So I deeply respect Paul BUT - where have economist been??? The US economy in the 60-70s was extremely well balanced. Why? Because progressive taxation had distributed wealth among the population relative to the normal curve. Reagan helped convince voters that ‘trickle down economics’ was the answer and started cutting the taxes for corporations and the wealthy. This has resulted in a completely skewed distribution of wealth to where now we have 3 people (Bezos, Musk, Ellison) who own 50% of the assets in the largest economy in the world. Sorry Paul… this is the biggest story that you missed. Why though? Why has this not been covered in the New York Times? Maybe because the American oligarchy has suppressed it. You are the leading voice in economics at the NYT and you don’t talk about that.
I suspect the new right-lite NYT is not to your liking Paul. I will miss you. I wish you well. I have stopped my subscription to the NYT, due to their sanewashing of Trump and incessant criticism of Harris. I am now subscribed to the Guardian. The corporate US media is dead to me forever. I consider the US media complicit in the fascist takeover of my country.
Dr. Krugman--I have followed your columns since you first joined the New York Times, and looked forward to reading your thoughts every week. You have been an exemplary public intellectual; a Nobel Prize winner who could explain complex questions in clear and elegant prose. You have my eternal gratitude and admiration. Heartfelt thanks for all you have done.
I bow to Krugman's wisdom but for all the criticism of US the picture looks far more positive compared to the British experience (15 years of failed Austerity and almost no recovery at all).
So Paul after writing Opinion pieces about the economy in hindsight were you correct? W who defended Clinton's sub prime mortgage when over 100k families lost the way that most people pass on wealth. You and your family will be alright. Not mad at you just mad at the system. People who make the rich Richer have been forgotten. If something is too big to fail it shouldn't exist.
Did you actually listen to the podcast before you made your comment. Also, "Clinton's sub prime mortgage"? Really fact challenged there as the CRA had nothing to do with private banks offering subprime loans.
@@xclampazzo yeah pretty much. I respect Mr. Krugman's opinions though I don't always agree with them. All the new writers are not worth reading in my opinion.
I do not blame Krugman for the horrible fiscal condition the entire world is in, but I do blame him for not telling people that it will eventually end in ruin.
Sorry to see you go, especially at a moment where we need every voice of reason. But enjoy your well earned retirement and I still hope we hear from you again.
Always enjoyed Paul's columns but he had a serious addiction to printing money to solve fiscal/monetary problems. He can run into retirement on this major failure during his tenure, or say that his spendthrift views that ruled then was during the good old days when we were still "borrowing" not printing it, but he will not be able to hide from the logical conclusion of his support of massive fiscal irresponsibility and printing of money, just as the Roman Empire did right before they, too, collapsed and spiraled into decay and oblivion. You heard it here first - or may even during HIS time.
AS I read your comment I conjure 1964 movie Fall of the Roman Empire at the end when the general (with Sophia Loren, by the way) walks away from the arguing Roman senators, generals scribes (Mr. krugman) about taking bids for the next emperor, after Commodious death surrounded by burning barbarians/Christians AND signifying the start of the decline you comment on. HOW did Rome fall as all empires/civilizations do, our LIFETIME.
@@scottfoster3548 NOW you tell me. Had I known, I would have been able to do that report in 6th grade when I was supposed to figure out why the Roman empire fell. All I came up was something about barbarians . . . Thanks for the tip. I will check out the flick. Do I read that right? 3 hours long? ua-cam.com/video/1OG83i7dtQk/v-deo.html
@@bretshawnclark1589 10-4 AND James Mason speech to The Senate where they call him Greek AND he reply's Greek by birth Roman by choice is wonderful. The portrayal of the northern Germania border and all the legions. 10-4 this was a great period for epic history movies.
Despite or rather because of the supreme merits of Paul Krugman, I wish he had used this opportunity to help listeners better understand how terms like “the economy” or “inflation” are used and abused in public discourse. Instead, what he presents here is his story of “I told you so” in 5 chapters. Does a Nobel Prize winner really need to do this for his ego?
