Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz: The Genius of Economics

Piketty, arguably the world’s leading expert on income and wealth inequality, does more than document the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small economic elite. He also makes a powerful case that we’re on the way back to ‘patrimonial capitalism,’ in which the commanding heights of the economy are dominated not just by wealth, but also by inherited wealth, in which birth matters more than effort and talent,” wrote Paul Krugman in The New York Times. Krugman and his fellow Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz (author of The Great Divide) join Piketty to discuss the genius of economics.
Subscribe for more videos like this: bit.ly/1GpwawV
Facebook: / 92ndstreety
Twitter: / 92y
Tumblr: / 92y
Instagram: / 92ndstreety
On Demand: www.92yondemand.org

[@nightoftheworld]

9:18 _’”This was not my fault. You know I was at the end of Luxembourg, and you know I had to find a development strategy for my country. There was deindustrialization, so I had to find something else and my idea was to become a tax haven basically.’_ And you know this was amazing you know because every country in Europe has a problem with deindustrialization and so if we all just steal the tax base of each other we are not going to go very far.“

[@davidmagritta4394]

J'arrive à comprendre l'anglais grâce à Piketty Je suis devenu bilingue ! Merci Thomas !

[@villagebeader]

)

[@EddyJure]

😄

[@j-ch8787]

Surprenant en effet. Juste une question de mettre une balle de ping pong ds sa bouche et la faire rouler. That s all... Oh... C est comme le manuel des GI's qui ont debarqué en normandie : ils avaient un petit livret pour se faire comprendre des paysans normands avec des phrases traduites phonetiquement Am / Fr du genre "s il vous plait madame"... ca donnait : "sioux play mam'"... Faites prononcer ça a un texan... J aimerais voir la tronche du paysan normand en 44 !!! (piqué ds ce livret de mon pere de la 101` airborne... Il a appri un français genre café du commerce ms presque correcte...par la suite !)

[@dixonpinfold2582]

🤨 You should have read the English poets, novelists and essayists.

[@user-on4kk1bb3s]

❤😅

[@SaaErDetNok]

I am not an economist, and though I do understand some basic theoretical elements of the field, I wouldn't want to proclaim myself an "independent authority" - but, when reading through comments on this, and most any other lecture/presentation/Q&A of any acclaimed economist (or, indeed, any social or political science person), I am forced to evaluate the plausibility of "the information and analysis presented by the acclaimed economist" vs "the statement made by some (to me) unknown commentator, who claims that the experts are complete idiots, and that the reality of the matter is something entirely different, and most often very simple". I dunno - this is very bizarre to me. When I grew up I learned two things from interacting with "my elders": 1) any authority may be mistaken, or may have misunderstood, misinterpreted or mis-conceptualised something 2) an intelligent person, who has spent decades in serious study, work and/or research of a field - even in his/her mistakes - has more insight, than someone who hasn't. I would have thought that was a fairly universal human experience, you know, beyond the 18th year of life. How does one sustain this other notion? It seems to me, that any argument that could account for the amount of data, of analysis, of study, of just plain *experience* being *all bullshit*, would be (basically) an argument for general agnosis - not an argument that someone *else* had found the *real truth* in a bowl of cereal. But I probably am too much of an idiot to *get it* - drinking too much cool-aid, part of the problem and all that.

[@TheAMOTVBrunei]

+SaaErDetNok couldn't have said it better myself. lol

[@paulwary]

+SaaErDetNok I am also concerned with this sort of issue. Here are some relevant things that I have gathered: The hard sciences like physics are the paradigm for expertise. In these fields you can truly become an expert, add something tangible and true to the store of knowledge, and generally advance things. As you go away from the material world to the social, of course things get more unsure and fuzzy, but the sociologists, the economists, the psychologists have always been jealous of the success of the hard sciences. Hard science has been under attack for some time, from a variety of countercultures, ultimately due to the risks and fears that people tend to blame it for (pollution, nuclear weapons, chemical disasters, GMOs and so on). The latest attack from postmodernism played out in the academy, and has led to fields like sociology both criticising science, while at the same time attempting to steal the mantle from science as the paradigm of the theoretical, without using a methodology that has any hope of achieving anything tangible. I think a lot of this criticism has percolated down to the general population, so there is far more distrust of experts and academics in general. I think postmodernism, although its now on the way out, has a lot to answer for. Then there is the media with its sound bytes, ambulance chasing, and worst of all, artificial 'balance'. Any interview featuring an expert on climate change has to be balanced by including Mr Potato Head denialist. So you have the loonies of the left, the new-agers, the radfems and the radical back-to-nature environmentalists, the anti-vaccinators, and also the religious right, the social conservatives, the doomsday preppers, the radical libertarians, the climate change denialists, all ready to express, in simple and violent terms, their particular anti-scientific ideological solutions. With the advent of the internet, these people never need to be exposed to a different view, or to the evidence that shows their beliefs to be false. For the most part they are holed-up in their particular electronic ghettos, and only venture out to do battle in the (virtual) street. The reasonable centre is in hiding. Many of these people are not stupid, but their ideologies tell them that they do not need to think, and they truly seem to lose the capacity to think - to weigh evidence, to listen, to evaluate and argue reasonably. No doubt there are a lot of reasonable people just trying to make sense of things, but they are the least likely to comment on forums like youtube. If their understanding is nuanced, they are less willing to attempt to put it down in a few words - they will have doubts and caveats. And lets face it, the average quality is very low - you will be sharing space with the teenager who really just wants to say bum.

[@SaaErDetNok]

