hello and welcome to ways to change the
world I'm Krishnan guru-murthy and this
is the podcast in which we talk to
extraordinary people about the big ideas
in their lives and the experiences that
have helped shape them my guest today is
a lightweight thinker who doesn't have a
clue who has caused huge economic damage
to his followers pocketbooks if he
believed Donald Trump Paul Krugman is of
course also a Nobel prize-winning
economist a long-standing columnist at
the New York Times and his latest book
and he's the author of a couple of dozen
or more
it's called arguing with zombies
economics politics and the fight for a
better future and it's taken from a lot
of his columns and expanded the zombies
being bad arguments that's right they're
zombies in the book are zombie ideas
ideas that should have been killed by
evidence that have been proved false
repeatedly but just keep shambling along
eating people's brains
now of course Donald Trump any
supporters are trying to turn it around
on you and say well you're the zombie
thinker yeah the light way because you
predicted global recession yeah I made a
bad economic call on election night 2016
which I retracted three days later and
apologized for letting my emotions cloud
my judgment and went on to say that if
anything bigger budget deficits and
Trump might give the economy a boost
which is sort of what happened but Trump
I have no idea what prompted that remark
because I hadn't even written anything
about him lately but who knows well he
doesn't like criticism and you criticize
him a loss yeah but so do other people I
have no idea I mean I I've gotta
appreciate him you know I seem to occupy
quite a lot of space in his head
rent-free so I guess that's that's kind
of a privilege I mean that that's not
the only time though you've you've been
on the sort of the down side of
predictions I mean you did warn of the
risks you didn't say it would happen but
you thought there was a good chance of
of recession over last year as well
going into this I thought there was some
chance but as did lots of people as did
the markets the some of the data were
pointing pretty weak by now I didn't
make an outright recession call because
I thought the data were not solid enough
for that and it turns out that that it
didn't happen
and what why not well I mean the biggest
thing to say is that in practice it's
Trump has but sort of been pretty
Keynesian I mean he took a budget
deficit of less than six hundred billion
a year and ran it up to a trillion a
year and even though it's very poorly
designed economic stimulus nonetheless
in effect he's done you know what many
of us were pleading with pleading for
during the Obama years which is more
support for an economy which which still
seemed to be well short of full
employment so you don't criticize him
for running a high deficit oh no the
deficit I mean I criticize what he's
running the deficit for I mean hundreds
of billions in corporate tax cuts which
don't do very much and no infrastructure
plan and cutbacks on aid to poor
children and so on so the the
composition is wrong but the deficit is
just not a front rank issue and it never
has been did you think the same things
are likely to happen over here me I
don't know it does look a little bit as
if Boris Johnson may at least in that
respect be a bit like Trump that is he
would be a de facto Keynesian even while
protesting that he is no such thing so
there may be some of that relaxation of
spending restraint taking place despite
the official ideology but by Keynesian
for those who don't know what it means
what does that mean to you well
Keynesian view is that when the economy
is depressed it's usually not because
people are bad workers or any deep
structural problem but just because
there isn't enough spending for whatever
reason the private sector isn't willing
to spend enough to keep the factories
running and to keep the shops full and
that in such times there is a valuable
role for the government to do the
spending of the private sector won't so
the government can pump up the economy
by running budget deficits if necessary
and that that can be a very good thing
for the economy so that's just budget
deficits are good when the economy is
depressed might be a crude way of
summarizing Keynesianism now I mean
you're always introduced as sort of the
Nobel Prize winning economist but what
do you think of yourself as I mean
because you are hugely influential
essentially as a columnist yeah I mean
I've had two careers I spent
several decades as an economist
economist doing papers that I think
we're pretty good I guess the Swedes
thought were pretty good that were read
by a few thousand people but I always
did a little bit of public writing on
the side and for the past twenty years
now I've been a regular columnist for
The New York Times there's obviously
some relationship in my mind between the
two of them but I'd have tried to to
reach out to this broader audience I
mean to be a columnist an opinion former
you have to have a pretty high opinion
of your own opinion you have to believe
that it's worth spreading
are you doing that because you you do
want to change the world in whatever way
you can of course no the whole point is
to make things a little bit better
