Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

WireTap

Five Minutes With: Paul Krugman

By Elana Berkowitz, Campus Progress. Posted November 18, 2005.


The economist and political columnist talks about illegal immigration, the deficit, blogs and why he'd prefer a root canal to talking to Bill O'Reilly.
769
Paul Krugman

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Elana Berkowitz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

[Editor's Note: This interview was originally published on Campus Progress.]

Paul Krugman has been called "the most important political columnist in America" by The Washington Monthly. An economist who has taught at MIT, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford, Krugman became a columnist for the New York Times' opinion section in 2000. Since then, he has been an outspoken critic of conservative policies and politics, especially the economic and social missteps of the Bush administration. His 2003 collection of columns, The Great Unraveling, was a New York Times bestseller.

Krugman talked to Campus Progress about illegal immigration, the deficit, blogs and why he'd pick a root canal over Bill O'Reilly.

What prompted you to write your November 4th column "Defending Imperial Nudity"? We were passing it around the office and couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry -- especially when we got to the end.

We finally reached a point where a lot of people are starting to acknowledge the obvious, which is that we were deliberately hyped into war, and a lot of defenses are coming up. People are still trying to pretend that nothing happened and it all made sense, and I felt that it was time to find a way to play how ridiculous that is.

I get the feeling that we're living in a really good political satire.

Yeah, or a really tawdry political novel. If you tried to make this stuff up, nobody would dare - they'd say that it's ridiculous.

You've written economics textbooks before. If you had to imagine writing another textbook 30 years from now characterizing economic policy under various presidents, how would you talk about the Bush administration?

Well, the answer is that there is no policy. What's interesting about it is that there's no sign that anybody's actually thinking about "well, how do we run this economy?" Everything becomes an excuse to do pre-set things instead of an actual response to an event or a real problem. So, the idea was "we're going to cut taxes on capital income, as opposed to earned income" and whatever happened became a reason to do that.

Obviously, you've talked a lot about the deficit. And now we're watching some Republicans on the Hill try to pass a joke of a reconciliation bill. Why aren't people as angry about the deficit issue as they should be?

Well, ultimately any government has to raise enough money to pay for its promises. Right now we have a 21% of GDP federal government and a 17% of GDP revenue base. Ultimately, that doesn't work, particularly because some of the expenses of the government are going to rise. The current administration and the current Congress has shown absolutely no willingness to bring those things in line. When they're talking about big budget cuts, it turns out that they're actually talking about $5-10 billion a year, mostly aimed at poor people - so it creates a lot of hardship without addressing the actual problem. And they keep looking for more tax cuts. At some point, the rug gets pulled out from underneath. The trouble with railing against the deficit is that it's hard to get people completely enraged. They ought to be, because this is world class irresponsibility, and one day it's going to take its toll.

One of the most troubling provisions in the budget reconciliation is HB609, which could cut billions in federal aid for higher education. Seems like this is adding yet another blow by some politicians who do not properly value equal accessibility to education and opportunity.

We have disturbing trends in our society, and instead of doing things to counter them, the current political majority seems to be out to accentuate them, inequality in general. Now, what's happening to the democratization of education that we achieved half a century ago? We seem to be losing it and going back towards some kind of a hereditary, aristocratic model where only the people from the right families get to go to the right schools. Instead of doing something about it, the government is cutting financial aid, which is one of the things that allows kids who don't come from the right families to go to the best schools.

You've spoken before about post-Katrina reconstruction and your dissapointment with conservatives pushing towards a permanent Estate Tax repeal in its immediate wake. Do you see any potential positive opportunities in the reconstruction?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from WireTap! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is a great human being who writes a quality column
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 18, 2005 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a good article and it was interesting that TimesSelect had cut down on his email. Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman are the only reasons I would pay the Times anything, so that I could read their columns. But after the Judy Miller thing, I could not in good consciences pay the Times anything. Luckily their articles do appear in other places, for which I am truly grateful. In many ways we owe these three people a lot for being brave enough to write the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Krugman's Interview
Posted by: Bedingo on Nov 18, 2005 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re Mr. Krugman's comments about the policy at the NYT requiring payment for access to columnists. He is mistaken. Not a lot of people will pay for it. I stopped reading the paper in 2004 after 53 years, when it became clear that it was a government outlet. Events have proved me correct. In years to come, if we still have civil liberties, and if a researcher wants to find out about the Downing Street Memo, this researcher will not find much information about that in the newspaper of record. The only three columnists worth reading are Dowd, Herbert, Krugman , and Rich. The others probably get their columns from a K street office by fax and then they forward them to NYT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Krugman and Ivins...
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Nov 18, 2005 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My local paper, the Sacramento Bee, runs their columns from time to time. In the early days of the Bush era, they were some ofthe only voices of sanity in the media. I'd already begun to notice the Orwellian features-- legistation names that indicated an opposite purpose to the text of the bills; the reporters who could report self-contradicting statements from authorities one week from each other and not ask why the information had drastically changed. I learned not to trust the MSM fast and then when I started finding sites online that ran the voices of sanity, and others like them, I feel like I found so much.

