Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
12/26/2007
Paul Krugman
A conversation with Paul Krugman
Keywords:
A conversation with Paul Krugman about his book The Conscience of a Liberal.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
3/22/08 Just watched recorded Krugman/Rose Dec 07 interview and was outraged by Rose's bullying and interruptions. Krugman was not allowed to complete answers as Rose jabbed back incessantly. Krugman remained polite--was probably dumbfounded by Rose's aggressiveness-- and did not respond in kind. Yet the audience lost out in not getting to hear Krugman fully. I kept shouting at tv/Rose "let him speak!" to no avail. The program's audience wants to hear what the guest has to say, not Rose's blathering. Years ago, when I first started watching Rose's show, I was annoyed by his constant interruptions/ opinions and stopped watching. Later gave him another chance cuz he does have some interesting guests and found that his interviewing skills had improved (as a result of his listeners' complaints?) With Krugman he was back at it. My impression over the years is that Rose is impatient w/ politically liberal points of view.
I was offended that two Caucasian men felt entitled to have a discussion as to whether or not racism is still real and painful without any context for the historical legacy and impact racism has on communities of color today. Not only was the discussion insensitive, it was inaccurate. The conversation was limited by its homogeneous setting and context. The two of them continually confused racism and bigotry. Bigotry is hatred and stereotyping that afflicts all people. Racism is the systemic arrangement that continues to disproportionately benefit the dominant culture in all aspects of life e.g. housing, health care, criminal justice, media representation, asset building, taxation, religion, politics, etc. What a disappointingly narrow conversation. I encourage both of them to read Dr. Joseph Barndtâ??s book, Dismantling Racism.
Krugman like so many others fail to credit Dennis Kucinish for his plans for Universal Single Payer Health Care (he calls it "Medicare for All"). They also fail to cite him for his detailed plan to really win the Peace in Iraq for the Iraqi people and for us. You can Find out more about Dennis Kucinich at www.Dennis4President.com. Out of all the candidates out there, he has the real, workable plans on which to build America's future. "The real evil of the human condition is cruelty." Thomas Cahill Grace and Peace to you and your family
I knew Krugman was a thoughtful and articulate progressive, but I didn't realize the Rose would interrupt nearly every paragraph/thought. Too bad -- he doesn't add much to what would have been a good monologue.
Reply for Parity I donâ??t know if you took the time to read Paul Krugmanâ??s column on The New York Times on December 28, 2007. I donâ??t know why he mentioned a company (the Lenovo Corp.) that the Chinese bought here in the United States from IBM as an example of how China is creating jobs in the US. Some of the points that you are trying to make on your posting are about the past, it is interesting to me how many people try to rewrite history and others try to sanitize the past. It does not matter how much effort people put into trying to fix the past in reality what really matters is what can be done to change the future. If you are also interested in what is in store for the United States and the emerging markets in the coming years then take few minutes and read the following article. Brazzil Magazine - Wednesday, September 06, 2006 â??While the American Dream Is Outsourced Brazil Drives the World into the Futureâ?? Written by Ricardo C. Amaral http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9684/78/ .
Ricardo Amaral - Thank you. The battle is for the media to educate the voters. They misrepresent, or mis-report, or do not report on almost every major issue facing us. History is missing, so as to always direct focus away from the Democrats to the Republicans. Take Charlie Wilson's War. You will not hear that it was Jimmy Carter, with Brezinski, who started the funding of the freedom fighters in Afghanistan. (and this is not to take away from the brave effort of Rep. Wilson). Why no Carter in the discussion (same as with Iran/Iraq war) the media wishes to keep this in mostly a negative light. They will let the generally accepted (by both sides) view that none of that effort had anything to do with the Taliban and Bin Laden's ultimate power - that stopping the imperialist USSR was the important issue at the time. period. That it was the rest of the world, the UN etc., that does not step up to the plate -- and not in the 25 years that have followed. The movie (Hollywood - West wing) and the press is willing to give Charlie credit for bringing down the USSR, but not Reagan -- but only by asociating Charlie with the ultra conservative side of the old southern Democrats. Knowing the history of the issue, and the available interviews (late 90's) with Carter and Brezinski, it is almost impossible to understand how any intelligent discussion of this subject - this movie -- cannnot include the name of Jimmy Carter. But as with Iraq in the 90's, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the DR Congo, and Afghanistan (the plight of during the 90's), and Enron and all of the corporate fraud of the late 90's -- the press never did, and will never press Bill Clinton, nor the Democrats on those issues. They will never press Bill Clinton, never did, on the cost of the dot.com bubble crash during Clinton's last term in office. Instead, as did Charlie Rose here with Krugman, they force the uninformed voters to continue to spew venom and hate on something that is easy to understand and on the wrong folks for the wrong reasons. It's not Clinton's fault, nor Bush -- the tremendous shock that we went through that last time around. And this time around with the current economic crisis facing us, perhaps, it is not Bush's fault - rather it is serious glitches within our system. They can be addressed, but not without everyone beginning to see what they are. Simply putting the D's back in power, without the press hounding them, makes it all worse. Forcing the D's to be accountable for thier own corruption, will lead the Republicans to follow suit - if they want to get elected, on their own merit. I believe that my original point, that Charlie Rose failed his viewers in letting Krugman get away with out and out lying or at least misleading on the issue of the bust of the surplus and the return to deficits, stands true. In a recent interview, with Gen. Hayden, by Rose (probably still available) Rose was shocked to find out that Clinton was the one who set up the US policy of extroadinary rendition -- and was uncomfortable with that being discussed on national TV. He only want to blame Bush for all, like the rest of the media. How can we not all know the history here - there has been so much coverage of the issue? The media simply censors any aspect of history that spreads the stuff that they don't like - they will not allow the Democrats to be associated with what the Democrats also do. Take care.