often by giving people the arguments
they need
maybe you convert some people but more
important I think you help to shape the
the discourse to some extent I think I'm
still a bridge between the academic and
the broader world so I'm you know
there's a lot of it is hidden but to be
amazed of how much statistical
number-crunching lies behind the column
and I also I talk by the way to to
social scientists outside my own field
so I actually talked to political
scientists talk to sociologists to make
sure that that I'm not saying things
that are avoid ibly stupid I mean you'll
very political as well on shoes I mean
you you have bridged that gap yeah well
how can you not be I mean it may be you
think I'm on the wrong side but there's
no way to be a political in 21st century
America the partisan gaps are so huge
that it requires a basically ignoring
reality not to take a political position
and given look the reality is although
there there are there have been in the
past some be ideas on the left in
America all of the important zombie
ideas that are eating our brains are on
the right but if if Trump hasn't taken
America into recession is he as
dangerous as you fools he was
economically there's a temptation which
I briefly fell into but as I said
retracted almost immediately to think
that because he's terrible on other
fronts that he must be bad for the
short-term macro economy and that's not
has not turned out to be true and really
shouldn't have
have even briefly entertained the notion
he's really really bad on things like
rule of law and democracy we may be
losing our democracy as we speak but and
he's very bad for the long run I mean we
there had we economically economically
we're not investing in infrastructure he
keeps on promising and nothing has been
done on that front he's doing away he's
trying to take away healthcare and
nutritional assistance for poor children
which means you know the deprived
children grow up into unproductive
adults so that's very bad for the
long-term if we you know if only we were
using these trillion dollar deficits to
actually build for the future we'd be in
much better shape but that will take
years and years to really be apparent so
what do you think is the most important
zombie idea if you like that that is
current is it is it tax cutting or there
are two different kinds dimensions of
importance here so what is it that sort
of in political debate is the most
important zombie and the most important
zombie in the u.s. at least is the idea
that tax cuts pay for themselves always
wrong never abandoned it's it's gospel
within the Republican Party even though
it's been proved false again and again
in terms of the fate of the world its
climate changes is non-existent it's a
hoax perpetrated by this vast
international scientific conspiracy
which is a very very powerful zombie
idea so its own tax is it is it that
they've just gone back to Reaganomics
and those old argument whether they just
never went away it never went away it
has there has never been a point at
which it wasn't even true for Reagan
we've had a big tax cut in 2017 in the
US and you had even allegedly moderate
Republicans but there aren't any really
but Republicans who pretend to be a
little bit more moderate saying well I'm
convinced that this tax cut will
actually increase revenue and there's
never been a shred of evidence that
supports that and there's overwhelming
evidence that it never happens but
sometimes costs do increase revenue
oh look because in this country the one
that's constantly quoted by the the
center-right and the right is the result
from fifty percent 45 percent of the
top-rated tax and they say well that
actually increased tax receipt I would
very much doubt that that's actually
true it you know tax rate one of the
things that is always a problem here is
the tax receipts tend to grow over time
because of inflation and growth in the
economy but I would be really surprised
because we have a lot of estimates of
the revenue maximizing tax rate that all
say that it's actually between 70 and 80
percent so day I would be very very
surprised if a careful examination of
the numbers supported that claim even
for the UK because to a non economist
the idea of giving people more of their
own money back letting them keep more of
their own money so that they can spend
that in the economy and that money be
recycled seems quite seductive why is it
why is it wrong well that's a Keynesian
view right if you think that the problem
is that people are not spending enough
then you want something that leads to
more spending but why you know cutting
taxes on rich people is one of the most
inefficient ways of doing that and then
more broadly in times when you're not
trying to support the depressed economy
you know the government we value the
things that government does you know
which is better cut taxes on on
high-income people or provide the NHS
with adequate funding and I would have
said if I were living here that you know
much more important to to fully fund the
NHS and in the United States if we're
we're going to have a budget announced
in in the United States tomorrow and
that we know already know that it's
going to include massive cuts in
