This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Krugman vs CNBC: Round 1
This one is tough: Krugman or CNBC... Krugman or CNBC... Hmmm. From the man who in 1998 thought that "by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's" (via NYT of course)
Wow. I just did Squawk Box — allegedly about my book, but we never got there. Instead it was one zombie idea after another — Europe is collapsing because of big government, health care is terribly rationed in France, we can save lots of money by denying Medicare to billionaires, on and on.
Among other things, people getting their news from sources like that are probably getting terrible advice about any kind of investment that depends on macroeconomics. But it’s amazing just how skewed the policy views are too.
All that and having to get to Englewood Cliffs, too.
And MCC's response:
I guess Prof. Krugman isn't coming back@NYTimeskrugman: Zombies on CNBC nyti.ms/MZoZPP
— Michelle Caruso (@MCaruso_Cabrera) July 11, 2012
This is what brought it on:
Oh well, hopefully at least the ratings (or book sales) of one of the above entities rise as a result. We are looking forward to Krugman's next faxed in self-book report submission.
Finally, for those curious how a person who has nothing to do with "news sources like this" wipes the floor with Krugman, is encouraged to watch this.
»
- 26749 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Clearly, at Krugman's bris, they threw the wrong bit away.
And to think I thought that Krugman and CNBC were one and the same! Both are Obamapologists!
Poor Crazy Krugman! He's having a VERY bad week!
Krugman didn't win, Kernan lost with his big mouth and constant interruptions. And what the fuck is the purpose of Andrew Ross Sorkin? He's a slimy little weasel boy. MCC is okay if she shuts he yap, puts a bag over her head and wiggles them titties
Richard Dreyfuss NEEDS to play him in "Too Big To Fail II". Either that or Krugman stars in Jaws VI.
Dr paul krugman,
The pinnical of the very old and very true saying:-
'You cannot polish a turd'
Said it yesterday, will say it again today, I actually feel sorry for Paul Krugman.
DavidC
"Socialism stifles innovation"
Congratulations! You just won a new car! Your choice of Chrysler,Cadillac, Lincoln, (captialist) Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Rolls Royce or Ferarri (socialist)
Or, your choice of American made capitalist electronics (what electronics?) or socialist Japanese or communist Chinese made.
Capitalist vs Socialist vs Communist, what are they doing, living in the 20th century?
It might have been better if they had all not overtalked each other. That is why the puntwits on US TV sound so stupid.
"you're a unicorn, can we have a philosophical discussion"
OMG. Krugman says that taking away Medicare for the rich won't save that much and is actually a disincentive. Yet raising taxes on the rich, which will collect a lot more FRNs, is not a disincentive. Even I can see through this idiot. Nobel prize ... pffpt!
Oh good grief, now Krugman is conflating wealth with income. What a maroon.
It' moron, not maroon. Wait the Nobel Prize Committee is ringing your phone - you just won the Prize for Literature.
Idiot (try this it's easier to spell)
Are you joking or do you not know the famous Bugs Bunny line?
You are (not) Bliss, You are a maroon.
sunnyside,
I didn't know that was a Bugs Bunny line, but I do think it's very funny!
DavidC
no doubt. what a maroon. what a nin-cow-poop
Your mommy's calling, it's time to watch your cartoons. Roadrunner is on.
Why the hell does every Krugman groupie immediately point out that he has a Nobel Prize the moment that someone criticizes him? He isn't the only econ Nobel winner on the planet. There are actually others and many of them disagree with Krugman on many, if not most econ issues.
I am no fan of Krugman, but i think those reporters behaved badly.
Dammit! It's Richard Dreyfuss! I was in Jaws!
Someone posted this on CNBC's website, so good I had to repost.
