2021年1月29日金曜日

krugman?

 00:00

oh all right thank you very much as i
00:02
said
00:03
for coming out and for being brave
00:05
enough to choose
00:06
uh a panel with more economics in it for
00:09
other choices
00:10
surprised to see you all here frankly um
00:14
let me let me just start with a phrase
00:16
that i think will be familiar to
00:18
everyone
00:19
in the room um people are sick and tired
00:23
of establishments
00:33
i want to talk a little bit about
00:35
establishment economics
00:37
with you today and i want what i hope to
00:40
do
00:40
is to tell you something that can
00:43
empower
00:44
organizations and groups that are
00:47
promoting
00:48
a progressive economic agenda that there
00:51
is
00:51
a progressive economic framework out
00:54
there
00:55
that will complement a bold progressive
00:58
economic policy agenda and there is an
01:02
army of economists out there ready
01:05
willing and able to support you
01:07
in your push in your quest for a more
01:10
just a more fair more
01:12
equitable economy or equitable social
01:15
justice and so forth programs policies
01:18
that are
01:19
big and bold ambitious well beyond
01:22
what the conventional mainstream views
01:25
as
01:28
feasible right these pie in the sky sort
01:31
of things may not be so high in the sky
01:33
after all if you ask the right
01:35
economists to look at your
01:36
proposals but who are those
01:40
economists and what does it mean to say
01:42
that we don't want to do establishment
01:44
economics anymore so
01:46
i spent the last year working in
01:48
washington dc
01:49
as the chief economist on the us senate
01:51
budget company i was hired by senator
01:53
sanders
01:54
uh near the end of 2014 when
01:57
uh he called and we had a conversation
02:00
and
02:00
a couple of conversations actually and
02:02
both conversations were designed i guess
02:05
to see
02:05
if he and i were a good fit for one
02:07
another and
02:09
um obviously we were because i ended up
02:12
going to washington dc
02:13
and working for him but it might
02:16
surprise you
02:17
how many headline so-called progressive
02:21
economists aren't there for you
02:24
when you need them when you need them to
02:26
help you
02:27
push out big bold economic policy
02:31
programs
02:32
and they'll be the first ones to line up
02:35
do it
02:36
it's not feasible the math doesn't work
02:39
it doesn't add up
02:40
right and so i want to talk a little bit
02:42
about
02:43
why that's the case why the economics
02:46
progression is so fractured
02:49
how to think about the economics
02:51
profession
02:52
different schools of thought where to
02:54
reach when you're trying to reach in
02:56
for some friendly to your agenda
03:00
and my own experiences i guess a little
03:02
bit
03:08
so i teach i teach at the university of
03:11
missouri
03:11
in kansas city i took a leave of absence
03:14
i was chairing the department there
03:16
and went to washington dc and did this
03:20
thing for
03:20
senator sanders for here and then left
03:22
the budget committee and ended up
03:24
advising the campaign
03:25
and when i was there i did things like
03:29
help find economists who thought maybe
03:33
raising the minimum wage to 15 an hour
03:36
was a pretty good idea
03:41
you know there are a handful of places
03:44
in this country where the economics
03:47
department
03:48
doesn't look like the economics
03:49
department in just about every other
03:52
major universe in this country and those
03:55
departments
03:56
have a history a tradition of doing more
03:59
progressive
04:01
so i called up a friend in one of those
04:02
departments he's here i won't name him
04:04
in case he doesn't want me to but he's
04:06
here at this event and i said i need
04:08
some help
04:09
we would like to demonstrate that there
04:12
is broad support
04:13
for a 15 an hour minimum wage from our
04:16
profession
04:17
can you help can you help get a letter
04:20
drafted we'll gather some signatures
04:22
and then we'll show people that the
04:23
profession actually
04:25
has a number of prudential phds who will
04:28
say
04:28
15 an hour isn't going to kill off jobs
04:31
and destroy the economy
04:32
and he said yeah i can help with that
04:34
how long do you have and i said
04:36
no not right i need it like yesterday
04:39
and he said well
04:40
it may be if i have a few weeks we could
04:42
get 50 or so signatures
04:44
i said no we've graduated enough of our
04:47
own phd students and placed them in
04:49
departments all over the country i can
04:51
get 50 by tomorrow
04:52
let's go for a couple hundred percent
05:09
when senator sanders and the co-sponsors
05:12
of that legislation went out and said
05:14
we are advocating for introducing bill
05:16
today to get to 15
05:18
an hour for a federal federal minimum
05:20
wage people immediately said what
05:23
you can't do it's too big it's too bold
05:26
it's too much
05:27
it won't work and they immediately
05:29
started talking that number
05:30
down and you had a letter you said don't
05:33
tell me we can't do it
05:35
don't tell me we can't think big i've
05:37
got at least
05:38
210 professional economists right here
05:42
who have endorsed the proposal this is
05:45
okay we can do this right
05:47
and time and time again we were able to
05:50
muster on financial
05:51
regulation did exactly the same thing
05:53
with his wall street
05:54
legislation on health care reform but
05:57
there is pushback and the title of this
06:00
panel features the name of
06:01
one prominent economist who was part of
06:05
that
06:06
pushback by part of creating a narrative
06:10
that said no you can't
06:13
no you can't no you dare not
06:17
you dare not because the serious people
06:20
the very serious people have looked at
06:22
the numbers and the map doesn't work
06:25
okay so there are these ideologies there
06:28
are screws of thought within the
06:30
economic
06:31
discipline but broadly speaking we call
06:33
it neoclassical economics
06:35
there's neoclassical dynamics and then
06:38
there's the stuff that's not
06:39
neo-classical economics and that can be
06:41
institutionalist it could be marxist it
06:43
could be
06:44
keynesian it could be a lot of other
06:45
things but it's all outside that main
06:48
street within the mainstream
06:50
there is a very comfortable
06:53
brotherhood right if our colleague jamie
06:55
gallery who's here
06:57
also one of the advisors to the senator
07:00
sanders campaign
07:05
this group you know they're they fight
07:07
like hell
07:08
but at the end of the day he says
07:10
they're like tweedledum and
07:12
they agree on all the big stuff there
07:15
are neoclassics i can actually have a
07:16
fundamental faith in markets
07:19
as a as a force that will self-correct
07:22
things
07:23
their big fight is over how long it will
07:25
take to self-correct how long it will
07:27
take the system to fix itself
07:29
one side says it will happen very
07:31
quickly and you could leave a total
