refute milton friedman -- milton friedman's monetarism with a new information theory of money" like paul krugman who is "the new york times" nobel laureate columnist and conservative magazines have adopted and prevailed in the world economy and as a result in a currency market that has 5. $4 trillion worth of transactions every 24 hours to read that is one-third every 24 hours, 100 times all electronic transactions with all the stock markets in the world put together it is 25 times from goods and services put together but every country fails because as a measuring stick the currency values are more volatile io and change more rapidly than the economic activity there supposed to measure. so this currency trading of 5.$4 trillion per day is an utter failure and it is based on the milton friedman belief currency should floats that has been adopted there really is the foundation for monetary policy around the world and this book targets -- targets that ridiculous way to use that the monetary index. >> host: then how do you said it? day you return to the gold standard? is that politically feasible? >

take a look at paul krugman's column today. paul krugman, who i think is that -- has pretty amazing progressive credentials, basically said i had the better side of this argument. why did he say this? because i fully respect my colleagues who have said, let's reinstate glass-steagall. if i thought that alone would prevent a potential next crisis, i would raise my hand and join, but that is not my assessment. because if you look, as krugman said today in his column, some of the major actors who caused the 2008 crash were not big banks and would have never been covered by glass-steagall. aig, the giant insurance company, lehman brothers, they would never have been affected by it. what i want to do was crackdown on the banks by assessing a risk fee and forcing them to have to comply with dodd frank and potential regulations. i am in favor of breaking them up if they are a threat. but the potential next threat to the economy that has to be reigned in his was called the shadow banking world, the hedge funds. glass-steagall would not

>> guest: the next thing i am going to after we finish this is listen to a debate between paul krugman who is a political hack disguised as an economist debating steven more, who is an actual economist, libertarian, krugman is much more glib than more is. i am sure he will be perceived to win the debate. she is a clever guy. almost everything that comes out of his mouth is not just wrong but the opposite of the right thing, but fun to listen to and clever. i thought about that along with this interview we are doing as being the highlight of my day. >> host: you have to give paul krugman credit for coming due freedomfest. >> guest: i do. i think his thing unlike most nobel prize recipients is building the cult of his own personality. if you wave a camera and/or a crowd in front of him he will appear like a lap dog anywhere. >> host: from "right on the money," people need to understand cops are not their friend. the last thing you want to do is have any contact with them at all. >> guest: this is not true of all cops. some cops are good guys. the problem with the police is many of them,

read paul krugman today to understand why. [applause] this young man i think has had his hand up for a long time, and he's got a cheering section behind him. he has brought his own cheerleaders who are -- go right ahead. guest: as a bisexual member of the lgbt community, equal rights is important to me. over the years, your views on this topic have evolved. how do you compare yourself to other candidates that have remained firm on their views , and how do you think you've done to change from the past views? ms. clinton: i think if you speak with the human rights campaign or any of the large advocacy groups, they will tell you that they count on me, and that you can count on me. i was the first and only first -- everr to marja gate to march in the pride parade back in the 1980's. i have been a vocal, visible advocate for equality and against discrimination. yes, my views did evolve. i think most people my age would say the same thing. there might be some exceptions, but largely because of my strong opposition to discrimination

read paul krugman today to understand why. [applause] this young man i think has had his hand up for a long time, and he's got a cheering section behind him. he has brought his own cheerleaders who are -- go right ahead. guest: as a bisexual member of the lgbt community, equal rights is important to me. over the years, your views on this topic have evolved. how do you compare yourself to other candidates that have remained firm on their views , and how do you think you've done to change from the past views? ms. clinton: i think if you speak with the human rights campaign or any of the large advocacy groups, they will tell you that they count on me, and that you can count on me. i was the first and only first -- everr to marja gate to march in the pride parade back in the 1980's. i have been a vocal, visible advocate for equality and against discrimination. yes, my views did evolve. i think most people my age would say the same thing. there might be some exceptions, but largely because of my strong opposition to discrimination

paul krugman, you know the columnist for the "new york times." >> stephen: sure. >> nobel prize-winning economist said i came out with a tough, comprehensive, effective plan because what i did, which is really looking at the problems that we have and trying to preempt the problems of the future is to recognize that, you know, we don't just have big banks in our economy that pull a lot of strings and make a lot of decisions. look at what happened in '08. we had a big insurance company that had to be bailed out. we had an investment bank, lehman brothers, that failed. we have to look at the whole financial system and my plan does that. >> stephen: if you're president. >> stephen: and the banks -- and the banks are failing, do we let them fail this time? >> yes, yes. >> stephen: we let them fail this time? >> yes, yes, yes, yes. >> stephen: wow. >> first of all, under dodd-frank, that is what will happen, because we now have stress tests and i'm going to impose a risk fee on the big bank if they-- if they engage in what-- risky behavior. but they have to know, their shareholders have to kn