. Reply to for parity: I did check the website that you mentioned and I had never heard of Dean Baker before. This is the first time I am coming across his name, but after checking the website that you mentioned I can see that our published articles are in the same wavelength so to speak .
Paul Krugman, the phony professor
what in the name of clowns and asses is an assclown?
What do you expect from Charlie Rose. His show isn't about informing you about a damn thing. He's all about distracting the fools and assclowns, many present here in these comments, from the fact that the biggest transfer of wealth in our history since FDR is underway. The wrong way. Real median income has dropped continuously since....Nixon. Coincidence? Charlie Rose? I've shit him. Get real folks.
What do you expect from Charlie Rose. His show isn't about informing you about a damn thing. He's all about distracting the fools and assclowns, many present here in these comments, from the fact that the biggest transfer of wealth in our history since FDR is underway. The wrong way. Real median income has dropped continuously since....Nixon. Coincidence? Charlie Rose? I've shit him. Get real folks.
In response to Ricardo Amaral. You can start by reading the view of a progressive economist - Dean Baker - here: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/bursting_bubbles/ Yup, those numbers you quoted and linked sound about right - has little to do with my comment. 800,000 innocent civilians died in Rwanda in 1994; 500,000 children died in Iraq during the 90's (and the Clinton admin. said it was worth the cost - the sanctions); 60,000 died in Afghanistan during the Taliban takeover; 50-60,000 died in Sierra Leone during the late 90's (Blood diamond); Millions died in the DR Congo during the later part of the 90's -- after Bill Clinton said, "Never Again." While Bush has been president, the UN has noted that child mortality has vastly improved in the world, that his leadership on the HIV/aids front has helped turn the corner in Africa -- and of course on malaria. Fewer people are dying in conflict in the world now, as compared to the 90's as well, as the number of serious world conflicts winds down. So? Now, go back and read my comment, and if you are capable of a discussion - have at it. If you want, I suspect one could blame the Republican congress during the boom and "balancing" budget years of the Clinton term for that "sucess", or blame them for the crash that caused the recession and the return to huge deficits. Or one can go back and blame the Democratic congress during the Reagan years for what ever. How silly. Charlie Rose made a stab at asking Krugman a serious question. Krugman, well understands what I stated, and has written the truth in the past, yet, played politics, lied and changed the subject. Charlied had an obligation to folks like you to push Krugman to answer the question truthfully.
Paul Krugman is a very smart man. Too smart. He has spent his lifetime training his brain, to reason. That is why he has trouble understanding why people do not vote for what is reasonably good for them. Paul Krugman and the democrats have forgotten that people think and vote with the whole brain not just the logical part. That is why the democrats can not win. One must simply watch the "Power of Nightmares" to understand the leap the Republicans made and why they win. They create a myth a story, and have every one of there members repeat it. The democrats have their candidate say one thing from Paul Krugman's reasoning, and another from Joe egghead's and so one, like a Chinese menu of reasonings. I for one could not understand a thing of what Kerry was saying in the last election, even if I read the text. He had so many people getting him to say one thing they wanted, it made no sense at all. Charlie's guests need to put him in his place when he presents red herrings. Paul had barely got the sentence out of his mouth, that the South had made the change long ago to support the Republicans because of the race issue, but that it was not a real issue anymore, although once having changed teams the south still votes for that team, when Charlie leapt on the current state of racism in the South and wasted a lot of time on that. Paul should have interrupted Charlie at that point and told him he was not listening very well. By the same token, Paul should have used Charlie's statement that he had his surgery done in France to illustrate the quality of "Socialized medicine". That point was allowed to drop. It is not all Charlie's fault. His guest have to be especially tough minded, particularly if they are smart, and making a novel point. Charlie does seem to come to the table unprepared to let his guests make novel points. He does seem to cut them off with some mundane point of his own. It is annoying, but Charlie still has the best show around. Although Tavis Smilely is a much better interviewer, and when he can get the guests that Charlie has, then Charlie will have to adapt.
