WEBVTT - Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman Talks Trump, National Debt

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:06.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:08.000 --> 0:00:09.600
<v Speaker 2>I thought Hamilton had it right.

0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:12.560
<v Speaker 3>He said a national debt could be a national blessing,

0:00:13.160 --> 0:00:16.759
<v Speaker 3>and the national debt having a liquid market there provides

0:00:16.800 --> 0:00:20.440
<v Speaker 3>a good benchmark for the private sector. It probably underpins

0:00:20.480 --> 0:00:23.040
<v Speaker 3>the role of the dollar in the world. It allows

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 3>the Fed to conduct monetary policy easily. I think we

0:00:27.680 --> 0:00:31.480
<v Speaker 3>have to keep in mind the costs of paying.

0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:32.200
<v Speaker 2>Down the debt.

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:35.599
<v Speaker 3>There is among some people a single minded focus on it,

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:39.160
<v Speaker 3>but there's no free lunch in this world, and eliminating

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:42.479
<v Speaker 3>the national debt, while it may sound attractive, has its

0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:45.800
<v Speaker 3>costs as well. The President, by the way, in his program,

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 3>is paying down as much debt as we can retire

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:51.880
<v Speaker 3>in the next ten years. We're moving in that direction.

0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:53.800
<v Speaker 3>But whether we should pay it all off, I think

0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 3>it is a more open question.

0:00:57.280 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 2>That was Larry Lindsay, director of the National Economic councilunder

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:03.040
<v Speaker 2>President George W. Bush, appearing on Wall Street Week back

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:05.280
<v Speaker 2>in March of two thousand and one, back when the

0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:08.839
<v Speaker 2>concern was about possibly having too little federal debt rather

0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:11.360
<v Speaker 2>than too much to take us through our current very

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:14.600
<v Speaker 2>different situation. Welcome back now. Nobel Prize winning economists and

0:01:14.680 --> 0:01:18.040
<v Speaker 2>New York Times columnist Paul Krugman of the City University

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 2>of New York. So, doctor Crumy, thank you so much

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:21.240
<v Speaker 2>for being back with us. As I say, it was

0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:23.399
<v Speaker 2>a very different time then when they thought we may

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:26.200
<v Speaker 2>eliminate the national debt. But now we're hearing a lot

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:28.080
<v Speaker 2>from people saying they're concerned it has gotten to be

0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:30.560
<v Speaker 2>too big. Is it too big? Is it a problem

0:01:30.600 --> 0:01:31.759
<v Speaker 2>for our economy right now?

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 4>Okay, So, first of all, that was silly even then.

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>I mean, there were you know, revenues were temporarily swollen

0:01:40.600 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>by the dot com bubble and all of that, and

0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:46.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, even in two thousand and one, we knew

0:01:46.440 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>that people like me were eventually going to hit sixty

0:01:49.480 --> 0:01:53.360
<v Speaker 1>five and start collecting benefits. So you know, it's so

0:01:53.400 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>that was a little bit silly to be concerned about

0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:56.520
<v Speaker 1>that back then.

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:02.920
<v Speaker 4>Right now, the debt per se is not really a

0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:03.760
<v Speaker 4>serious problem.

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:06.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, it's a day number, very four

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:09.799
<v Speaker 1>trillion dollars or something like that. But if we actually

0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:11.560
<v Speaker 1>look at, you know, what does it cost to service

0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:15.919
<v Speaker 1>that debt, well, interest rates are still below the economy's

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:20.920
<v Speaker 1>growth rate, and so as long as other non interest

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:24.240
<v Speaker 1>spending and tax receipts are more or less in line,

0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:28.040
<v Speaker 1>then the debt is really not you know, it's not

0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:31.120
<v Speaker 1>a problem to continue servicing it if you know, really

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 1>no reason why that should be an issue.

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 4>But what is a problem, of.