paul krugman, the columnist for the new york times. >> sure. >> nobel prize winning economist said iout with a tough, comprehensive effective plan. >> well, actually, paul krugman never uses those words in the october 16th column that hillary clinton refers to but does say the plan is better than sander's plan. but she has not looked at donors to her campaign which include private equity and real estate firms. and she was also em fassic on future bailouts. >> if you are president. >> yes. >> and the banks are failing, do we let them fail this time? >> yes. >> we let them fail this time? >> yes. >> but in 2008 she said yes, yes, yes to the bank bail out bill and continued the follow year. and clinton would not reinstate glass steegle, repealed while her husband was president. not to say that hillary clinton would be a friend to wall street. her plan includes a so-called risk fee on big banks and taxes on high frequency trading which critics say will end up hurting investors so we are a bipartisan fact patrol, turning our sights back to the republicans now for tonight's debate. >> and

we saw paul krugman go after ryan about the validity of his plans.anybody doing anything serious? ryan did withl medicare was say i've looked around the world and what we've seen is going from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, why don't we do that with medicare? that is a serious policy effort. mr. krugman might not like it but it is an effort to take on the numbers and substance of health care. attracts what united states corporations have done. doug: let's take what you got in your job and make it portable to take to medicare. nothanie: paul krugman is saying he does not like paul ryan's approach. he's saying the numbers do not add up. doug: i beg to differ. the whole point is to make them add up. a lot of points come to balance it one thing i thought we learned from last night was there is a great resonance to getting the budget to balance. when john kasich about balancing the budget, people pay attention. david: nobody wants their own ox to be gored. doug: that is what paul ryan is a smart guy. he has always wanted to solve t

jon: a number of years ago, paul krugman accused riksbank of -- they see gdp at 3% and they wonder whyo aggressive. what is it about the fx channel that is causing concern for you within the swedish economy, that is pushing the central bank to do more? stefan: if the exchange rate were to appreciate too quickly, that would mean it would be harder for us to get inflation up to around 2%. given that inflation has been lower for quite a while, we need to get inflation up to 2%. and then what happens to the exchange rate really matters. this, governor, is the idea of economists pushing markets or telling the yield curve what to do. tell me what you middle of the -- what humility and what model you have learned at the swedish bank. if the phillips curve model is old, what is the new one for you and your bank? things have been unusual in the past few years, so time will tell when things settle down what those new models will look like. manyntly we have to use different tools in order to get inflation up to 2%. tom: there is a history of the early 1990's with your banks, and many of our viewe

m: the reyault of paul krugman yearning for the day s of john hicks.ack to krugman's simplicity? do we need back further to alfred marshall or get back to 2006? >> one thing i explain is why the whole model was taken apart. why by other economists. we the model fell apart, ed to -- tom: of course the backdrop of this is his fundamental belief that profits are what drives the system. capitalism is about profits. you got to tell me, jon, how do you do profits amid deflation? i really don't see that? jonathan: how do you commit to the bond market -- tom: exactly. jonathan: you reflect on the economies of old. hubris is a great word. it describes investors now and the confidence they have in central bankers to solve their problems. are they causing problems now as you look at the market? >> inflation in the late 1930's. from 1939 until about 2005, i don't know, whatever it is. we had inflation as a big phenomenon of our life. comes from ing -- inflation. inflation is gone. and we really have -- need a very different strategy to look for returns in a world

host: what to that point -- paul krugman wrote in the new york times today that wall street is waaaahtreet. if a democrat does when next year, does it matter who wins? retainocrat will likely the reforms of 2010, but major new refunds will be blocked until democrats retain both houses of congress, which is not likely to happen for a long time. while there are some differences in financial policy between mr. sanders and mrs. clinton, they are trivial with the yawning gulf over pumpkins. is there any truth? guest: there is a truth to replicants, but governor huckabee stated quite clearly that he would be supportive of restoring glass-steagall. glass-steagall was a law that was passed at the great depression that was repealed under the clinton administration in 1999. what that law did is that it separated a traditional banking, chich is backed by the fdi and the government and the taxpayers, from wall street's big gambling and trading. glass-steagall was a firewall between those activities. when you hear governor huckabee and governor perry when he was in the race, and some replicants ha

paul krugman writing a story in "the new york times" that it is no surprise vladimir putin go after the, but in this case, a nuance toward paul ryan. the morning must-read. we will look at what he says fiscal policy and of mr. ryan. he has been good at producing documents that look sophisticated if you don't understand the issues, at creating the false impression that his plans have been vetted by budget experts. david, this was a huge deal the last go around. jivecy document that dr. with the cbo data. you wonder where we are going with this. david: the thing that struck me in reading this was what about the democrats? we had years or suck and i asked him about -- we had peers and i asked him about the tax plans and he said none of the candidates really have come up with a plan that makes a lot of sense with the details. tom: he has the authority of being the former director of the congressional budget office, but krugman is saying that they need to talk to the experts and that is not going on. stephanie: steve, what do you think? steve: really? stephanie: yes, really. steve: i think -