@Guizambaldi Precisely because Econ 101 doesn't teach the real story, but he understands it! But, alas, any American academic will always prefer to talk about their genius rather than show how it matters😂
Krugman was the most overrated columnist at NYT. He says, “I was right,” way more often than any economist should. The only time he hints that he might have been wrong is when he underestimated the depth of the 2008 banking crisis. And in that case, he still pats himself on the back for “predicting” it would happen. Then he has the temerity to declare “Obamacare works!” This, on the heels of the healthcare CEO assassination prompted by the country’s deep hatred for a current healthcare system, which Obamacre clearly didn’t fix, and arguably exacerbated the private health insurance market with demand and pricing distortions. What a colossal egomaniac!
@@davidg3944 Are you implying that unless someone is an expert at something that they can't call a public figure's record into question? Obviously that can't be your point, because that would be bananas.
@@tonioinverness No producer of exposition is correct all the time. Not even your orange idol [/S]. To have a YT nobody try to claim some scalp-taking without substantiation is, to quote, bananas.
@@davidg3944 Sir or ma'am, I am not talking about any "producer of exposition". I am not talking about politics of any kind. I don't know who you think you're debating. Someone called into question the transferability of expertise, an entirely rational thing to do. Your response was to then snarkily call into questions THAT person's expertise. That is a bananas reaction.
“The Inflation isn’t real. The inflation is transitory. The inflation isn’t all that bad compared to the globe.” I hate inflation. Your policies and paper advocated to make it worse.
Precisely how does Paul Krugman and the Times advocate to make it worse? Also, "I hate inflation." Really??? There's always inflation. The most recent spike in inflation (around 8%) was the result of many factors, the largest being the shocks to the supply chain that were caused by the covid crisis. How is that the fault of the Times or Krugman? also the current inflation rate is 2.7 which is about average.
I don't get the appeal, the rationale, for avoiding across decades mention of the idea of accounting for externalities through taxes / fees / auctioned permits for emissions, resource extraction or habitat destruction, with proceeds shared to all people. The one policy would promote sustainability and end poverty. Permits prices would affect how hard industries try to avoid causing harm or depleting resources. When random polls show that most people think there's not too much of this or that kind of impact, then we'll know that the fees are set at the right amount. This policy respects Truth and Fairness as primary values, and the shared right of the people to define limits to humans' impacts on the environment. We'd embody respect for principle in practice.
Its a quarter of the way into the century in a few weeks; can you please use a graphic design that isnt from the early 1970's? That time is long passed.
Thank you for your mind provoking work. Let's hope thinking comes back into vogue. Don't stay away too long. You can only sit on a sunny beach with a margarita in hand for so long
Single payer was never going to happen? Why? Are the laws of physics different in the US than in the rest of the world? I think that attitude was what upset me most about Paul. We were both left of center. But Paul's brand of liberalism was half-baked leftism that mostly agreed with conservatives on economics. Paul was the left wing of mainstream economics. And the story of the past 25 years is the rejection of neo-liberal elites and their economics. Bush lied us into the disaster of the Iraq and Afghanistan forever wars. This deeply damaged the public's trust in politicians and the military. After 20 years of fighting, we meekly handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Then 2008 showed that mainstream economics was a pseudo science. No one in mainstream economics saw 2008 coming, despite everyone claiming to have seen it coming after the fact. And there was never any accountability. Nothing happened to Bush for all the unnecessary death he caused. Not a single banker went to jail. And all the economics professors continued to teach the same fairytale. Obama campaigned on change, but in the end all we got was more of the same. Our last hope for positive change was Bernie Sanders, which Paul here remains conspicuously quiet about. Paul and the whole editorial staff waged a Jihad against Sanders more viciously than they ever did against Trump. Americans have been begging for change more and more loudly. And if they can't get constructive change, they'll settle for destruction. This is Paul's (and all the neo-liberals) legacy for me. By always blocking the truly good as "too extreme" and "too radical," we have brought the truly bad.