07:33
hands-off approach laissez-faire and the
07:35
other
07:35
side says hey it takes too long there's
07:38
a role for government
07:39
in that intervening period to do small
07:42
stuff
07:42
to try to boost along the process back
07:45
toward an equilibrium
07:46
and then there's everybody outside of
07:48
that mainstream who says
07:50
we can't just simply sit back and rely
07:52
on the market forces
07:53
or small ball interventions designed to
07:57
take the edge off the cruelty that is
08:00
the market economy that we need bigger
08:03
more structural changes
08:05
so i'm going to just stop by that
08:07
introduction and
08:09
introduce to you my colleague and friend
08:12
of kate
08:19
thank you also known as bill we were
08:23
asked to make two announcements so
08:26
josh fox's film
08:30
how to let go of the world and love all
08:32
the things climate can't change
08:34
will be shown in this room from 7 to 8
08:37
pm
08:38
we'll have extensive time for q a
08:41
and then you're asked to line up along
08:44
that wall
08:45
um and then come up to this mic uh
08:48
individually to ask your
08:49
questions when you do that so uh
08:52
i have a weird background my primary
08:55
appointment's in economics
08:57
i have a joint appointment law i'm a
08:59
white collar criminologist
09:01
i'm a former financial regulator i'm a
09:04
serial whistleblower
09:09
united that wants to imprison
09:12
the felons on wall street
09:35
uh my name is jack black but i'm in
09:37
iceland apparently
09:41
yes um and i was saying that
09:44
iceland is the point so iceland has on a
09:47
really good day and most days aren't
09:48
really good days in iceland
09:50
320 000 population
09:54
but they were managed they had three
09:56
giant banks that brought down their
09:57
economy they managed
09:59
to convict the ceos of every one
10:02
of those institutions plus many of the
10:05
other leaders
10:07
and they did this with a total staff
10:11
that would be one of our us attorney's
10:14
offices
10:15
in the united states context so the
10:17
problem is
10:19
not the ability to prosecute and the
10:21
savings alone debacle will be
10:24
successfully prosecuted and got felony
10:26
convictions
10:27
and over a thousand insiders
10:30
and those were hyper-prioritized cases
10:34
involving the people in what we call the
10:36
c-suites
10:37
the ceos the cfos the former governor of
10:40
illinois i know everyone does that
10:44
i mentioned that as well it's a matter
10:47
of will
10:48
but it's also a matter of ideology and
10:50
one of the terrible things
10:52
economics does is tell people
10:55
no as stephanie just emphasized no you
10:58
can't
10:59
no you you can't prosecute because
11:02
a business person would never commit a
11:04
crime no you can't regulate
11:06
because that would be wrong no you can't
11:10
intervene on behalf of people who are
11:12
hurt
11:13
because that will just make them worse
11:15
off et cetera
11:16
okay so let me just start with a
11:18
baseline
11:19
of stephanie talked about the difference
11:22
and
11:22
these people are really weird they call
11:24
themselves fresh water
11:26
and saltwater economists so it's strange
11:29
i know
11:30
but the uh the ultra ultra folks are
11:33
based here in chicago or at least
11:35
started here
11:36
they're the fresh water and they're the
11:38
ones who say
11:40
oh no the market will fix everything and
11:42
anything you do will just make stuff
11:44
worse right
11:45
right well the other folks are not much
11:47
different that hence the tweedledum and
11:49
tweedledee and they say
11:50
well maybe we'll change it a little let
11:52
me just give you baseline numbers to
11:54
start this out
11:56
the best estimate of economists is that
11:59
in the united states the lost
12:01
gdp through the course of this great
12:04
recession and recovery
12:06
will be 24.3
12:10
trillion dollars a trillion is a
12:13
thousand billion
12:15
okay these are numbers so big unless you
12:18
study
12:19
physics they have no meaning economists
12:22
have no meaning for economists we lost
12:25
9.3 million american jobs
12:29
we had over 5 million american jobs that
12:32
normally would have been created
12:34
that we're not we have ballpark 10
12:37
million
12:39
foreclosures and you know four ish
12:42
people times that
12:43
gives you for the number of people in
12:45
the household
12:47
latinos households
12:51
where there was at least a university
12:55
degree lost
12:58
72 percent of their wealth that's the
13:01
median loss
13:05
blacks that comparable figure is 60
13:08
those losses are much greater than
13:12
comparable latino and black households
13:16
where there wasn't a university degree
13:19
in other words you lost
13:20
more wealth the better educated
13:24
you were if you were black or latino the
13:27
opposite pattern was true for whites
13:31
right and it's in large part because of
13:34
this
13:35
refusal to talk about fundamental
13:37
problems
13:38
that there isn't a market
13:46
let me just take you through the three
13:49
big fraud
13:50
epidemics that caused this crisis
13:53
the first one was appraisal fraud
13:56
right this is inflating the value of the
13:59
house
14:00
now you and i can't inflate
14:04
the value of our house successfully the
14:06
appraiser doesn't we have no leverage
14:09
over the appraiser but the lenders do
14:12
they say you want future business
14:16
inflate the value and the appraisers
14:20
publicly
14:23
new media stuff online petition
14:27
very savvy went to all the right
14:30
government
14:30
agencies said and it said this
14:34
in the year 2000
14:37
think how long ago that was we are being
14:40
extorted
14:42
by the lenders to inflate the appraisal
14:46
and if we refuse then we are blackballed
14:49
and we are not given future business so
14:53
that's not a market that's an extortion
14:57
right right and that how successful
15:00
we have surveys by 2006
15:03
90 of appraisers reported that they were
15:06
personally subjected to that kind of
15:09
extortion
15:10
in just the most recent year right so
15:14
this is the master
15:15
liar's loans the
15:18
industry's own anti-fraud experts report
15:21
90
15:22
of these are fraudulent nine zero
15:26
no one ever encouraged banks to make
15:28
liars loans
15:30
and the lies in liars loans according to
15:33
the attorney generals who investigated
15:35
were overwhelmingly put there by the
15:37
lenders and the lender's agents the loan
15:40
brokers
15:41
well how many liars loans were there
15:43
well by 2006
15:44
40 of all the home loans made that year
15:48
were liars loans that means there were
15:50
over 2
15:51
million fraudulent buyers loans pumped
15:54
out
15:55
just in the year 2006 why
15:58
because the commissions
16:02
created the incentive to do this that's
16:05
not a market
16:07
that is how the system is rigged
16:10
when senator sanders and senator warren
16:13
say the system is rigged
16:15
that's not colorful rhetoric that is an