+leo jake Well, examining the validity of claims does not strictly speaking require a complete understanding of the field of study, as much as an acute understanding of deductive reasoning and the concepts in play. Examining the truth/correctness/"ontological status" of claims, would require an understanding of the nature of the evidence on which the premised assumptions were based. It is, I would suggest, a fundamental epistemic realization, that 100% certainty is an illusion - within the framework of anything, but the most artificial of approaches. The thing that bothers me, however, isn't the disagreement of peers, or the contradiction of differing positions - what *does* bother me, is the absurdity of claiming, that the dedicated professional in a field is"an idiot, with *no* understanding of the subject what-so-ever", but that some random, unknown source is dispensing "truth"; as unquestionable as the purity of the virgin mother, with no other foundation offered, beyond: "cause I know the real world". One may reasonably ask: what is the nature of knowledge, if it is simultaneously *self-evident* (requiring no evidence or substantial argument) and *highly contested*? Surely it is obvious, that something *cannot* be self-evident if sane people of sound intelligence are willing to contest, and clearly if contested there must be some examination of the factual status and deductive validity of the offered assertions. So, I wonder: what is the nature of the world, that one lives in, if one is willing to believe that experts are not simply mistaken - they are fools, idiots, and dick-heads - but that one can easily produce qualitatively *better* results, with *absolutely* no strict methodology, no concern for data or data analysis, no conception of the nature of the field of study or the objects and phenomena therein, but by the intellectual equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of the hat. It is not the contradiction itself, but the *disproportionality* of argument and evidence offered that boggles my mind. How might you reasonably be a sceptic on a person offering actual argument and evidence, and then turn around and swallow wholesale, the mere assertions of another? To coin a phrase - pun intended - I would call it: "fiat certainty"; - and if I were to make *one* suggestion to the reader, it would be this: the fundamental epistemic condition of the ingenuous sceptic isn't *disbelief*, it is *uncertainty*. From this the notion proceeds, that *I have no greater reason to trust my own "dispositions of belief", than those of anyone else*, and therefor we - for lack of better means - turn to formal methods to gauge the *appropriate level of uncertainty* assigned to any assertion. We do not simply "believe" or "disbelieve" according to gut, tradition or intuition. And so; this is the one thing that promotes the professional of any field above all others; that one may be less uncertain, that there *is* a theory, there *is* an argument, that it is publicly available, that it is constantly contesting in the field of ideas, and that it *does* not base itself on evidence unavailable to the average citizens - as opposed to "the secret fountain of truth" from which the "randomly commenting sage"; derives his insight. Now, I know that this wasn't a particularly rigid presentation, but I hope that it *did* (in a semi-lucid manner) clarify the nature of my bafflement and frustration.

[@SaaErDetNok]

+leo jake Well, I may have some special case of OCD, in that I don't really recognize the distinction between "making a philosophical point" and "making a point". To me there is a convergence or congruence, from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract - and both "sides" inform each other reciprocally. That being said: it is *exactly* because economics *is* complex and abstract, that I don't understand that there is a different attitude, than in the case of a medical doctor. If someone had a dissenting opinion on carpentry or cooking, I might understand that they would feel, that their own personal opinion was all that they needed, and was as sound as that of anyone else - but is it not understood, that economics has a *poor* conceptual overlap with your understanding of household economy and that time you "ran Uncle Bob's convenience store"?

[@666mandrake]

+SaaErDetNok Your original statement correspond very well to my view of the world. I think that things are extremely simple for those with real power. Then they hire a bunch of economists to make it extremely complex so that no one else can understand. Also, they make sure that they hire economists with different solutions so that the masses can be properly entertained. I do not think the reality of the matter is really all that complicated. For example, I believe that the real reason we have not found a cure for cancer is that they want to treat it instead. The corporate world enjoys steady stream of income. Like we have in the utility sector, entertainment industry or defense sector. The war in vietnam, for example, was it a defeat? Not really, it made a lot of people a lot of money. The soldiers too made a nice amount of money. And we killed a whole lot of viets in the process. So, from a certain elitist point of view, it was a smashing success. So, I have listened to all these economists for two hours and I think their solution was remarkably simple. They said: we need help from the politicians. Well, if that is all we need, we might as well just give up because I have followed politics long enough to know that they are going to do very little to help anyone other than their wallets. Is my analysis simple enough? Do I think I am right and they are wrong? Yes and yes. Tell me though, do you disagree with the points I made? The only hope I have at this point is that those in power will realize that this system is totally unsustainable and maybe they will try to work something out before we end up with 200 millions beggars in the USA. Hopefully they realize that it would not be good for business but then again, I might be too much of an optimist.

[@koroglurustem1722]

Let me first apologize that my English sounds like French 😂

[@Toxinomist]

It s basically the same language, they share the logic and at least 10000 words

[@inuarashi590]

hahaha

[@walterburger5281]

@@Toxinomist Yeah, and all the French words I can't spell.

[@stellabrndumfolkmann9878]

@@Toxinomist 8>>>>%

[@alunevans2377]

He sounds a bit like Inspector Clousseau

[@whatsoeverwhatever3003]

Mr. Piketty opened my eyes from faults and destruction from bubbles and neoclassic apprach in economics Thank you!

[@Tyler-hf4uc]

How so? He was thoroughly debunked and hasn't really made any contributions since then.

[@dthomas9230]

@@Tyler-hf4uc Piketty was not debunked.

[@Tyler-hf4uc]

@@dthomas9230 yes, largely his work has been debunked. He's had to backtrack and amend his thoughts or just double down on bad data.

[@Noblesix_.]

​@@dthomas9230he's been debunked by Austrians numerous times.

[@SohamSinha]

Such a good hosting. Really appreciate the style, command and control.

[@lorrellye]

Yes, she's fantastic

[@bonconfidant7514]

@@lorrellye Who is she? No sign of her elsewhere on the channel.

[@paulisaacson6044]

Another comment far down says Alex Wagner Googled she'll be taking over some of MSNBC Maddow spots in august

[@grzegorzkrz]

@@bonconfidant7514 Alex Wagner

[@silvioapires]

Who is this presenter?! She is great!!!😃

[@nikosamarino9650]

Alex Wagner

[@jimjackson4256]

My respect for Paul Krugman took a giant leap when he said he wasn’t sure he wasn’t a fraud.

[@jcsrst]

He always strikes me as humble which is NOT a common trait amongst economists!

[@rutessian]

He is a fraud. Just look at some of his predictions.

[@jimjackson4256]

@@rutessian But at least he is an honest fraud.

[@_human_1946]

@@rutessian Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you're a fraud. Especially if there are powerful countries running around randomly crashing commodity markets by launching invasions.

[@rutessian]

@@_human_1946 jim Cramer is constantly wrong, so much so that people are making money betting against his predictions. Would you consider him a fraud or just unlucky?

[@sabinkstudio]

Paul: "Beware, this is not a joke" Audience: "laughs" Me: :/

[@seherf786]

Yea whats up with the laughter??

[@sabinkstudio]

@@seherf786 been a a while since I watched. But if I remember correctly, not sure the audience understood. A lot of modelling, which impacts policy decisions, is based on simplifying assumptions of how people behaviour to make the math work. Worth reading about CGE models.

[@ArturoWTM]

As matter of fact, there's a lot going on in the field of CGE, especially in DSGE models. Also now it's most common to see policy makers doing some empirical research rather than just modelling. As I see, both approachs are complementary, neither exhaustive nor exclusive. The real problem comes when some economist develop some kind of fetishism with maths - it seems to me like if they were frustrated physicist

[@shillgates6664]

@@sabinkstudio Facts he states are WRONG! Coolidge lowered tax rates, Hoover RAISED THEM to 62% FDR wasn't IN OFFICE in 1932!! Not until 1933....French Liar

[@kenthomas856]

Bailing out the banksters for gambling with investors money cannot help stabilize the economy. Society does not need Goldman Sachs, IGA, etc. The people's money needs to be invested in industry---not bailing out rich criminals who got in over their heads.

