Interview with one of the world's most recognizable economists, Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008, a doctorate in economics and international relations from Princeton Institute Paul Krugman.
Paul Krugman, representing the Keynesian school of economic thought, has received widespread public prominence own harsh criticism of the neo-liberal policies pursued by the government of George W. Bush. Krugman has become a kind of "liberal icon of style" in resisting the limited economic thought. In 2008, the Nobel committee awarded the prize to Paul Krugman on the economy, noting such Makar, not only his achievements in the field of economic geography, but will encourage existed at that time progressivist trend. But politics in the style of Keynes was not implemented in the U.S. in recent Democratic administration, and Krugman are increasingly stands in opposition to Barack Obama. What's all the same premise of this opposition? Sovereign Krugman explained his position correspondent portal Terra America.
— Pochetaemy sovereign Krugman than you can explain to the dominance of right-wing ideology in the United States after the 2008 crisis? Why all the candidates seem to be occurring more right? What is this likely candidate?
One of the main reasons for the triumph of right-wing ideology in the United States is that Barack Obama from the very beginning of his own presidency, spent very little reform policies of the U.S. economy, presenting it as a large-scale. Here and there was a failure of perception. Obama has advertised its policy as ambitious. And Americans now think that this policy has failed completely, that the reconstruction of the economy on the optimal basis is problematic. Although at the outset it was possible to predict that what Obama did, is not enough. That's what I say — but no one wanted to hear it. Then Obama began to resort to the rhetoric of the Right. It turns out that we both have a liberal president who, but said the need to reduce costs. Someone holds a different view on how a similar reduction and the truth must, for example, I either Joseph Stiglitz, but we do not participate in the political process. At this point, we are in fact the case, we have in the United States and the center-right administration of the very right-wing opposition. And for a different kind of thinking is no place for.
— Can we say that the most powerful military-industrial complex and militarism are the foundations for economic growth? When Roosevelt finally overcoming depression came majestically through the orders of the Army during the war. Does this mean that the U.S. withdrawal from the current crisis to America's role in large-scale armed conflict?
The most important thing — a large scale increment municipal expenditures. In practice, this usually happens when there is a war. We really are at war, but if evaluate it in currency signs, it is a small war. For economic recovery of the war itself is not enough. You need something bigger and more impressive. I at one point joked in this joke has some truth: if politicians to assure that we get any intruders from outer space and force politicians to invest in the creation of the necessary for the defense of strangers infrastructure and tools, it will give a great impetus to the economy. And if later we utter that no intruders, and was not, then everything will be in order — economy-it will recover! But even better, of course, it would be izderzhat funds for road repair and construction of transit systems, but such an option at this point is not considered. The problem is that this will have on America's leading real time people do not have a simple political will.
— How could you describe the current economic policies of Barack Obama's team? This kind of strategic thinking about policy or else following the accident?
At first, they made several strategic decisions, but, unfortunately, these measures have proved inadequate in part because of political constraints. In this step, they just react to what is happening. This is partly justified by the fact that under the existing system in the United States they do not have any chance of holding any progressive legislation. So Makarov, their capacity is limited small measures on the edge of the political field. This causes depression. It is clear now that they do not have a holistic view of the crisis. And the worst thing is that they no longer understand what has changed would be if it came from them.