0:02:34.919 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 1>Course, is that government spending and tax receipts are not

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>in line. And so the fundamental problem is not the debt.

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:46.919
<v Speaker 1>The fundamental problem is that we are not managing to

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:51.880
<v Speaker 1>pay our way. We're not actually adjusting our inflow with

0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:52.639
<v Speaker 1>our outflow.

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:55.239
<v Speaker 2>Well one way were putting in. I suppose it's not

0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:57.280
<v Speaker 2>the debt, it's the deficit. It's how much we're actually

0:02:57.280 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 2>coming up short each and every year. And I think

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.280
<v Speaker 2>last year it was something like eight point five eight

0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 2>point eight percent of GDP was in deficit. And this

0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 2>is a time when unemployment was very low, by the way,

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:09.639
<v Speaker 2>and the yeah, some of that was good.

0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:13.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, some of that was interest payments, and really should

0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 1>it's the primary deficit excluding interest payments, but that is

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a serious problem. We do have an ongoing, large primary deficit.

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Some of that there were you know, the year to

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>year fluctuations. There's quirky stuff that can move the deficit around.

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:36.840
<v Speaker 1>But at a fundamental In a fundamental sense, we're not

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:40.960
<v Speaker 1>living within our means at the federal level. And that

0:03:41.000 --> 0:03:43.720
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily signal any kind of the media crisis, but

0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:46.840
<v Speaker 1>it does say that, hey, something's got to give. But

0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:51.160
<v Speaker 1>the trouble is, you know what's going to give. So yeah,

0:03:51.200 --> 0:03:54.760
<v Speaker 1>that is the real problem is not the numbers. The

0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 1>real problem is that we are not politically apparently able

0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:03.440
<v Speaker 1>to reach any kind of agreement on how to live

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:04.240
<v Speaker 1>within our means.

0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 2>Not an immediate crisis, as you say. At the same time,

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 2>I remember back in the early nineties when we talked

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:11.920
<v Speaker 2>about bond vigilantes, and there was the discussion within the

0:04:11.920 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 2>Clinton administration actually about the issues with the bond market.

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 2>At what point is it possible that the bond market

0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:20.200
<v Speaker 2>might send a powerful message to us. We talked to

0:04:20.240 --> 0:04:23.560
<v Speaker 2>Paul Ryan recently who said he thinks that it's quite possible

0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:26.640
<v Speaker 2>in the next administration, whoever is president, they could be

0:04:26.640 --> 0:04:28.640
<v Speaker 2>faced with what he would call a debt crisis. Does

0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 2>that sound reasonable to you?

0:04:31.000 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Not particularly, And I'm not sure I know why Paul

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 1>Ryan would know this any better than anyone else. But

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:42.160
<v Speaker 1>the truth is, I've looked at I've actually put in

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:47.840
<v Speaker 1>a fair bit of work myself on what's the historical

0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 1>record of countries that borrow in their own currency experiencing

0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:55.920
<v Speaker 1>that kind of debt crisis, a strike by lenders something

0:04:55.960 --> 0:04:59.160
<v Speaker 1>like that. What are the historical examples of that happening.

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:02.839
<v Speaker 1>It's almost no examples of that. I mean, you start

0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:06.440
<v Speaker 1>and you end up shigning. Well, maybe France in nineteen

0:05:06.440 --> 0:05:10.240
<v Speaker 1>twenty six. I mean, Japan has had huge debt for

0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:15.479
<v Speaker 1>decades now, huge persistent deficits.

0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:16.280
<v Speaker 4>Still no crisis.

0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>It's actually I think we should focus less on what's

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:25.599
<v Speaker 1>the risk of a single dramatic event and more on

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:29.440
<v Speaker 1>the kind of gradual erosion of confidence that comes from

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 1>the fact that we can't seem to get our act together.

0:05:31.880 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 2>There's no doubt that there are a lot of political challenges.

