Interesting speech on modern American politics and economics by Paul Krugman

[Craig234]

This is not related to Krugman's Nobel prize, but that's a good reminder to take a look at his message.

He gave this speech a year ago. He discusses a few big picture trends - economic and political.

I hazard to estimate that a majority of his anecdotes you have seen in my posts here. I was pleased to see that, and surprised.

He takes on questions - how did it happen that we went from a strong middle class to a far weaker one? A shift in the politics on economics. Why did it happen?

There's a lot of insightful commentary, especially on the history of the right-wing movement.

He accurately predicted the political shift we're seeing now (with a little help from the 2006 election results).

He also makes an interesting case on the role of race in politics. He shows that basically all of the Republican political shift since Nixon is from the Southern shift.

He does make mention when asked what's coming in the next year of the sub-prime housing problems as his main answer, that they're a big problem.

If you have a desire for some useful info on the big political trends in the last several decades, that cuts through a lot of the propaganda, watch this.

The speechand Q&A are each 1/2 hour.

Link

 

[Craig234]

So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

 

[StageLeft]

I much prefer text. I simply don't have the time to devote 30-60 minutes to a video when text would be more appropriate. People talk slowly; I can read faster.

 

[GTKeeper]

The main question he addresses, is the shrinking of the middle class and why are we going in that direction.

 

[StageLeft]

OK I am listening to it now. Cause I'm home

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

Originally posted by: Craig234
I hazard to estimate that a majority of his anecdotes you have seen in my posts here. I was pleased to see that, and surprised.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I much prefer text. I simply don't have the time to devote 30-60 minutes to a video when text would be more appropriate. People talk slowly; I can read faster.

I have to question that you are better off spending an hour reading the stuff posted here than a half hour watching Krugman, but here is a 2004 speech transcript.

Edit: glad to see you are going to check it out, Skoorb.

It's not earth-shattering, but I think it has the sort of info that is useful history.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I much prefer text. I simply don't have the time to devote 30-60 minutes to a video when text would be more appropriate. People talk slowly; I can read faster.

I have to question that you are better off spending an hour reading the stuff posted here than a half hour watching Krugman, but here is a 2004 speech transcript.

Still listening. It's quite interesting.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

Learn to quote. Then call me an idiot.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

Learn to quote. Then call me an idiot.

OK. Quote fixed. So...

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

Learn to quote. Then call me an idiot.

OK. Quote fixed. So...

:thumbsup:

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I much prefer text. I simply don't have the time to devote 30-60 minutes to a video when text would be more appropriate. People talk slowly; I can read faster.

I have to question that you are better off spending an hour reading the stuff posted here than a half hour watching Krugman, but here is a 2004 speech transcript.

Edit: glad to see you are going to check it out, Skoorb.

It's not earth-shattering, but I think it has the sort of info that is useful history.

It is just a lot easier, and more convient to read the transcript. I also hate listening to a speech because it is a lot harder to go back and re-listen, to a certain section than it is to re-read.

 

[miketheidiot]

A+ would watch again

'things could be much worse, oil could be 140 dollars a barrel"

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

:laugh:

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

You posted link in the morning at 8am or so. Not many people can spend half an hour listening to a speech when they are supposed to be working.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, not one person bothered to watch the speech.

Correct.

LMAO

I guess this didn't turn out to be the epic thread Craig envisioned.

No, idiot, I had expected to get 0 to 2 people probably watching it, but that's not a reflection on anything other than the allergy to facts too many have, like you.

You posted link in the morning at 8am or so. Not many people can spend half an hour listening to a speech when they are supposed to be working.

Yeah, wait until 2:30 when we've given up any pretext of it.

 

[Excelsior]

I actually watched this earlier without seeing Craig's post. I liked it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I actually watched this earlier without seeing Craig's post. I liked it.

I'm impressed, I thought the Commonwealth Club archive was a well-kept secret. How did you run across it?