Medicaid which is health care for lower
income Americans all of which is to
offset the revenue lost because of a tax
cut for corporations that's not a good
trade-off to be making there are lots of
similarities I think between the the
Democratic Party and the Labour Party in
Britain they're not the same stage in
the cycle but I mean certainly what
we're seeing in America is people being
much more confident about saying I'm a
socialist I'm on the left yeah and
you're worried about that yeah I mean
one of the things I do write about in in
arguing with zombies not because you're
not saying i i'm a social democrat that
is i favor a strong welfare state a
mostly market economy that with a with
government role where appropriate
and so in fact as Bernie Sanders people
then it was about a socialist he's not
as you know that's the itty nice this we
have this longs to anything where
anytime you propose anything that might
make reduce the amount of misery in the
country whether it be health care for
senior citizens or or food stamps for
children the right wing says that's
socialism and part of the what we try to
do is say no that's not that's just
being you know reasonable modern
civilized country and then you have a
few people like Bernie Sanders who are
in fact not socialists who proudly
embraced the label which you could sort
of understand if anything good is
socialism then well yes I'm a socialist
but I think it's probably bad electoral
strategy why well because there are some
people who think that who will say that
well if he's a socialist that must mean
he wants to turn America into Venezuela
whereas in fact he just wants America to
be a bit more like Denmark why why play
into this this stereotype this this
abusive term and I you know if Ernie
Sanders is the Democratic nominee I'm
going to be in the slightly awkward
position of saying well he says he's a
socialist but you know he really isn't
and in fact I'm not at all worried about
the policies that Bernie Sanders would
implement if he becomes president I
think they they would what he would
actually be able to do is less than he
promises in any case it will be quite
good things for America but but he
himself is kind of for whatever reason
stoking the the the right-wing
disinformation campaign so what what is
the definition of socialism for you is
it state ownership yeah certainly if
socialism means anything it means state
ownership of the means of production and
and and by that standard there are no
socialists in America do you think the
Labour Party manifesto was a socialist
yeah but that's that's there some things
that should be nationalized I mean so I
think the Labour Party manifesto was
more was further left probably than I
would want to go but on the other hand
the UK has privatized some things that
really should not have been privatized
you know passenger rail the United
States doesn't have privatized passenger
rail and and and the UK does and that
was a big mistake when you say further
left and you would want
because it's economically not sensible
or because you think it's politically
impossible a little bit of both I mean
it I just worry mostly politically that
I think that that most people certainly
in the US if you ask people there are
views on policy issues the public is in
fact mildly center-left
it wants higher taxes on the rich it
wants increased spending on social
programs but it doesn't want a radical
move to the left and so that's where I
would be pitching things politically why
do you think that is given as you
explore in the book a lot of social
democracy is both popular as you say but
also successful Oh even why do so many
people why why does the right succeed
politically when what people want if you
asked about the issues and the answer is
it's primarily distraction and
disinformation and in the United States
overwhelmingly it's race and then
nothing in the United States makes sense
until you understand the crucial role of
race so what basically happened is that
in America the plutocrats figured out
that they could win elections by
appealing to the residual racism of the
white working class and that sounds
simplistic but it's but it's basically
true well how did that happen oh well
the if the big turn in American politics
came after the passage of the Civil
Rights Act in in the 60s when basically
it turns out that that if you're a party
that is for kind of equality on the
economic level supports labor supports
strong social safety net you find it
that you gravitate towards equality on
other fronts as well towards equality
racial equality equality in terms of
sexual preferences whatever and that
left an open space for the the party of
inequality the party of plutocrats to
move in and do more or less sometimes
code is sometimes fairly explicit racist
appeals so that that must mean that you
think huge numbers of ordinary people
are racist sexist dinosaurs I wouldn't
quite say die so but look it racism is a
very very real phenomenon and some of it
is flat in your face
just calling people racial insults
there's a lot of that out there a lot of
it is more implicit tolling says that a
lot of a lot of Americans believe that
that there's just as much discrimination
against white people as there is against