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 2>But before we get to the political challenges, what about

0:05:36.160 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 2>what the right answer would be if we didn't have

0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:40.800
<v Speaker 2>to worry about the politics. And there were times of

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:43.960
<v Speaker 2>which we actually did cut the deficit, right under George

0:05:44.279 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 2>Herbert Walker Bush there was a bipartisan effort that was

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:49.840
<v Speaker 2>made Andrews Air Force Base, and then under President Clinton

0:05:49.960 --> 0:05:53.000
<v Speaker 2>it was not bipartisan. Actually, the Democrats did themselves. They

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:56.120
<v Speaker 2>cut back on the deficit. What is the right thing

0:05:56.120 --> 0:05:58.520
<v Speaker 2>to do? Is it more taxes, is it less spending,

0:05:58.600 --> 0:05:59.680
<v Speaker 2>or is it all of the above?

0:06:01.160 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 4>There is no right answer.

0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:09.039
<v Speaker 1>The what we know from cross national comparisons is that

0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:12.560
<v Speaker 1>it's certainly possible to have a thriving economy with a

0:06:12.600 --> 0:06:16.280
<v Speaker 1>lot more taxes than the United States. The United States

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:18.760
<v Speaker 1>is near the bottom in terms of tax receipts or

0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:21.279
<v Speaker 1>they're sure a GDP among advanced countries, So we could

0:06:21.320 --> 0:06:24.520
<v Speaker 1>be raising substantially more money and there's no there's no

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:30.120
<v Speaker 1>real indication that higher tax rates would be a problem

0:06:30.120 --> 0:06:32.640
<v Speaker 1>for US economic growth. On the other hand, we don't

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:39.280
<v Speaker 1>have to provide essential healthcare to everybody. That's that's not

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:43.800
<v Speaker 1>that's not a question of economic rightness or wrongness. That's

0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 1>a question of your values. We don't have to provide

0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:49.600
<v Speaker 1>an adequate retirement income to everybody. Again, that's not an

0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:53.839
<v Speaker 1>economic comparative. So that you can't actually divorce this from politics.

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:58.400
<v Speaker 1>This is all about the political decision. What are we

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:03.159
<v Speaker 1>going to try to close this gap by making mostly

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:07.360
<v Speaker 1>the lives of older Americans tougher, or are we going

0:07:07.440 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 1>to do it by raising taxes? But probably I mean

0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>that includes raising taxes on the rich, but probably also

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:16.720
<v Speaker 1>at least a little bit more taxes on the middle class.

0:07:17.360 --> 0:07:20.840
<v Speaker 2>And finally, what interest rates assumptions should we put into

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 2>the model and deciding how we deal with the deficit,

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 2>because some people think we will have elevated interest rates

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.760
<v Speaker 2>for the foreseeable future given some of the demands on us,

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:32.280
<v Speaker 2>even though the elevated industries thus far have surprisingly not

0:07:32.440 --> 0:07:34.360
<v Speaker 2>hit the economy as much as one would have thought.

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:42.080
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, on interest rates, I am fanatically confused.

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I actually think that you can make a

0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:49.920
<v Speaker 1>really strong case either way that we went through a

0:07:50.000 --> 0:07:53.040
<v Speaker 1>long period of extremely low interest rates, which we thought

0:07:53.080 --> 0:07:59.400
<v Speaker 1>were grounded and fundamentals, especially demography, and then now we've

0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:01.720
<v Speaker 1>been going through through a period of much higher interest

0:08:01.800 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>rates with the economy remarkably robust in the face of

0:08:05.960 --> 0:08:11.360
<v Speaker 1>those rates. Has you know, have long run sustainable interest

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:15.480
<v Speaker 1>rates our star if you talk to you know, FED officials,

0:08:15.560 --> 0:08:18.280
<v Speaker 1>has our star actually gone up? Or is this just

0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:22.560
<v Speaker 1>kind of a transitory phase? And I can make the case,

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:26.920
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we certainly have for one thing, that demographic

0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 1>situation has changed, which actually does, by the way, help

0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:33.520
<v Speaker 1>our long run budget position because of all things I

0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:35.840
<v Speaker 1>don't think what people were counting on, but it looks

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>like we have substantially increased immigration right now. We also

0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:45.960
<v Speaker 1>have possibly a lot of new business investment driven by

0:08:46.440 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 1>new technologies AI and all of that, we have the

0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Biden Industrial Policy, which is inducing a lot of manufacturing investment.