Trusting leaders. While I agree it's gone to far, there's an explanation. Just as a previous generation had Vietnam and Watergate the 2000s have had Iraq and the Great Financial crisis. You lay this on top of non college educated men having stagnant wages since the 1970s. Men are used to being providers.., etc, but for decades women have been getting more degrees, higher pay more income and men just aren't needed in the way we used to be. It's different.
There's a lot of truth to this, and the failure to recognize this "falling away" of males is a lot of the reason the Dems lost. trump doesn't give a damn about the average man, but at least he was canny enough to throw some sop their way, and they ate it up. Until the Democrats actually pay attention to this, they will lose the White House and many State and Federal offices.
@@lamoinette23 That's not always the case. Some are so poor they must work to literally feed themselves, therefore don't have time or money for advanced education. Some haven't the intellectual capacity beyond a HS degree. Some don't want the massive debt that comes with many college options. And for many, even a degree doesn't guarantee a good income.
@@davidg3944 Community colleges are inexpensive compared to private. State schools offer some of the best educations and are affordable to state residents. It's possible to get a degree by working in the day and studying at night. Scholarships help. Currently, in today's economy it is definitely more difficult, but in the 70s, 80s 9os.. at the same time, as the comment above stated.. women were getting their own degrees. There was no excluding men from getting an education.. plus if they served in the military they had access to money from the government to get an education too. I think there's something else missing from the equation..
@@lamoinette23 Not all people get college degrees (I believe its a majority of Americans- 60%?). Prior to the 1980s men could afford a middle class lifestyle by working in jobs that didn't require college degrees. For many years women were favored for admission, there have been more gender specific scholarships set aside for females and there are lobbying groups that favor more women in universities, like the American Assoc. or University Women. I'm not sure if there are similar assoc. for men, as they would likely be labeled sexiest. Richard Reeves has done research on this at Brookings and Scott Galloway has discussed it.
@davidg3944 For the 2024 election, I predicted all 7 seven swing states correctly. Kruggy thought that the internet would 'go the way of the fax machine'.
We are still waiting ; I get an awards from my family every day when I make a wonderful meal; I love Paul Krugman I has his finger on the national pulse; keep on keeping on Paul. @@Collageartist69
@@Cohen.the.Worrier Dunning Kruger effect is as phony as Paul Krugman. Please do some Google search on these guys falsifying many research and publishing garbage papers in various journals.
@Monotremata that's a perfectly fair assessment. Lately I've been lashing out at establishment figureheads frequently, often without really putting much thought to it. My knee jerk reaction --given the state of things-- is to just throw everyone that has been at the helm of government, business, media, and education all into the same bucket as "those responsible". I guess more than anything that makes me part of the problem. But one thing is undeniable -- from the time Krugman came on the scene as an establishment authority until now, America has gone completely off the rails. Meanwhile he is no doubt riding into the sunset to a VERY comfortable retirement. Is it fair to point at him and say "you should have done better" without providing specific examples? No, it's not. Is it emotional and childish? Yeah, it is. Do I regret it? A little bit. But props to you for calling me on it and making me reflect. Merry Christmas btw
@howardroark82 sometimes, when we have well and truly Had It, it can look extreme and inelegant. Because you obviously don't believe in QAnon and tHe EleCsHun Was StOled, I support your right to have your moment.
You were a lot more correct than wrong, thanks for dedication, although I still believe you really messed up with shaming savers and bitching about the so-called "savings glut."
"Epstein list?" is what you say when you have no argument. By the way, you seem to put an unusual amount of time into thinking about that. Thou doth protest too much.
@@derpyeh9107 What does that have to do with the Times or Krugman? You should ask Trump why he doesn't want it released. ua-cam.com/video/t8mKw85ZQuU/v-deo.html
@ Why would I care about Trump's opinion on this? Are you one of those "you have to be on one side or the other on every subject" people? Not everything needs to be a partisan issue, you know...
