i'm not taking paul krugman's side. in your writing you have a special hatred for mr. krugman.was lame publishing this shoddy diatribe and my favorite like his journalism his writings about bernard characterized by extreme partisanship, couple minted by -- erik: if that isn't personal god help the person -- niall: those who dish it out should be ready to receive it. he has dished out far more abusive language -- he referred to the chancellor as an upper-class twit. i won't go into the things he has called me. i think my language is rather restrained. it's not about personality or insult, it's about who was right and who was wrong. it's about time he admitted that he got the u.k. economy ethically wrong, so wrong that we have to -- if you predict depression and say it will be worse than the 1930's and 2 million jobs are created, the economy is the fastest-growing in the g7 last year, you have to step up and say i got it wrong just like i got the euro zone crisis wrong. erik: how did his policy work? niall: there are a couple of points that are crucial here. it wasn't the case th

they are spending over a trillion-dollar to align countries and when i see paul krugman, when i see elizabeth warren and others write about tpp surely from an economic lens it is as if they never have done political classes in your life. you have to focus on the strategic side. >> rose: do the majority of people believe george osborne is right in terms of the economic policy, the austerity that he brought to great britain, or to the, or do the majority of people believe that paul krugman is right saying that really had nothing to do with it? >> i think there is an ideological divide between the united states and europe generally speaking where we are much more willing to plow it down and spend money and. >> rose: infrastructure dack -- >> and they are not, they are in a place where -- they do have a much bigger problem with the middle class and more -- >> rose: social inequality and -- >> yes. >> and economic inequality. this is what is interesting about this book to me among many things. give me your assessment of bill clinton's foreign policy. >> i think it was in some ways as nonstrategic

the performance artist blames paul krugman. some excerpts of his piece in the huffington. "by his own standards, krugman's argument was lame. like his journalism on the united states, is writings on britain are characterized by extreme partisanship with a touristic level of knowledge." let's forget about touristic knowledge. extreme partisanship -- pot calling the kettle black? brendan: is pro or anti-austerity the right way to look at the u.k. election? james: i don't think it is. the question is growth. one of the puzzling questions about the u.k. in particular is what is happening in productivity. how does it connect to the eu -- connect the rest of the world to the eu? that is something i hope cameron gets back to. brendan: i would argue niall ferguson has done a better job of selling union then david cameron was ever able to do. he wrote a book about the british empire. i saw hints of that, that this is the thing we built together but that is not heard in this debate over union. erik: niall is a scotsman and i will be fasc

did the majority of people believe paul krugman is right?hat that really had nothing to do with it. ian bremmer: i think there is an ideologically divide. they have a much bigger problem with the middle class. that probably need more transfers. charlie: social inequality and economic inequality. here's what is interesting for me. give me your assessment of bill clinton's foreign policy. ian bremmer: i think it was in some ways as nonstrategic and reactive as we see from his successor. i think bill clinton inherited the soviet union has collapsed. we have won, so we don't actually need a global strategy. it is a question of taking the manager of being the world's great power. charlie: what happened and what could we have done? many people see that as a crucial time between -- while the berlin wall fell in 1989. between that time and you know. ian bremmer: who lost russia occurred under his administration. it sounds quaint compared to today. charlie: that was the time we could have done what? make them not feel like they had to get on their kn

to see but we are back in the situation again where great liberal heroes like jon steward and paul krugman"the new york times" and great josh marshall and greg sargent in "the washington post" arguing passionately this was not an intelligence failure. the bush administration lying us into war. that's kind of the left. the republican political position and main stream media position on the iraq war in 2015 is now becoming something that's not that. when these republican presidential candidates get flubbed on iraq, when they come up with the answer that the iraq war was the right decision at the time. there was just bad intelligence. and, oh, by the way it's nice saddam's gone. by and large that's treated as the right answer. you know, sunday morning that doesn't get followed up with questions rebutted. that's seen as the correct answer. if the hard questions we ask themselves about the iraq war is whether or not there's a more stable or less [t@ble anwar province against saddam go, if that's the hard question. we're arguing with the merits of where to sell volcanic ash and sand after the vo