I would like Charlie to invite Paul Krugman back and let him speak. I didn't know anything about him when I tuned in and have only bits of his views at the end. It was a lousy interview//conversation - more of a monologue by Charlie.
During the interview with Paul Krugman and others, Charlie now interrupts people to an extreme....irritating the guest and the audience....review interview with Bill Bill Clinton for another example where Clinton had to re-direct Charlie "you brought up the subject" to allow Clinton to finish his thought. The interview with Paul Krugman was rude to an extreme...Charlie comes off as irritated and suppressing and cutting off the guest. Review the programs if you doubt this. I watch the show daily...I wonder if Charlie is more agitated after his heart issues?
[Comment by Rossman on Friday, Dec 28 at 01:31 PM Kitt, it's a "conversation" not an interview. An interruption during a statement is an indication of excitement or passion regarding a particular issue. Good friends talk over each other all the time. It's natural to a conversation. Charlie's show is good because he can talk informally with important people about significant issues.\ So Charlie and Paul are good friends? Now why do you suppose I would doubt that? Rose's interruptions are not the interruptions of excitement about the subject. It's to insert HIS view, opinion, argument, intimidate, cut off, etc. I'm not interested in Charlie Rose; I am interested in various guests he has on. I don't watch his show unless prompted by a referral from someone. As for: "the endless commentary on the interupting is really annoying already." Apparently you're not getting what I find as the problem or as others have pointed out as well here.
Agreed. I made my comments before watching the "conversation." Now I REALLY don't understand what all the whining is about. Krugman made his points and Charlie challenged him throughout. This is the way Charlie rolls.
the endless commentary on the interupting is really annoying already. new content please.
Kitt, it's a "conversation" not an interview. An interruption during a statement is an indication of excitement or passion regarding a particular issue. Good friends talk over each other all the time. It's natural to a conversation. Charlie's show is good because he can talk informally with important people about significant issues.
My opinion of Charlie Rose changed upon watching his 'interview' of Paul Krugman. Rose practically held Krugman down with Rose' own interruptions and then jagged changes in direction before Krugman was allowed to elaborate his thought. It was Friday Night Wrestling: Hulk vs the Academic. It was uncomfortable to watch; both Rose making an arse out of himself, and Krugman remaining polite while he must have wanted to scream. What made it worse, was that after undermining his guest's ability to respond, Rose would make some remark that both agreed (perhaps uncomfortably) to chuckle about (read: see, there is something we can agree on for the moment, let me pull you to your feet before I flip you to the ground again and take a flying slam on top of you.) Shame on you Charlie; I never knew you to be so self-centered and a poor interviewer. And I don't quite understand it. It was not polite. It was not fair. It was not an interview.
One of the reasons I don't watch Charlie Rose is that constant interrupting of someone when talking. Just now while listening to Paul Krugman and him, Charlie says "it's not what I think." Clue in, Mr. Rose. I don't care what you think. When I watch your show it's not to hear what YOU think; I'm interested in what your guest has to say - whoever they may be.
ie; interrupting Charlie is polite and doesn't want his guests to feel like they were brought on to be attacked or doubted so he interrupts when he disagrees or doesn't like them. I think both were happening simultaneously in this gripping episode. He didn't like Krugman and he disagreed with him. He was more combative than I have seen him in 10 years. The snide remark about how Krugman must love his perch at the times was out of line and totally uncalled for. I am usually defending the man to every family and friend on this interrupting thing but tonight Chuck needed a xanax.
I love the Charlie Rose Show. He has on fascinating people. But he is interrupting them and not letting them finish their ideas, which is the reason that he has them on his show (Klugman and Robinson in particluar). Please make him aware of this tendency. Last night's show was sooo much better.
Great show and big fan of Mr. Rose though he is still interrupting way too much his guest. This was extremely annoying to listen and watch. Here is a suggestion for Mr. Rose: what about a show for the new year with yourself as a guest so you get this irrepressible need of showing of your culture and knowledge, as it seems, out of your system once and for all.... Again great show anyway !