This interview is another example in a long series of interviews by Joe Kernen and Michell CC where the guest, who is overwhelmingly qualified, is constantly interrupted by the CNBC hosts to press their own Republican viewpoints. How tiresome it is to listen to the CNBC hosts try to "Tee" up their own Republican, freemarket agenda so that they can fit their ideological tiles into the framing. How insulting to call a Nobel laureate a unicorn!! Please put in a few hosts who can interview rather than push their own agenda. Instead of learning more from the Squawk box hosts, most of the time we learn more about their views, to our detriment as time wasted. I have to say Andrew Sorkin is a refreshing relief from the likes of JK and MCC. At least he seems to want to learn something from the guests. Also he is not wearing his personal politics on his sleeve. Please remove these Larry Kudlow wannabes.
this is right on the money.
a nobel laureate being asked to come on a cable business channel and debate a bunch of columbia mba dropouts is pure comedy.
caruso-cabrara-conchita-alonso should be sweeping the floors at cnbs and joe whatever the fuck his name is because it is not worth remembering should be taking out the trash,
what a waste of a chance to pick the brain of one of the most learned economists (and believe me, calling any economist learned is a stretch but if anyone fits that definition it is the krug) in the world.
you may not agree with the krugs conclusions but at least he knows his shit and not just some goddamned "americans for prosperity" talking points
Yeah - Kernan - stockbroker failure. What did he say about Goooold, several hundred dollars ago? Used to make fun of it every show, with that dancing miner parody. And called those who owned it lunatic idiots. While pumping which stocks?
Are you kidding me? Krugman kicked thier asses! Every time they would let him get two sentences out, before being cutoff.
They can't get any decent financial guests anymore - only Republican politicians. Yeah - that's who I wan to get my investment analysis from!!!
These moronic CNBC idiots sounded like "Glenn Beck" Fox News parrots. This chick kisses Kernans butt so bad to get an once of airtime.
Krugman had facts to refute each "Roger Ailes/Karl Rove" talking point.
And for those so educated posters here - who have drunk the Fox cool-aid. Time to wake-up.
Here are the latest causes for the 2008-2009 meltdown being spewed about on the right-wing propaganda machines:
"It wasn't the banks at fault - but TO much government regulation!"
Wow - Gramm/Leach was SOLD as deregulation! It repealed Glass/Stegall! What kind of horsepucky are they spinning.
And 8 years of Bush - didn't we get deregulation? No - Yes - your "Beck Brain" starting to melt. Better check Michael Savage's website to
get the answer.
Who sued the Standard oil to break it up? Who broke up Ma Bell? Who handcuffed Microsoft"s strong arm, to allow Apple and Google to survive.
I expect better from this blog - but it's turning into another lunatic, survivalist, right wing propaganda machine.
Putting up a tweet from that dumb ass Caruso - who f**king cares what she thinks!!!!!!!!!!!!
there is life on this blog
Difficult to believe Mark Pittman used to be a contributor - sure has changed since then.
The problem is that WallSt gets to gamble with the taxpayer backing them up; if WallSt loses, the taxpayer bails them out. Pittman 'got' that, and was fearless in going after it. ZH still has good and VERY up-to-date reporting on WallSt corruption...but some of the other content is about as well-sourced as the National Enquirer.
but but but.... the Repulicans are pro-capitalism! Krugman is a Marxist socialist Statist crypto-Gandhian Indian-style welfarist.
Whatever, right?
Yes. If this site starts expecting me to side with Mitch McConnel or Glenn Beck-style corporatist propaganda, they are going to be sorely disappointed.
Why anyone would visit zero hedge, a bunch of people who doubt the State can centrally plan an economy, and then think, hey, I bet we can flip it and make them into Republicans who hate the NYT for being liberal!
You got the wrong site. We distrust ALL the talking points mutherfucker
"Why anyone would visit zero hedge, a bunch of people who doubt the State can centrally plan an economy, and then think, hey, I bet we can flip it and make them into Republicans who hate the NYT for being liberal!"
I'm with Ron Paul on this one - End the Fed. No greater mechanism for "State Central Economic Planning".
But the Banksters own the GOP and they like the Fed just the way it is. So the Fed ain't going nowhere with the Repubs in charge.
What happened to Issa's big investigation of the Fed - wow that got put to bed quickly. Better to waist time on some political goose chase.
Glass Steagal did not regulate the institutions that failed thus giving the government an excuse to bail them out.