[@kenthomas856]

+ken thomas AIG

[@JamieTheTroll]

+ken thomas If you don't bailout investment banks you lose pension funds and retail banks. People would have lost their savings. The real problem is banks that are too big to fail.

[@kenthomas856]

***** Most people think taxpayers bailed out the banks for 4.6 trillion dollars. Bad enough, except the actual sum was16 trillion dollars. But worse the banks were not the ones bailed out. Taxpayers bailout the CEOs who were guilty of felony fraud. What did these crooks do with all that money? They financed mergers among themselves to make their corporations even bigger and gave themselves 100s of billions of dollars in bonuses leaving taxpayers with an unpayable debt to the Federal Reserve [another criminal organization]....resulting in greater austerity for the taxpayers. The sad part is the problems that caused the 2008 crash was not fixed meaning it's not a question of if but when the next crash will come. And it will be even worse.

[@huethen5454]

www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/ but don't let the facts ruin your narrative.

[@kenthomas856]

hu yichen You are dealing with the wrong bailout, amigo. goldstockbull.com/articles/federal-reserve-secret-bank-bailouts-topped-16-trillion/ fiatplanetcouk.fatcow.com/banks-banking/central-banks/federal-reserve-real-bailout/

[@JamieTheTroll]

Heroes

[@jltorres6320]

Lucky you!

[@JamieTheTroll]

+Luis & Julia Torres I know!!

[@mrmtn37]

Nice a hero? Is it The Capitalist making blood money with a full on Cabal of your own working class? Or the part where you make money off of sending working class people to war for your war profits? Its all barbaric and needs to stop.

[@yofed2]

piketty's data and methods have already been discredited. which is why he has fallen off the face of the earth in economic circles.

[@jltorres6320]

yofed2 He's globally recognized as one of the world's leading economists. Who discredits him? Is it some supply side quack?

[@AWildBard]

I like the fact that they said they don't believe in genius. We are too quick to elevate people above ourselves. That said, I love to listen to these guys. We all have a lot to learn, I think.

[@nthperson]

One of the few economists who not only forecasted the 2008 crisis but explained exactly what was happening was University of California professor Mason Gaffney. A paper by him on the subject appears in the most recent issue of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. What Professor Gaffney has been writing about for sixty years is the power of property markets as THE most important driver of our boom-to-bust economic system. Because of our system of property law and taxation, our property markets are unstable and dominated by speculation and hoarding -- by rent-seeking behavior that is rewarded by a very low effective rate of taxation on the potential rental value of land and land-like assets. Every eighteen years the result is an asset bubble. How severe and widespread the crash is that occurs is determined by related factors, such as the cheapness and access to credit. The 2008 crash was one of the most severe because of the long period of deregulation of the financial sector that resulted in a dramatic concentration of financial reserves in the hands of fewer and fewer financial institutions. The straw that broke the camel's bank was the collusion by Wall Street firms, the banks and mortgage brokers who built the private label MBS market with loans characterized by widespread fraud and predatory conditions.

[@REaLAToMicZ]

Edward Dodson Ron Paul also predicted the burst of the real estate bubble. But the problem is not the deregulation of the financial sector, but the low-interest rates of the FED. This caused other crisis before like in asia.

[@TheAwillz]

I will look into Gaffney further, what you have said is fantastically interesting from an Economic Security stand point. Thanks for the insight.

[@laurentguyot3362]

"because of the long period of deregulation of the financial sector" you are joking no? because the financial sector is the most regulated sector off all. That the regulation that causes the burst that and the state meddling in the economy. Mises and other austrian economists predicted long ago that markets heavily controled by the state are prone to regular burst or crisis.

[@PiratesRock]

15:34 Paul Krugman predicting the future/another recession. Cheers from 2020 folks!

[@Zerradable]

Not that hard of a prediction to be honest...

[@walterburger5281]

Don't worry, Krugman has never made a prediction that has ever worked out.

[@shillgates6664]

@@Zerradable Krugman PREDICTED The INTERNET would be no bigger advance then the FAX machine!! Said the Stock market would tank under Trump... Nobel has become a JOKE, Obviously

[@odingokodingo1388]

few of my best in economics

[@silat13]

Thanks for this 92Y.

[@caseybv74]

Is it just me or does Joseph Stiglitz say "United Steaks"?

[@claudiocanavaro22]

caseybv74 yes but USA is like Greece always needs Europe to bail it out. EU had sick of Americans then start buying us corporations doing investments but loosing € in USA even own it they stuck with it.

[@bunnyx726]

I was just thinking the same thing lol

[@yordang2818]

No,it is the frase 'monetary policies would do the trick '

[@fischka100]

caseybv74 moreover, the Steaks are Unitek

[@jimjackson4256]

Thanks for pointing that out.

[@spyrosspyratos654]

It is mentioned that the minimum wage nowadays (in real terms) is less than 50 years ago which is a striking fact. But it becomes horror when you provide what was the average housing price or monthly rent 50 years ago compared to now.

[@limonare]

thank you for the video

[@vaunniethayer1484]

Moderator did a great job here.

[@nthperson]

Of the three, Joseph Stiglitz has come closest to developing a clear understanding of the cause of economic cycles of boom and bust. The reason is that he has come to challenge the neoclassical assertions that price clears all markets. This is largely true of the markets for labor and capital goods (less so for credit). But, it is not true at all for nature (i.e., for the factor of production "land"). What Stiglitz has come to understand is that the undertaxation of rents (which are unearned to individuals and private entities) leads to hoarding and speculation-driven markets for: (a) locations in our towns and cities; (b) agricultural lands; (c) natural resource-laden lands; (d) the broadcast spectrum; (e) resources taken from the seas and oceans; (f) paths allocated around the earth for satellites; (g) take-off and landing slots at airports; and (h) other aspects of nature that have a zero cost of production in terms of labor and capital goods.

[@xotni]

Thank you!

[@widehotep9257]

Booms and busts are caused 100% by private banks. Banks create all money when they issue loans, not government (Richard Werner proved this empirically in 2014). When banks are creating a lot of new money and lending it into the economy, you get a boom. When the banks stop the process (for whatever reasons) you get the inevitable bust.

