that because crypto currency is the currency of the crypto patriot right now and it took the patriots to night flag i mean an army which we don't really need a peace an army of peace it is true that big coin is the revolution of peace it is the ultimate passive resistance it's jesus martin luther king and gandhi all rolled up into one beautiful all parties in the only elegant algorithm that's blowing the roof off all these 10 pot dictators like brad sherman and others around the world

remember election night, being here all night, of course, paul krugman putting out an article in "themes" website. it was just a treat. at 12:42 a.m., "when might the markets recover?" even though this is my specialty, i find it hard to care much. my first answer is never." >> charles: a couple weeks ago he threw another one of those "we're in trouble" articles. it's hard to take them serious seriously. the things that will impact the election more than anything else, employment, wages, gas prices, homeownership, and the stock market. they are going so well, you have three organizations including a research firm called oxford economics, they said president trump is going to win you and if there's a recession. that our economy has come back so strong already that it's already built in. >> melissa: dagen, counterpoint to that? recently seen the pullback in the past couple minutes is a chatted back and forth on china and things not looking as good as it did and around >> dagen: and i >> dagen: i'm a nerd and i look at things like the bond market. we have wages growing at close to the fas

paul krugman and david brooks write 750 words twice a week. these were 2,000 words coming out three, four, sometimes five times a week. so it's a quicker rate. but there were also very eloquent and intelligent essays on the other side. and new york state is one of the places where there are actual riots. there was a riot in albany and one here in new york. happily, no one was killed, but that just shows you how high the passions were. >> and lankton smith, the book has lots of names. you think it's very important we remember these people. part of the new york manumissions society, he's many people think a leading anti-federalist, federal farmer. in the end he's going to be the swing vote and vote with the federalists. so these people -- they might agree on some things, anti-slavery, george clinton's there and alexander hamilton, but they're going to disagree on other things like the constitution -- >> right. >> so it's a fascinating story there. we're going to skip over the monroe doctrine just because there's not strong new york angle to that

. >> shannon: paul krugman in an opinion piece in "the new york times" and said this,, for republicans. from a different era when both parties believed in the constitution, trump abused his position for personal gain would've led to his removal from office long ago. jenna? >> if we believe in the constitution, we wouldn't be making this a political circus and there wouldn't be focus groups and opinion polls. if we go back to the constitutional convention when jamejames madison specific we ad against disagreeing with possibilit pola sitting president. what we've seen, the democrats have led this #resistance, they've been trying at every turn to undermine this president whether it's this sham impeachment, the sham of the russia collusion, that sham of the mueller report, they would find something that they want to find is legitimate, they simply don't have it. >> shannon: kevin, there's a danger of the republican votes and there would be democrats who would cross over to vote no on these articles? >> absolutely, and speaker pelosi said as part of this process that it be bipartisan. we se

i agree with paul krugman, the "new york times" economist, that it does not matter much now because there is such a slack in demand. for example, we have 4% unemployment, and the current administration brags about having 3.5%. that 3.5% with under 63% of the workforce working. we had 4% with 67% of the workforce working, so there was all of this shared prosperity, and it really matters. you know, people come up to me and say, "we were all getting along when you were there." that is not entirely true. we had church burnings. we had, you know, defacements at synagogues, the beginnings of a lot of anti-muslim activity, and we had up in michigan, but it was controlled. we fought it, and we beat it back every time, instance by instance, and if you reverse trickle-down economics, and you go from bottom up and the middle out, you get a heck of a lot better results, and we can all figure out how to do the rest. i am proud that we got 10 million more people on college aid. i am proud that he had the first two years of college free so people could take the tax asdits, but nothing is important as en

ed: but watch this -- [inaudible conversations] tweet from paul krugman, okay?s been anti-trump from the beginning. he tweets my sense is while warren's embrace of medicare for all was a questionable decision, she has now passed an important test, he claims, providing a plausible way it could happen without big middle class tax hikes. number one, there is no plausible way to pay for this, so that's trying to make the numbers work. number two, watch the language. he says she proved you can do this without big middle class tax hikes. [laughter] he didn't say no middle class tax hikes, which is what she's claiming. even the left, paul krugman from "the new york times," admitting she's not telling the truth. jedediah: one thing i love about that snl clip is just the absurdity of the number, 52 trillion. you have to remember there's people around the country, all of us have had to balance a household budget, you've got to look at your numbers. $52 trillion when you look at that compared to the national debt which is already out of control, people are looking at this

businessman who knows what he's talking about debating people at the new york times who rely on paul krugman fed ex hired people, increased hiring 4% in 2018. they're going to do 7% this year. more people, that's from the new york times article. more people are working. they're making more money. they're paying more in income tax. we had nor tax revenue -- more tax revenue in fiscal year 2019. we had $3.5 trillion in revenue versus the last full fiscal year where we didn't have the tax cuts where we had $3.3 trillion in total tax revenue. tax revenue is up. more people are working. they're making more money. they're paying more in taxes because of the tax cuts. they're taking more home. who cares if corporations paid less in tax? the point isn't that we're going to punish corporations with the tax code. the point is we want to raise revenue, create prosperity and help american workers and that's exactly what the tax cuts are doing. >> i'm going to make the assumption that what happened -- i haven't looked at the balance sheet in a while. here's my assumption. basically, they're taking advant