16:18
accurate description of the financial
16:21
system
16:22
as written by technical economists
16:26
if they had the guts to actually write
16:28
it but
16:29
paul krugman isn't about to ever say
16:32
that
16:32
because he'd be drummed out of the
16:35
academy but we say it
16:36
all the time because we know it's true
16:39
and the third epidemic of course is
16:40
there's no such thing as a fraud
16:42
exorcist
16:43
so once the loans start out fraudulent
16:46
because
16:46
of the appraisal fraud because of the
16:49
buyer's loans
16:51
you can only sell them to the secondary
16:53
market
16:54
through a fraudulent representation and
16:57
warranty
16:58
so fraud begets fraud it's very biblical
17:01
in all of this and we have numbers on
17:04
this
17:05
too you know this is what economists are
17:07
supposed to be good at
17:09
they're supposed to be good at
17:10
incentives and they're supposed to be
17:13
good at numbers and they
17:14
are terrible at both of these things
17:18
have you ever seen a krugman column that
17:20
has the numbers i've just given you
17:23
right never do you expect to see it soon
17:28
no you don't you ever seen a vote a
17:30
white collar criminologist no
17:33
i mean why would you so you know go to
17:36
another discipline that has expertise
17:38
anyway the numbers and these are from
17:41
the
17:41
industry itself and these are the clown
17:44
the high clowns of the industry right
17:48
are that by the end of 2000 by
17:52
the mid of 2000 over half
17:56
of all the representations of warranties
17:58
looked at were false
18:00
and i can tell you with my bank
18:01
whistleblower hat that
18:03
one of our founding members was the top
18:06
guy at citigroup really senior senior
18:09
vice president
18:11
staff of 300 reporting to him who found
18:14
that
18:14
80 percent of the representations and
18:17
warranties
18:18
that citigroup was making to fannie and
18:21
freddie
18:22
were knowingly false reported this
18:25
including to this guy named bob rubin
18:27
that you may have heard of
18:29
and as bob rubin testified to the
18:31
financial crisis inquiry commission
18:34
i was assured that the situation was
18:36
resolved it was
18:37
by firing the guy that blew the whistle
18:41
and continuing to defraud
18:47
they don't call it the dismal science
18:50
for nothing
18:52
listen i want to i don't want to let the
18:55
session expire what we do want to do is
18:56
allow some time for q
18:58
a because we really want to hear from
18:59
you we want to engage with you so we
19:01
have definitely
19:02
planned to build that in but i don't
19:03
want to let this session get by
19:06
without making a point that both bill
19:09
and i
19:10
make routinely in our own work and that
19:12
we make when we talk to
19:14
groups and organizations and other
19:17
staffers and when i was on the hill
19:19
uh this was a really important point for
19:21
me to get out there and so i'm going to
19:23
get this off my chest
19:24
okay are you ready when somebody
19:28
asks you how are you going to pay for it
19:32
whether it's infrastructure investment
19:34
whether it's
19:36
climate change whether it's healthcare
19:38
for all
19:39
whatever the big bold agenda
19:42
item is how are you going to pay for it
19:45
in my opinion
19:47
the most correct and powerful answer
19:51
is to simply say congress will authorize
19:54
the spending because that's
19:57
how it actually works that's the truth
20:01
that's how it all works if you're
20:04
talking about
20:04
congress doing anything how did it get
20:07
done how did it
20:08
happen that we did infrastructure the
20:10
last time we did infrastructure
20:12
a bunch of people went in and said yes
20:15
to infrastructure
20:16
the vote itself the authorization
20:20
triggers the spending and the government
20:23
is
20:23
never think about this right what do
20:24
people say well how are you going to pay
20:26
for it you're going to have to cut
20:28
something else out of the budget you're
20:29
going to have to cannibalize someone
20:31
else's program
20:32
if you want to put more money into
20:35
medicare or
20:36
social security or uh infrastructure
20:39
or whatever it is right you're going to
20:41
have to cannibalize somebody else's
20:42
program or you're going to have to raise
20:44
taxes
20:44
because everything has to be paid for
20:47
and you're going to have to find the
20:48
money
20:49
or you're going to end up what doing
20:51
something
20:53
just so physically irresponsible and
20:55
that fiscally irresponsible thing is
20:56
called running away
20:58
deficit running a deficit you can't
21:01
possibly run
21:02
a deficit because what will happen if
21:04
you run a deficit oh my god the world
21:06
will come to an end
21:07
we're in hawk to the chinese there are
21:09
bankers they own us they trump up
21:12
all that fear right here of china we're
21:14
going to burden the next generation so
21:16
then they make us feel guilty and
21:18
terrible and awful
21:19
because we're we're hurting our
21:21
grandbabies and so they tell us that's
21:23
gonna happen then they make us afraid of
21:24
bond vigilantes who are going to come
21:27
and uh they're gonna downgrade our debt
21:29
we won't be able to borrow any more
21:30
we're going to end up in a third world
21:32
country sort of situation greece will
21:35
happen
21:35
if we don't get our so-called fiscal
21:38
house in order we all know we're going
21:39
to end up like greece
21:40
and the excuses piled
21:43
higher and higher and higher inflation
21:46
hyperinflation you want to end up like
21:48
zimbabwe or
21:49
germany so they feel they erect a wall
21:52
i'm telling you
21:53
this wall is the greatest barrier to
21:56
entry
21:56
to the progressive agenda i have ever
21:59
seen in my entire life
22:00
if you can't penetrate that wall and you
22:03
don't realize that there is
22:05
as i said an army of economists with
22:08
real phds that came from real
22:10
universities
22:11
who will stand beside you and help you
22:14
articulate a narrative that explains
22:17
exactly why it is the case that the
22:20
government is
22:20
fundamentally different from a household
22:24
from greece which is a country that by
22:26
the way
22:27
gave up its currency and adopted this
22:29
crazy thing
22:30
called the euro which is like adopting a
22:32
foreign currency
22:33
which is at the root of problems in the
22:36
greek debt
22:36
situation that governments
22:40
have the ability when you're like the
22:41
united states to
22:43
authorize the spending they are the old
22:46
think about this where does the united
22:48
states dollar come from
22:50
does it come from china is it does have
22:52
a little stamp on the bottom it says
22:54
made in china where does the us dollar
22:56
come from
22:57
it comes from the federal government of
23:00
the united states comes from the
23:01
government and can't come from anywhere
23:03
else what happens to you if you try to
23:04