in an essay in foreign affairs in 1993 on nafta, a young and then relatively obscure economist, paul krugmanexplained that nafta wasn't going to have much of an impact on the vast american economy one way or the other. it was really about foreign policy. the economic effects of nafta have been heavily debated, but the foreign policy consequences are clear. and clearly positive. we forget now but only three decades ago, mexico was one of the more anti-american countries in the world. today, mexico is a country transformed. unambiguously allied with the united states. its president is totally comfortable being described as a close ally of the united states. mexico has become a core component of a closely intertwined north american economy that is the world's most vibrant regional bloc. many factors led to this transformations, but nafta was chief among them. if something similar would have happened with tpp in asia the effects would be global. the world we live in is one of rising nations but declining global norms. the struggle is on to write new norms, new rules for trade, cybersecurity, int

kept a course of reducing the deficits and that started the economy going again. >> people like paul krugman, just a month ago i said to paul in a column why are you complaining so much? they have a strong recovery that pretty much tracks the u.s. and they've done it the way they said they would which is getting the deficit under control and getting growth going. >> are you saying paul krugman knows better than the british people? >> it's not all the negative against this one or this one. it's also if fact that they trust the current government for their economic management because it's a middle-of-the-road predictable sensible economic policy. >> he was the other big loser in last night's election, mr. krugman. this is a big ideological victory for those who said there is a place for austerity, plus mr. miliband got hammered in the last bbc question time their version of the debate over labour's spendthrift ways the last time in government people said "we don't trust you to go back and govern and control the purse strings." i think this was a referendum on the general sense that conservativ

back in a situation again where great liberal heroes like jon stewart and the daily÷g show and paul krugmann the "new york times" and leading lefty bloggers like the great josh marshall and talking points and "the washington post" are all arguing passionately again about the fact that this wasn't an intelligence failure this is the bush administration lying us into war. but that's kind you have just account left. right? the republican political he position and the mainstream media position on the iraq war in 2015 is now becoming something that's not that. when these republican presidential candidates flub the answer on iraq they get dinged for flubbing the answer or saying things inartfully. but when they come up with this answer that the iraq war was the right decision at the time, it was well meaning it was just that bad intelligence and by the way, it's nice saddam's gone by and large that's treated as the right answer. you know, on sunday morning that doesn't get followed up with questions rebutting that. that is seen as the cricket answer. if the hard questions we ask ourselves about t

as paul krugman points out, aside from medication we only spend between 1% and 2% of our gdp on programs that most americans assume that it's a whole lot more than that. the republicans do have one thing right, though. relying on government assistance isn't what anyone wants, not conservatives, not liberals and not the people who depend on those programs. it is much better to have a good job to support yourself and your family. if the gop wants to get people off welfare by backing a minimum wage strike strong unions to push for higher wages and an end to bad trade jobs i would be more than happy to support their efforts. but with boehner and the boys in the house, i'm not holding my breath. that does it for "the cycle." "now with alex wagner" starts right now. >> hillary clinton goes all in on immigration reform. mike huckabee is back in presidential politics. and loretta lynch takes her first trip as attorney general. but first, isis claims it was behind the attack in garland, texas. it's tuesday, may 5th, and this is "now." isis has officially claimed responsibility for sunday's attack

if you read every other paul krugman column which is about the rate at which i would suggest reading them or the sender for american progress to report on what to do about the middle class, ma the storyline is essential everything was great in postwar america dominated by the it was by an alliance of big government, big labor and big business come and it was high wage. then ronald reagan came along and destroyed everything. and here we have been suffering ever since. actually the union taken his countryman 1963. this was a very long running sort of decline. the reason for the decline have to be primarily i would argue with the fact that unionized companies were less competitive and nonunionized once. so if you're a nonunionized manufacture your adding jobs at the same time unionize manufacturers are shedding them. and the public is less and less in favor of unions, and more and more skeptical of them. the basic liberal response to these trends is to plug their ears, shut their eyes and wished that things could be made the way they used to be. and that nostalgia is just like -- we can

tom: is the headline here michael darter -- michael darda agrees with paul krugman? michael: i think we would be much more in alignment then the fed critics that are saying low money bubble. brendan: the problem is the central banks are responding. there is too much money sitting around in the world looking for a return. michael: ben bernanke, his first two or three blog posts took this on. tom: isn't that great? michael: fantastic blogger great teacher. take a look at the bernanke blog post, which i think is excellent. tom: a massive shout out to david russell at brookings institution. what a public service. michael: look at these postwar business cycles. the fact is the average nominal gdp growth correlates inversely with p/e ratios. what is easy money? the fed interest rate is too low relative to an equal or -- to an equilibrium demand for base that shows up in high nominal growth inflation. tom: the summary is that you are still in the stock market. michael: i am still in the stock market. tom: this is his public television commercials we have to go to. michael d

