Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20200213 : vimarsana.com

Known bbc news, its time for hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk, im stephen sackur. Remember the time when political discourse was founded on those quaint concepts, facts, evidence, expertise . Well, now it seems partisanship in fact every corner of the realm of ideas. Infects. This is made yesterday, Nobel Prize Winning a column york times columnist paul krugman. His latest book suggests americas political and Economic Future is threatened by zombie ideas paddled largely by americas conservative movement. But has he become addicted to the partisan warfare he professes to the partisan warfare he professes to despise . Paul krugman, welcome to hardtalk. Use at our to be what you define yourself as a technocrat, a specialist economist, and yet here you sit as one of the best known columnists, airing your opinions on a weekly basis in the us media. Partly i got a newjob if you are writing for academicjournals, a really hit article gets read by maybe 4000 people, it is a little different when you start writing for the new york times, which has a circulation of 5 million or so. So you have to do things a little bit differently. Also, ithink you have to do things a little bit differently. Also, i think the world changed. With becoming much more polarised, environment. Intellectually, than before. And i choose not to pretend otherwise. Well, the world changed, im wondering whether paul krugman changed. Paul krugman, the dispassionate technocrat became a rather angry man . Well, if youre not angry about the way things are going in the United States, then there is something wrong with you. Is anger a helpful intellectual emotion . As long as you can keep it under control. As long as you dont say things that arent grounded in evidence and analysis was not when i read a column, there was a rather large number of footnotes that dont get published. I do a lot of Research Behind each one but obviously you need to take a stand and there are a lot of terrible things and really bad ideas out there and i am not going to mince words about them. Has your role really changed . It words about them. Has your role really changed . It seems that your whole contention is the conservative republican side of the argument in economics and politics is fundamentally different today and different in a very malign way because, whereas in the past you say there was some common ground, some shared values and ideas now you seem to suggest there is and to use loaded words of yours, something depraved about the arguments coming from the right. Certainly it has changed. When we use the phrase voodoo economics to talk about the thoroughly refuted but somehow still gambling along proposition that tax cuts pay for themselves, who invented that phrase . The answer was George Hw Bush when he was running against Ronald Reagan 1980. What about Ronald Reagan . Ronald reagan was a purveyor of a lot of economic nonsense. So maybe things havent changed as much as you think . They have gotte n changed as much as you think . They have gotten worse. I was in the reagan administration, believe it or not, ina reagan administration, believe it or not, in a nonpolitical role when i was a technocrat inside it. There we re was a technocrat inside it. There were strange people even in that administration. But there was still some room for expertise. Ronald reagan did in fact take some important measures to close the ozone hole and when George Hw Bush, the elder voice came in, he took some significant environmental steps against acid rain. There was more crossover, more role for fact. Against acid rain. There was more crossover, more role forfact. But each successive republican president in america has had the talent to make his predecessor look good. And in your loaded phrase, zombie ideas, that you say threatened america because they are still being paddled despite the fact that you would contain they have been typically undermine by the data, facts and evidence over many years it seems to me the most important one of them is cutting taxes for the richest individuals and operations, to the republican side of the younger men, it works and generates economic growth. You say it doesnt. Right now in the United States under donald trump, the evidence would seem to be on their side. No, what is happening under donald trump as we have huge budget deficits. What we have huge budget deficits. What we are actually getting is keynesian policies, we are getting a large physical stimulus, a fair amount of it being government spending. You have never had a problem with stimulus and keynesian economics. we could have done more physical stimulus in the past, in any time over the past ten years they would have been for it. So why not give donald trump a pat on the back . Have been for it. So why not give donald trump a pat on the back7m was his own party that presented that prevented that was that they scream the evils of deficits as long as 0bama was in the white house. So, vote republican because if you do they. Sabotaging the economy, that isnt a good political argument. They shall stop. Im not complaining about that, im saying we should make better use of that. We are making Corporate Tax cuts when we should be preparing the infrastructure. There is work on infrastructure. There is work on infrastructure. We can document there hasnt been an infrastructure