It was clear to me that Charlie Rose probably did not read Mr. Krugman's book or understand it if he did. Mr. Rose was rude to Mr. Krugman. It seemed like Mr. Rose wasn't the least bit interested in understanding the points Mr. Krugman was trying to explain because he wouldn't let Mr. Krugman finish a thought. Mr. Rose should apologize for his arrogance and prejudice.
I find interesting how clueless Americans are about what is happening even in South America never mind in other parts of the world. I am lucky that I can read the news in other languages because very often I read the news in foreign newspapers before the American mainstream media does any reporting for the US market and many times the news never reach the United States because the gatekeepers donâ??t want to inform the American public. We have new presidential elections in 2008, but we already know that it will be business as usual when the new administration takes over in January of 2009. My candidate is not running (Al Gore) and it doesnâ??t make a bit of difference to me who is the winner in November of 2008, all I know is that the Titanic is going down. Here is something that I posted on the elite trader forum on December 5, 2007. My screen name on that forum is SouthAmerica. SouthAmerica: The New York Times published an article yesterday about this trend that has been going on for over a year. I had mentioned about this exodus of Brazilians from the United States on this Forum many weeks ago. As the NYT article said â??the airlines are completely booked for one way flights to Brazil for the next 3 months.â?? Anyway, a number of friends of ours who had been living in the US for the last 20 years moved out of the US in the last year â?? these were people who had green cards, and Brazilian and American citizenship. Another friend of mine from India who also have been living here in the US for over 20 years just made his second trip to India to see if he can relocate back to that country. Eventually the US mainstream media will realize that the exodus is not only of Brazilians but it is affecting many groups of immigrants - legal and illegal who came to the US various places. The Legal and illegal immigrants in this case are like the canary in the coal mine - the legal and illegal immigrants are giving advance notice that the party it is over here in the United States and we are reaching the end of the line. ******** â??Brazilians Giving Up Their American Dreamâ?? By NINA BERNSTEIN and ELIZABETH DWOSKIN Published: December 4, 2007 The New York Times Source: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1702776&highlight=canary#post1702776 .
I listened to the Robinson interview a second time because I thought Charlie interrupted him far too much, but on the second pass, I found it okay. I am glad that Charlie had the courage to have Robinson on, since he's clearly not in lockstep with the Republican only-for-the-rich agenda. The Haiti story is every bit as sad as what we did to the American Indians. And Robinson is right on when he says that most Americans know next to no history. We just keep repeating our mistakes. American Indians, Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq... Might help if we hit the history books, or at least require that all candidates pass the high school exit exam. That would slim the ranks!
In response for parity comments: I am quoting from an article published in February of 2005 - The Money Pit. To put the American fiasco in perspective, we have to put the spotlight on the United States governmentâ??s cumulative national debt. The cumulative US national debts were only $ 930 billion dollars as of December 31, 1980 - right before Ronald Reagan became president of the United States. Since then, the US national debt has increased to an estimated $ 13 trillion dollars as of September 30, 2008 â?? that figure does not include all the other US government unfunded outstanding liabilities conservatively estimated at US$ 70 trillion dollars. Here is the detail of the additions to the US national debt by president: Ronald Reagan (8 years in office) added to US debt $ 1.7 trillion dollars. George Bush Senior (4 years in office) added to US debt $ 1.5 trillion dollars. Bill Clinton (8 years in office) added to US debt $ 1.6 trillion dollars. George Bush Junior (first term, 4 years in office) added to US debt $ 1.8 trillion dollars. George Bush Junior (second term, 4 years in office) added to US debt $ 5 trillion dollars. Since December 31, 1980 the Republican presidents added $ 10 trillion dollars to the cumulative US national debt, and the Democratic president added $ 1.6 trillion dollars. The Republican administrations added 87 percent of the new US national debt, and the Democratic administration added only 13 percent of the new debt. All Republican presidents starting with Ronald Reagan have had a complete disregard for sound long-term economic policy, and how their current policies would affect future generations. All these Republican presidents had one thing in common: they did run a very large credit card bill during their administrations, and they were leaving all these debt to future American generations to pay. Since December 31, 1980 the United States had only one fiscally responsible president - former president Bill Clinton - a democrat. History Repeats Itself. During George W. Bushâ??s presidential campaign for the 2004 election no one in the US mainstream media brought to the attention of the American people that: â??the United States had a Republican president, and Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate during the years 1921 to 1930. And we all know the result of the Republican policies during these ten years - The Great Depression of the 1930â??s.â?? Source: â??The First Great Depression of the New Millenniumâ?? http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/1424/49/ .
