i'm talking about paul krugman. [laughter] now, you can't make it up stuff, the analogy between krugman are so striking it is just downright eerie. they are both socialists. he says quote, an unabashed defender of the welfare state which i regard as the most decent yet divide. he said he advocates a state that offers everyone underpaid additional income. they both hate rich people. krugman once wrote that rich people must be defenders of the downtrodden otherwise they have no hope of quote unquote justifying their systems. so we have to kill them if they disagree with paul krugman? there is a little bit of a hypocrite thing. are we surprised? paul krugman happens to be a very wealthy man. it's a million dollars home in a million dollars apartment in new york on a multimillion dollars estate in princeton, new jersey where he teaches. if it is a 6000 square foot home with 12-foot ceilings and music room and have the fire pit outside where he and other princeton faculty members have been known to burn an effigy various

paul krugman and others have suggested that it was never big enough from the start. the white house cut a deal and they thought they could get through even when they controlled both houses of congress. >> right. a couple of things. let's remember that it barely got through. there was not a lot of margin. that is related to the second point. i am sympathetic as a peer of economists to the notion that it should have been there. -- i am sympathetic as a pure and economist. it did not look obvious that say a trillion dollar stimulus could have gotten through the congress even though both congress is had democratic majority. -- both houses had a democratic majority. the number kept changing. it was 787 and now it is estimated to be 850 as more data came in. this is not at all obvious that we had gotten bigger. what is obvious is that we could have made it better. this is lost to history now, but you might remember in return for almost no republican votes, no matter what it was, the president gave over about 250 billion, about 1/3 of the stimulus. this was in the spirit of

debt so why does policymakers insist on attacking this problem like i'm talking about you know paul krugman of the new york times famously his solution is to add more debt how why they keep talking about it this is no more room no more debt well look expecting same fiscal policy out of the federal reserve and state sponsored state supported economists like paul krugman is like expecting gambling addicts to suddenly walk away from the table what is the only solution that the government has when it faces a crisis caused by its own corruption and decadence and thievery double down baby double down double down that's all it can do is continue to do the same thing now i think it's important to remember that the political class like the ruling on the darks they're fine i mean they've got their holdings probably in swiss francs in gold and that they're all set they can do whatever they want it's the average person and particularly the poor person in the retired person who is going to face the real calamity when this mess hits the fan and so they they're sort of secure they've got their escape hatc

okay, new york times the lesser depression by paul krugman. an old quotation that always comes to mind when i look at public policy. you do not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed. now that wisdom is on full display of policy elites as both sides bungle the response to economic trauma, ignoring the lessons of history. >> howard dean, does david brooks have it right? are the republicans finally coming or paul krugman, the deficit cuts are only going to extend this small depression? >> i guess it's both and neither. there have been grown ups -- the nice thing is there are grown ups in washington still. they have input. the problem is, before the election, they may pass something called the grand bargain. then they have to enforce it for the election and the fighting starts over again. we'll see what is in this. i don't think there's going to be specifics. i don't think there's going to be enforceability. we have to pass the debt ceiling. on the krugman side, i have an enormous admiration of him. i think there's too much de

people like paul krugman have been trying to get us to realize how well has been so concentrated in such a small group of folks. what strategies could be used to attack this minority of individuals in a way that foundations and charities did in the past? if we had a few people, and quite a number of them at an immense amount of wealth, why are we not having them at the new macarthur foundation's and the people who will finance this community journalism? there should be a way of strategy and a mindset where they can help reduce the public interest journalism of the future -- help produce the public interest journalism of the future. >> you are seeing that from some of the wealthy. you have bill gates doing fantastic things. msn and msnbc sprang from microsoft. rupert murdoch, for all the criticism he gets, is invested in the media and innovation. mike bloomberg is doing a ton of stuff through his company. they are hiring hundreds of people. i worked at bloomberg 15 years ago, and i was in europe as a foreign correspondent. there were 40 journalists, and now, there are thousands. i think i

in a way that i never did before and consider myself something of an expert but what confuse me paul krugman, frank rich rich, at least they did well on their s.a.t. test because stayed went to good colleges but seems so stupid that is crowd psychology. people in a crowd lose some of their intelligence and grasp onto conspiracies to list every part of groupthink briefly describes but not in the same way to describe conservatives. you are all getting a copy but i love to take questions because then i don't need prepared remarks. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i love "the view" i have been on four times. they have been lovely we had a great time every time except one when it all yelled at me i would have to wait to get something out that was the only time barbara will pleasure -- program walters was on the show. by process of elimination the rest of them are lovely girls. it has been weird because usually instantly liberals fixate on some small joke in my book and twisted around that is the only thing that i talk about for the next month which gets tedious and for the first time i am asked about

whenever did before i considered myself as an expert but the things that confused me was for example, paul krugman, frank rich, they must be applied but they did well on their as a tea but they seem so stupid and. [laughter] that is explained as crowd psychology that people in the crowd will lose some of their intelligence the matter how intelligent they are grasping onto conspiracies turn people into enemies it is the mob psychology beautifully described liberals not in the way you could say the same thing about conservatives. that is all i will say right now because you all get a copy tonight but i would love to take questions because then i don't need prepared remarks. [laughter] >> [inaudible] this. >> i love the view i have been on four times they have been lovely to me the last time when they all yelled at me i would have to wait for a pause to get something out that was the only time barbara walters was on the show. so by process of elimination [laughter] i think the rest of them are lovely and actually led has tour because instantly liberals usually fixate on one point* in my book and twis