[@nthperson]

@@widehotep9257 To be sure, how banks react at the height of property market cycles will have an important impact on the depth and duration of a recession. Property markets historically experience a serious correction or crash every 18-21 years. They are speculation-driven and credit-fueled. So, when credit is cheap and widely available and and property prices skyrocket, eventually reaching a price point that can no longer be absorbed by households seeking housing or businesses looking to purchase or lease space. As borrowers run into cash flow problems and begin to default on loans, the banks stop lending. It is then left up to the government to determine who gets bailed out. Only those deemed too big to allow to fail get the bail out money; everyone else goes through foreclosures and bankruptcy.

[@widehotep9257]

@@nthperson Stiglitz believes in the debunked "Fractional Reserve" theory of money creation. This bogus theory says the money lent by banks exists in an account somewhere before the borrower arrives. Richard Werner proved this to be incorrect after observing banks and proved that banks create 100% new money when they issue loans. If Stiglitz doesn't understand money creation or how banks work, why would be trust his other analysis? And why is he pushing a debunked theory without ever running an empirical test to see if it is even true?

[@nthperson]

@@widehotep9257 Few economists are right about how economies really function. My view is that those who have been significantly influenced by the analysis presented in the writings of Henry George come closest. Stiglitz at least has gradually come to appreciate Henry George's insight that the private appropriation of rents leads to economic instability and the accelerating concentration of income and wealth. Werner is technically quite correct. And, as a former banking officer, I argue that banks should be required to have the cash with which to make loans or investments. The initial capital for a bank comes from its owners, in return to which they get shares of stock. They can then borrow by taking in deposits or issuing bonds. If they need cash they can also borrow from other banks or in the money markets. Stiglitz apparently does not recognize the difference between a bank of deposit (as was the Bank of Amsterdam in the 17th century) and a lending institution. The Bank of Amsterdam in its early decades issued receipt money equal to the value of gold (and silver?) coinage held on behalf of its depositors. For this service, the bank earned a fee. This was the last deposit bank ever established, as all banks thereafter issued bank notes in excess of that which could be redeemed in gold or silver coinage. Enter the age of fractional reserve banking. And, now (since Nixon) we have had no reserve banking, with so-called reserves defined to include government securities.

[@r.b.l.5841]

"unless there is a disruptive event it is going to get worse" Covid-19 is a pretty big disruptive event...

[@Lethargie55]

thought the same

[@dragonfly1929]

@@Lethargie55 The Covid-19..is the cover up ..blaming the Civid-19 ,for something that was unavoidable ,seems to be pure luck,blame it on the virus...

[@daniels5853]

@@dragonfly1929 well I mean to an extent. There was no way that we would be able to sustain the economic growth following the Great Recession forever

[@dragonfly1929]

@@daniels5853 Right ,we let the gangsters take over ,it was 70 years of American Hegemony ,taking over everything ,the world gave to America ,thinking it was going to be a faire broker !Well it was not ,and everything they did for their benefit ,while the world ,was recovering from the WWI,casastropy ,faught on their land!Who caused the Great Recession ??It was greed and theft and lies,speculation,a bubble not different from today !I am going to fast,I should have asked you how did America go out of the depression of 1929/1930?It was a choice the billionaire class ,hed to make .The very rich owned everything !A dozen families ,owned the whole industry and used the working classes like slaves,in total miserable , poverty ,not even seen in the slames of a 3rd. world .The depression brought ,a weick up call , if these big endustralist tzars of America ,wanted to survive ,they had to take part in rebuilding the nation ,to improve the lives of the working force,they have neglected for so long,never they have they given a thought ,that without their employees,they could get nowhere ,US.president F.T.R.,not very liked by the super rich ,that wanted control of everything .F.T.R.showed them a list of proposals after discussing with his finance minister,the representatives of different sectors of the nation ,the banks!!F.T.R.list was ,to tax,the very rich corporations ,from 80% ,to form Labour Unions,to protect the workers rights,free medicare,easing loans,to make the working class ,own their own homes,minimum wages,working fixed hours,safety in workplaces! The Uniones protected the labour force,there was also a Communist and Socialist parties along the side of capitalist America,which created a balance!America was able to come out of the big depresion ,whoever said that if the very very super rich , pay 80% they will go brock ??well they did not .The problem is when Reagan took over,the laws had changed,with every president ,going back to the old ways,the American Communists party were jailed ,as well as the American Socialists were painted to represent ,everything ,the capitalist vermines,will call it the red peril,and teach in schools to hate the communists ,the socialists ,teaching the working class children ,to hate their protectors ,from the hands of the vicuse ,billionaire cabales,that like vultures,grabe everything ,and want to give less and less,cutting all help to a working class ,going from bad to wurst ,no medicare,no union protection ,no higher minimum wage ,wages have not changed in 40 years ,the billionaires ,are tax exempt ,they rather oppen factories ,in countries where labour is cheaper!After Vietnam war was lost,that was only fought to make the rich industries richer,like big oil ,weapon industry,not different than today !AMERICA had to pay the central bankers trilines in gold!The fort knox,gold gone to the central banks of London ,the Zionist owned privat bank ! NIXON ,KISSINGER ,went to China ,asking China to open up ,to American big Industries ,to produce in China,the products for the American markets,the Americans so used to live in luxury ,at a lesser cost,on the back of the Chinese cheap labour ,and make maximum of profits !Like 1000% ..in the meantime they sign contracts,to exchange this favoure ,by giving enustral ,know how ,to CHINA!This was done because they loved to help China,no ,it was to crash the uniones at home ,in the USA.WHEN ONE KNOWS THE TRUE AMERICAN PLAN ,AFTER VIETNAM ,NIXON ,THE FIAT DOLLAR,THE PROMISES GIVEN TO CHINA ,40 YEARS AGO ,HOSEATING FROM AMERICAN HYPOCRISY BUILDS UP ,FROM THOSE WESTERNERS THAT DO KNOW THE TRUE STORY ,AND THE LIES AND DISGUSTING HYPOCRITES ,IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND ALL THOSE OTHER NATIONS ,LIKE 5-EYE NATIONS ,THAT ARE OBLIGED TO LYE ,AND TAKES SIDES BEING AMERICAN STOOGES,NO MATTER ,HOW DESTRUCTIVE ,THOSE LIES ARE ,TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE ,LIKE CANADA,MY COUNTRY !

[@Toxinomist]

@@dragonfly1929 Well, in Canada, they subsidised employers to call back workers to work. It means that the canadian citizens are paying to go to work while the debt is getting bigger ad no taxes increases for now. www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html

[@jantorenaustheller4553]

Very interesting and informativ conversation.

[@ryanp.8988]

Joseph Stiglitz: "The United Steaks" says it every time without fail LMAOOOOO

[@jcsrst]

I think he was saying united stakes...

[@Guizambaldi]

give the guy a break... it was probably before lunch...