plan. Here you are, the economist with a nobel prize do your name, committed to digging through the evidence. Surely the evidence today the United States is the trump Economic Management is working . Look at the 6 million jobs created in three years, look at the lowest African American Unemployment Rate on record, look out all the different signifiers which tell americans their economy is humming along in a very good place. Yes, but asi along in a very good place. Yes, but as i say, in today in the extent we are doing well, if you look at the chart of Economic Data starting around 2010, you would never know that there had been a change of management in 2016, right . It is just a Straight Line growth ofjob creation that began under 0bama and continued. I do note the Congressional Budget Office at the time of the 2016 election did not protect the growth and employment we have seen since project. He has outperformed. A little bit. With his generous tax cuts. Your contention this is a zombie adr, frankly, doesnt wash. No, that is really being unfair. The claim on tax cuts, the republican claim, its notjust that they think tax cuts are good for the economy, they think that tax cuts pay for themselves stop that has been utterly refuted. The deficit has exploded under trump. Remember when he was voted in, just about every republican in the senate saidi about every republican in the senate said i believe these tax cuts will not increase the deficit. Well, they did increase the deficit. And if you throw really, about 300 billion a year, if you through 300 billion a year, if you through 300 billion a year of extra purchasing power at the economy, even if you do it badly, i would say any economist would say that would give the economy a bit of a left. If republicans had allowed barack 0bama to spend 300 billion a year on infrastructure, we would have had 4 unemployment five years ago. Do you think it matters the American Public actually seems to approve of trumps Economic Management. Im looking at this ftp monitoring index which is 5196 this ftp monitoring index which is 51 of americans now believe trumps policies have either strongly or somewhat helped the us economy. That is the highest it has been very long time. It pays. Thats right. Its a little ominous, actually. If you we re little ominous, actually. If you were to read the record of american politics over the last decade, it is the optimal strategy is to sabotage the optimal strategy is to sabotage the economy while the other party holds the white house and then borrow freely when you hold the white house. And that does get rewarded. People react to short term stuff. I dont think that is the only thing that is going to matter, but yeah, any democrat who things that the right thing to do, should the democrats win this year, is that we should now become fiscally responsible and close the deficit should look at the trump record and say no, that isnt what wins votes. But we will get to what all of this means the politics and the us president ial election race just a little bit later. I want to get to another zombie idea of yours, one that you contend with as completely disproved by the facts. That is inequality doesnt matter. Because republicans and indeed we have had conservative economist we mark on this programme thank inequality is a problem but it doesnt act as a real break on growth because what matters is encouragement of innovation, the rule of law, intellectual property rights. Those allow great ideas to drive the economy forward. That is their contention. Why is that a zombie idea . There are several points there. So its interesting, there are quite a few people on the left who are sure that inequality hurts economic growth. And i have never been enthusiastic about that case. I think that maybe because i would like to believe it and so i actually try not to lean into ideas that i would like to believe it. I think inequality is bad because first of all it means that large numbers of people dont share in the fruits of economic growth, we have seen stagnation of wages despite productivity growth. We have seen that for several decades. I would also argue that inequality walked the shape of society. When you start to have a situation where there is a small group of people who live in a different universe, who dont use Public Schools and dont use public capitation, who dont rely upon all of the Common Social things that eve ryo ne of the Common Social things that everyone else depends on, they have a lot of power because of their money, then society ends up under investing in the things that they really need to. How do you as an economist and a data guy and a liberal respond to the conservative argument on inequality . In the end, particularly in america, what people really wa nt particularly in america, what people really want is to aspire for something better, notjust for themselves but particularly for their children. And the idea of saying to those who do really well are most accessible and earn the most, that we are going to take your wealth and redistribute it, thats not american. But that is a complete misreading of our own history. For a generation after world war ii marked we dealt doesnt act we didnt allow rich people to exist. We havent been a society that punish does not punish rich people to exist, but we levied high tax rates on them. Under eisenhower it was 91 and the economy flourished. That was a period of enormous social