 

[First]

Krugman nails this as usual. I had this same discussion less than two years ago, reposted here with stats and figures;

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

The Congressional Budget Office shows that the lowest and second lowest classes of Americans have seen an aggregate increase of 4.7% in their incomes between 1979 and 2003, while the highest and second highest tiers of Americans have seen an aggregate increase of 28.1%. This means that the richest people in the U.S. have been getting richer at a pace nearly six times that of the poorest people in the U.S. What makes this case most compelling is that these statistics are of the lowest and second lowest earners and highest and second highest earners, not just the very bottom and very top earners, where the discrepancy in increased income is 0.7% for the poor and 49.7% for the rich. In other words, only one class, the middle class, is left out of my calculations of 4.7% for the lower classes and 28.1% for the upper classes, which gives tremendous weight in terms of just how many Americans this inequality is affecting.

Also, in the mid-1970s, the top 1% of all income earners held 20% of the wealth in the U.S. Nowadays the top 1% of all income earners hold 33% of all wealth in the U.S. Growing inequality in income distribution can also be found in data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2005, which found that those in the top 20% saw their pretax income rise by 52% while those in the bottom 20% of earners saw their pretax income rise by only 8% between 1978 and 2001 (www.census.gov). There is a remarkable 46% difference in relative income increases, which Democrats conclude is proof positive that growing inequality is an issue that requires immediate attention.

However, the case can be somewhat made for inequality not significantly rising over the past several decades. These people would argue that while those at the higher echelons are seeing their incomes increase at a much faster pace than those with low incomes, people with low incomes are still seeing their incomes increase over time, just at a slower pace. For example, the case made above shows that the bottom 20% of earners saw their income rise by 8% between 1978 and 2001. These people would argue this is obvious progress and that, as we will see later, taxes will make up for this discrepancy.

On that point, they would argue that an equalizing effect has taken place when noting the fact that the top 10% of income earners are taxed at a rate of 65.7%, up significantly from 46.7% in 1960. What this means is that, while inequality is still rising over the past 3-4 decades, the upper classes? higher rate of income growth (cited earlier as 4.7% for the poor and 28.1% for the rich) is being mitigated with 19% higher taxes on the top 10% of the nation?s earners.

My conclusion is that there seems to be a good deal more support for the notion that inequality is increasing at a rate noticeable enough that it must be addressed more urgently before it gets out of hand. The data on these issues of inequality speak for themselves, where large percentages of the U.S. population are seeing their incomes increase, but at a much lower rate than the affluent. There?s also the issue of an accumulation of total wealth in the U.S. rising near levels not seen since the 1920?s and 1930?s, eras known for their inequality and hardship, which eventually led to FDR?s New Deal federal programs. I think it's quite clear that, in the end, inequality must be mitigated as much as possible

 

[Craig234]

Evan, very good post, but check the numbers for the top 0.1% and 0.01%.

(Spoiler: the latter is over 500% increase).

 

[First]

^ Thanks. Though, I have no problem at all with the super-rich, I just have a problem if it's at the expense of middle/lower classes. I think Krugman makes a great case for how Americans won't stand for these race-centered campaigns anymore, though I don't know if he appreciates the difficulty of reining in bureaucratic drift when it comes to massive social spending, often resulting in fiscally irresponsible programs.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Thanks. Though, I have no problem at all with the super-rich, I just have a problem if it's at the expense of middle/lower classes. I think Krugman makes a great case for how Americans won't stand for these race-centered campaigns anymore, though I don't know if he appreciates the difficulty of reining in bureaucratic drift when it comes to massive social spending, often resulting in fiscally irresponsible programs.

unfortunately, I think there's pretty much an inherent conflict between the super-rich and the middle class, despite that contradicting the myth to the contrary.

But if you can show me a policy where everyone goes up 500%, then I am happy for the super-rich to do so, too.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I actually watched this earlier without seeing Craig's post. I liked it.

I'm impressed, I thought the Commonwealth Club archive was a well-kept secret. How did you run across it?

I am a big fan of Fora.TV. I've been watching various discussions on it since its inception. I hadn't been in a few weeks but I thought I'd check it out. Saw Krugman speaking about the middle class/etc so I was interested.