Wow, the evening with Paul Krugman and Randall Robinson was interesting, as also is reading all the comments. IMHO, Krugman is right at the top of anyone Charlie has interviewed, even if he may be a bit camera-shy and was constantly interupted by CR so his couldn't complete a response he was making. But what on this Earth is perfect; better that we have the opportunity to get news like this, even if anything but perfect, than not hearing wisdom like Krug and Robinson provided last night.
In response to Comment by Miles: I guess the fact that the failure to take National Security serious has its consequences. Maybe he needs to take time to research the 8 failed attempts by terminate Osama Bin Linden under President Clinton. (And that was before most people knew who Osama Bin Ladden was.) But since Osama Bin Ladden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City on 911 killing almost 3,000 people, and after 6 years of such attack in US soil the Bush administration canâ??t find a Moslem 6.8 foot tall, a very tall man who would not call attention to himself only if he was traveling with an NBA team. I have been writing for a long time that it was nonsense this obsession that the United States had with Iran and nuclear weapons and that if Americans really wanted to lose any sleep then they should worry about Pakistan. And you donâ??t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Today Mrs. Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan and itâ??s pathetic that the mainstream media in the United States is describing the current Pakistani dictator as the United States only hope to establish democracy in Pakistan. What a joke, no wonder the American mainstream media is losing all its credibility around the world. Basically they think that the rest of the world is populated with stupid people. In the meantime, Osama Bin Ladden and his Al Qaeda group is laughing of the United States complete incompetence on their efforts to find a 6.8 foot man that the entire world knows where he is staying â?? Pakistan. .
This guy is genius! Canada is great! Go to www.notcanada.com to check!
This interview should be titled "All About Charlie." Charlie doesn't like to share the spotlight and it's hard for him to keep from gagging on that silver spoon in his mouth when anyone remotely liberal comes on. Krugman needs work on his shifty eyes and stiff body language, but he was under assault and could not finish a single sentence. Charlie whip-sawed the conversation from one topic to another, pointing his finger at Krugman like a stern instructor admonishing a school boy. Sigh. I wonder what Krugman's book is about?
charlie rose and jim lehrer of the newshour identify with the powers that be. They want to have the mainstream, most powerful people on to interview. And Charlie loves corporate chiefs, and renowned movie stars and wealthy and powerful and influential main stream types. His great admiration for them is evident. But for public television, where the public is asked to give money, we should have more diversity in interview and commentary shows. There should be good competition on pbs for charlie rose and for the newshour also, so that people like krugman will have more chances to explain their views in a thorough manner.
I found Mr Krugman's "liberal" ideals and agenda disgusting. He believes government should make choices (on socialized medicine, taxes, etc.) not the individual; essentially we're not strong enough to manage our own lifes.
As usual, I adore watching and listening to Charlie Rose interviews. Some of Charlie�s guests love elaborating with east on their subject, but not all, just as some have better camera personalities. I found Mr. Krugman interesting, but not very camera friendly. His eye contact was uneasy, his body language stiff, he acted as if though doing the job he had was drudgery and maybe a mistake. I wonder what a body language expert would say about Krugman? He seemed like someone was waiting outside ready to drag him into a dark alley. I applaud Mr. Krugman for having insight and the courage to stand up and speak out to the current administration early on. I learned from his lesson about deficits, and I also feel I was given a bit more of an idea on what to look for in a 08 candidate. I think Mr. Krugman would make an excellent advisor to our next president. But Charlie! Please give Mr. Krugman a double Manhattan before he goes on camera the next time.
Randall Robinson never made a coherent point? Unlike Joe Klein or Charlie Rose, Robinson doesn't think American foreign policy is fundamentally benevolent, and is willing to say so in public, citing Haiti as Exhibit A. This won't make sense to some, but it *is* a refreshing change from the usual nonsense about American goodness which passes for analysis. Or as counter to the likes of Henry Kissinger -- a guest C.R. never ventures to interupt, and who demands of all interviewers, including C.R., that he not be asked about his criminal past.
i am an avid fan of mr rose and his interesting, informed guests- however last night i found myself begging mr rose to be quiet and polite enough to allow mr krugman to respond, which, whenever attempted, seemed to stammer and mumble. so both krugman and rose were off point or were bored by one another. mr robinson never seemed to make a coherent point either. not a stellar night.
I almost always watch Charlie especially when he has economists and painters on as they seem to be the only people who consistently say interesting things. No doubt the Krugman interview will not make Charlie's greatest hits DVD as Charlie must have pulled a tongue muscle with the overtalking. Charlie should bring Krugman back on the show as there were glimpses of interesting content. The purple tie looked sharp even without high def. As for the other guest, Randall Robinson, I did not hear anything of value - the checker at checkstand 5 forms his ideas better, but is unpublished. A rough night for Charlie, and better guest bookings are in need as Charlie is too good to have such lemons clutter the show. Cmon producers, pick it up for the guy will you ?