Glass Steagal told COMMERCIAL banks to not go in subprime derivatives. Most COMMERCIAL banks were OK and did not need a bailout, but were forced to take it as to obfuscate who was in deep crap.
It's INVESTEMENT banks that failed, which were not regulated by Glass Steagal.
Sure, the banks had, by the 1990s, figured end runs around the 1930s-era Glass-Steagall law - written to fit a simpler world.
But that in no way takes away from YAB's larger point: that it was over-leveraged banks that brought down the economy, not government debt. Banks were allowed to go from 10-1 leverage, to 40-1 and infinitity-1, because govt regulations were watered down, regulatory agencies were de-funded, and cronies were appointed as regulators.
We all know Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to grab Iraq's oil. But he also used it as an excuse to gut the FBI departments who prosecuted the banks in the S&L crisis; moving them wholescale over to counter-terrorism. William Black has documented this extensively. The regulatory agencies, and particularly their prosecutorial arms, have a handful of lawyers left, who are taskes with taking on the armies of lawyers at G-S, JPM, etc..
"Most COMMERCIAL banks were OK and did not need a bailout, but were forced to take it as to obfuscate who was in deep crap."
Dude what are you smoking!!! Who owned all those mortgages? Washington Mutual, IndyMAC and Fannie/Freddie were NOT investment banks. What about BOA and Citi - not needing bailouts - huh!!!!!
G/S repeal allowed the contamination of commercial banks balance sheets.
+10000.
You are very correct about this blog... full of apocalyptic Austrians, Randians, etc.
Krugman is right... get used to it.
He was on the show to promote his book. Enough said. Pitch your snake oil somewhere else.
Whoa...so many comments...can't read them all. I just listened to Krugman on the Squawk Box and frankly he sounded sane and those people around him sounded insane. Did I miss something?
You pretty much nailed it.
How people react to Krugman is how I tell a lot about them. If they froth, I know I am dealing either with a) a partisan or b) a rigid idealogue.
Krugman represents a very traditional -- if maybe now obsolete -- economic view that dominated the 20th century, which was not a bad century. To say "I don;t understand where you are coming from" is either to be a) an outright liar or b) a moron.
Krugman represents the classical Keynesian economic view - which is not outdated.
Here's what happened: Starting with Reagan the GOP decided to embark on a new economic model called Supply Side Economics (remember the "Laughter", I mean Lafler curve). Cut taxes and balloon the deficit in good times! Hey, way to get reelected! GW Bush went against that and look what happened! In comes Dubya, and wow tax cuts for everyone. Squandering a huge surplus, that could have paid down the Federal Debt. In fact, turned it into a big deficit, during an economic boom! Result - reelection! And a huge deficit during good times - except - a few problems. Like a huge housing bubble - which goes BUST! Now what, we shot our wad already and have no room to bring back demand. Face a huge depression - or blow the deficit out even larger! Here we are today.
The problem is not Krugman or Keynes - it's corrupt politicians and gullible electorates that elect them. You can have your cake and eat it too!
Yum Yum - how's it taste.
Now we're talking about electing a Vulture Capitalist to "restructure" America. Oh that'll be fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen to Reagan's Budget Adviser David Stockman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVDTA0uHsA
Well said. I think it odd that so few comments here (and I might have missed them) have been negative aginst the Chicago school of the late Milton Friedman? If I am not mistaken, his school held several presidents and maybe even Fed chairmen in thrall and we are all living in the wake of that misguided mindset. On top of this we must say strong words of complete condemnation to the direct impact of deregulation that Greenspan convinced congress to undertake. I would say that the housing bubble that burst in 2007 was the spawn of Greenspan like no other. Combine this with a generation of non-enforcement from the almost criminal guys at the SEC (who refused to take a whistleblowers rants about Bernie Maddoff seriously enough to give him 5 minutes of consideration), the most certainly criminal behaviour of the ratings agencies.....etc. The core of the American way of doing business is now so patently corrupt and rotten that it makes one pine for the halcyon days when the Savings and Loans debacle was on our minds. The congress and senate reps are paid for by big business and so they control the mindset of all possible regulatory legislation in their favor. See the current building disaster for allowing fracking in various states, despite the environmental pollution. See the blindness that allows West Viriginia to get away with sanctioning coal companies to blast off entire mountain tops 'cause it's way more cost effective, no matter how it lays all that waste into the surrounding environment. If it cuts costs everyone and I mean EVERYONE in government will support it, no matter the costs. This is the sickly hub upon which the dark side of American capitalism has revolved and it must be addressed by the nation. They have to look at the dark side and decide if it needs an adjustment.