Thank you, Krugman. I'm sure I'm not alone in holding you in high esteem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Times Select and universal coverage
Posted by: bettsoff on Nov 18, 2005 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why pay for Times Select when Truthout carries Krugman's columns a day or two later?

Re: universal coverage. I really have never understood the paradox Krugman mentions. Companies are spending lots of money trying NOT to insure people...I suppose they've done the analysis that were they to insure people it'd cost them MORE than what they're spending to fight insuring them? Substantially more? A little more? Anyone who's more familiar with insurance practices, feel free to instruct me why switching from fighting to deny coverage to providing coverage would be such a burden for these companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: universal coverage Posted by: BKLN
» RE: universal coverage Posted by: bhwoman
» It Depends On Objectives Posted by: birdman
They do have a policy and they do think about it
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 18, 2005 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, the answer is that there is no policy. What's interesting about it is that there's no sign that anybody's actually thinking about "well, how do we run this economy?"

It should be obvious to everyone that the conservative (read establishment) policy is to undo the New Deal. And they think long and hard about how to accomplish this. Unfortunately for "we the people" their thinking is focussed on the past. If they would think of the future they would realize that to crush the middle class is to kill the goose that lays their golden eggs. Both the rich and the poor are financially supported by the middle class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Nov 18, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One of the things that I think has been key to how much Bush has gotten away with is that journalists are afraid."-Krugman

This is the reason WAWA exists: to FEARLESSLY challenge ignorance, arrogance and the media shield.

WAWA passess on the root canal, but would fearlessly welcome the opportunity to engage Bill O'Reilly and the Christian Right in conversation.
WAWA can take verbal abuse for WAWA is on Higher Ground.


WAWA:
www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the Interview
Posted by: rkewen on Nov 18, 2005 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed reading this interview with Paul Krugman. Like many of the posters above I also miss Paul, Mo, Herbert and Frank Rich. Hell, I even used to read Brooks and Friedman for laughs. But like some of the folks above I'm not likely to send money to the Times, especially in light of their recent pandering to the agenda of the Bush Crime Family. Perhaps Judy 'kneepads" Miller should distribute her reportedly six figure goodbye money from the Times to the mothers and wives of those killed in the war she so dishonestly promoted.

Fortunately some of Mo's, Paul's and Frank's better columns are reposted elseshere so I get to read some of them. Living as I do on the West Coast, if I was going to pay for access to a paper it would probably be the SF Chronicle. LA Times or a paper from Seattle or Vancouver. I have virtually no interest in the local or local sports coverage by the Times. But I do still read the news and the odd non-Premium columnist daily in the Times online. I'm not surprised that Paul's e-mail has dropped under the new regime viv-a-vis paid access.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Nov 18, 2005 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, I like that "kneepads" Miller line. What amazes me is the fact that Dowd, Herbert, Rich and Krugman are still doing their excellent work at the "newspaper of record." As for Mr. Keller, BAH, HUMBUG!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

preaching to the blue-state choir
Posted by: gerdhansel on Nov 18, 2005 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure this interview has been a healthy dose of red meat for those who live in the city-states of New York or San Francisco.

I'd also be willing to bet this columnist will get his wish, and the results of last year's Presidential election will get tossed out the window, through scandals, Joe Wilson, impeachment, heart attack or other means.

So the left manages to bring down the Bush Administration, what then?

The other half of the country who voted for Bush in those red states are still out there, and leftists in New York and San Francisco still don't know how to talk to these rednecks without being snide or condescending.

You may win back the White House for one term through scandal, like Jimmy Carter did in 1976, but eventually those rednecks will get wise to your schemes and elect another Reagan the next time around.

If the left can manage, however difficult the task, to find common ground with the folks out there in NASCAR country, they might have a reasonable chance of creating a permanent electoral majority as FDR did in the 1930s.

Common ground would include things like universal health care coverage, economic justice and pulling our sons and daughters out of thieving, unjust wars like Iraq.

But you've got to lay off these people's hot-button issues. The Bill Mahers of the world need to put a sock in all that snide talk about how stupid redneck Christians are. Stop trying to push gay marriage, abortion and gun control down these people's throats.

Most of all, stop relying on the courts to enforce an agenda that pisses off folks in the red states. They want the chance to vote on their hot-button issues, and they don't want some unelected nine-member Politburo of lawyers making these decisions for them.