the result in the short term has been extreme contraction of the economy. >> but if you buy the paul krugmanith his point that this whole mess -- i can't think of a better word -- this whole mess has been portrayed as a bunch of immature, squabbling narrow minded politicians who can't get in the room and agree when the alternative analysis and certainly one krugman embraces, is it's the republicans and particularly the tea party faction that has been intransigent, has said no to trillions in spending cuts and the democrats and obama have moved quite a ways towards the gop position? >> i think that conclusion, that actually the terms of the debate have shifted far to the right is objectively the case. what's interesting to me, and we already saw it on the front page of "the new york times" today and this was alluded to in your panel, people are now saying, okay, in the post mortem phase, we're going to talk about how obama shifted pretty far to the right, that's a little bit too late. the decisions will have have been taken. >> briefly, why has mainstream journalism not portrayed this atds a

i am not an economist but paul krugman has a nobel prize in economics and he says the only serious attack on the long-term entitlement budget deficit is these progressive budgets. is that what it is called? people budget. he says the only serious one is the people's budget. i will take his word for it. think about the fact that in washington you have this notion that only paul ryan is serious. he destroys medicare to give more money to the wealthy who have had the best 40 years in the history of this country. that is what obama doesn't want to recognize. obama's budget is worse than the simpson bowles budget which takes $3 out of spending for every $1 it raises in revenue. that is the democratic petition. obama's is worse than that. this conservative aura has created this notion that to be serious you have to attack 4 people and and rich rich people. that to me is the problem. [applause] >> i wasn't necessarily endorsing paul ryan's budget in my earlier comments. [talking over each other] >> are you trying to get this guy lynched? >> this is what happened to me last time was the only pers

. >> peter, i want to put up, we have got a quote from paul krugman, "the new york times" columnist and nobel prize winner who also blogged this today. the situation he said cries out aggressively expansionary monetary and fiscal policy. instead, however, the political push is in the opposite direction. to you agree with that, peter? >> i agree about the political push. we need to compliment greater fiscal discipline with addressing some structural problems that would give us the kind of stimulus we need. the huge trade deficit, for example, with china. the president talks about more trade agreements with korea. that may be nice, but that's not going to solve the problem. we already have a trade agreement with china. it's not working. we have to rebalance trade. on energy we need to develop domestic energy in addition to all teternative sources, we nee start drilling for oil and gas again so we're not importing so much. if we did those things we could reduce the deficit, increase employment and get out of this mess. >> jared, i guess what worries me is all the emphasis seems to be on a

was inaugurated he addressed herbert hoover's confidence fairy as paul krugman calls and saying flat out that the problem wasn't rich people's confidence but working people need a good job and some help with their mortgage. this is not. our . greatest primary. business understandable problem if we pay fifty million courageously they can be accomplished in. recruiting by the government itself treating the family goes away with great pm good concealable. but at the same time ruby is one complicated great greatly needed project to stimulate and reorganize they use a lot of great men through we can't. be helped by preventing really take away rick perry did a. great book. that was by the way his first day in office this morning at his press conference president obama also referenced the second big republican they were broke but there's not enough money in america to put people back to work. i've been hearing from my republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious right i've been hearing from them that this is one

. >> rose: also this evening a conversation with paul krugman and david brooks th columnists at the "new york times". this conversation took pla before the president's press conference and therefore was edited accordingly. >> whave no consensus in our political system. there is no center. we have no consensus about what all to be happening. so if you try to strike a lo-term deal you're basically stking a deal that nobody actually beeves and that isot going to be adhered to. i think we buy we buy se time. shouldn't be negotiating at all about the debt ceiling but we buy someime and give the voters another chance to weigh in. >> we really need to cut i think some of the rating agencies have said this, we need to cut $4 trillion to sort of stabilize debt levels and if we don't do that that's really bad news. and then the second thing i do think both parties may find it useful to have a framework. no, we're to the going to write a plan that is going to dictate the next ten years of politics but both parties may find it extremely useful to have a framework going forward and believe me none

since you're saying the government's the government needs to spend as kind of the argument that paul krugman make that keynesians make if the economists that say that debt to g.d.p. ratio is too high. that scarily high and social unrest and a dollar crime goals would you be willing to accept that scenario if that's what happened if the government spent its way out of this i yeah i'm willing to stake my prediction right now what's best for the american people is not that we cut one trillion dollars in the next year but rather that we spend probably more than one hundred billion two hundred billion up to five hundred billion more this year that we're in currently slated to spend so that we reduce unemployment by increasing public demand that's going to increase deficit deficits the short term but in a way that might seem paradoxical i think that's probably going to reduce deficits in the long term because if we can grow faster now what matters isn't just the size of our debts but like you mentioned that to g.d.p. the size of our economy and i think we can grow the economy faster if we invest i

the poor do you have jobs then make more money last year by as my colleague and fellow congress paul krugman says that's just completely nuts you don't stop you don't cut government deficits to get yourself out of a depression that's going to big you know creating a bigger hole for us to fall into but we need to do is increased spending for lower income people for the elderly because they'll spend it and get us out of this depression we're oppression you can't see your way out of a depression the problem is that people are not spending made against our sitting on a trillion dollars in in cash and not learning it out our problem it's the lack of spending in the united states a lack of demand lack of capital being given out we're building it and there's nothing to do really quickly if you notice it really quickly you are concerned about. social security and social programs entitle ments bearing the brunt of this big compromise but given the deadlock that we've seen in washington and the inability to get any kind of deal do you think there is even going to be any big compromise. well sort of a