Krugman never suggested that "all" southern white voters are racist nor is such a notion requisite to the success of the Nixon/Phillips strategy. And I'm almost certain that if America's broken health care system were only half as efficient as the New Jersey division of motor vehicles, a majority of us would be more satisfied.
While I applaud Charlie Rose's practice of challenging and interacting with his guests, it is enormously frustrating when the viewer doesn't get to hear the guest's response, because he is constantly interrupting. I wish Charlie Rose would just shut up! His interviewing style is simply rude at times.
Bye bye surplus. Rose asked Krugman a good well phrased question on where the "projected" surpluses went, and where the deficits came from, then Krugman, shifting eyes and all, stuttered then decided to lie his way thru the answer until he simply changed the subject. Unfortunately, Charlie Rose, once again, let the truth get away. Charlie, we need to know the facts - the truth - pursue it, please! In the "short term" (say 2-3 years), deficits and surpluses are almost entirely controlled by economic growth or recession. Take the shift from the silly projected surplusesâ?? to deficit. By 2003 (I use that year as a cutoff for this exercise, because by then the media had the US convinced that Bush had personally trashed the projected surplus with his tax cuts - the 2003 tax cuts??, the actual budget deficit (2001 + 2002 + 2003). The projected combined surplus (3 years) for those years was $953 billion. The actual net deficit (sum of 3 years) recorded was $408 billion. That departure (delta) from projected surplus to actual deficit was $1.361 Trillion. For those three years combined, the sum of all the legislative tax cuts (including the Democrats 2001 tax rebate) was $325 billion. Total Iraq war costs thru year end 2003 were $54 billion. The net change (this shift from projected surpluses to deficit from 2001 thru 2003) then was, $982 billion (almost a trillion) - of which was not the "tax cuts or Iraq war costs". Now,there was also additional spending (education, Medicaid, Veterans, Afghanistan etc.) -- but of course the Democrats all wanted to spend much, much more - in fact Gore had run on a promise of increasing defense spending more than Bush had proposed. The bottom line here is that by far, most of the cause for the disappearance of the surplus and the return to large deficits was economic revisions to the economy - caused by the collapse of the late 90's bubble in early 2000, and added to by the effect of 9/11. From 2003 forward - let the debate rage on.
I watched Paul on Charlie Rose. Great interview. All good points. But one very important point was missed, as to what could stop the progressive agenda! I know it feels like we are out of the woods of 911, and the next election will be about what people want for our country, i.e. progressive, or liberal, issues. But come the next election we will be right back in the same place. It will be about National Security, or National Insecurity, and fear again. One must think. Who will still be holding the reins of power, and with such power, how easy it is to push, to create a "fact on the ground", which induces a response, and raises the issue of "National Insecurity". People will vote, not their minds, but their fears, again. So they will not vote for something new, first woman, or first minority, or someone young. So, I was disappointed that in the interview the issue of "elect ability" was not raised. In my opinion, the only Democrat running that can be elected in the face of National Insecurity is Joe Biden, and his name was not even mentioned.
But in fact this is how virtually all center-left guests are treated on the program, and certainly the way the rare far-left guest is treated. Randall Robinson was allowed to talk, apparently because they're "friends", but Charlie's contempt for his point of view, taking the form of forebearance, was obvious. No facts were offered to refute Robinson -- it's just that he doesn't talk the party line, so we hear him out, but pay no attention, and don't take it seriously.
I was amazed and totally crestfallen to hear Charlie engage in such an inept, interrupting, poorly planned interview. Instead of clarifying Krugman's point of view, or referencing his book--rudely overwhelmed the interview. Charlie I hardly knew thee!
I was amazed and totally crestfallen to hear Charlie engage in such an inept, interrupting, poorly planned interview. Instead of clarifying Krugman's point of view, or referencing his book--rudely overwhelmed the interview. Charlie I hardly knew thee!
I was amazed and totally crestfallen to hear Charlie engage in such an inept, interrupting, poorly planned interview. Instead of clarifying Krugman's point of view, or referencing his book--rudely overwhelmed the interview. Charlie I hardly knew thee!
I was amazed and totally crestfallen to hear Charlie engage in such an inept, interrupting, poorly planned interview. Instead of clarifying Krugman's point of view, or referencing his book--rudely overwhelmed the interview. Charlie I hardly knew thee!