0:08:55.600 --> 0:09:00.360
<v Speaker 1>So maybe all of that has changed the picture. Or maybe, actually,

0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, twenty nineteen is still what should be our benchmark,

0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 1>and we're going to go back to very low interest rates.

0:09:06.360 --> 0:09:10.240
<v Speaker 1>And I actually anyone who claims to be to know

0:09:10.440 --> 0:09:14.280
<v Speaker 1>for sure what the answers that is is deluting themselves.

0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 2>So, doctor Krugman, let's look forward to this election we

0:09:17.440 --> 0:09:20.079
<v Speaker 2>have coming out of November, and what economic choices the

0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 2>American people will be making as they go to the polls.

0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:25.199
<v Speaker 2>Give us your sense of how different these two people,

0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:27.199
<v Speaker 2>that is, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are in their

0:09:27.400 --> 0:09:28.559
<v Speaker 2>approaches to the economy.

0:09:29.960 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so this is one of those cases where if

0:09:32.840 --> 0:09:35.480
<v Speaker 1>you look at past experience, you would say, well, how

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:37.199
<v Speaker 1>much difference does it make? I mean, in a lot

0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:40.800
<v Speaker 1>of ways, the economy of twenty twenty four looks a

0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 1>lot like the economy of twenty nineteen pre pandemic.

0:09:45.360 --> 0:09:47.840
<v Speaker 4>Full employment, fairly low inflation.

0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:50.720
<v Speaker 1>It's you know, worrying a little bit, but we were

0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:52.560
<v Speaker 1>worrying about the difference between two and three.

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 4>Not not anything major.

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:59.160
<v Speaker 1>It's it doesn't look as if it has made a

0:09:59.200 --> 0:10:01.800
<v Speaker 1>whole lot of different who's in the White House. But

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:07.080
<v Speaker 1>if there's a Trump too, uh, then there's a lot

0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:09.280
<v Speaker 1>of reasons to believe that it could be very different.

0:10:09.960 --> 0:10:13.560
<v Speaker 1>This is there were What's amazing if you go back

0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:16.120
<v Speaker 1>and look at Trump's first time in the White House

0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:18.480
<v Speaker 1>was how little he did when all this said and done.

0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:23.680
<v Speaker 1>You know, basically he got a moderate sized tax cut

0:10:23.760 --> 0:10:27.640
<v Speaker 1>through sort of period, end of story. There wasn't a

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 1>lot else that that went on. There were that's largely

0:10:31.400 --> 0:10:35.720
<v Speaker 1>because there were institutional restraints there were. They couldn't get

0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:39.360
<v Speaker 1>stuff through Congress, couldn't couldn't tell the Federal Reserve what

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:39.719
<v Speaker 1>to do.

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:40.679
<v Speaker 3>Uh.

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:42.840
<v Speaker 4>That could be very very different right now.