create dollars
23:05
maybe in your basement or something well
23:08
there's a word for it right we call it
23:10
counterfeiting
23:11
and you go to jail the united states
23:13
government is
23:14
sovereign in its own currency it's the
23:17
issuer
23:18
of the currency the rest of us
23:20
businesses
23:21
municipalities detroit puerto rico
23:24
right you and i small business owners
23:26
we're all just simply users
23:28
of the currency we're users of dollars
23:30
and we're in a very different
23:31
relationship with the fema dollar we can
23:34
only afford to spend what we can earn
23:36
and what we are able to borrow and
23:38
lenders care very much
23:40
about our capacity to repay loans okay
23:43
sitting not too far from me is the son
23:46
of
23:46
the late and great heiman minsky one of
23:49
the most important economists of the
23:50
last
23:51
century and minsky is famous for
23:54
articulating financial instability and
23:56
talking about why it is
23:58
that businesses and households can get
24:01
themselves in a situation where
24:02
private debt becomes a huge problem we
24:04
see that everywhere today
24:06
student loans mortgage debt right
24:09
private debt
24:10
can be an absolutely critically uh
24:13
devastating problem right for people who
24:15
take on debt
24:16
but for the federal government of the
24:18
united states of america
24:20
that spends collects taxes and borrows
24:23
in its
24:24
own sovereign currency things work very
24:27
differently
24:28
and most people have never been it's
24:31
never been explained
24:32
exactly how governments go about
24:34
financing spending
24:35
in a country like ours like in canada
24:38
like australia
24:39
like in the uk why countries that
24:42
operate
24:43
after the gold standard are very
24:45
different right
24:46
we are basically running around
24:48
operating our
24:49
government operating our economy as if
24:51
we're still on a gold standard what did
24:53
williams jane bryan say about the gold
24:54
standard
24:55
what do you call it cross of gold
24:58
right never again on across the goal
25:01
only we
25:02
still are making economic policy as if
25:05
we are constrained
25:06
by gold standards if we have to find
25:08
money if we have to dig up a shiny rock
25:10
from under the ground somewhere in order
25:12
to give us the ability
25:14
to move resources around in the economy
25:16
this isn't what we did in world war ii
25:18
this isn't what we did during the new
25:20
deal right what did they do
25:23
they authorized the spending they
25:25
mobilized the resources they put people
25:27
back to work and by the way
25:29
another one of men's most important
25:31
contributions was for
25:33
decades this man promoted the idea of a
25:36
federally funded
25:37
jobs program a job guarantee program
25:40
right and one of the things that senator
25:42
sanders has done is to revive
25:44
the second bill of rights this is what
25:47
he's talking about he talks about
25:48
economic insecurity and why
25:50
people are so afraid why people are
25:52
angry and
25:53
why people are turning out in thousands
25:56
and thousands uh for his rallies and so
25:58
forth
25:59
there is such a high degree of economic
26:01
insecurity in this country
26:02
one in three people is either living in
26:05
poverty
26:05
or is in near poverty they're
26:07
economically insecure one in three we're
26:09
talking about 105
26:11
million americans right so he says
26:15
he wants federal uh he wants
26:18
health care to be a universal right he
26:21
wants people to have a
26:22
right to an education making public
26:24
colleges and universities tuition free
26:27
and fdr said as part of his second bill
26:29
of rights
26:30
that along with those two ought to come
26:32
are right to employment we're going to
26:34
tell people in a market economy
26:36
you need to have money in order to
26:38
survive
26:39
you must ensure that there is way for
26:42
people to earn a living
26:43
and so i want to put that out
26:52
what happens too often is take
26:54
infrastructure for example
26:55
right a large-scale infrastructure
26:57
investment program
26:58
is something that historically both
27:01
sides could get behind
27:02
republicans could get behind
27:03
infrastructure right and
27:06
uh it's not viewed as wasteful
27:08
government spending it's not viewed as
27:09
an intrusion into what the private
27:11
sector is supposed to rightly be doing
27:13
and so forth
27:14
so you say well let's have a big
27:16
infrastructure
27:17
investment program god knows we need it
27:19
the american society of civil engineers
27:21
says that we are
27:22
in deficit to the tune of 3.6 trillion
27:24
meaning
27:25
we should be spending 3.6 trillion or so
27:28
to get our national infrastructure
27:30
up to stuff in this country senator
27:32
sanders introduces a piece of
27:33
legislation and says let's take a
27:35
big bite out of that problem let's go
27:37
for a trillion dollars over the next
27:38
five years
27:40
and what happens how are you gonna pay
27:42
for it
27:43
and he says we're gonna pay for it by
27:47
closing past local we'll get the money
27:49
somewhere so we'll raise taxes
27:51
and what do the republicans say no you
27:54
won't
27:55
we can't vote for it we can't vote for
27:57
it because it involves tax increases
27:58
what i'm suggesting is
28:00
that these are two separate issues
28:03
not that there's no reason no rationale
28:06
no justification
28:08
for increasing taxes to affect
28:10
distribution concentrations of power and
28:13
other
28:13
sorts of problems absolutely
28:16
but if you think that you need to go out
28:20
and find money under the seat cushions
28:22
in order to be able to afford the
28:24
infrastructure investment program
28:26
as the issue of the currency you've got
28:28
things fundamentally
28:30
backwards okay i keep seeing a hand i
28:32
don't know if you're telling me to stop
28:33
talking or you want to ask
28:42
questions
28:56
of the poor are women and children and a
28:58
lot of values because
29:00
the work that they're doing is either
29:02
not paid or located
29:04
you know the kind of security war is
29:06
very critical that it doesn't get backed
29:08
out
29:09
but we also do another argument
29:25
you're welcome yeah absolutely so
29:28
articulating
29:29
uh a policy the way you just did right
29:32
defending the policy on its merits
29:34
and pointing out the broader benefits to
29:37
society to the economy and so forth is
29:38
exactly i would say the right way
29:40
to go about doing it um
29:47
if i can we'll go about five more
29:50
minutes and then we'll
29:51
do a whole bunch of q a but please go to
29:55
that
29:56
side and come to the mic um anybody that
29:59
wants to be lined up
30:00
actually in particular the point you
30:02
made is an example
30:04
of how a national
30:07
entity is different than a single
30:09
household right
30:10
income is not destroyed under a scheme
30:13
under which