The shocking part is the Semi-God stature given to Reagan in the GOP, and really the country. He did more to screw over the average working Joe then any President since Hoover.
He He He. You guys on this thread must be joking. Surely:)
Look, I'm a Canadian so my opinion holds less importance. But, for me anyone who admires Ronald Regan is blissfully ignorant with how vile he was, how ignorant he was, how simple minded he was. Conspiracy researcher John Judge once said that the real President in the Regan era was George Bush Senior. Mae Brussel, an older generation of investigative researcher called Bush "Killer Bush". Bush was Skull and Bones and Regan saw the world through Readers Digest (which is where he sourced his talking points from - I kid you not) and Hollywood movies. He saw the world as bad guys and good guys (which Dubya absorbed at his knee side, so it would seem), guys with black and white hats....Injuns and the Cavalry. "Mr. Gorbachov.....tear down this wall!!!!" Sounds like the mind of one dimensional pre-dementia droid. Contrast this with JFK's resounding "I am a Berliner!" Anyway, for Regan you should read "Veil" by Bob Woodward. A very good book.
He sold that Bullshit well, just like his cancerstick commercials. Though more deadly of a product.
Hey, I heard on FOX noise you have to wait 18 months in Canada for an anti-biotic script - is that true?
Correction: Bush inherited both a recessiion and a surplus brought about by a stock market bubble and social security inflows due to the mpst fortunate demographics ever. Stimulus was and is the Keynesian solution, Bush just happened to cut taxes rather than increase spending. Of course he increased spending plenty over the last 3/4 of his term, which is just one of the reasons why his presidency was so poor.
The Repulblican strategy since Reagan was to starve the beast. Reagan never had the Congress so he figured both cutting taxes and spending was impossible so he focused solely on the tax side, hoping that the bond market would force the spending side to follow (starving the beast). But, like all politicans, Republicans like to spend other peoples money- only difference is they give to a different set of cronys. Thus our bi-partisan born budget disaster...
Yea, you missed something.
CNBS: This is where Krugman belongs.
Krugman was in a bad shape. For the GDP question, well it is excactly 50.0000145789545 percent. Does not require too much to understand it.
I love the part where the dude asks Krugman "what country over the past 200 years has done better with capitalism."
Anyone who does research / history for a living, knows that is the kind of statement only made by a partisan hack.
Switzerland has 2.7% unemployment and free healthcare.
Germany has 5.6% unemployment and free healthcare.
Norway has 3% unemployment and free healthcare.
Austria has 4% unemplyment and free healthcare.
Sweden has 7.8% unemployment and free healthcare.
Yea, but you forgot to mention the tax rates. Been there, done that, don't want to repeat :)
My guess, without researching the question would be Germany. Maybe even Norway when I think about it. The Dutch can't be too far behind. In absolute terms the USA might be the winner in terms of creation of wealth. However, this same wealthy nation has the highest rate of incarceration in jails and lots more that don't endear it to the nice side of life. But, I quibble.
Yeah Paul, perhaps demand is a problem. But what tells you the government will get what kind of offer to stimulate ?
History shows it'll stimulate its friends' offer.
why is the obvious so hard to see for most.....a crucial answer to solving health care spending is end-user price-transparency (along with a bit more co-pay) should go a long way to fixing the over-consumption problem.
insurance cos. love high costs, past it along to policy payers, and make your % on the cash flow....
But it's not the healthcare CONSUMER who spends too much, it's the healthcare PROVIDER.