So I deeply respect Paul BUT - where have economist been??? The US economy in the 60-70s was extremely well balanced. Why? Because progressive taxation had distributed wealth among the population relative to the normal curve. Reagan helped convince voters that ‘trickle down economics’ was the answer and started cutting the taxes for corporations and the wealthy. This has resulted in a completely skewed distribution of wealth to where now we have 3 people (Bezos, Musk, Ellison) who own 50% of the assets in the largest economy in the world. Sorry Paul… this is the biggest story that you missed. Why though? Why has this not been covered in the New York Times? Maybe because the American oligarchy has suppressed it. You are the leading voice in economics at the NYT and you don’t talk about that.
A balanced voice! Thanks Paul Krugman, best wishes, you will be missed!
Your columns were a big driver for why I got into economics in college & grad school - thank you sir and enjoy a well earned retirement
We'll miss you Paul. But who wants to listen to reason these days?
Best columns for 25 years! Thank you!
I suspect the new right-lite NYT is not to your liking Paul. I will miss you. I wish you well. I have stopped my subscription to the NYT, due to their sanewashing of Trump and incessant criticism of Harris. I am now subscribed to the Guardian. The corporate US media is dead to me forever. I consider the US media complicit in the fascist takeover of my country.
Dr. Krugman--I have followed your columns since you first joined the New York Times, and looked forward to reading your thoughts every week. You have been an exemplary public intellectual; a Nobel Prize winner who could explain complex questions in clear and elegant prose. You have my eternal gratitude and admiration. Heartfelt thanks for all you have done.
🤮
I bow to Krugman's wisdom but for all the criticism of US the picture looks far more positive compared to the British experience (15 years of failed Austerity and almost no recovery at all).
Austerity? Fifteen years?
I don’t think so.
I’ve used your wisdom to stay focused and moored. I’m glad you’re continuing without constraints bcs I can trust your instincts.
So Paul after writing Opinion pieces about the economy in hindsight were you correct? W who defended Clinton's sub prime mortgage when over 100k families lost the way that most people pass on wealth. You and your family will be alright. Not mad at you just mad at the system. People who make the rich Richer have been forgotten. If something is too big to fail it shouldn't exist.
Did you actually listen to the podcast before you made your comment. Also, "Clinton's sub prime mortgage"? Really fact challenged there as the CRA had nothing to do with private banks offering subprime loans.
And just like that, the NYT is no longer worth reading.
This was the breaking point for you??
@@xclampazzo yeah pretty much. I respect Mr. Krugman's opinions though I don't always agree with them. All the new writers are not worth reading in my opinion.
I do not blame Krugman for the horrible fiscal condition the entire world is in, but I do blame him for not telling people that it will eventually end in ruin.
I minored in Econ because of Paul's work on New Trade Theory.
Sorry to see you go, especially at a moment where we need every voice of reason.
But enjoy your well earned retirement and I still hope we hear from you again.
Paul is a true voice of reason
NOW I know how to pronounce your name. Always thought it sounded like Klugman.
God bless you Paul.
You blew it on inflation, pal.
Unfortunately, Trump is going to make people even less trusting of government.
Billionaires feel unloved?
...it's a real shame, right?
like we care 🎻
Always enjoyed Paul's columns but he had a serious addiction to printing money to solve fiscal/monetary problems. He can run into retirement on this major failure during his tenure, or say that his spendthrift views that ruled then was during the good old days when we were still "borrowing" not printing it, but he will not be able to hide from the logical conclusion of his support of massive fiscal irresponsibility and printing of money, just as the Roman Empire did right before they, too, collapsed and spiraled into decay and oblivion.
You heard it here first - or may even during HIS time.
AS I read your comment I conjure 1964 movie Fall of the Roman Empire at the end when the general (with Sophia Loren, by the way) walks away from the arguing Roman senators, generals scribes (Mr. krugman) about taking bids for the next emperor, after Commodious death surrounded by burning barbarians/Christians AND signifying the start of the decline you comment on. HOW did Rome fall as all empires/civilizations do, our LIFETIME.