[@chansonsdefrance7235]

The only thing that makes me feel good about America is that things could be worse - Joseph Stiglitz

[@antoineharvey-boudreault5565]

Hello???

[@TheMarkzillaUnit]

Clearly, this was before Trump.

[@edilee5909]

I wonder if he could say the same thing today

[@kathleenmckeon9926]

Loved the book and this discussion thank you. 1 thing: Think the legislative process is broken???? Our representatives had to sign a Non-Disclosure in order to read the secret TPP: That is beyond broken. Fast track Authority: Our representatives will have 85 seconds on the floor to represent us. We think were broken now? We have not even begun to see what broken looks like.

[@wenkaiyang1487]

I wish I could possess 1/10 of their wisdom

[@zachhodgson4113]

Wish they would do another one of these

[@Bishop45acp]

I made a mistake and looked at the comment section. A bunch of (and this is just discriptive term, ofcourse you get your facts from other equally 'credible' sources) AlexJonesies who didn't even bother to go trough the entire interview, nor do they posses humility to say that someone outside their comfort zone can say something right. Or that something different than what their fact gurus have regurgitated can be true.

[@593iwalkalone]

Bishop45acp Some people are able to think for themselves instead of believing what any "genius" on tv says....

[@2011blueman]

If you're looking for thoughtful discussion and people caring about the well being of their fellow man, the youtube comments section is not the place to go.

[@IzmirWayne]

@@593iwalkalone Yeah and instead they think in a way that a guru from the Moint Pelerin Society told them. Economic libertarianism is simply an ideology or rather a religion. You believe that markets are perfect and that if the state does not intervene everybody is better of, even if all the observable reality and statistical data suggests that it probably isn't that way or even directly disproves it. You just believe it and whoever challenges that believe is a charlatan or demagoge or ideologist or whatever you wanna call it.

[@matthewtrevino525]

Bishop45acp checkout wendy browns lecture on Neoliberalism

[@matthewtrevino525]

Volker Hartmann Checkout Wendy Browns lecture on Neoliberalism. It's mind blowing. Libertarians strike me as a kind of lazy replacement for neoliberalism. Also listen to Elizabeth Anderson a real scholar who's done the exercises to call out Libertarian blind spots.

[@miguelito99708]

Actually, both Stiglitz and Krugman predicted the bursting of the real estate bubble. They didn't predict the date of the 2008 crash specifically but both warned everyone who would listen that because of the deregulation of the banking industry through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the derivative markets in real estate were out of control and vulnerable to cause a crash with widespread implications. They were basically right. Market fundamentalism is insane public policy that not only ensures another crash, but is creating the conditions for deflation and ever-growing inequality which can only result--in the long term--in social instability.

[@pearcake]

miguelito99708 I do believe the crash was in large part due to reckless deregulation, but Glass-Steagall would not have stopped the crash. The first banks to crash and burn were pure investment banks like Bear-Sterns, not commercial ones, and thus would not be affected by a re-institutioning of Glass-Steagall.... it's complicated!

[@EraserFS]

miguelito99708 The notion that Krugman and Stiglitz predicted the bursting of the real estate bubble is like two people looking at a moving car and saying "Look, there is a moving car!" No shit?! But why is there a car, how does it function and why is it moving in its particular direction? And why is it not a train? Answering this with deregulation of the banking industry and irrational risk taking is the preferred answer, just because it justifies the preferred solution - more regulation opportunities.

[@kyaume21]

EraserFS Cool. Ok they were claiming the obvious then. The obvious is always easy to detect in hindsight. We are all believers of the obvious, once the reality of a catastrophe kicks in. But all those, like yourself perhaps, who prior to the calamity believed, against all rational thought, in the fairy world of the inerrable markets and in the voodoo economics of trickle-down, what can we make of them? Candidates for the lunatic asylum perhaps, where they really belonged?

[@EraserFS]

kyaume21 I think its enough to see these guys as what they are, theorists. Especially in economics theorists have a very limited view because they are constantly abstracting from reality to get a focused view on something particular. But that doesnt mean that there cant be something out of their focus, which can screw with their theory. And of course there is ideology. Someone who doesnt want to see that (people / participants in) markets can economically fail are an authority as people who say that markets constantly fail and regulation will prevent that, so we will reach economic utopia / planned constant GDP growth - none. Especially Kugman is one of the second category. Hes one of the freaks that sees himself as the doctor of a sick economy that knows the medicine to get the economy back on its feet. That his prescription is what makes his patient sick, is ruled out of his mind.

[@kyaume21]

EraserFS Apparently these "theorists" were correct, while the practitioners are wrong. Look at the "practitioners" today, which is the Tory party in England, and the mess they are making. Ok, they have created a bubble, so it looks good in the pockets of people who don't produce anything (and who are living off an artificial housing bubble), but look at all the deprivation, the growing inequality, the lack of productivity, the skills shortage in the UK -- this is a disaster in the waiting.

[@bonconfidant7514]

This channel has some real gems; never came across it before. And the host/moderator is also new to me. She's like a sleeper agent. At first she seemed a bit silly and lightweight, and being incredibly cute only reinforces the stereotype (for an old-school guy like me at least) but then, listening all the way through, I realized she's quite incisive and is expert at keeping her questions brief and to the point - a skill not to be undervalued in our talk-centric modern media universe. As the geniuses rolled up comment after comment detailing the depressing state of most of our world, her humorous interjections were just what the doctor ordered. :) I could not find her on other videos in the channel, so I wonder if she is still doing this sort of work today (2022).

[@waboutyou]

They are definitely part of my inspiration

[@RealMadridArsenal17]

The moderator is awesome.

[@carmenhorn1620]

Real Madrid Arsenal yes and msnbc has been happy to employ her.

[@nightoftheworld]

5:13 *I don’t believe in genius* “I think there‘s a lot of ideology in the economic profession and I think you know many economists have a view of markets which is not only idealistic and naive but you know they are defending the views that markets are working efficiently are working well. For ideological reasons also you know I think economists spend a lot of time sometimes doing complicated mathematical models, trying to pretend that markets are efficient. They do that also to try to impress others in other disciplines to look more scientific-I am not sure this is working, but this is certainly part of the strategy. So you know I think we should be very modest. You know I view myself more as a social scientist than as an economist. I think the frontiers between economics, history, sociology are not as clear as what economists try to pretend. You know economists try to pretend that sometimes they have developed a science that is so sophisticated that the rest of the world cannot understand, but I think this is a joke.”

[@mikeljmcphee]

Well put!

[@2662Mia]

Love that you’ve captured Piketty’s astute, insightful and utterly transparent comments here - thank you for taking time to type this out to assure his thoughts are highlighted.