No, Cookie, you're not out of touch, it was just a bit of hyperbole on my part. What does astonish me, however, is Charlie Rose's hostility to ideas which are accepted as self-evident in virtually every other industrial democracy. Paul Krugman is hardly a revolutionary. But if we can't even hear *him* out.... Then again, as Charlie noted during the interview, Charlie and his friends are going to solve all our problems, so who needs to hear the uncomfortable truths of Paul Krugman?
Janet - Paul was able to get a word in edgewise so not quite as bad as O'Reilly. But I have only subjected msyelf to that jokesters show a couple of times so maybe I am out of touch. I do think it is pretty bad though when you can see Charlie's strings showing.
Amazing! In a country flooded by Fox, TV pundits recruited by Jack Welch, and Christian broadcasting, a mild liberal like Paul Krugman isn't allowed to finish a sentence on PBS, because his critique of America offends Charlie and those friends of his who (Charlie tells us, in the course of the very same "interview") possess the wisdom to save the country. Ideology aside, is it good journalistic practice for an interviewer to interview himself, about a book he didn't write and evidently didn't read either? Or is that the best way to drown out ideas you don't like? This interview was worthy of Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. Rose, Thank you for the interview with Professor Krugman. It was an enlighten conversation with the mind set of liberal media elite. It is nice to learn that just because I am southern white male who voted Republican that I am automatically a racist. I guess I need to go the reeducation camps up at Princeton to repent my evil ways. However, I have learned that over the years, usually the accuser is the usually biggest offender of the charged crime. Professor Krugman in the conversation showed little clue or context of history during your discussion. When discussing, President Reagan it was race, race and race. Excuse me, What about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan,The expansion of Communism in Central America, Angola, The seizing of the US embassy by the Iranians? Mr. Rose you did point that out to him and he begrudgingly gave you that point but he was not going to give up on the old standby the race card. I was astonished by Professor Krugman lack of concern or care of National Security. The two idiotic quips about President Bush being concerned only about capturing Gay Terrorist was repulsive and borderline irresponsible. I guess the fact that the failure to take National Security serious has its consequences. Maybe he needs to take time to research the 8 failed attempts by terminate Osama Bin Linden under President Clinton. I have one question in the future, concerning Universal Health Care. What is the plan and concerns about waste, fraud and abuse? More over ask them the old Reagan question name a federal agency that provides a service in a effective manner without the bureaucratic hassle. You want the same people who renew your driver license to handle your health care? Mr. Rose, it was a decent conversation. You have the groups of individuals who are mad about you confronting Mr. Krugman. Yes, I do think you probably needed to challenge him more. However, it is your show and your guest and you have been doing a while and you have achieve some level of success. I do find it find it humorous to those are upset about you questioning Mr. Krugman. Mr. Krugman was not in his ivory towers of academic isolationism where he can fail any student who questioned him , nor in his office writing his diatribe in the New York times. He was in the open forum of Ideas. He was out Pimping his book. Guess what Mr. Krugman, sometimes the public is not buying.
Charlie definitely had an agenda for his interview with Krugman. Never let him convey his thoughts which would have required allowing him to finish at least one sentence.
If a half-hour with Paul Krugman is really a half-hour of Charlie Rose's endless and quite uninformative interruptions, the insufferable voice of conventional wisdom countering argument Krugman was never allowed to make, what is exactly the point? What is it about left of center guests that so perturbs Charlie Rose? So much so that these folks aren't allowed to make a point Charlie has already made for them, whether it's "theirs" or not? Or to be even more blunt: is Randall Robinson right or wrong? If Robinson is right, doesn't that mean that everything Charlie Rose believes is wrong, and maybe he should listen more and talk less?
Two interesting points of view. One Mr Krugman seems to think race relations have gotten better and is basically a nonissue. The second one by an African American,one Mr Robinson thinks we are deluding ourselves in thinking that things are OK. Who has more credibilty? I guess it would depend upon which side of the fence you stand on. Which in of itself belies the fact that racism is still alive and well in America.
Contrary to what Charlie seems to think of his esteemed guest from the NY Times, the combined spirits of Karl Marx and Abbie Hoffman do not inhabit the body of Paul Krugman. ..... Can't the very well off get by on a little less, so that those who, either can't get health insurance at any cost, because of a pre-existing condition, and those who simply can't afford the premiums, can get at least, their basic health care needs met? The "I've got mine", meme, is so twentieth century. If countries such as Thailand and India, can do it, we can too.
Excellent foresight, Ricardo. If we keep going the way we've been going, we can expect a form of institutional natural selection. Those of us with inferior genes will simply have to die, while genetic engineering is still illegal due to a figment of our imagination, because the authorities don't believe in evolution OR natural selection. So they don't understand how they're hurting us. The problems go deeper than that but I'm not in a ranting mood.