30:15
mothers for example who stay home are
30:17
paid right
30:18
the income is still within the system
30:22
and this is one of the reasons why it's
30:24
the worst
30:25
possible metaphor to think from what is
30:28
life
30:29
like for me with my personal budget to
30:32
what a nation state is that has
30:34
a sovereign currency so here's a thought
30:37
experiment
30:40
it's um then our
30:43
early 1940s france has just been
30:46
defeated
30:48
the nazis are threatening to invade the
30:50
united kingdom
30:52
churchill's running the deficit should
30:54
churchill
30:55
surrender
30:59
we would all think that was crazy but
31:02
that is exactly the logic
31:04
that you get of well you can't
31:08
spend money to help poor people
31:12
well why not you have every capability
31:14
of doing so
31:15
the question is is it going to make your
31:17
society better off and the
31:20
answer in almost all cases is yes
31:22
remember i told you
31:24
the lost gdp in the united states over
31:27
the course
31:27
is 24.3 trillion dollars compare that
31:32
to the numbers you've heard it'll give
31:34
you some idea of perspective
31:36
that even these very large spending
31:38
programs
31:39
are actually tiny compared to
31:42
the cost of austerity the cost
31:46
in the united in the eu
31:50
because of austerity is
31:53
massively greater than 24.3 trillion
31:57
virtually every college graduate
32:01
in huge swaths of europe
32:04
italy spain course greece
32:08
but many other countries as soon as they
32:10
graduate
32:11
they leave the country because
32:14
youth unemployment is at or about 50
32:18
in each of the three nations that i've
32:20
talked about you want to talk about
32:22
investment for the future
32:25
you take your allegedly most productive
32:28
to be
32:29
folks with the university degrees and
32:32
you say
32:33
we don't want you go to some other
32:35
country
32:36
well that'll be good for growth down the
32:39
road
32:40
and all of this is with the rhetoric
32:44
that we're doing this for our children
32:46
we're
32:47
sending our kids into mass unemployment
32:50
to protect them
32:53
in any other sphere
32:56
any other academic field you'd be
32:58
laughed out of the academy
33:01
here you get a nobel prize
33:06
what is the greatest prize awarded by
33:08
the establishment
33:17
let me tell one one story and then i
33:19
know there's a long line of people but i
33:20
just want to drive this point home
33:22
about where's the money gonna come from
33:24
where's the money gonna come from that's
33:25
the big hurdle before you can get
33:27
anything on the progressive agenda
33:29
through how do you pay for where's the
33:31
money gonna come from
33:32
when the economy was hemorrhaging 800
33:34
000 jobs a month
33:36
right at the height of the great
33:38
recession
33:39
uh the deficit exploded absolutely
33:42
exploded why
33:43
because 800 000 people a month for
33:45
losing their jobs
33:46
losing their source of income meant that
33:49
tax revenues just fell off a cliff
33:51
people not working not earning an income
33:54
not paying income taxes right better
33:55
income taxes
33:56
meanwhile spending to support the
33:59
unemployed
34:00
automatically explodes why because
34:02
you're providing unemployment
34:03
compensation and food stamps and other
34:05
forms of
34:06
medicaid and other types of uh spending
34:08
right so the deficit blows up
34:10
ben bernanke goes on 60 minutes and he
34:12
sits down with scott pelley
34:14
and they're talking about all the
34:16
government has done to intervene
34:18
in the in the wake of the great
34:20
recession all of the money to bail out
34:22
wall street the deficit blowing up and
34:24
so forth
34:24
and he says is that taxpayer money
34:27
you're spending
34:28
taxpayer money now listen to what
34:30
bernanke says i'm going to quote him
34:32
it's not taxpayer money we simply use
34:36
the computer
34:37
to mark up the balance sheets in the
34:40
account
34:40
we simply use the computer to change the
34:43
numbers in the balance sheet so if we
34:45
need to lend money to goldman and aig
34:47
and whatever
34:48
we have a computer at the new york bed
34:50
and somebody types in some numbers and
34:52
all of a sudden
34:53
there's new money created as a
34:55
consequence of winning now shake your
34:57
head because it sounds
34:58
crazy only that's how all government
35:01
spending works
35:02
he's not saying we're trying this new
35:04
thing out and we're going to use the
35:06
computer
35:07
this is how modern money works we are
35:09
not on a gold standard
35:11
anymore this is how it all actually
35:13
works one more example because it's
35:15
empowering
35:16
and then i either return to bill where
35:18
we go to q a okay one more example
35:20
years ago green spanish chairman of the
35:22
federal reserve
35:23
alan greenspan is testifying before
35:26
congress
35:27
under oath as chairman of the fed and
35:30
he's posed a question
35:31
by congressman paul ryan and congressman
35:34
ryan is trying to get
35:36
social security partially privatized and
35:39
he wants alan greenspan he wants to tee
35:41
up a
35:42
nice softball pitch that greenspan can
35:44
just
35:45
knock out of the park so he asks
35:47
greenspan
35:48
to agree with him on the following so
35:51
ryan says
35:52
wouldn't you agree with me that now is
35:54
the time to begin to move towards a
35:56
system of
35:57
personal savings accounts that is code
35:59
for
36:00
privatizing social security shouldn't we
36:02
begin to move to a system of personal
36:03
savings accounts
36:04
because as we all know the system is
36:07
unsustainable it's going broke we're
36:09
going to have to make major changes so
36:10
forth and so on
36:12
and ryan ends the question and alan
36:15
greenspan
36:15
leans into the microphone and he
36:17
delivers
36:19
paul ryan's horse nightmare
36:22
and it was great and you can youtube and
36:24
he says
36:26
well i wouldn't say that social security
36:28
is
36:29
unsustainable as it's currently
36:32
configured
36:33
there's nothing to prevent the federal
36:35
government from creating as much money
36:37
as it wants
36:38
and paying it
36:45
and that's the part that should be
36:46
obvious but it is an obvious but that's
36:48
the part that should be obvious we can
36:50
always
36:51
mail the checks we got the we got the
36:53
printing press we can always make
36:55
it on every promise to every retiree
36:58
today
36:59
tomorrow and into the indefinite future
37:01
we can always do that
37:03
but then greenspan made the really
37:04
important point this is the point that
37:06
people in the community and the activist
37:09
organizations
37:10
need to understand here's what greenspan
37:12
then goes on to say
37:14
the question is how do you set up a
37:16
system
37:17
which ensures that the real assets are
37:20
created
37:21
that those benefits are employed to
37:24
purchase
37:24
it's a direct quote and it's greenspan
37:26