people of color and that is manifestly
not true
all right it's just it's not reality but
that's a people have feel a sense of
grievance about that you know you don't
want to go out insulting people and
saying oh you're terrible people and so
on but but on the other end to deny that
race is a big factor and in voting is
it's just crazy but you you've also
called a Republican policy you know the
policy stupid people in the past I don't
think I have that's not I think I've
said I've said of certain Republican
politicians that I think that I quoted
someone else on this but that's that
that certain Republican politicians are
a stupid person's idea of what a
thoughtful person sounds like which I
think a great remark no but there
certainly is we you know you you think
that ideas are dead to the extent that
you think oh no that's what it is and
therefore but I funny things I think
most of their voters don't actually buy
the ideas they buy the attitude it's the
feeling of that it's us us real
Americans against non real Americans
which happens to be a large part of the
country so you think identity politics
is essentially delivered yes a party of
plutocrats and your that's right
anything because it seems an astonishing
proposition you know if you were
starting from scratch to say let's build
a party that's just for rich people and
we're gonna get all the poor people to
vote for it by appealing to their inner
racism well but that's a but that is in
fact the strategy it's not it's it's
quite explicit often so do you think
that's the progress as you see it that
we've seen since the nineteen sixties is
false illusory didn't really happen I
mean oh no I think we're we are actually
social attitudes are far more open and
progressive than they were I mean back
when Reagan was elected only a third of
white Americans thought that interracial
marriage was acceptable and that's
that's at least people are not willing
to tell pollsters that anymore so we've
made huge social progress but the
but not enough to mean that these
attitudes aren't still there and and we
maybe got experiencing some regrets now
because Trump has basically made it okay
to to express those attitudes again you
also had a column in here that you've
expanded on in the book about why Trump
shouldn't be called a populist yeah I
mean if the populism if it means
anything it means actually trying to do
stuff for regular people and the usual
accusation against populist is well
they're trying to do stuff for ordinary
people but in ways that is are
economically destructive Trump hasn't
done any of that Trump in when he ran in
2016
pretended to be a populist he said I am
going to raise taxes on rich people and
I am NOT going to cut Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid
but in practice he's been an absolutely
Orthodox Republican he's cut taxes for
rich people he's trying to cut this the
social safety net programs there's
nothing in his agenda that does working
you know working Americans any good at
all it's all aimed at the top
so he's populist only in in the sense
that that maybe he gives voice to some
popular but socially unacceptable views
on on race because what's become very
sort of current both in America and in
Britain with the whole breakfast process
is the idea that people are prepared to
accept economic pain for something they
believe in and in Britain it was brexit
and and the the warnings of economic
pain some people just didn't believe it
yes and said it was wrong when some
people said even if it's true I'm
prepared to deal with that because this
is something that I want I mean is this
a new or I think the polyatomic
phenomenon well it's always been true to
some extent I mean people identity
politics isn't new there's always been a
time when one party exploited identity
politics pretty thoroughly parties in
the Democratic Party used to rely long
time ago relied on a solid south which
was all segregationist whites and
essentially those people are now
Republicans so this has always been
part of the story but I do think there's
also a lot of failure to understand I
mean lots of people who are crucially
dependent upon what we would call
progressive economic policies don't know
that so there's it's a combination there
is some underlying willingness to
prioritize identity politics over
economic self-interest but there's also
vast misunderstanding of where your
economic self-interest lies some people
just don't know what they're voting for
that's right
very very much people don't know what
they're voting for I mean you know there
will be people you know listen listening
to that I'm the whole tenor of this
conversation I suppose you will say well
this is just the epitome of the liberal
elite listening to this guy well I mean
what can I do except to say the facts as
I see them I guess I would consider
myself a populist in the sense that I I
want policies that help the ordinary the
ordinary working family now does that
require that I accept that ordinary
working families necessarily understand
all of the policy issues and what I
would say unto that is no of course it
does not and it's not because I'm
brilliant but because I have time to
study it the big thing about politics is
that people have lives they have kids