0:10:43.000 --> 0:10:47.080
<v Speaker 1>And if you take seriously what the what Trump uh

0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>former Trump aids are saying, Uh, it would be very

0:10:52.080 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 1>very drastic name Biden would decontinuity. Biden, if you can

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:58.920
<v Speaker 1>do it, we'll do more, you know, some some further

0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:03.640
<v Speaker 1>tax increases, some more green industrial policy, but probably not

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.120
<v Speaker 1>enough to make a huge difference to the macroeconomic numbers,

0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:11.920
<v Speaker 1>big differences in other respects. Trump, well, we know that

0:11:12.760 --> 0:11:15.079
<v Speaker 1>one of his former aids has been talking a lot

0:11:15.200 --> 0:11:23.200
<v Speaker 1>about rounding up millions of immigrants supposedly undocumented. That wouldn't

0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:26.160
<v Speaker 1>be surprising if a lot of legal immigrants got caught

0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:29.680
<v Speaker 1>up in the net as well in deporting, huge economic impacts,

0:11:29.760 --> 0:11:32.240
<v Speaker 1>huge disruptions to the labor force.

0:11:32.720 --> 0:11:38.959
<v Speaker 4>Another Peter Navarro, who's being interviewed from jail, but has

0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:40.439
<v Speaker 4>said that that J.

0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:44.360
<v Speaker 1>Powell will be fired within one hundred days and that

0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:47.480
<v Speaker 1>we will basically have the politicization of monetary policy. And

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:50.080
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of reasons to think that a Trump

0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:55.400
<v Speaker 1>second term might see him become one of those autocrats

0:11:55.440 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 1>who demands that you run the printing presses for his

0:11:58.400 --> 0:11:59.160
<v Speaker 1>political gain.

0:11:59.200 --> 0:12:02.199
<v Speaker 4>I mean of or Doen and Turkey or something like that.

0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:03.280
<v Speaker 2>It's so.

0:12:05.320 --> 0:12:09.120
<v Speaker 1>Huge uncertainty, but I think anyone assuming that a second

0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:11.640
<v Speaker 1>Trump term would look like the first one, with what

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:16.400
<v Speaker 1>ended up being fairly conventional economic policies, nothing and the

0:12:16.480 --> 0:12:20.120
<v Speaker 1>Federal Reserve keeping the lid on things, could be very

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:21.720
<v Speaker 1>in for a very rude shock.

0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:26.439
<v Speaker 2>Picking up on your comment about monetary policy and fedio J. Powell.

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:30.160
<v Speaker 2>We had Ken Rogoff on somebody you know well fellow economists,

0:12:30.440 --> 0:12:32.280
<v Speaker 2>and when I asked that question for him, he said,

0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:35.559
<v Speaker 2>the markets would not let president new president Trump do that.

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:38.480
<v Speaker 2>That they were to react really strong in the treasury markets,

0:12:38.559 --> 0:12:41.240
<v Speaker 2>and he would not have that option. Is that plausible?

0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:46.439
<v Speaker 1>The markets would certainly react, we would probably see acceleration

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:48.240
<v Speaker 1>and inflation of plunge in the dollar.

0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:51.640
<v Speaker 4>But you know, how does he respond to that.

0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:55.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean, again, if you look at much smaller countries

0:12:56.600 --> 0:12:59.720
<v Speaker 1>that are much more exposed to market pressure, like Turkey,

0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:04.880
<v Speaker 1>authoritarian leaders have a habit of saying, well, the markets

0:13:04.880 --> 0:13:07.760
<v Speaker 1>are wrong, and I'm going to order them to stop.

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>But you know, you might be surprised at how much

0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:16.920
<v Speaker 1>you know socialism or at least in the sense of

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 1>capital controls and other things that might happen. You know,

0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 1>Trump says to the FED, I want a booming economy.

0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:30.040
<v Speaker 1>I want you to roll the printing presses, and the

0:13:30.160 --> 0:13:33.000
<v Speaker 1>markets respond by driving the dollar.

0:13:32.800 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 4>Down inflation up.

0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:36.880
<v Speaker 1>He might well then say, well, I'm going to put

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:39.520
<v Speaker 1>on rules that stop that from happening.

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:43.440
<v Speaker 4>Rather than changing the policy. Remember, you know, we've had one.

