i've been opposed to paul krugman's government knows best approach since the '90s. was to to the take a dig at supply-side economics -- david: right. >> which had just delivered fantastic results under president reagan. and i was asked by "the wall street journal" to review that book, which i did with gusto, taking issue with just about every point he made. but what was especially sweet is they allowed me to suggest the title for my review of "peddling prosperity," and i suggested peddling pom passty, because that really encapsulated that whole attitude he brings to the his economic viewpoint. david: well, you see, you never let facts get in the way of the narrative. that's the krugman way of looking at this things. fortunately, the american people weighed the facts in the last election. but, steve, it's the same shortsighted people who claim that the 2017 tax cuts put in place cost $2 trillion and are now saying it's going to cost $5 trillion just to reup it, to to extend it further. the former labor secretary wrote an x post, i think this was today. he said trump'

economy while voters blamed him for higher prices while giving him no credit for higher wages" paul krugman there are some significant parallels. one of them which i think is a real takeaway is the specific political potency of inflation, particularly this time around where we hadn't seen inflation rates like this in 30 years. it seemed to have a particular bite, but it was also true during the carter years. >> yeah. i mean what we know, people hate inflation. they hate inflation even if their incomes keep up with it because if people get -- if prices go up 20% and wages go up 22%, people think i earned that wage increase and the price increase was done to me and that's clearly a factor both for jimmy carter and for joe biden. in both cases it's a particularly kind of unfair because the inflation was not the result of their policies. we can say that safely about biden now. people did initially blame biden for -- i guess some people still do -- biden for the inflation, but since we had essentially the same rate of inflation all across the advanced world, it's pretty clear that it was like th

paul krugman joins me now. it was interesting to read what you had to say about this.e significant parallels. one of them, which i think is a real take away, is just this specific political potency of inflation, particularly this time around where we haven't seen inflation rates like this in 30 years. it seemed to have a particular bite but it was also true during the carter years. >> yeah. what we know, lots and lots of evidence on this is that people hate inflation. they hate inflation even if their incomes keep up with it because if people get -- if prices go up 20% and wages go up 22%, people think i earned that wage increase and the price increase was done to me. and that clearly was a factor both for jimmy carter and for joe biden, and in both cases, it's particularly kind of unfair because the inflation was not the result of their policies. and here we can say that same thing about biden knowing people did initially blamed biden, i guess some people still do, biden for the inflation. but since we had essentially the same rate of inflation all across a vast world

tribute respectability, handout nobel prizes to paul krugman. and then when paul krugman says something that makes no sense at all, like you go back to the 5% example, of course you're going to 5% inflation but he will say no. actually you a 5% inflation and then what will happen will be, on cnn or in the post or the times they will say well, nobel prize winner paul krugman says we won't have inflation. the partisan right-wing kevin hassett says we will. >> unfortunately we do have nobel prizes friedman and hayek out of their. >> it's hard to find, undershoot the will ever be another conservative nobel prize winner. my point is we are actually right. we document every day and that's why traffic is skyrocketing to capital matters. in the end the people who write this is what america is great, the people who are right on the ones who truly control respectability and can dish it out. that's what we've built at capital matters. >> we get so many great contributions from outside people that don't normally write for "national review" and a good expert

and when paul krugman says something that makes no sense at all like you go back to the 5% inflation you will be kevin or dominic and what will happen will be on "cnn" or the times they will say well nobel prizewinner paul krugman said we will have inflation and the partisan right-wing kevin hassett will. >> fortunately we do have nobel prizewinners frequently. >> it's hard to find and i'm not sure there'll ever be another nobel prize winner. my point is is we are actually right and we documented every day and that's why traffic is skyrocketed at capital matters. in the end people who are right are the ones who truly control the respectability and i think that's how it is a capital matters. >> with outside people that don't write for the national review and have good expertise in certain areas and that's one of the ways we can add value. yesterday we had an israeli economist talking about why it didn't work for their country and they have beeno getting government ofan the financial -- and it's great to be able to have all those different perspectivesct who don't work fr national revi

and paul krugman did a wonderful article about three weeks ago in the sunday times that shows that the national media simply is not covering the details of of these or scrutinizing the white house's policy initiatives, particularly in this area. but throughout the boy across the board. and i have a chapter in my book on the media and why they don't cover the environment and, you know, one of the reasons basically is that after the abolishment of the fairness doctrine by ronald reagan in 1988, you had this giant consolidation of the media, the fairness doctrine required that networks who are using our airwaves which are owned by the public with license from the federal government, and that license formerly required them to use those airwaves for the public, they were required to air issues of public debate and air both sides of those. they were also a emphasized local control and diversity of control after abolishment of the fairness doctrine. you have a situation today where six corporations large multi own all 5000 television stations, our country and virtually all the 16,000 radio an

>> yeah, well, of course i remember paul krugman, the now former columnist for the new york times, predicting that if trump were elected in 2016, there would be a depression. well, never mind. i think the confidence is warranted if trump maintains the tax cuts. but mostly if ramaswamy and musk get that $2 trillion in spending reduction. but even that is only a drop in the bucket in a $36 trillion debt, where interest on that debt this year alone is $1 trillion. we got to cut the spending. no nation has ever been able to survive with this level of debt. >> yeah. and steph, it's republicans and democrats who've contributed to that spending over the years. >> it's true. and it tends to kind of switch which party cares more about cutting spending depending on who has power at the time. we have already seen that fight kind of play out in congress already, where we have on one hand, conservatives in the house demanding that there be significant spending cuts included in any kind of spending deal. meanwhile, the president elect is asking for the debt ceiling to be eliminated. we're already seeing th

and paul krugman did a wonderful article about three weeks ago in the sunday times that shows that the national media simply is not covering the details of of these or scrutinizing the white house's policy initiatives, particularly in this area. but throughout the boy across the board. and i have a chapter in my book on the media and why they don't cover the environment and, you know, one of the reasons basically is that after the abolishment of the fairness doctrine by ronald reagan in 1988, you had this giant consolidation of the media, the fairness doctrine required that networks who are using our airwaves which are owned by the public with license from the federal government, and that license formerly required them to use those airwaves for the public, they were required to air issues of public debate and air both sides of those. they were also a emphasized local control and diversity of control after abolishment of the fairness doctrine. you have a situation today where six corporations large multi own all 5000 television stations, our country and virtually all the 16,000 radio an