so i have to translate
37:28
so what he's saying is we know that we
37:31
have demographic changes taking place
37:34
the baby boomers are moving into
37:35
retirement
37:36
women are having fewer children they're
37:38
going to be fewer workers left behind
37:40
producing things that are going to be
37:43
needed by everyone in the economy so
37:46
greenspan says
37:47
how do you set up a system that ensures
37:49
the real assets are created that those
37:51
benefits are employed to purchase what
37:53
he's saying is
37:54
how can you make sure that we're going
37:55
to be productive enough
37:57
economy in the future to make sure that
38:00
when we send the checks out
38:02
as promised in whole without cuts that
38:05
there's enough stuff
38:07
for everybody to have some to consume
38:09
without generating inflationary
38:11
pressures without causing us all to
38:13
compete for a shrinking pool
38:15
of actual output and the way and that's
38:18
the right answer and that's the debate
38:20
that we should be having
38:21
we shouldn't be talking about whether we
38:23
can afford this and that
38:24
where are we going to find the money we
38:26
know that it's not about financial
38:27
affordability
38:28
the debate we should be having on the
38:30
social security side is what greenspan
38:32
is saying
38:33
what can we do today what can
38:35
policymakers do today
38:37
to help ensure that 10 years 15 years 25
38:40
years from now
38:41
the u.s economy is productive enough to
38:44
allow us to enjoy a rising standard of
38:47
living
38:47
to allow us to have everybody have a
38:50
better and better life going forward
38:51
when we know we're going to have fewer
38:53
workers in the workforce
38:54
and more retired people to care for what
38:57
are the investments that we can make
38:59
in our infrastructure in education in
39:02
research and development and technology
39:03
in all these what would you be doing
39:05
today
39:06
if you were trying to plan for an
39:08
economy
39:09
that you want and need to be more
39:11
productive
39:12
in the future and that's where the
39:14
debates should almost
39:15
always be focused on real resource use
39:18
on real constraints in the economy if
39:21
the but if the real resources are
39:23
available
39:24
the financial resources can always be
39:27
deployed
39:28
to achieve broader macroeconomic and
39:30
political and social
39:32
goals it's not about how are you going
39:33
to pay for it in financial terms
39:35
it's about how you're going to pay for
39:37
it in real terms do you have the people
39:39
do you have the raw materials do you
39:40
have a spare capacity if we want to do a
39:42
trillion dollars
39:43
of infrastructure investment we can have
39:45
the money
39:46
to pay for it do we have the skilled
39:48
labor do we have the capacity the excess
39:51
machine tools and so forth that we need
39:54
those are the constraints
39:56
in an economy in a modern era like the
39:58
united states government not the
40:00
financial constraints so
40:02
i just say
40:10
that when we're talking greenspan we're
40:12
talking literally and i'm rand
40:15
devotee an executor of her will
40:19
please come forward and in the usual
40:21
injunction you can see how many people
40:22
are in line
40:23
try to keep it free because before
40:46
manufacturing and i had the opportunity
40:48
to actually be in this building
40:50
trade show and all these amazing
40:52
automated technologies
40:53
um how do we deal with the possibility
40:56
that most manufacturers could be taken
40:58
away by automated technologies in the
40:59
future
41:00
and then we looked into the economics of
41:03
a guaranteed
41:08
okay let me partially review the
41:10
question so people who may not have
41:12
heard
41:12
uh his question is he has worked in
41:14
manufacturing and has a question about
41:17
uh the prospects of robots taking over
41:21
more and more of the work and have i
41:24
looked into the economics of a basic
41:26
income guarantee and the answer to the
41:29
last question is yes
41:30
and not as closely though as many of my
41:33
colleagues
41:34
at my university and some graduates of
41:35
our program but here's what i can tell
41:37
you
41:38
uh i think that i have
41:42
sympathy for basic income
41:45
with conditions and there are many
41:47
conditions okay
41:48
it is not a panacea and
41:51
the idea that we're just we've entered
41:54
or we are
41:54
entering an era in which nobody's going
41:57
to have to work because the machines
41:59
will do all the work
42:00
and we'll just mail checks to everybody
42:02
seems not plausible
42:04
to me the part that scares me about the
42:06
basic income guarantee
42:08
is this is a proposal that had support
42:11
from people like milton friedman chicago
42:13
school
42:14
many of the libertarians absolutely love
42:17
this idea
42:17
because then some of my libertarian
42:20
friends people that i've known for a
42:21
long time love this idea why
42:23
because it you just uh
42:26
send somebody a check and then it's all
42:28
up to them how they want to live their
42:29
lives but guess what else you do
42:32
you take away all the other programs so
42:34
the the thing is sold
42:36
almost always as a replacement for
42:38
virtually
42:39
every other form of security of welfare
42:43
of guarantees of programs that are
42:46
designed to help people be unemployed
42:48
and be impoverished and so forth and so
42:50
what if somebody came up to you and said
42:51
i'll mail you a check for 15 000 a year
42:54
for 25 000 a year every year on the 1st
42:57
of january you're going to get a check
42:58
in the mail
42:59
uh no more health care you know there's
43:01
no medicaid there's no medicare there's
43:03
no social security
43:05
there's no unemployment compensation
43:06
there are no food stamps there are
43:08
there's no
43:09
income tax right there all that stuff
43:10
goes away right
43:12
all of it's gone but you're going to get
43:13
a check for 25 000 or so the first of
43:16
the first of january and you'll be good
43:19
so you've given up programs that took
43:22
decades
43:23
or in some cases longer uh
43:26
more like a century to put in place and
43:28
to protect and to build on over time but
43:30
you sacrifice
43:31
all of them they're all gone on the
43:33
promise that you're going to get your
43:35
one check
43:35
and everybody gets it that's the other
43:37
thing it's universal
43:39
which means what poor people get their
43:41
check
43:42
they pay for the the cheapest medicaid
43:45
or the
43:45
cheapest health care that they can
43:46
possibly find they pay for education
43:49
they
43:49
pay for their housing or whatever and
43:51
then they have nothing left so they've
43:52
consumed their entire check
43:54
the wealthy get their check and do what
43:56
buy more apple stock
43:57
so what do you suppose happens to wealth
43:59
inequality
44:00
as a consequence i think it gets
44:04
way way
44:11
and i'll just channel my wife's work