0:13:44.040 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, since the immediate after math of World War Two,

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:50.200
<v Speaker 1>we've had only one episode of price controls in America,

0:13:50.679 --> 0:13:53.840
<v Speaker 1>and it was Richard Nixon, not some progressive Democrat who

0:13:53.880 --> 0:13:56.599
<v Speaker 1>did it. So I think you want to be I

0:13:57.280 --> 0:14:01.319
<v Speaker 1>understand Ken's point. He thinks that the on vigilantes basically

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:04.079
<v Speaker 1>would would discipline Trump.

0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:06.160
<v Speaker 4>But I don't think that's a safe bet.

0:14:06.760 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 2>What about the prospect of inflation. Obviously tariffs tend to

0:14:09.840 --> 0:14:13.520
<v Speaker 2>be inflationary rather than disinflationary. At the same time, both

0:14:13.600 --> 0:14:16.800
<v Speaker 2>President Biden and for President Trump seem to like tariffs

0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:17.240
<v Speaker 2>pretty well.

0:14:18.400 --> 0:14:19.760
<v Speaker 4>Well, there's a big difference.

0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:22.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, yes, both are doing terrorfs, and Biden has

0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:28.720
<v Speaker 1>not rolled back most of the Trump tariffs, which is politics,

0:14:29.240 --> 0:14:34.240
<v Speaker 1>that's you know there doesn't want to be accused of

0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:36.600
<v Speaker 1>being soft on China or something like that. But if

0:14:36.640 --> 0:14:39.760
<v Speaker 1>you look at the new proposals, they're actually although they

0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:45.400
<v Speaker 1>both are proposing terrans, they're very different in the both

0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:49.200
<v Speaker 1>in the details and in the purpose. So Trump's view

0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:53.920
<v Speaker 1>is clearly he thinks of trade as a zero sum game.

0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:58.560
<v Speaker 1>If we win if other people buy our stuff, we

0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:00.760
<v Speaker 1>lose if we buy other people stuff. And so he

0:15:00.880 --> 0:15:03.480
<v Speaker 1>wants to put a ring around the collar. He said,

0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:07.480
<v Speaker 1>a ten percent tariff on everything and the h and

0:15:07.640 --> 0:15:12.080
<v Speaker 1>maybe more for some other countries. That's not at all

0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:13.840
<v Speaker 1>what Biden is doing. What Biden is.

0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:15.400
<v Speaker 2>Doing is some.

0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 1>Selective tariffs aimed at what he perceives as strategic sectors.

0:15:23.800 --> 0:15:26.960
<v Speaker 2>And if I'm not mistaken, you generally support the notion

0:15:27.160 --> 0:15:28.960
<v Speaker 2>we have to do, whoever the president is something to

0:15:29.120 --> 0:15:31.040
<v Speaker 2>have to do to prevent a second, as you call it,

0:15:31.320 --> 0:15:34.120
<v Speaker 2>China shock, such as we saw early around the time

0:15:34.120 --> 0:15:36.480
<v Speaker 2>of the WTO, in order to basically protect some of

0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:37.120
<v Speaker 2>our workforce.

0:15:38.440 --> 0:15:41.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's it's not so much jobs in the in

0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:44.600
<v Speaker 1>the aggregate. Sorry it sounding like an of commiss there,

0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:47.440
<v Speaker 1>but it's not so much the total employment. We're not

0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:50.040
<v Speaker 1>having a problem at least at the moment with overall employment.

0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:54.480
<v Speaker 1>But what we learned rather painfully from the first China

0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:59.840
<v Speaker 1>Shock was that sudden surges of imports can be just

0:16:00.120 --> 0:16:05.320
<v Speaker 1>eruptive in ways that a lot of standard economic models

0:16:05.760 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 1>don't capture, though non standard models do. They can disrupt communities,

0:16:11.160 --> 0:16:15.240
<v Speaker 1>they can disrupt strategic industries, and particularly if you are

0:16:15.400 --> 0:16:18.120
<v Speaker 1>doing what Biden is doing, which is to try to

0:16:18.280 --> 0:16:21.880
<v Speaker 1>sell climate policy, in part by saying it also it

0:16:22.000 --> 0:16:26.640
<v Speaker 1>creates manufacturing jobs. The political basis for that is going

0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:29.800
<v Speaker 1>to be undermined if it ends up creating manufacturing jobs

0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:30.200
<v Speaker 1>in China.