they have jobs they're busy they they
pick up their understanding of political
events from a few minutes of news
coverage and particularly if the news
coverage is coming from Fox News but
even to some extent mainstream news
media they're not getting all of this in
2018 people did understand that are
enough people understood that Trump was
trying to take away the gains that they
had maybe returned elections that's
right the midterm congressional
elections the idea that the notion that
Trump was trying to take away the gains
that we've made in healthcare during the
Obama years that did make it through and
led to a smashing Democratic victory so
it does get through but it's hard and
when you try to get into anything any
elaborate policy discussion yeah you
have to always bear in mind that again
the people like me people like you
we're basically are paid to keep track
of these things
most people are not
does America feel like you'll country at
the moment much of America still does
but it's very much on the edge I mean I
know people who've carefully tracked the
collapse of democracy in places like
Hungary and the United States is
definitely heading down that path we
could it America could be unrecognizable
in the very near future when democracy
rule of law are extremely at risk right
now the modern version of how
democracies fail is not that all the
laws on the books are changed and that
the Constitution is repealed it's that
the reality starts to be nothing like
what the Constitution says on paper so
you got a situation where just
hypothetically where a president can
obviously engage in corrupt collusion
with a foreign power for electoral
advantage and almost all the members of
his party in the Senate vote to acquit
him despite the evidence right you've
got a situation where the tools of
Public Policy are abused so that the the
Justice Department starts releasing
financial records of of people who are
hostile to the president while
concealing the financial records of the
President and people close to him so
that sort of thing once it starts to
spread you end up with with a situation
in which there's a general climate of
repression and fear and the media in
particular get-get get suppressed and
muzzled and we've seen it happen we've
seen that script you know because it has
already happened in Hungary you can see
it happening in Poland that's and the
United States is very close to that
point but are you sure that that feeling
that you have of how close that is isn't
like your reaction after his election
you know it's just a sort of revulsion
to him and therefore you predict the
works oh no no this one that that one
was a was a bad three days and I am my
own my own analysis if I had actually
just stopped to think said the reverse
of what I said on on election night in
this case this is based on lots and lots
of I mean I as I say I do a lot of
homework
I'm talked to a lot I read a lot of
political science literature I talked to
international relations people I this is
not a hasty reaction this is a
unfortunately a deeply grounded in
what's actually going on because people
in your on your side apologies often
talk about you know this being a
president who has no regard for the law
and isn't the fact that actually he does
stay within the rules and that's why
he's still the president know some of
the rule he has not I mean they by any
normal standard what what Trump has done
is is worse than in eighteen Nixon did
the difference the difference between
Trump and Nixon and in on impeachment is
that the is that the Republican Party
has changed and that Nixon had a party
that still contained a lot of people who
believed in themselves as independent
voices and were prepared to defy the
party line if if their conscience said
they they should and the modern
Republican Party would certainly at the
modern Republican Senate contained one
person right so Mitt Romney was the only
the only senator willing to do what
dozens of senators were willing to do
back in in 1970s what about the rules
with regard to the rest of the world an
international trade now what are the
really surprising things about this book
is that there's not a huge amount about
international trade yeah you you kind of
say worse the effect that international
trade isn't is important as it's cracked
up to be
yeah I mean I think coming from a man
who won his Nobel Prize yeah that's
right which is why why I have the right
to say that um know that the basic point
there is that our starting line on
international trade is that it is fairly
clean tariffs are low international
trade is relatively open it's not
grossly distorted and so Trump is thrown
in a bunch of distortions but that still
leaves it not that you know tariff rates
have gone up and we've had these trade
conflicts but as compared with something
like health care the United States
spends about the same amount on imports
that does on it on health care which of
those is a truly screwed up system the
answer is health care much more than
trade so as a policy issue what we do on
health care is much more important than
what we do on trade what about
British people listening to this right
now as we as we enter a post brexit
period and possibly you know a pretty