@@scottfoster3548 NOW you tell me. Had I known, I would have been able to do that report in 6th grade when I was supposed to figure out why the Roman empire fell. All I came up was something about barbarians . . . Thanks for the tip. I will check out the flick. Do I read that right? 3 hours long? ua-cam.com/video/1OG83i7dtQk/v-deo.html
@@bretshawnclark1589 10-4 AND James Mason speech to The Senate where they call him Greek AND he reply's Greek by birth Roman by choice is wonderful. The portrayal of the northern Germania border and all the legions. 10-4 this was a great period for epic history movies.
Terrible loss for the Times.
Despite or rather because of the supreme merits of Paul Krugman, I wish he had used this opportunity to help listeners better understand how terms like “the economy” or “inflation” are used and abused in public discourse. Instead, what he presents here is his story of “I told you so” in 5 chapters. Does a Nobel Prize winner really need to do this for his ego?
Deserved winners don't have to. Insecure winners on the other hand...
This is a goodbye column where he was asked to tell what were his highlights as a columnist.
Why did you expect him to teach econ 101?
@Guizambaldi Precisely because Econ 101 doesn't teach the real story, but he understands it! But, alas, any American academic will always prefer to talk about their genius rather than show how it matters😂
Krugman was the most overrated columnist at NYT.
He says, “I was right,” way more often than any economist should. The only time he hints that he might have been wrong is when he underestimated the depth of the 2008 banking crisis. And in that case, he still pats himself on the back for “predicting” it would happen.
Then he has the temerity to declare “Obamacare works!” This, on the heels of the healthcare CEO assassination prompted by the country’s deep hatred for a current healthcare system, which Obamacre clearly didn’t fix, and arguably exacerbated the private health insurance market with demand and pricing distortions.
What a colossal egomaniac!
NYTs selective enforcement of when to allow Comments on their online articles is very suspect. Don't be afraid of comments, it's the whole point.
Enjoy your retirement, Paul! Thanks for all your writing.
Another demonstration that expertise in one area does not extend to other areas
@@andrewhill1251 "expertise"
Please let us know what you're expert at.
@@davidg3944 Are you implying that unless someone is an expert at something that they can't call a public figure's record into question? Obviously that can't be your point, because that would be bananas.
@@tonioinverness No producer of exposition is correct all the time. Not even your orange idol [/S]. To have a YT nobody try to claim some scalp-taking without substantiation is, to quote, bananas.
@@davidg3944 Sir or ma'am, I am not talking about any "producer of exposition". I am not talking about politics of any kind. I don't know who you think you're debating. Someone called into question the transferability of expertise, an entirely rational thing to do. Your response was to then snarkily call into questions THAT person's expertise. That is a bananas reaction.
“The Inflation isn’t real. The inflation is transitory. The inflation isn’t all that bad compared to the globe.”
I hate inflation. Your policies and paper advocated to make it worse.
Precisely how does Paul Krugman and the Times advocate to make it worse? Also, "I hate inflation." Really??? There's always inflation. The most recent spike in inflation (around 8%) was the result of many factors, the largest being the shocks to the supply chain that were caused by the covid crisis. How is that the fault of the Times or Krugman? also the current inflation rate is 2.7 which is about average.
Do you like having a job? Because we can get inflation down if we have low employment. That's how the economy works.
Your final advice was like a slap with a limp noodle. Surely you must know more than that!
I agree with your reaction. See above where I commented on the same issue - his parting sentences were naive and useless!
Krugman has been wrong on a lot of things. Especially the deficit. Adios.
And just how was Paul wrong?
And just how was Paul wrong?
And just how was Paul wrong?
And just how was Paul wrong?
LOL the NYT chatbot AI has malfunctioned.
@@kirkw.72 Umm, before you say that, check out the OP's user name. Think...
NYT AI chatbot tries distraction protocol 4.6, does not succeed.