0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:34.840
<v Speaker 4>So now, and this is a prime look China.

0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:38.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think the Chinese seem to fully realize, but

0:16:38.200 --> 0:16:43.320
<v Speaker 1>they they are having a situation of grossly inadequate domestic

0:16:43.400 --> 0:16:48.760
<v Speaker 1>spending and relatives to their production capacity, and seem unwilling

0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:51.920
<v Speaker 1>to boost their own demand. And there they want to

0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:56.480
<v Speaker 1>dump both in the sort of you know, common language

0:16:56.520 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 1>sense and probably in the in the illegal sense.

0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:02.200
<v Speaker 4>They want to dump the excess production on the rest

0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:04.600
<v Speaker 4>of the world. And it's not going to happen. We're

0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:07.119
<v Speaker 4>not going to accept it. The Europeans are not going

0:17:07.160 --> 0:17:10.560
<v Speaker 4>to accept it. So you have to do something.

0:17:11.119 --> 0:17:14.480
<v Speaker 2>And finally, doctor Kruman, let's go back to what Donald

0:17:14.520 --> 0:17:17.600
<v Speaker 2>Trump did during his first presidency. He certainly tried to

0:17:17.680 --> 0:17:20.360
<v Speaker 2>cut back on regulation. As we talk to former advisors

0:17:20.400 --> 0:17:22.879
<v Speaker 2>and even current advisors like Scott Bessant, who talks to

0:17:23.240 --> 0:17:26.720
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump fairly regularly, he says, we will get greater growth,

0:17:26.840 --> 0:17:30.879
<v Speaker 2>economic growth because we will cut back on regulation. Is

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:33.439
<v Speaker 2>that wrong as a matter of economics, in fact, if

0:17:33.480 --> 0:17:36.359
<v Speaker 2>you cut back on regulation, maybe other externalities that we

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:39.120
<v Speaker 2>don't like. But is it generally true if we cut

0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:41.440
<v Speaker 2>back on regulation we will get more economic growth?

0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 4>Certainly, not true necessarily, and there's just no evidence for that.

0:17:48.000 --> 0:17:48.320
<v Speaker 4>There is.

0:17:49.680 --> 0:17:53.800
<v Speaker 1>Just what's actually been oppressive if you look at the

0:17:53.880 --> 0:17:56.359
<v Speaker 1>US historical record is how little difference any of this

0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:59.800
<v Speaker 1>stuff makes too long term economic growth. You just cannot

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:04.399
<v Speaker 1>eat that, uh, that improve that increased regulation, certainly that

0:18:04.800 --> 0:18:09.560
<v Speaker 1>that environmental regulation has had a negative impact. And one

0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:12.320
<v Speaker 1>of the things it's worth pointing out, you know, if

0:18:12.359 --> 0:18:15.240
<v Speaker 1>you particularly since the environment is probably at the core

0:18:15.320 --> 0:18:18.240
<v Speaker 1>of a lot of this. We talk a lot about

0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:21.440
<v Speaker 1>climate change, as we should. That's an existential threat, but

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:24.560
<v Speaker 1>what people don't realize is the extent to which air pollution,

0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:29.240
<v Speaker 1>to take the prime example, has relatively short term economic

0:18:29.359 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 1>costs as well.

0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:32.119
<v Speaker 2>Professor, is always such a treat to talk to you.

0:18:32.200 --> 0:18:34.800
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much many thanks to our Nobel Prize

0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:36.480
<v Speaker 2>winging economist Paul Krugman