simple trade deal with the European
Union that starts to see the
reintroduction of trade barriers yeah I
mean brexit I is a mistake it will make
Britain poorer but it's not a
catastrophe and that was a big mistake
that the anti brexit people made of
trying to overdramatize it's a friction
it will mean that your Britain will
continue to do most of its trade with
its neighbours because that's the way
world trade works it's always distance
is a huge factor so anyone thinking that
some deal with the United States can
make up for a breakfast it is is
delusional and you will add some costs
some frictions that will probably make
Britain a couple of percent poorer than
it would otherwise be not the end of the
world you know the United States and
Canada is not part of a customs union
with the United States it's a free trade
area but it there are border checks you
do need to you know go through all the a
procedure to cross the border now Canada
probably would be a little bit richer if
it was actually part of a customs union
with the US but Canada is not last I
looked a nightmare Society so I think
they that the optimistic view is that
brexit will be you know baked Britain a
bit poorer certainly it's it's a bad
sign I mean the the European project as
a whole which historically has been such
a good thing is kind of running a ground
and bricks it as part of it but the but
it not the end of the world so I suppose
it's the lesson from both sides the
Atlantic the warning of economic
catastrophe in these arguments is always
a mistake well unless it's rarely a
catastrophe yeah a wealthy advanced
country like America or Britain can't
handles quite a lot of mismanagement at
the top catastrophes do happen but it
usually takes more than just the bad
policies of the head of state to do that
so it's the politics and the values that
can be a catastrophe yes and rather than
the economy yes and and remember there
the economy is not one thing
so Trump's policies in the US
are unlikely to produce a catastrophe
for GDP but they can produce
catastrophic outcomes for millions of
families who will be deprived of
essential things like health care so
there will be many small catastrophes
but one big one I do worry if something
else happens there's a major shock then
it's not clear that there's anybody in
the Trump administration who has a clue
about how to respond I mean we were very
lucky in 2008 that we had smart people
running all of the world's major
economies and it's not clear that we'll
have that kind of luck next time but if
you like if you think that Trump is a
terrible terrible person and doing
terrible things to America's future
which I do there's a temptation to look
for instant gratification that's the
temptation I fell into for three days
into it in 2016 I say this is an
immediate catastrophe but it's no it's a
much slower motion gradual erosion of
the basis of a decent society just on
health care I mean again sort of look at
the two systems in Europe and there are
more than two systems obviously in
Europe in America but America thinks of
itself as having excellent health care
yeah
don't be almost I think a lot of
Europeans think of American health care
is very good it's not it's not as good
as people think is it if you look at
outcomes and so on Americans with health
insurance have about the same quality of
health care as British people as all all
advanced country health care systems
look roughly comparable in their effect
in this the American difference is that
we still have a significant number of
people without health insurance and so
that our overall outcomes are way below
I mean a u.s. life expectancy used to be
you know higher than that of Western
Europe and we've been lagging further
and further behind and by the way with
in the United States that that lag is
very much tied to the politics of the
state but we also made a lot of progress
is one of these things people I think
fail to appreciate even though Obamacare
was an imperfect success story it
nonetheless meant that 20 million people
who
not have access to health insurance are
now covered that's a that's a pretty big
deal can you explain why the idea of
socialized medicine or anything like the
NHS seems so reviled by so many
Americans
oh there's two stories here there's a
historical story because we could have
had I don't think we were ever gonna
have anything like the NHS but we might
have had something like the Canadian
system or for that matter what we have
for all senior citizens in the United
States we have national health insurance
for everybody over 65 Medicare we almost
got it in 1947 President Harry Truman
tried to add health care to Social
Security to our retirement program
narrowly failed because of a coalition
between doctors who were afraid it would
lead to lower incomes and southern
segregationists who were afraid that it
would lead to integrated hospitals
probably correctly by the way because in
the end when Medicare came in one of the
things that did do was force the
integration of hospitals so race was
critical then and now the problem you
have now is there are powerful spouts
special interests the insurance
companies but I think even more
important is 160 million Americans have