. >> paul krugman. same for nick cristoph and his wife. >> nick and sheryl, amazing. sir? >> yes. i think -- my name is blake. and i blog at the huffington post. i think the times is the greatest newspaper that ever existed, and i still applaud a lot of your series. i particularly am fond of the series, the justice series in the bronx that your son edited. >> he did. >> it was a fabulous series there. but is that where your audience is, and do you always want to go where the audience is? sometimes you have to lead the audience to where they don't want to go, to the bronx. i'm a little nervous about the emphasis on the video. is the "times" becoming another form of television? is that a danger? where has television led us? >> all right. so there are a number of questions there. we can pick up a few. want to move to the other, or should i -- >> hi. i'm an alumni of hunter college. you talked about the use of technology as a presentation tool. my question is, what is your vision of how to leverage technology as an investigative tool, using data science and that sort of thing? >> sure

. >> i didn't even get to make my paul krugman joke on air. dress up like him for halloween. see, i got nervous. [laughter] stuart: thank you very much. would you rather watch a longer debate without donald trump or a shorter debate with him? here's what trump himself had to say about it. >> agreed to two hours. now all of a sudden yesterday they came up with this additional long period of time. it was originally agreed that it would be two hours. the network is making a fortune off of the stuff. i wonder why. trump tweeted this earlier today. he is basically claiming victory. the debate will be two hours. fantastic news for all. especially the millions of people that will be watching. ashley, it looks to me that -- >> trump one. for the viewer at home, it is ridiculous. i think that cnbc will make a lot more money with tromping two hours then three hours without. >> and none of the other politicians are really framing the way that he does. stuart: they like to watch him. stuart: some kind of deal, some kind of deal about the structure of the

bernie sanders named people like nobel winning economist paul krugman, people like robert reisch, whoe been proven right over and over again. republican sheila bair, who has been known with elizabeth warren as one of the sheriffs of wall street. they have a lot of understanding of the markets. these are the people who have been right all along your predicting what happened, coming up with the right solutions, and unfortunately being ignored. donald trump is not the solution. host: thank you again for getting up early this morning and talking to our viewers about last night's debate. guest: for those who like the message, our website is boldprogressives.org. host: thank you very much. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will take a "spotlight on magazines." --fan management boasts stefanos be best -- stephanos bibas of "national review." to my mind,ication, is far more than a matter of cosmetics. to me, it describes the whole effort to bring the natural world and the man-made world into harmony, to bring order, usefulness, the light -- delight to our whole environ

i think it was robert reisch or paul krugman said there was a too chilean dollar hold inside of our economy which we patch with an $800 million patch. we also didn't reinstate glass-steagall and they didn't hold banks accountable for what they did. we didn't change the derivative markets. we didn't make them more transparent or we would just stop them altogether. at a time in 2007 just before the big crash it was in the neighbor -- neighborhood of eight to $900 trillion derivatives out there. these are magical securities that are made up. they derive their value from underlying assets come in this case mortgages so you have a billion dollars of mortgages put insurance policy on it for a million bucks and you place a bet on it which is what aig was doing in a place a bet on an insurance policy and then you place a billion-dollar bet of $109 bet and a 100 billion dollar bets and they just get bigger and bigger. the gdp is in the neighborhood of $56 trillion we had $900 trillion worth of derivatives, just bets. when that collapsed it was massive. we got down to around three or 400 chilean. nob

paul krugman, columnist for "the new york times," prize-winning columnist, said i came out with a tough, comprehensive, effective plan. because what i did which is really looking at the problems that we have and trying to preempt the problems of the future is to recognize that we don't just have big banks in our economy that pull a lot of strings and make a lot of decisions. look at what happened in '08. we had a big insurance company that had to be bailed out. we had lehman brothers, that failed. we have to look at the whole financial system. >> so if you're president -- >> yes? >> and the banks are failing, do we let them fail this time? >> yes. >> we let them fail this time? >> yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. first of all, under dodd/frank, that is what will happen, because we now have stress tests and i'm going to impose a risk fee on the big bank if they engage in risky behavior. but they have to know, their shareholders have to know that, yes, they will fail and if they're too big to fail, then under my plan and others that have been proposed, they may have to be broken up. because if yo