upward mobility. The United States has the u pwa rd mobility. The United States has the upward list list upward social mobility of any advanced country. The winner is currently finland. Do you think americans feel that . The polls i have seen so that americans are increasingly depressed about living better than their parents. That isnt a good sign. I make let me get back to a bigger thought about your notion of zombie ideas. If these ideas are so self evidently mistaken and wrong and knocked back by fa ct mistaken and wrong and knocked back by fact and evidence, how come they survive so successfully . Ah. Darwinian evolution would suggest if an idea is completely wrongheaded, it would die. But these ideas with you today does not refuse to die. They say it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. Who actually believes that tax cuts pay for themselves . There are essentially no professional academic economists who would subscribe to that view. It is com pletely would subscribe to that view. It is completely unanimous that cutting taxes increases deficits. Who keeps these ideas alive west in my people who work at think tanks, people who worked as lobbyists, people who are ultimately drawing their salary from wealthy individuals who stand to benefit from tax cuts. Its an entirely corrupt enterprise. And so this is where paul krugman begins to sound like a conspiracy theorist. You begin to sound like, who was it . Terry clinton, talking about the vast right wing conspiracy. You seem to be suggesting the American People are being duped by a cabal of rich people, i dont know whether it be the cot brothers with their funds or the cot brothers with their funds or the fossil fuel corporate chiefs, the fossil fuel corporate chiefs, the trump friends in their high rise manhattan swedes, these people, you say, i dipping American Public. First of all, the American Public has not bought this by the way. If you rasolea. The bowls show. Who is the president of the United States . Is the president of the United States . If you look at the polling, do people think the rich should be paying more taxes . A heavy majority of the americans, even the polarity of the americans, even the polarity of republican think the rich should be paying higher taxes. Polarity. It is not a Conspiracy Theory if there is an actual visible movement, you can track the money flows and look at the institutions that push these ideas. This is not some hidden cabal, its right up there in the open. But it does make you, without analysis, sound like a guy who no longer believes in american democracy. 0h, longer believes in american democracy. Oh, i think longer believes in american democracy. 0h, ithink democracy, its the worst system there is accept all the others. The only hope we have really of transcending this is by winning over voters. But the point that i may, the reason no one wrote arguing with zombies, is that people sometimes have a hard time telling the difference. And it is important to inform people at a loss of what you hear, a lot of the ideas that are very prominent in political life are not actually being made in good faith was of they are, in fact, ideas that are being made. Discus of the heart of your argument, you are arguing in good faith. And that your opponents, basically, as you have just put it, arguing your opponents, basically, as you havejust put it, arguing in bad faith. In other words, they are knowingly deceiving the people. 0h sure. Yours is a very simple moral world in which you are a good actor and your opponents on the political field are fundamentally bad actors, malign actors. Not on everything. There are 20 of areas of legitimate disagreement. Should be should we be investing in high speed rail . It is an arguable proposition, you can argue both ways on that. And they tend to be for it. I can say that the people on the other side are in good faith. 0n the question do experts believe themselves . Is Climate Change is real . In those cases the people are arguing in bad faith. Im wondering if you ever reflect on the impact of what youre saying . You write a lot about the toxicity of americas political culture today were nothing can be taken as fact, nobody has a set of common shared fact and data and evidence anymore because it has all been turned into tribal warfare. But you are part of the tribal warfare, because youve just said to me that my opponents and so many key issues arent just wrong, they are essentially morally bad. But those are the issues id choose to focus on. I mean, if im part ofa tribe, its part of the tribe that does believe in the facts, that does believe in the facts, that does believe in the facts, that does believe in evidence. Thats precisely what the other tribe says. No, they dont. At least, its not true. I would no, they dont. At least, its not true. Iwould be no, they dont. At least, its not true. I would be acting no, they dont. At least, its not true. Iwould be acting in no, they dont. At least, its not true. I would be acting in bad faith if ive pretended that there was a legitimate case for the proposition that tax cuts pavements. There is no such case. There are no serious economist who believe in us. There are only essentially intellectual hired guns making that case. And i would be doing a disservice, eye would be doing a disservice, eye would be doing a disservice, eye would be lying to my readers if a pretended otherwise. The thing is, though, you