To Charlie Rose: I have heard you conduct excellent interviews, but two recent ones were very frustrating for me to watch. In particular, I'm referring to your interviews with Brad Pitt and Paul Krugman. You interrupted both of them frequently, and you seemed to be talking more than both of them at various times. My idea of being a good interviewer is to facilitate the talking of the guests, not to dominate and interrupt them. I am disappointed in you, and I hope you will remedy these problems in the future. I would appreciate a reply. Sincerely, Kent C. Kravitz
In June 14, 2005 I wrote the following: Yesterday, Paul Krugmanâ??s column in The New York Times once more it was about health insurance. I donâ??t know why he is not making the case in one of his articles for national health insurance because of DNA technological advances. Very soon insurance companies will be able to know all the diseases that a person will have based on their DNA analysis, and the insurance companies will charge their policies accordingly. Insurance companies are in business to make money, and not to pay bills for sick people. For example: 10 years ago when I was the controller for an international trading company, we decided to change our health insurance carrier. I asked a bunch of companies to give us price quotes for their coverage. Every insurance company did the same thing in our case. They gave us two sets of quotes; one price for all the employees, and one price excluding the president of our company. The price for all employees was out of the reach of our company because was too expensive. The other price excluding the president of the company it was a more reasonable price. Some companies did refuse to give us a quote if we included our president on our policy. The president had a severe case of diabetes, and he used to pay a fortune for his private health insurance. In the future everybody that has a potential for certain diseases also it will be discriminated by the insurance companies. And DNA testing it is around the corner as a requirement for any insurance company to give you health insurance coverage in the coming years. .
Dear Charlie, I wouldnâ??t be surprised if Paul Krugman never comes on your show again after seeing the way you interrupted and browbeat him during the program. This has happened several times in the past but never was your interviewing behavior as bad as it was tonight. You simply do not understand what Paul is saying about race baiting and the Republicans. Here it is in a nutshell: =================== 1948 â?? Strom Thurmond ran for President in the States Rights Party. He won the electoral votes of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and one electoral vote in Tennessee. July, 1964 â?? After the Civil Rights act was passed in July 1964, Lyndon Johnson said something to the effect that â??there goes the Democratic Party for at least a generation.â?? September 1964 â?? After Barry Goldwater invited him to do so, Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party, being the first Southern Democrat to switch parties. November 1964 â?? Barry Goldwater lost the Presidential election, winning only the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona. November 1968 â?? George Wallace, running on the American Independent Party ticket, lost his bid for President, winning only Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and one electoral vote in South Carolina. 1969 â?? Kevin Phillips published his book, â??The Emerging Republican Majority,â?? in which he laid out the Southern strategy for Republicans to capture the white vote in the South. 1972-73 â?? Many conservative Democrats were ready to switch parties, to become Republicans, and this would have happened except for Watergate, which was a stain on the Republican Party. 1980 â?? Many Southern Democrats finally switched parties, creating an emerging Republican majority that fully flowered with the Newt Gingrich revolution in 1994. =================== Charlie, you owe Paul Krugman an apology. I want you to invite him back and let HIM talk while you, and the rest of us, listen.
A major issue on the coming US presidential election it is the issue of national health insurance in the United States. I would like to see professor Krugman write a column on the NYT clarifying to me and probably to thousands of other people â?? why most presidential candidates are trying to reinvent the wheel? Why the president candidates just call for the current Medicare system to cover every American despite their age. Why the US government canâ??t give the same Medicare coverage to everybody in the population? In my opinion they should give Medicare coverage to every American including all politician in Washington D.C. â?? the politicians should not be covered by a separate health plan.
I am â??in-syncâ?? with Prof. Krugmanâ??s position concerning â??the unravelingâ?? and his comments I heard tonight (midnight Dec 27). In all the interviews I have seen I canâ??t remember disagreeing with him on 1) the economy 2) Bush 3) Iraq 4) Clinton (Bill). Mr. Rose, your otherwise informative questions and effective interviewing techniques, in my opinion, failed miserably with Prof. Krugman tonight. You have consistently offered your opinions â??to the conversationâ?? with what I would call probing, yet unbiased prompting of the guest, with the aim of â??coveringâ?? the important issues. UNTIL TONIGHT. You reminded me of FOXâ??s RILEY. In that you spent an inordinate about of time â??directingâ?? the conversation and taking Prof. Krugman off point. I have little patience for an interviewer who will ask a question and then immediately interrupt the person who is trying to answer the question. Chris (of Hardball) is guilty of that as well. I know its your show and I am just â??in the audienceâ??, for now.
Krugman espouses simplistic explanations and theories that I didn't find very credible, however good for Charlie for trying to challenge him.