We're (probably) all familiar with the car mechanic who wants to fix things on the car that aren't broken, to pad the bill. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ARE ANY MORE MORAL? The answer is, they are not. In fact, in most practices with any size (and this includes virtually any hospital), your yearly performance review is based on how much you bill. Sure, management will talk about quality of care in their brochures and ads, but when it comes down to whether they're happy with your work or not, it is ALL about how much you bill. And management is happy (when they're actually at work) to tell you, in detail, exactly which unnecessary and marginally-necessary procedures will still be accepted for payment by the insurers - as in they give you a software suite that makes those decisions defaults for you, and that you have to override in order to only bill what the patient actually needs. And by "override", I mean type out a form, submit it for management approval, take shit from management about it, etc..
If we think we're being gouged by a car mechanic, we consult with a knowledgeable, trusted friend - "is this repair really necessary?". The problem with applying the analogy to healthcare (as 1eyedman claims is "obvious") is that 1) healthcare is a lot more complicated than auto care and 2) the consequences of not caring for a serious illness are more severe than, say, having a radiator you ignored fail on the interstate. When it's your wife or kids' health at stake, you do what the clinician suggests - anybody here want to disagree with that? People with sniffles going to see the doctor because it's free....if this happens at all, it's a vanishingly-small part of healthcare costs. Most people will do anything to avoid going to the doctor.
What's needed to avoid providers padding the bill is someone with sufficient expertise looking over their shoulder. The bulk of the world does that with govt. Because American's don't trust govt solutions, we came up with a way to keep the private insurers personnel in that role (and those contortions are one of the reasons ACA is complex).
Forget the bankers, hang the trial lawyers I say. Gets us rid of two problems; rising health care costs and the DemoCommunist Party. :)
i'm not making the analogy of 'is this repair necessary'. The costs of healthcare, at a minimum, need to be more obvious to all involved. yes healthcare professional bill as much as they can.
how do you begin to fix a system where costs are unknown and paid for by others? personally i think a basic h/c system to treat most ailments under some sort of single payer system and then private catastrhophic insurance for most everything else. check ups, stitches, broken bones...$20 copay...cancer, organ transplants, need to have boughtinsurance....
If we could have French healthcare costs, the healthcare problem would be solved.
Think about that statement for a moment. A Princeclown professor with a Nobell prize is saying the US should have French costs. This liberal convenienty sideskirts the issue of the tax rate in France and all of the subsidies and accounting fiction that is used.
I really, really do not like this man. He is a smart liar and a classic champaign socialist.
You raise interesting points which the devilish Michael Moore touched upon in his screed "Sicko". I wonder and do not know the true cost, no matter how you figure it, of providing direct medical care in France versus the USA? How much of French medicine is subsidized versus the USA? It is a given that French VAT taxes make it a more expensive place to live in than the USA. However, in countries like France with higher taxes, like here in Canada for example, none of us has anywhere near the out of control deficit and debt that the USA has on its hands. True enough as well that no other comparable country pays for the massive armed forces that the Americans do. It might be a facetious argument to always make comparisons to Sweden, a tiny population without the % of its tax base put towards the Defence budget like the Americans do. These are false comparisons and I blame Krugman and so many other for bringing it up. In Canada there can be longer waits for certain types of procedures but we don't have the likes of Wall Street bankers who have blown up the fiancial infrastructure....we might have criminals but far fewer on Bay Street than Fleet or Wall St.
So the Princeclown says that Govt spending of up to 50% of GDP is ok...
Oh my God...
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000100509&play=1
wow......
At least Paul got the whole "If you listen to CNBC, you'll lose money" point right.
From 2011 ZeroHedge post:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/five-ds-dystopian-markets
"CNBC’s Joe Kernen is a real turkey when it comes to gold and he has been for 13 years, missing the entire move up and mocking gold bulls all that time.He was a stock broker in 1982 and pedaled gold, only to get hurt by his pitch with clients. He never got over it and now can’t see the forest for the trees."
'Nough Said.
The squawk panel embarrassed themselves...