[@nightoftheworld]

2662Mia no problem, hope more will transcribe their beloved parts. Thanks for the kindness

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

It's truly fascinating how often this platitude Piketty espouses is repeated. The idea that economists commit themselves ideologically to the efficiency of the market is a total straw man he uses to elevate his own position. The question of whether markets are efficient or not is based on a false premise, that they could be one or the other. The answer to whether the market is efficient is not 'yes' or 'no' but 'compared to what?' There are no certainties or guarantees of efficieny in the market and no good economist would ever state otherwise, I've never heard one even advance the position. Markets are based on the actions of human beings and, as humans, we are unpredictable. And yet all the likes of Piketty, Stiglitz and Krugman have to do is guarantee some fictional certainty, which has never existed, if only their measures were implemented. They are by no means the first and they are certainly not the last to think if only they were in charge the economy would be run correctly. When will people learn that the problems in this world are not because power is concentrated in the wrong place but the concentration of power itself?

[@nightoftheworld]

Sam Townsend I understand your concern, but I don’t think Piketty is blind to his own ideology, it’s something he wants more people to help him responsibly interrogate, he states this openly. I think it’s crucial that Piketty acknowledges the “faith” dimension of markets which tends to obscure their roots in sociology/philosophy. He is an advocate of more balanced taxation rather than sneaky loopholes which exist to allow for pseudo-philanthropy of the mega-rich (give with one hand take with the other). He elucidates the contours of our meritocratic problem and the global politics of humiliation/austerity that has resulted from this precarity. The globalized economy has been financialized-the commons are increasingly owned by super elites who increasingly live separate lives from the working class. The last forty years have brought with them the death of civic responsibility and the explosion of meritocratic hubris and technocratic/managerial corporate quasi-religion. These stratifications have justified a populist backlash and given rise to the extremist right who are constructing walls and electing xenophobes to positions of power. These gentlemen may not be totally correct but the way that they approach the field is much more noble and transparent than others who claim to _know_ what’s best for us whilst feeding all our oats to the donkey first. I wish Piketty could implement his ideas, then maybe we’d be able to redistribute some of the dragons hoard and re-empower those left behind by the corruption of our market economies into market societies.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Just an observation about Brazil: inequality did fall but it went up again. So there are some factors and, actually, the most important were not the policies but economic stabilization (90s) and economic growth (2000's). It's not that the policies don't work - they do - but the policies were not done correctly (with the exception of the minimum income program that started in the late 90s and was largely expanded during the 2000s). One important observation: this was recorded in 2015 when the 2008 crisis had not reached Brazil with full force - so I have the advantage of hindsight. What we did wrong: education. The party that won in 2002 had a history of focusing on basic education (pre-high school) but after they reached the federal government, there was a change of focus towards higher education - apparently because that was the best way to win a captive electoral base. The minimum income program I mentioned in the previous paragraph was created by Cristovam Buarque (PT) while governor of the Federal District. Fernando Henrique (PSDB) adopted the program in the late 90s and kept the name "School Minimum Wage" (recipients were required to have kids enrolled in schools); When Lula (PT) became president, Cristovam Buarque was named Education Minister - but fell around 1 year later because he wanted to invest in basic education. The explanation for the 2000s economic growth we had goes back to 9/11 and Alan Greenspan reducing interest rates to zero - and China growing 20%/year ... buying iron and soy bean from Brazil. So, my message is: don't waste money nor opportunity - give good (really good) education to kids and things will work well. Really good education is exactly that: really good education - that includes tackling two problems: bright students and those with learning difficulties. You'll be surprised how many of those with difficulties have only a mental block and can be very easily be brought into the regular or even bright students level. Was I a bright student? No ... I was a regular student - and I never finished college.

[@Tyler-hf4uc]

The economists on stage: we are not great at making broad predictions. Moderator: Where do you see Europe in 20 years? 😂😂😂

[@tomharcourt2553]

Stiglitz is a genius, yet so humble.

[@tdreamgmail]

+Tom Harcourt Humble? Didn't he just shit on europe at the beginning?

[@WreakingHavoc1]

+tdreamgmail Yeah, he dropped his pants and took a giant dump right in the middle of France.

[@paulwary]

Piketty mentions the difficulty in understanding the political power of the right in the US when all three speakers agree that it's stark raving mad. The 'genius' of the right is how it gets the votes of the very people who have most to lose from its policies, by appealing to their fears and prejudices. It seems that fear and hate will trump hope and rationality every time.

[@Syncopator]

+Paul Wray Klugman mentioned the term for it-- "affinity fraud".

[@RevoltingPeasant123]

12:00 Nothing encapsulates the most damaging idea in human history better than this statement. The idea that the concentration of power is only a problem when the wrong people have it, rather than the concentration of power itself.

[@Mathieu_soDjo]

I have to agree with your statement but I didn't understand it quite like that personally. I think his position is not that he wish he had all the power, but more that if the economic decisions were left to them rather than to the "company economists" always in charge they would know how to change it (the idea being that those economists are absolutely not there for that as opposed to not changing things because stability is the angular rock of economics as they know it) I also think it was a bit tongue and cheek. But yeah, economists should have not be all powerful, they should be a proposition force in my opinion.

[@gerardogomez9278]

COMO LO PUEDO VER TRADUCIDO AL ESPAÑOL O SUBTITULADO?

[@yordang2818]

i'd like to hear those three geniuses opinions today at the beginning of 2020

[@AL-rv3jz]

Need subtitle for me on the French I’m not native English speaker

[@markstanley4141]

Man up!

[@favio100]

need subtitles in english or spanish for this please. thank you for uploading it.

[@calvinmudzingiri4824]

interesting debate

[@user-pq9vr1uh4g]

31:12 is beautiful. I haven't heard anyone that wasn't a serious Marxist use the term "False Consciousness" and Krugman describes the problem with southern politics perfectly. It's been a problem since the civil rights act was passed and it's possibly the biggest obstacle to progressive reform or simply the restoration of past successful policies.

[@BoomBustProfits]

Progressive reform? Progressives have been in charge of this train wreck for over a hundred years. Nothing done in that time has been Constitutional….not in the slightest. And all of America's interventions in other sovereign nations have been driven by the progressive criminals infesting the FEDGOV. True constitutional conservatives do not hold intervention as a viable course of action.

[@judgemcnugget7110]

Yeah, it's a shame many economosts and people being interested in economics completely dismiss Marx.