private health insurance and if you want
to change to something even like the
Canadian system let alone the NHS you're
saying to those 160 million people we're
going to take away the coverage you now
have and replace us replace it with
something else trust us it will be
better now it probably would be better
but that's a hell of a leap to ask
people to make so there's an inherent
not politically conservative but just
conservative in the sense that if if if
it ain't broke why fix it you're asking
a lot to ask people to accept the forced
transition to a very very different
system I want to come back to talk about
the election in a minute but could we
just spend a few minutes talking about
you and why you became an economist
where did it come from did you study
economics at school I mean I mean a high
school I didn't tell you a funny story I
was a very nerdy high school student I
read science fiction and I read Isaac
Asimov who had a classic set of novels
the foundation trilogy which is about
mathematical social scientists
save galactic civilization and I wanted
to be one of those guys and economics
was as close as I could get well because
your parents were my grandpa who and
your family came to the United States oh
yeah my grandparents were all born in
former saw various parts of the former
Soviet Union and they could they they
immigrated to the United States so my
parents were born in the US but you know
poor slum kids so you didn't go to
schools no we went to a good suburban
high school you know the public school
public schooling the Americans in say a
government-run school and was easy to
get to Yale or was that just because you
were very clever it I scored high that
was a one thing I've always been good at
as taking exams and if you went to a
normal public high school that was a
relatively straightforward thing to do
if you were top of the class yeah it was
no it would be interesting if I had gone
to an inner-city school not a well-off
suburban community might have been very
different but there was plenty of
opportunity for upward upward mobility
it's certainly in the in the United
States of 1960s and you think that's
gone oh no there's still quite a lot of
it but not perhaps as much as there was
and actually I was my parents were well
enough off to to afford to send me to a
private university though I learned
later that what they had to make some
sacrifices to do that but the you know
we used to have a lot of really
excellent public universities as well we
still do but they're but they're not
cheap anymore only a handful of the
original inexpensive good high quality
public education remains as it happens
I'm at one of those institutions now I
retired from Princeton and moved to the
City University of New York which
remains a tremendous engine of upper
social mobility my father went to
Brooklyn College which is part of the
CUNY system so the in you know at second
hand I'm a beneficiary of the of the
great public education system we used to
have and well your parents still with us
when you won the Nobel Prize yes
I think I was thankful that I was able
to share that with them yeah it's one of
those things actually you always feel or
at least if you're somebody like me I
really felt it was for them and for for
the family not for me but you refer to
as the Swedish thing yeah it doesn't
matter well it's a peculiar thing right
if your your colleagues your
professional colleagues they have a view
of your work which is not going to be
changed by what some Swedes say one way
or the other
so the people who really whose opinion I
care about a lot it doesn't matter so
much it is a wonderful door opener lots
of lots of things become available if
you had that you know credential to
waive actually at one point I had to I
was visiting Oxford for for a month a
few years back and was told you know the
UK government has gotten very strict you
need to bring among other things
evidence that you possess expertise in
the profession that you intend to
practice I thought well I have this gold
coin I could slap on the table at
immigration but now I didn't
so let's come back up to date then as we
look look ahead I was gonna say look
forward but let's just say look ahead to
the elation I mean look you were very
skeptical about Bernie Sanders are you
less skeptical now cuz yeah I mean you
know I said recently that if he's
selected everyone should get behind I'm
not dead that's always been my position
and the whoever the Democrats nominated
first of all I think it makes very
little difference in terms of actual
policy
Bernie Sanders has a very aggressive
program only a piece of that would be
enacted some of the other contenders are
much more moderate but all of them are
actually substantially more progressive
actually even than Barack Obama was so
we're gonna get a moderately progressive
program if any Democrat is elected and
we're going to get a horrific Lee
regressive program and an assault on
democracy if Donald Trump is reelected
so I I will have no problem
yeah I'm not allowed to do explicit
endorsements but I will have no problem
talking about the virtues of Bernie
Sanders as opposed to Donald Trump if
that's where it comes to I do worry that
Sanders that by calling himself a