have been wrong at times. Of course. This entire conversation is premised on the fact that youre so careful, you look at the evidence, you interpret it within m partial field, the evidence, you interpret it within m partialfield, thats the evidence, you interpret it within m partial field, thats when you come to a conclusion can be trusted to be right. The trouble is, from time to time, you have been wrong. And then admitted it. So ive made a bad economic call on Election Night 2016, which the right hubs on endlessly. They retracted it three days later and apologise letting my political. You said electing donald trump would lead to an immediate disaster. Three days later i should not have said that, let my political views colomo Economic Analysis and my Economic Analysis that bigger deficits would actually lift the economy. So of course they make mistakes. Yes, you are full and frank and acknowledging that mistake. But what about another mistake. But what about another mistake which, arguably, is a much bigger conceptual mistake. Going back to the thought of late 1990s, you were always an embrace of globalisation. You thought it was great. You were keen for it to be the economic model for the future for the world. We now see that globalisation brought with it so much disruption, so much left behind problematic economics for people in the United States, in europe as well, who were not part of the new wave. I think you want to be a little. Lets see what i was saying about. I have, actually, again, acknowledged. Actually like to acknowledge my mistakes, which makes me part of a very small minority of people. I always agreed with the proposition that globalisation was contributing to rising income inequality in the us. It was a question of magnitude. I said it was only a few . I would still hold to that. What a mess, and this is important, what i missed was the extent to which the impacts of globalisation could, while being relatively modest on an arrogant scale, could be extreme on a very local scale aggregate. So when we import stuff from china that has a mild depressing effect on blue collar wages in the us, but it has a huge effect on hickory, north carolina, which is a centre of furniture manufacturing. And doesnt it feed into the degree to which donald trump a real cord with meriam Many Americans with the standing up to china . And his insistence through the rooms s use of tariff was of the chinese will have to back down on some of the economic policies regarding the United States and, to a certain extent, his winning that argument. Actually, thats a very peculiar one. Because of all of Donald Trumps policies, the trade war, it turns out to have almost no resonance with the public. Its an interesting thing. Ive been tracking that quite a lot. The trade war has almost certainly cost him votes, because the damage to American Farmers has been really clear and visible and the benefits to Us Manufacturing are invisible, you cant see anything there at all. But surely the core message, america first, a focus on protecting the american economy, that does resonate with yellow youd be surprised how little it does. I mean, when it donald trump says make America Great again, we have lots of evidence on this, what that really means to most of his supporters as it makes America White again. Trade policy has been a very small part of the whole story. This comes back to, i guess, your feelings, and whole story. This comes back to, i guess, yourfeelings, and it is quite personal, yourfeelings about donald trump, youve used all sorts of epithets about him, as he has to you, to be fair, he tweets out about his dislike of you and your Economic Analysis. But im not doing these things, again, when i say this its not busy just because im going to come up with an insult. Im actually looking at political signs and the votes and so on. Sure. So you dont want to. Of course ive got things wrong, everyone does. How scientists get things wrong. But i try, always, too, when they come out with a view, to grant it as best they can and then, when im wrong, say ok, i was wrong, here is why i was wrong, and ill try not to make that mistake again. Find me somebody on Donald Trumps side of the political spectrum who does that. Let us focus, forjust political spectrum who does that. Let us focus, for just a political spectrum who does that. Let us focus, forjust a moment, before we are, on the democratic side of the political spectrum, because clearly thats the side you are hoping will take the white house in november. The polls right now look difficult, because donald trump has a core support which is very consistent and strong and the democrats appear to be struggling to decide who is the best candidate to ta ke decide who is the best candidate to take him on. What is your advice, given everything you see and study in politics and economics, whats your advice to the Democratic Party about the best candidate they could choose because yellow 0k. They actually dont know. Truly, i dont know. I think i notions of collectability are very, very poorly grounded in anything. What i would say is whoever the democrats do nominate, its going to be very important. The us public is, on economic issues, actually slightly ce ntre left. Economic issues, actually slightly centre left. People via favour higher taxes on the rich, and they are conservative in a nonpolitical sense,in are conservative in a nonpolitical sense, in the sense