If you could even get five percent more of these crackers to vote for your guy, you'd win convincingly. You wouldn't have to worry about hanging chads or black-box voting machines if you won by a landslide.

But you can't just write these people off, because there's too many of them. And, by the way, they also reproduce. To paraphrase Richard Pryor, "there will never be a shortage of rednecks, 'cause rednecks is XXXXing." You get the idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» EXCELLENT POINT Posted by: qrswave
» What a crock gerdhansel...... Posted by: Michiganman
» Mc Julie... Posted by: qrswave
» Economic justice? HaHaHaHa Posted by: Michiganman
» Please, read carefully. Posted by: qrswave
Insurance Pipeline Control
Posted by: Lonman on Nov 18, 2005 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never seen a business that control that controls of the revenue/expense pipeline like the health insurance industry. They decide what to charge for premiums, what that coverage will be, and what serices they will pay for at the end; all of which can change at anytime they choose. What other service/business (which is the basic root of the problem; is it a service or a business) has this much control over their members?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Five Minutes with Paul Krugman
Posted by: thehodges1@prodigy.net on Nov 18, 2005 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish Mr. Krugman and others who state that illegal immagration pays the social security taxes without taking anything out would go to any social security office and see that most of the people in these offices are illegals that have three or four children that born here so they are Americans and eligible to receive Medicare and getting a green card is so easy but more then anything they receive benefits that they cannot begin to pay for therefore our system is drained. Go out and check. Boy I love America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blogs
Posted by: sondjata on Nov 18, 2005 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmmm. I notice that Krugman, and probably a whole lot of other people do not follow any black (African, African-American, etc) blogs. The internet was supposed to be the great equalizer where all kinds of points of view would be accessible, yet and still we find that certain blogs, of a certain viewpoint become the "standards" of "progressive" or "liberal" thought. Sad really that the internet, as far as news and opinion is concerned, is turning out to be very much like it's offline and print brethren.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I miss Krugman et al; The NYT doesn't get it financially
Posted by: User on Nov 18, 2005 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Putting a pay tab on Krugman and the other great writers, Rich et al, just limits the Time's exposure to the web public. I no longer even bother looking at the NYT front page. Living as I do in Europe, I can get front page news all over the net. But not the columnists I respect. I smell a stinking plot in the NYT pot.
If ignoring the pop up adds, and instead clicking direct on the columns of most pertinent interest is a bother to the business side of the NYT, then just ignoring it altogether should logically bring in buckets of cash.
Hey, when I read the print copy of a news paper, it isn't the add copy that draws me to the ink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Krugman's Interview
Posted by: Pisces on Nov 18, 2005 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it slanderous to call someone a socialist? I would like Mr. Krugman's point of view there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very good point! Posted by: qrswave
» RE: Paul Krugman's Interview Posted by: Lincoln fan
No, not actually a good point
Posted by: McJulie on Nov 18, 2005 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just tired Republican apologetics under a thin veneer of fair-mindedness. Also, the points are all generic and have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that came up in the Krugman interview.

In fact, I think this is comment spam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry Posted by: McJulie
Rising Costs in Health Care
Posted by: keshmeshi on Nov 21, 2005 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know from experience, having worked in a doctor's office for almost two years, that insurance companies' knee-jerk reaction is always to deny claims. Every claim submitted to them would have to be submitted four times before they finally paid, even completely normal standard visits. Our billing person would only send a claim back to us to check if there's something wrong with it (wrong codes, patient didn't have a referral) only after it had been denied four times. This modus operandi, on the part of insurers, accounted for most of the administrative costs in the office.

I wouldn't be surprised if the costs of bureaucracy within insurance companies and the resulting bureaucracy at medical facilities, all geared toward denying coverage, are contributing to the escalating costs of health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: Times select; note on insurance companies
Posted by: lamar on Nov 22, 2005 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Times Select is heartbreaking because Krugman and Rich are excellent columnists. I stopped following Rich because of Times Select, and I no longer cite to him. I still follow Krugman and will buy anything that references "quasi murderer", but I won't do Times Select or cite to his columns. Dowd, Kristof, and Tierney are for the birds. Dowd is a worthless read, Kristoff is doing good work in the nobody cares department, and Tierney says things I blogged about last week.

A note about insurance companies: if you know somebody who works as an adjuster, ask them: How the hell do you sleep at night? I worked for the insurance industry, and these people, not the companies but the actual people, are bad people. Maybe they're just trying to make a buck. They make that buck by making misery for others, and driving up administrative overall healthcare costs, just so their company can pay one less claim and their boss can drive one more Maserati.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1
Posted by: extremist on Oct 12, 2006 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
0MEN
Posted by: extremist on Oct 12, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]