socialist that he bi and to some extent
by Zdenek
the achievements of his party you know
he talks down the the major achievements
the words of the Obama administration
that he will be weakening the case so I
do worried that that he may be kind of
leading with his chin in a general
election but I have no problem with
Sanders if Bernie Sanders is inaugurated
next year I will be very relieved do you
think he should learn a lesson from
Jeremy Corbyn yes I would hope so I
think that do you think the lesson the
lesson was that you need to be a
unifying candidate for your party and
you need to try to make it clear that
it's the other guy who is the radical
the other guy who's threatening the
foundations of society not you if I
thought Bernie Sanders his program was
achievable for the most part supported I
would take single-payer health care in a
second if I thought it could be done I
just don't think it's actually within
reach because America won't vote for it
you mean that's right well America won't
vote for it and and even if he becomes
president the they won't get through the
won't get through Congress there are too
many people who are current saying we're
going to abolish private insurance is a
step too far
well aren't you allowed to do an
expositional ah because if the times
this has apparently happened in the
distant past an opinion writer for The
New York Times says vote for Joe Smith
and then people go around saying New
York Times says vote for Joe Smith so
it's over you have to avoid providing
taglines so that can be attributed to
the paper as opposed to simply being
your personal view so you can ply all
you like but you can't say you can't say
the words it's been very interesting
talking she only lost 45 minutes I mean
do you have a dim view of a lot of
people on the other side of the
political divide me Oh on the other side
of the political divide I am an
extremely dim the modern think they all
stupid and hateful uh no they're not
stupid that's not the political people
the modern Republican Party is a party
of apparat chicks therapy up it's a very
cynical party people who basically sold
their souls for for the sake of
political influence
ain't no bones about that and they they
they tell a lot of lies
as I said all of the zombie you know
this is about zombie ideas all of
the importance Amba sinem erican life
are zombies that are coming from the
right and and have the backing of the
Republican Party so there's no symmetry
between the parties individual people
there are perfectly nice people who
consider themselves Republicans for the
most part I think they don't really
understand the nature of the party
they're there supporting do you have any
Republican friends yeah few although I
have to say some several of them have
now said you know I no longer consider
myself a Republican so I think basically
it's possible to be a nice person and a
Republican but only if you're a little
bit oblivious and do you think almost
roms gonna win I don't know I really
don't know I mean it there he has a a
lot of things going for him you know
this deficit fueled economy is pretty
strong the Democrats are squabbling on
the other hand he's remarkably unpopular
given the state of the economy and my
hope I guess is that the 2020 election
will be like the 2018 midterms that will
happen is that a lot of people in
particular suburban women will say oh no
not this guy but anything can happen if
you could wave a magic wand and change
the world boy I mean it's question is
how powerful is that magic wand but no I
mean if I I would like to see the
world's wealthy countries all become
kind of I know somebody used to talk
about slightly imaginary sweet and now
let me call it slightly imaginary
Denmark support a strong social safety
net empowered workers and aggressive
action to protect the planet against
climate change so there are societies
political countries that that move most
in that direction so if I could only
make that happen and make all of these
sort of atavistic reactions go away and
and disempower the the evil plutocrats
who are a real force in the world would
do that
tenth Denmark's obviously sort of very
high on your list of admiration well
yeah I mean not that not that I
particularly would want to be you know I
am very American but we want to live
there well if I had to I would but no
but the point is that they show that it
can be done they show that you can have
a very strong social safety net and
and good conditions for workers and
still have a very healthy economy so
it's a kind of an illustration of the
possibilities of a decent society which
which unfortunately my country is not
taking advantage of paul krugman thank
you very much indeed for joining us and
you know giving us your ways to change
the world and arguing with zombies
that's already out isn't it so I indeed
it is so so good luck with that
it's book number 27 something like I
have absolutely no idea you've lost
count yes but it's a it's number three
on Movers & Shakers at Amazon right this
morning well thank you very much I hope
you enjoyed that if you did then please
do give us a racing and review you can
watch all of these interviews on the
Channel 4 News
YouTube channel our producers are rachel
evans until next time bye bye