that if it aint broke, dont fix it. So the democrats really need to emphasise that what donald trump is trying to do is take away things that you count on. They are trying to take away medicaid, they try to hurt medicare, trying to hurt social security, takeaway 0bamaca re, medicare, trying to hurt social security, takeaway 0bamacare, which has become quite popular in recent yea rs, has become quite popular in recent years, and not make their main focus on the new thing because they are trying to do, even though they should be doing new things. The idea that trump is a menace to the programmes you, the average american family, counter punch, that has to be the core of their campaign. And if they do that they have a pretty good chance of winning. But what interests me is your use of that word collectability. Do you think that the more radical agenda and some would call it socialist agenda of Bernie Sanders is going to be more appealing to put against donald trump ora more appealing to put against donald trump or a more moderate Pete Buttigieg style of politics . trump or a more moderate Pete Buttigieg style of politics . I have no idea. The thing about Bernie Sanders is that he is not a socialist. Is actuallyjust a social democrat who has chosen to call himself a socialist out of some desire to sound controversial, which is fine as long as you are the senator from a is fine as long as you are the senatorfrom a small is fine as long as you are the senator from a small state, but it will be a liability if he is the nominee. Will it . Final thought then, we have discussed in this interview your thoughts on the health of american democracy. If donald trump wins a second term, will you have grave doubts about whether the american system can survive . 0h, enormously. We are very close to a hungry type scenario. Is donald trump is a smart and self controlled as viktor 0rban as we would have lost american epoxy already. And we are at high risk of using it in the next couple of yea rs. Using it in the next couple of years. Paul krugman, it is a provocative thought on which we must end. Thank you very much for being on hardtalk stop thank you. Take care. Thank you very much. Hello there. Wednesday saw a break in all this wild weather as more parts of the country enjoyed some sunshine and the showers became fewer. Mind you, its still a wintry scene in the hills across the northern half of the uk and here in southern scotland in particular. Its still cold in scotland as well. We are seeing the weather changing, the wind is strengthening from the south west, pushing in all the cloud. For many parts of the country we will find rain continuing overnight, pushing in from the south west of england where it will be particularly mild. Further north we still have cold air so it is notjust rain but also snow and even in the rush hour some snow falling in the central belt of scotland. Most snow over the hills and central, southern england, and Northern England and for Northern Ireland so it could be wintry for a while but it is mostly rain, even that petering out during the morning. Further south, heavy showers and those will be driven on by some Gale Force Winds across southern england through the English Channel and Channel Islands with gusts of 60 mph. The winds will ease down a bit through the afternoon as they push into eastern england. Further north, an improving story with many places drying off and brightening off, still damp and grey and cold for south east scotland and north east of england. The area of low pressure bringing all that weather is going to push away during thursday evening and by the time we get to friday we have the next weather system approaching from the north west. In between overnight, a ridge of High Pressure and clearer skies and it will get cold enough for a touch of frost, maybe some icy patches and a few fog patches first thing. The wind will pick up as it is already in Northern Ireland in the morning where we see wind and rain here and that will come down from the north west. Snow over the mountains of scotland this time and elsewhere the snow will melt because we get a south south westerly wind, much milder and temperatures will rise, 8 12 degrees. Not much rain for eastern parts of england. It is getting milder on friday and that mild weather continues into the weekend but we also see the arrival of this deepening area of low pressure thats running between scotland and iceland and that is storm dennis and dennis will be a menace through the weekend into monday. Two Main Elements to the weather. First, the strength of the wind, widely gusting 50 60 mph. Higher than that around some exposed coasts and hills. And therell be very big waves as well. Secondly, the rain. Now, thats will be heavy at times, particularly across england and wales, over four inches of rain quite possible over the hills of wales and the south west, threatening more flooding. This is the briefing, im sally bundock. Our top story china sacks officials at the heart of the coronavirus outbreak, and drastically increases the official number of infected people. Italys ex interior minister Matteo Salvini reacts with defiance after a vote that could see him face trial. President putins opponents launch a campaign to stop him rewriting the russian constitution. Coming up in the Business Briefing leading the charge. Car firms invest billions in an electric future, as a ban on combustion engines looms nearer