that's according to the noble prize winning economist paul krugman. he said all technology from the iphone onwards had zero impact on the british economy. head to cnbc.com for a full account of his latest theories on product activityivity and why the iphone might or might not be to blame. red flags were raised about the sec's filing system after a phony filing to purchase avon sent the stock on a roerl coaster ride on thursday. bob filed this report. >> it was an odd day for avon which was the subject of a take over hoax. they were having a normal day trading around $6.60 when the stock shot up 5% in a matter of seconds. some firm calling it's ptg capital supposedly filed an offer to buy avon for an exorbitant price. that attracted a lot of attention. the stock reopened and shot up again triggering another trading halt. by then they were noticing the filing contained numerous typos and there were rumors it didn't even exist. the stock went in the other direction and was halted for a third and final time. cnbc reached out to avon and they told us they

guest: yeah, there was an article just recently -- i think it was paul krugman, actually -- saying that the reasons for going to war, wmd and all that, is beside the point. dick cheney wanted to go to war. there was the believe that removing saddam hussein would be a positive step forward. i agree, there was not enough accountable for people who told the tale of weapons of mass destruction when it clearly wasn't the case. there is also a lot -- something a lot of people have forgotten. after we made the case, the vote in congress, and the vote in congress was not to go to war. it was to authorize the president to go to war if saddam hussein did not release his weapons of mass destruction. a month later the united nations passed unanimously in incredibly coercive inspections regime that iraq agreed to. if weapons of mass destruction with the issue, that should have been the end of it. we should have sent in the course of inspections regime that would have bound these weapons and taking care of them. our threat of war would have proven enough. the fact that the bush admin attrition comple

read the "new york times" read paul krugman. we're not really sure. it's not settled. not really settled. that's a zombie idea. neo markism. >> social -- >> i know i know. >> social democracy. that's great. but you go -- >> look what we have with capital and income inequality. don't look around the rest of the world. just look here. >> just a certain truth. it's all about allocation of capital. and if you allocate capital where you put in 100 and you don't get 110 or something back then you're in trouble. that's what the whole economy is. >> we have to go to the advertising economy right now. good for us. asissant secretary, thank you for being here. >> in our own self-interest. >>> a vote in ireland today could make it the first country to approve gay marriage. details next. >>> a website hacked that put user information at risk. that is coming up. >>> time now for today's aflac trivia question. what sports menuvenue to sell its naming rights? the answer when cnbc "squawk box" continues. ah! aflac? aflac! i thought you said this guy was the best? oh, he's a horrible s

paul krugman is only one of many and the economy has bounced back. massive job creation.ord high compared with the united states for the participation rate has sunk. >> you need to come in. >> this is a job creation machine. >> i won't even mention that. what did he say about the internet in 2005? this will be gone by next year or something. no one will even remember. the fax machine. thank you, speak up. >> neill, good to have you. >> thank you. >>> coming up, frequent flier miles used to be a brilliant marketing tool and now almost every airline offers a program. who is winning the war for your dollars? we'll tell you after the break. >>> then publishers betting big on facebook's mobile service. another example of the way mobile is transforming the world world. jeffrey yang will be here to talk tech and what's driving innovation. "squawk box" will be right back. [ male announcer ] your love for trading never stops. so open an account with schwab. and when a market move affects, say a cloud computing stock you're holding, we can help you decide what to do. with tools tha

points made by simon johnson, fred burkeston and many other notable economists ranging from art to paul krugmanvertheless, those who oppose currency disciplines continue to raise this false argument. t.p.p. should address instances in which countries buy large amounts of foreign assets over long periods of time to prevent an appreciation of their exchange rate despite running a large current surplus. the federal reserve does not engage in such practices. that is why the u.s. already agreeed to an even -- and even insisted upon what is in the current i.m.f. guidelines. and now there is claim that including currency disciplines in t.p.p. would be a poison pill and that our trading partners would walk away from the table. there is no way to accurately judge this issue until it is properly brought to the negotiating table. to the contrary, the fact that the administration says this only creates the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy. it is irresponsible to make this claim. indeed, our trading partners in t.p.p. would greatly benefit from these disciplines. many of them are the victims of manipulati