44:13
june carbone is an expert on the family
44:16
men in particular get vastly worse
44:20
when they don't work because they
44:22
actually contribute
44:23
less household work when they are
44:27
completely unemployed than when they're
44:29
working
44:30
60-hour cards so i think for a very long
44:34
time
44:34
humans are going to very much need
44:38
jobs so we are oriented towards job
44:41
guarantee
44:41
programs as opposed to basic income
44:44
programs
44:45
thank you
44:56
when i was campaigning for bernie rarely
44:59
but occasionally the socialist issue
45:01
would come up
45:02
and what i would say to people is that
45:06
let's be honest all of the wealthy
45:08
democratic
45:09
successful countries in the world are a
45:12
mixture of capitalism and socialism
45:15
the only question is what is the mix and
45:18
how is it structured
45:20
what i would like to ask you is if you
45:23
could
45:23
comment about the economic benefits
45:28
since we're on that spectrum toward the
45:30
capitalist end
45:31
as everyone knows um if you could
45:34
comment
45:35
on the economic benefits
45:38
broadly speaking to lessening the
45:41
wealth and income inequality putting
45:44
more hands in
45:46
more money in the hands in the pockets
45:48
of people
45:49
who will spend it and generate economic
45:51
activity
45:54
all right i'm going to leave that macro
45:56
part of the question
45:57
to stephanie to answer but i'll answer
46:01
a different aspect of it and that is
46:03
what's really driving
46:05
inequalities in large part compensation
46:08
systems
46:09
and the compensation systems yes they
46:12
cause inequality
46:13
but as i showed in the examples
46:17
these are the real drivers of fraud
46:20
as well and that fraud think of the 24.3
46:24
billion
46:25
trillion excuse me costs those are
46:29
unbelievably large costs to a system so
46:32
you're
46:32
you're correct we've gotten enormously
46:35
out of whack
46:36
we've swung very much toward chicago
46:38
school
46:39
policies and the results have been
46:42
crippling
46:44
and they far exceed the resultant
46:47
income and wealth inequality
46:50
they're actually destroying wealth it's
46:52
not simply they're redistributing the
46:54
pie
46:54
unfairly they are now shrinking
46:57
the pie and they're shrinking it a lot
47:04
i'll just say on the inequality and the
47:09
kind of mixed system democratic
47:12
socialism
47:13
uh rewarding countries or something like
47:15
that look
47:16
keynes this is writing a long time ago
47:18
right kings
47:19
uh against his general theory in the
47:21
last chapter the general theory the
47:23
first voting sentence
47:24
he says the two greatest failures
47:28
of the modern system is not about
47:30
capitalism
47:31
are it's failure to provide for full
47:34
employment
47:35
and it's arbitrary and unjust
47:37
distribution of income
47:39
those two things are related to what
47:42
they
47:42
as you allow income to get more and more
47:45
unequally distributed
47:46
and until a couple of years ago it was
47:49
the case that
47:50
senator sanders had a talking point and
47:52
that was that
47:54
99 of all the new income was going to
47:57
the top one percent
47:58
okay then a year passed and it became 58
48:01
in the recovery since the economy began
48:04
to recover 58
48:05
going to one percent well that's still
48:07
clearly vast
48:08
inequality right what happens when
48:10
you're shoveling wheelbarrows
48:12
full effect metaphorically of cash
48:15
to the very very top to the top how what
48:18
is the marginal propensity to consume
48:20
for people in the top 1 how much uh how
48:23
much
48:24
consumption have they put off when the
48:26
refrigerator goes broken
48:28
or the car needs a repair you know these
48:30
these folks are
48:31
not withholding any kind of consumption
48:34
because they don't have the money to do
48:35
it
48:35
giving them an extra little bit of money
48:37
isn't going to generate
48:39
economic kind of aggregate demand
48:43
but when you redistribute in favor of
48:46
the 99 that will spend virtually
48:49
everything
48:50
and that lot of 90 to spend almost
48:52
everything you're going to get uh
48:54
better economic performance less
48:56
inequality means higher demand means
48:58
higher employment means
49:00
all kinds benefits and that's what the
49:03
nordic countries do
49:04
better with their tax system is they
49:06
keep now there are problems emerging but
49:08
they do keep a better
49:09
handle on inequality through the taxes
49:20
uh so i fear that i may know the answer
49:22
to my own question
49:23
i think you might have touched on it
49:24
briefly based on my own research
49:27
should i completely altering
49:30
fundamentally our economic structure
49:32
and the system my question is this given
49:35
given that the federal reserve is a dual
49:38
dichotomic
49:39
entity in the sense that they print
49:40
basically monopoly money
49:42
that they can print their will and the
49:45
fact that they've loaned it out to the
49:46
government
49:46
at interest who then charge us
49:51
i believe they charge us a certain like
49:53
basically we pay our taxes so
49:55
essentially my question is how do we
49:57
ever
49:59
compensate the deficit if the free
50:02
fake money is being loaned out to the
50:05
government at interest
50:06
that we can never pay back
50:10
okay um so we do
50:13
we do uh we paid it back once and we
50:16
let's talk about this because this is
50:18
this is a good kind of way to segue into
50:21
this
50:21
have we ever paid off the national debt
50:24
in this country the answer is yes
50:26
when did we do it 1835 1835 who was
50:29
president
50:31
how did it go
50:45
very good a student a students usually
50:48
sit in the front row
50:50
big way back that's exactly right way to
50:53
history we did pay off the national debt
50:55
once and it was absolutely catastrophic
50:57
are there other occasions in which we
50:59
ran large surpluses there
51:01
are other
51:04
some people some democrats
51:07
think of the clinton surpluses as a
51:10
badge of honor a sign a mark of fiscal
51:14
responsibility why if only we could go
51:16
back to the good old days of the clinton
51:18
budget surpluses when we were showing
51:20
the world that we as a party
51:22
knew how to behave responsibly
51:26
we ran those budget surpluses look
51:28
there's
51:29
all kinds of material out there dean
51:30
baker if you google dean baker
51:33
clinton and santa claus you'll get a
51:34
terrific class
51:36
do that and read that piece i've written
51:38
about this as well
51:39
what does a surplus mean it means that
51:42
the government is going like this
51:44
more than it's going like this that's
51:47
what a surplus means
51:48
they collect 100 billion and they only
51:51
put 90 billion back into the economy now
51:53
the government is running a surplus well
51:55
the rest of the economy is in
51:59
good because that's how balance sheets
52:01