@@kirkw.72 Kirkw proves lack of awareness, not surprised.
I don't get the appeal, the rationale, for avoiding across decades mention of the idea of accounting for externalities through taxes / fees / auctioned permits for emissions, resource extraction or habitat destruction, with proceeds shared to all people. The one policy would promote sustainability and end poverty. Permits prices would affect how hard industries try to avoid causing harm or depleting resources. When random polls show that most people think there's not too much of this or that kind of impact, then we'll know that the fees are set at the right amount. This policy respects Truth and Fairness as primary values, and the shared right of the people to define limits to humans' impacts on the environment. We'd embody respect for principle in practice.
Why not a word about Trump (concerning economics)? Maybe NYT said that's a NO NO!
Thanks for your great work, Paul!!
Its a quarter of the way into the century in a few weeks; can you please use a graphic design that isnt from the early 1970's? That time is long passed.
I would like to know the economics of being able to retire.. because that is out of reach for so many. 🙄
Thank you for your mind provoking work. Let's hope thinking comes back into vogue. Don't stay away too long. You can only sit on a sunny beach with a margarita in hand for so long
Such a joke
I know you are.
@@Cohen.the.Worrier "Cohen" 😂
i am disappointed mr. krugman is leaving us just when we need him most!
Single payer was never going to happen? Why? Are the laws of physics different in the US than in the rest of the world?
I think that attitude was what upset me most about Paul. We were both left of center. But Paul's brand of liberalism was half-baked leftism that mostly agreed with conservatives on economics. Paul was the left wing of mainstream economics. And the story of the past 25 years is the rejection of neo-liberal elites and their economics.
Bush lied us into the disaster of the Iraq and Afghanistan forever wars. This deeply damaged the public's trust in politicians and the military. After 20 years of fighting, we meekly handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban.
Then 2008 showed that mainstream economics was a pseudo science. No one in mainstream economics saw 2008 coming, despite everyone claiming to have seen it coming after the fact.
And there was never any accountability. Nothing happened to Bush for all the unnecessary death he caused. Not a single banker went to jail. And all the economics professors continued to teach the same fairytale.
Obama campaigned on change, but in the end all we got was more of the same. Our last hope for positive change was Bernie Sanders, which Paul here remains conspicuously quiet about. Paul and the whole editorial staff waged a Jihad against Sanders more viciously than they ever did against Trump.
Americans have been begging for change more and more loudly. And if they can't get constructive change, they'll settle for destruction.
This is Paul's (and all the neo-liberals) legacy for me. By always blocking the truly good as "too extreme" and "too radical," we have brought the truly bad.
Yes. Thank you.
Trusting leaders. While I agree it's gone to far, there's an explanation. Just as a previous generation had Vietnam and Watergate the 2000s have had Iraq and the Great Financial crisis. You lay this on top of non college educated men having stagnant wages since the 1970s. Men are used to being providers.., etc, but for decades women have been getting more degrees, higher pay more income and men just aren't needed in the way we used to be. It's different.
There's a lot of truth to this, and the failure to recognize this "falling away" of males is a lot of the reason the Dems lost. trump doesn't give a damn about the average man, but at least he was canny enough to throw some sop their way, and they ate it up. Until the Democrats actually pay attention to this, they will lose the White House and many State and Federal offices.
What was stopping men from getting degrees? An education is open to everyone.
@@lamoinette23 That's not always the case. Some are so poor they must work to literally feed themselves, therefore don't have time or money for advanced education. Some haven't the intellectual capacity beyond a HS degree. Some don't want the massive debt that comes with many college options. And for many, even a degree doesn't guarantee a good income.
@@davidg3944 Community colleges are inexpensive compared to private. State schools offer some of the best educations and are affordable to state residents. It's possible to get a degree by working in the day and studying at night. Scholarships help. Currently, in today's economy it is definitely more difficult, but in the 70s, 80s 9os.. at the same time, as the comment above stated.. women were getting their own degrees. There was no excluding men from getting an education.. plus if they served in the military they had access to money from the government to get an education too. I think there's something else missing from the equation..