Krugnuts or cnbc? You may as well say beef or chicken to a vegan.
"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." - Paul Krugman, 1998.
Imagine the innovations we have lost thanks to modern economists believing they know what is best for the economy.
Hey, the fax machine was a big deal.
http://youtu.be/bQcRPJMyVKw
I wish CNBC would take a FED-governor of Dimon or Blankfein into a cross examination and ask them, how the privatizing of profit and socializing of losses with bailouts does fit into a market-economy...
Listen carefully what Krugman says min ~7. This is the culprit of the explanation, why the US healthcare system is so great for the super-rich and why their lobby (CNBC is not run by poor people ;) ) is bringing up suddenly libertarian arguments, to defend the status quo!
Don't you recognize, how they are playing their games? If it is in their interest, they pull the liberatrian arguments out of the hat, if it is good for them they argue for "responsibility" and more socialism. And the ZH-sheeple are applauding, if they can keep the current system, which is probably the worst and most expensive system with the highest uncertainty for average people in the world.
Yes, Krugman took a liberal stand but the audience does not understand it. A liberal society is based on the American dream i.e. not socialist behaviour but the freedom and equality needed to have an equal playground.
They didn't fool me, I knew all along it was Jim Cramer wearing a wig...
They all referred to themselves as "capitalists". LOL
Who is that obnoxious shouting prick with the chequered tie?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Krugman, he is in to many respects a plain wrong socialist dreamer.
But this other guy, what a moron.
To be honest, a winner of the noble price should not be interviewed by award winning titties and ties.
Regardless what I think of his ideas, it seems like the only reason they invited him on was so that the self proclaimed financial industry heavyweights Carusa Cabrera and Kernan could try to treat him like a punching bag.
I had to laugh when MCC barked out "let me finish!" when all she does in every single interview is interrupt her guests like a total dipshit.
Round 1: Krugman
Joe Kernan is one of the dumbest fucks on TV. Totally inarticulate. Stumbles and mumbles each morning as he tries to push his billionaire cock-sucking no-tax, no-regulation agenda. How he got this gig and retains it is one of the great mysteries of life.
Watching him and that poisoned witch Cabrusso-Cabrera try and argue with Krugman was painful - like watching Beavis and Butthead engaging with Einstein.
At one point Kernan starts babbling on about Krugman being like a white unicorn or something. Krugman looked as mystified as me - I mean WTF!!!
Man have you got that right! He rambles off topic constantly. Early dementia? Or just really constipated? Or both??
He thinks he's witty and engaging - maybe to schizophrenics.
Trying to follow Gas Bag to Fox Business - but I guess he can't make the cut.
I have to say that Dr. Krugman is improving in his ability to go toe-to-toe with his critics. Also, he made at least one fine point as regards Keynesian economics many seem to miss. The U.S. missed an opportunity to pay down its debts when GWB decided to start two wars and cut taxes simultaneously. Krugman clearly stated that this was a mistake. I might add, and he seems reluctant to make such criticism, but both tax policy and Fed policy have damaged savings. Save money and earn a tiny amount of interest on it - and the U.S. taxes that income. But borrow money and pay interest on it - and you can deduct that cost from your income. Is it any wonder that we are sinking in a sea of debt?
The majority of anti-Keynesians tend to blame the theory for the outcome. I doubt that JMK would have contenanced deficit spending for 40 years to maintain economic growth - when the economy was booming. The real problem here is political, not economic, very few politicians are willing to take the punchbowl away while the party is flying. BTW - the real issue is not the scale of government spending, but the growth rate of such spending grossly exceeding economic growth and the unwillingness of politicians to balance the budget.
And no one wants to discuss the other potential solution. Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate. So what solution do you favor Joe - a liquidation frenzy, or government stimulus supported by high taxes? The third way? Well... listen to Krugman - and watch for vultures.
Thank God the people sitting around that table are not effectively America's economic policy brain trust... oh... wait...
I don't really know much about his ideas nor do I care much, but this guy is seriously creepy. If he does not have some kind of social disorder then my name is Harry...