work the rest of the economy is in
52:02
deficit now watch me do the reverse
52:04
i'm government i'm going to run a
52:06
deficit this time i'm going to put more
52:08
in
52:09
100 billion than i'm going to tax out 90
52:12
i have a deficit of 10 billion where did
52:16
the 10 go
52:19
it went into the rest of the economy
52:22
into the non-government part of the
52:23
economy my
52:24
deficit spending produced a surplus
52:27
somewhere else
52:28
in the economy this doesn't happen
52:30
sometimes
52:31
it doesn't happen maybe it happens
52:33
always and everywhere
52:35
and to the penny government surpluses
52:37
are the
52:38
deficits are the accounting record
52:41
of surpluses in some other part of the
52:43
economy and if your
52:44
goal is to kill the government deficit
52:47
i tell you my friends you have set an
52:49
agenda for yourself which is
52:50
killing surpluses in the rest of the
52:52
economy but nobody tells you that
52:55
nobody tells you that they've convinced
52:57
us that in order to demonstrate
52:59
fiscal responsibility we must do what
53:03
balance the budget or better yet
53:07
have a surplus so this is again where we
53:09
come to the difference between
53:12
the sort of economists who are
53:15
the deficit hawks who would tell you
53:17
that we should have constitutional
53:19
amendments to all this and everywhere
53:21
balance the budget go back to the gold
53:22
standard so and so forth
53:24
and the more forgiving economists the
53:26
deficit dubs who say
53:28
well sometimes even though it's
53:30
unpleasant you know
53:31
budget deficit is the right thing to do
53:34
you run those when the economy is weak
53:35
and then as the economy
53:37
begins to recover you move toward
53:40
austerity
53:41
because that's what they're telling you
53:43
this is this is consistent with what
53:45
krugman has written in his columns
53:47
deficits in weak economies surpluses
53:50
as the economy improves site over the
53:53
course of the business cycle you balance
53:54
your budget right you better
53:56
budget over the course of the cycle this
53:58
is not the proper goal
54:00
for macro policy you balance the economy
54:03
if you set the agenda to force the
54:06
economy to balance the budget
54:08
you get situations like greece greece
54:10
finally achieved a primary budget
54:12
surplus
54:13
they didn't anybody want to drink places
54:16
nobody would want to do that because
54:18
they forced their economy
54:19
to push the budget into balance instead
54:21
of allowing the budget to balance the
54:23
broader economy
54:25
and we've run significant surpluses how
54:27
many times in our history
54:35
we heard we understand your question
54:38
yeah
54:38
actually it was the federal reserve is
54:42
not the problem
54:43
the fed is another problem uh i just
54:46
want to suggest first off to everyone to
54:48
check out the bill black report on the
54:50
real news network it's really great
54:53
um the depression and
54:56
the financial crisis both arose out of
54:58
real estate speculation
55:00
as people seek to monopolize the value
55:03
of the earth
55:04
for themselves people have no access to
55:06
the bounty of the earth
55:08
so we're left competing with each other
55:09
by selling our wages
55:11
in scotland today there's a very strong
55:14
movement for land justice
55:16
i know that these movements exist in
55:18
australia
55:19
as well um is there space in the
55:22
progressive movement
55:23
for a system which returns the wealth of
55:27
the earth
55:27
to all of its inhabitants through the
55:29
implementation of
55:30
land value a taxation answer is yes
55:35
it's a serious uh proposal the economics
55:38
always had substantial support i i won't
55:42
go through the technical
55:43
aspects of but the whole concept of
55:45
economic rent
55:46
is is really what you're getting at
55:50
so yes
56:10
michigan and i'm through mission united
56:14
we love you
56:27
more than ever our governor
56:31
has implemented a emergency manager
56:34
which comes in and guts
56:37
everything takes away our emergency
56:41
rights
56:42
and our ability to hold the government
56:45
accountable right now this
56:47
city council and so i was
56:50
just wondering if you could explain um
56:54
how everything that is good that i've
56:56
heard you
56:57
speak about how do you get past an
57:01
emergency manager
57:03
approval because actually there's a lot
57:06
of governors
57:07
in a lot of states that are getting
57:09
ready to copy
57:11
snyder's emergency manager which takes
57:14
away
57:14
all the democracy rights that any united
57:18
states america
57:24
has
57:30
so i was born in detroit and grew up in
57:32
dearborn
57:33
and this is something very close to our
57:36
hearts it isn't
57:38
just that they've done this but they've
57:40
done this
57:41
uh essentially to every city
57:44
uh in detroit not in michigan of any
57:47
size
57:47
that has a black majority population
57:51
uh as well so it's it's racialized so
57:54
first technical answer states are
57:57
not sovereign nations they don't have
58:00
their own currencies
58:01
states do have to balance their budgets
58:05
by and large but that's why
58:08
the stimulus bill had a significant
58:11
revenue sharing component now it should
58:13
have been much larger
58:15
but what killed it it was a
58:18
coalition of the republicans and the
58:21
blue dog democrats the new
58:24
you know new democrats who got together
58:27
to destroy that and that again this is
58:30
stephanie's point these are self-imposed
58:34
constraints coming
58:36
in large part of the democratic party as
58:39
to what establishes supposedly
58:41
serious reasonable people
58:45
and they have enormous consequences
58:47
we've been focusing on the economics
58:50
but people die that's right people
58:53
end up with children
58:58
yes my stepfather died of
59:01
miso from
59:06
it's very personal with me as well
59:09
and this is our point we can do things
59:13
about all of these
59:15
we have the capacity as a nation
59:18
but we have checked our will because of
59:21
this
59:22
ideological construct that has no basis
59:26
in real economics
59:28
so the line is and i mean no
59:31
racial component with this that you know
59:34
the way you enslave people is but to get
59:36
them to put on the chains themselves
59:39
and that's what an economics program is
59:44
your kids or you yourself were carefully
59:48
trained
59:49
and taught that you couldn't really do
59:52
much of anything
59:54
and that is a complete lie
59:57
and lies have consequences yes
60:01
thank you um professor calvin you have
60:04
enlightened us that we are a nation
60:08
in its own currency so
60:11
um can you um equip us the audience
60:15
as we go forth and spread the good
60:18
word about regarding congress just
60:22
being a matter of authorizing the
60:24
spending for programs such as large
60:26
infrastructure
投稿者 時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿

登録: コメントの投稿 (Atom)