[@jakesorrentine9063]

13:38 "Fiscal hypochondria" Somebody sneezes He looks at them lol

[@francescahamilton6856]

Brilliant and also very funny. Paul Kruger is a born comic. So delightful to listen to three geniuses interacting. Interesting, this is 2015... after 2008, but before Brexit, the Pandemic and the great resignation. Gosh, huge changes. People now are finding other ways of living their lives. The Corporates did not see that coming. I drive thru the City of London and see beautiful offices all empty....WFH is the New Deal.

[@fishysnake1]

One thing that always surprises me in discussions like this that touch on people voting against their own self interest is deliberate misinformation never seems to be mentioned. People have been told taxes bad/debt and deficit bad/government bad/low tax/surpluses/small government good for more than 30 years. If the educated and affluent swallow it, why wouldn't the uneducated on low incomes?

[@bill18286]

I'd love to see this panel repeated with Mark Blyth as a fourth member.

[@vedigregorian4382]

I thought the title was a sarcastic

[@chefdenker704]

Paul Krugman in 1998: "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" - A true genius...

[@i_love_economics]

his sayings are always extreme. that’s why they are mostly false and people don’t like him. but his theory itself is quite stunning. so if he shuts up about things he’s not sure, he’s rather a good economist

[@stevewarden3374]

Krugman mocks Bowles/Simpsonism!!! Yeah, he is a real super-genius!!!

[@LumineScientiaeFidei]

Did Paul Krugman just endorse MMT? (1:07:00) I love it! He's evolving :)

[@josefdinzes9434]

No. He has been very critical of it. MMT is an oversimplification of many separate ideas and is not terribly reliable in constructing sound economic policy. MMT is essentially a knee jerk reaction to the insanity of trickle down economics

[@criticalcog6363]

MMT requires close coordination between fiscal and monetary policy, which would destroy the fed’s independence and introduce all manner of politically expedient risks. Aside from the false promises of MMT, that’s good enough reason to reject it.

[@boaz2063]

Piketty as an Economist is exceptionally above that of the other two economist, Krugman is really conscious of the economic challenges in America but Piketty lives on another continent and understand our overall condition better than US economist! in my opinion.

[@mikedavids2602]

Krugman is popular because he never suggests the government cut back on spending, he often suggests government spending as a solution to many economic problems.

[@dthomas9230]

@@mikedavids2602 Look at the budgets of the OECD countries. Then look at the top scorers on the Happiness Index, Social progress Index, Democracy Index, (US is 33rd) and Press Freedom Index (US is 44th) for data on what the spending buys and is decided on as a democracy where the majority decides what's best for the majority. USA taxes the 2nd least amount of any OECD country behind Switzerland who has a different funding mechanism. The average is 37% of GDP income is taxed. Maggie Thatcher raised UK's revenue take from 35 to 37% while holding hands with Reagan who cut USA's take to 17% (and tripled the national debt while funding death squads and Mayan genocide in Guatemala as charged by The Hague in '83. Clinton ran a surplus with a 20.9% or 21.9% of income subject to tax. W cut the taxes to below 16% take and doubled the national debt. America was tied with Denmark on the GINI ratio on 1976, 200 years after the Declaration was signed America reached parity with EDEN, the ticker symbol for investing in Denmark's sovereign wealth index as a Capitalist Democratic country sometimes #1 on the Democracy Index and #1 on the Happiness Index. EDEN is a fine model for any civilized society.

[@ToddWrightthedrummer]

A person an watch this every decade and conclude they are discussing the present

[@johanalva146]

paul Krugman, What Are THOSE!

[@fritzdoerring9058]

Can genius come with humility? Give obvious example.

[@cerkins1983]

If Joseph Stiglitz were to eliminate the word 'that' from his vocabulary, he'd add 20 years to his life.

[@craigholman3673]

There was a question about the consequences of income inequality. I would suggest Richard Wilkinson's work in this area.

[@gaeunc]

What did Piketty say at 30:07 when he says "in my country, the ??? risks the extreme right will win" I can't figure it out. Help!

[@Christopherjoe]

I know this was 3 years ago but I'll help. "In my country there is a serious risk..."

[@ibrahimba4556]

He is French and the extreme right is very powerful there. If the were fair election in France, I truly think that they will win. Not really because they are hateful, but because people are fed up with the traditional parties unable to solve their problems.

[@MagicMarker447]

The bailouts were a disaster. Why the hell are taxpayers bailing out rich bankers after they make disastrous decisions. This market interventions is causing these market boom bust cycles.

[@andrewprice8820]

That's one thick French accent Thomas has got. Sounds like Pascal Sauvage from Johnny English.

[@j-ch8787]

Current strange accent. a french guy generally speaks american like this. But as a french (with American forfathers) i like when americans are speaking french. Some, as my grand parents are able to speak french without accent. Such as Jodie Foster and some other Us actors who could be considered as native french cose their french is absolutely perfect.

[@titisk68]

"You know", Piketty's refrain

[@marymaryG00P]

Great work by Alex Wagner. Lots of interesting points to consider re: concentration of wealth.

[@afterthesmash]

The host is Alex Wagner. I knew I had seen her before. It was as a guest on Bill Maher. ^F keywords: woman, chick, babe. Despite not having a genius card, she's not exactly chopped liver: Obama showed up for her wedding.

[@marsattacks7071]

When private enterprise take in their hands the responsibility of raising minimum salary, something is extremely wrong with the federal government... I pray for the poor in USA to be respected as much as the richer who don't give a damn.

[@yanggang6985]

Lol which shithole statist country are you from

[@RedShiftedDollar]

Krugman makes a lot of good points about Bitcoin.

[@redfox7497]

the sounds is very low! how come!!

[@Jonx97]

15:49... Did Krugman predict Trump 2016?!

[@luyandadhlamini9792]

He did!

[@scscreamer]

indeed...and oui.

[@thomashooper9148]

Haha but I guess he was wrong about Trumps election starting a recession.... in fact Krugman is wrong almost always....

[@toomuchsparetimeproduction7281]

Jon theGreat he predicted it twice. There and when he talked about affinity fraud

[@jcsrst]

In a way yes, however, if you keeps listening they talk about how lost economic opportunity creates nationalism. Trump is a direct result of income inequality. Elites are always fond of making you think that the "other" is responsible for your suffering and not them.

[@samsonsimon945]

hope to be krugman,stiglitz,piketty,keynse n smith rolled into 1 someday

[@mandrax5472]

'They didn't see it coming'the first speaker said. Exactly the same thing happemed in the UK in the late 1980's

[@sharann3482]

I would recommend Heiner Flassbeck

[@DaytakTV]

Great discussion I enjoyed hearing from all four on stage and the host is especially beautiful.

[@nightoftheworld]

32:27 “Literally this is the conservative base carefully aiming a gun at its own forehead.”