@@lamoinette23 Not all people get college degrees (I believe its a majority of Americans- 60%?). Prior to the 1980s men could afford a middle class lifestyle by working in jobs that didn't require college degrees. For many years women were favored for admission, there have been more gender specific scholarships set aside for females and there are lobbying groups that favor more women in universities, like the American Assoc. or University Women. I'm not sure if there are similar assoc. for men, as they would likely be labeled sexiest. Richard Reeves has done research on this at Brookings and Scott Galloway has discussed it.
Find yourself someone who loves you as much as Krugman loves himself.
Let us know what you got right and he got wrong. We're desperate for your wisdom with Paul leaving...
@davidg3944 For the 2024 election, I predicted all 7 seven swing states correctly. Kruggy thought that the internet would 'go the way of the fax machine'.
You are just out of touch academician. You getting Nobel prize convinced me that Nobel prize is a stupid award.
Where's your award for anything? We will wait.
We are still waiting ; I get an awards from my family every day when I make a wonderful meal; I love Paul Krugman I has his finger on the national pulse; keep on keeping on Paul.
@@Collageartist69
Dunning Kruger hard at work here.
@@Cohen.the.Worrier Dunning Kruger effect is as phony as Paul Krugman. Please do some Google search on these guys falsifying many research and publishing garbage papers in various journals.
Thus spoke the genius who couldn't string together a sentence.
Please don’t leave 😮
I mean, i cancelled. I subscribed basically for Krugman and Edsall tbh
Thank you Paul
Much appreciation!
25 years of placating elites, knowing your implicit role and standing for nothing.
Pretty asinine comment devoid of any context. Or intelligence.
@Monotremata that's a perfectly fair assessment. Lately I've been lashing out at establishment figureheads frequently, often without really putting much thought to it. My knee jerk reaction --given the state of things-- is to just throw everyone that has been at the helm of government, business, media, and education all into the same bucket as "those responsible". I guess more than anything that makes me part of the problem. But one thing is undeniable -- from the time Krugman came on the scene as an establishment authority until now, America has gone completely off the rails. Meanwhile he is no doubt riding into the sunset to a VERY comfortable retirement. Is it fair to point at him and say "you should have done better" without providing specific examples? No, it's not. Is it emotional and childish? Yeah, it is. Do I regret it? A little bit. But props to you for calling me on it and making me reflect. Merry Christmas btw
@howardroark82 sometimes, when we have well and truly Had It, it can look extreme and inelegant. Because you obviously don't believe in QAnon and tHe EleCsHun Was StOled, I support your right to have your moment.
A great teacher's radio show. I hope he continues this in some way.
FREE PALESTINE 🇵🇸
should have retired 15 years ago
Glad your social security will pay for tax cuts.
So uneducated
You were a lot more correct than wrong, thanks for dedication, although I still believe you really messed up with shaming savers and bitching about the so-called "savings glut."
Epstein list?
So who's your second favourite rapist then?
"Epstein list?" is what you say when you have no argument. By the way, you seem to put an unusual amount of time into thinking about that. Thou doth protest too much.
@@claygrier4673 Why not just release it? What could possibly be the harm in that?
@@derpyeh9107 What does that have to do with the Times or Krugman? You should ask Trump why he doesn't want it released. ua-cam.com/video/t8mKw85ZQuU/v-deo.html
@ Why would I care about Trump's opinion on this? Are you one of those "you have to be on one side or the other on every subject" people? Not everything needs to be a partisan issue, you know...
Go away Paul. You have always been a liar.
Going to miss his insights
“Politicians have never been 100% honest.” How about…”Politicians have never been honest.”?
You will be missed!
If only this were a permanent and comprehensive departure... But a fella can still wish you'd go the way of the CEO, right? 😅
Trump will finally put the nail in the coffin on this dumpster fire country