[@fractalnomics]

I conducted a Lorenz curve Gini coefficient experiment on the Koch Snowflake fractal attractor , measuring the cumulatve percentage of area per triangle by the cumulative population of triangles. I found the model was identicle to textbook wealth Lorenz models; the gini co. increased (at an accelerating rate) as the fractal grew (and developed). I have concluded inequality is a natural phenomenom and is universal, found in all ecosystems - all fractal systems. Take a good look at a tree. I don't think these men are Genius. Galileo was genius. These guys are more Aristotle, each of them on their own. They are describing how the sun rises and sets by it moving.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Say "Hamburger", Piketty. Or sing Gainsbourg ... do whatever you want: you nailed things in 2015 that seemed to have reached the large media only near 2020.

[@MrMusicman456]

"Maybe that'll happen by Chelsea's second term!" Oh my god I love you Krugman...he might be my least favorite economist on stage but god he's so funny...

[@niilespunkari8832]

@ 52:04

[@shillgates6664]

He said the Internet was NO BIGGIE! Not as much impact on Business AS THE FAX MACHINE!!

[@phaartt]

@@shillgates6664 wow a person was wrong omg???!????? How can a person be wrong???? That has never happened before omg dude you're such a genius

[@davidanderson9664]

Krug rules, I've always read his column and he's good in these types of things AND he drives the right wing BANANAS. Which is hilarious and fun. :-) D.A.,J.D., NYC

[@Name-jw4sj]

Krugman is too ideological for me. Not a fan of him.

[@davidrowe9402]

Genii

[@staceysalvaggio5984]

Geez. This video is the illustration of Hayek's Intellectuals and Socialism. smh

[@matthewtrevino525]

You gotta love the French.

[@leanmchungry4735]

Piketty has brought hope to inequality.

[@spec24]

Not sure what you're saying, but Piketty has been shown to be wrong by actual economists.

[@leanmchungry4735]

@@spec24 Not sure exactly, but I believe KZbin savants have been shown to be wrong by actual KZbin cognoscenti.

[@karleells6540]

your ignorance is amazing. that rambling idiot has been torn apart online -- but MSDNC wont ever introduce an opposing view to the leftist perspective.

[@leanmchungry4735]

@@karleells6540 KZbin discussions are a special Olympics event, wear your bronze medal with pride while, watching Fox News.

[@karleells6540]

@@leanmchungry4735 Notice you couldnt deny my comment, so you cowardly throw out "fox news" LOL. MSNDC produces leftist propaganda -- as showed in this video. no on here had and opposing view. thats how the left does it. they run away from any counter perspective. and you are dumb enough to believe them. LOL

[@lexievv]

What does he say at 6:50? i can barely understand it

[@jfernandmy]

...To collect data and try to understand the theoretical mechanisms or models that...

[@michaelapel4658]

at least you have a wage discussion in the USA. Here in Germany there is nearly no one discussing this big issue. But this is even more important because it`s nessasary to solve the euro crisis and to reduce german export surpluses.

[@parushow]

+Michael Apel wow, your last sentence is not what I would expect to read by germans. Thats's very fair. I would add to not impose austerity policies to other nations as the only way to go out from the mug. ..but obviously it's a long story..

[@michaelapel4658]

+Lorenzo Paruscio yep, Germany has to finance a bridge for the other euro zone countries, a bridge they can live with. btw I am in a clear minority with that opinion here. I only know two economic professors with that view in Germany. Heinz Josef Bontrup and Heiner Flassbeck (formally UNCTAD). Nearly whole press and politics say, Germany has done everything right in the currency union. A desaster....

[@michaelapel4658]

+IAN MANSELL the euro will break up and the new german currency will revalue. So we will get adjustment. Permanent transfering money to other countries is no solution because that means huge unemployment in southern europe for decades. We have this situation already within Germany. East and West Germany. This currency union 1990 was also bad managed with high overvalue of the east german currency resulting in mass unemployment there until today.

[@Lolalai]

Three geniuses and lovely people. What a treat!

[@williamboothe6545]

"I spent half my life not sure whether I was a fraud or not", Krugman. Well the jury certainly isn't out on that one yet.

[@kitalabo]

I wonder if Paul Krugman still holds the same opinion regarding Bitcoin. 1:06:15

[@mns8732]

A perfect setting for triumph the insult dog, methinks

[@brienemard]

would have made it interesting to have a conservative oppinion

[@Hyperpandas]

Like who?

[@johnmartin4233]

Niall Ferguson

[@marcuscrowley6496]

Intelligent questions and answers. Good stuff.

[@karleells6540]

Notice, MSNDC brings on three leftists without any opposing view. .classic liberal delusion, not smart not "good stuff"

[@aseprohmandar6812]

Go Economic Education Genius For Justice Global Society !

[@kurtclement]

I don't understand the comments from people. Usually I am impressed with crowd sourced critique. Looking at some of the comments I wonder if they actually watched the same video. I do agree that there has to be someone out there with a less liberal point of view, but this wasn't a debate but observations. They all admitted to some degree that they do not know everything. They were surprisingly humble. I don't follow the others, but Krugman has mentioned several times when he has got it wrong.

[@victormendoza3295]

Although their conversations are interesting, I'm glad I am a programmer and not an economist.

[@mikepelosi957]

Paul often talks of the days of FDR where both sides came together and at least agreed that legislation should cover the unemployed as much as possible. Those days are long gone. Extremists on both sides have poisoned politics and economics.

[@Hyperpandas]

The Democratic party is *just* now reaching to about where FDR was policy wise, but hage been to the right of that for some time. How can they be described as "extremists" if the goal is to return to the days of FDR?

[@TheDynamicmarket]

everybody expects that governments shall somehow increase the wealth of their citizens despite the fact that they too pay relatively low wages. in yugoslavia, communists were promising that ordinary citizens will eat with golden spoons, forks and knives before they took over. wages and their developments in both public and private sectors do not differ that much over decades internationally. in sweden, the wages in the public sector are actually lower.

[@Toxinomist]

The problem with the excellent debate, even if we fixed redistribution of revenu, if it s based on the idea of work, but with robotic, work will dispeared, not completely, but enough to invalidate any excellent theory based on work.

[@Aristed]

"If Trump is elected, the US economy will run out and the financial markets will never recover." Paul Krugman LOL

[@BRockandriffs]

Aristed Give him a couple of years

[@skyblazeeterno]

if they do not mention the obscene spending on the military they have copped out

[@SL-bp8dv]

Really great seeing these three together

[@spec24]

Yes, a perfect storm of leftist destruction.

[@alejandromacias3697]

Everyone on the panel agrees. No counter argument economists. This is a rhetoric circle jerk. Not a serious academic discussion.