Bipartisan Economists and Saving the Economy

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and member of the Bush administration's economic team, and Peter NavarroCNBC contributor and business professor at UC Irvine, discuss their new book Seeds of Destruction: Why the Path to Economic Ruin Runs Through Washington, and How to Reclaim American Prosperity, in which they offer their views on saving the economy.


Glenn Hubbard and Peter Navarro

Comments [24]


No opposing views were presented. Hubbard and Navarro don't acknowledge that Obama's spending was in response to an immediate financial crisis which the long term reform they're talking about wouldn't a thing to fix. And is proposing to extend the Bush tax cuts supposed to be something new? Wake up guys, it's yesterday's soup and it didn't work too well. Republicans sure have an easy time blaming Obama for the crisis that others caused and was left to him to fix. And someone should mention that Republicans just talk about shrinking deficits and the size of government but do the opposite. The hard data shows Reagan and the two Bushes engaged in profligate spending and ran up deficits far more than any Democrat - whether or not there was an emergency.

Nov. 10 2010 05:36 PM
amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

There are certainly not only two solutions to balancing the budget. Smarter government means that we still must help provide support for the most precarious but reform certain systems for the 21st Century.

The Obama admin. is and will be dealing with the deficit (and debt) because structural reform is necessary. Basing economics and fiscal/governmental matters strictly on ideology, and one that leaves behind those with less, are sure to fail, an ideological position that Hubbard and Navarro seem to be advocating advocating.

By the way, even as countries like the UK, France, and Greece cut back drastically on their respective budgets, each of those still provide more for their populace than the US does without resorting to those measures. Any comparison that doesn't recognize that fact in the current round of European austerity is obfuscating the matter.

Nov. 10 2010 04:22 PM
Louis from New Jersey

Did Hubbard & Navarro ever study the Great Depression? There are always long term economic structural problems. They tell us to ignore the immediate short term problem caused by the collapse of the credit markets that decimated demand. Obama's job was to avoid another Depression -- not let the house burn down. People are losing jobs, their homes and businesses are closing - not because our economy suddenly isn't worth dime but because of a financial speculative crisis that caused a classic economic problem all economists should be familiar with. We need keep people working to maintain demand until confidence is restored and they economy starts growing. That's why Obama is spending -- not out of the goodness of his heart -- but to keep the house from burning down What about the short term problem guys? Ignore it? This is more reckless Republican vodoo supply side stuff that got here and decimated the engine of demand -- the middle class.

Nov. 10 2010 12:03 PM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

Hoosier in NYC from NYC, you got it!!!
Brian has always played the old Centrist shtick.
The no man's land where all politics goes to die.

Nov. 10 2010 11:56 AM
Marcos from The Boogie Down Bronx

Dear Brian,

I'm really disappointed I didn't hear you translate certain terms and confront the guests on this:

Cutting tax burdens on Capital=Tax cuts and government welfare/subsidies for the rich

Increasing Taxes on Consumption= Transfering even more of the tax burden onto poor and working people. Poor and working people end up spending most of what they make, mainly to survive.

This is real everyday class warfare. Dressed up in a warm fuzzy psuedo scientific bi-partisan consensus. It's nice to see members of the ruling class getting along so well with each other. To bad it's gonna hurt most of us so much.

Nov. 10 2010 11:39 AM

'Bipartisan" has no meaning after listening to Hubbard & Navarro. These 2 yahoos just want to continue to destroy the US economy.

We needs jobs, manufacturing, green jobs, infrastructure upgrades & repair, etc.

Their conflicts of interest and parroting the false "deficit" trope when jobs generate sales, jobs, sales taxes, payroll taxes & move local, state & Federal deficits down due to increased revenues.

These 2 needed tight fact-checking & a much higher rebuttal to their BS.

Nov. 10 2010 11:38 AM

With economic Talibans like that setting the US agenda I think the Chinese can sleep easy.

Nov. 10 2010 11:31 AM
John from Fanwood

Nobody is mentioning the Reagan premise of Starve the Beast. I believe the Republicans finally see that they can achieve the goal of bankrupting the government by cutting revenue at the same time they spend heavily. The Reagan era goal was to have no money left for social programs they saw as the true evil. We heard so much about socialism and communism during the 2010 campaign, but Democrats were too frightened to mention this. It’s quite sinister in my opinion, and the R’s are playing with economic dynamite!

Nov. 10 2010 11:31 AM

Are you kidding?? We are certainly "eating their (Japan's) lunch" in terms of innovations.

Nov. 10 2010 11:29 AM
Jose from Queens

I certainly hope that you are planning on bringing in some more sensible views to balance out these two conservative hacks..!

Nov. 10 2010 11:28 AM

Bob, exactly. I also have a huge issue with conservatives' emphasis on, "hope" as in, "reward the wealthy in the hope that they create jobs" (and haven't we seen what they do with their benefits?). I wish someone would send me presents me based on potential behavior!

How about rewarding based on actual, proven behavior? For instance, eliminate benefits and incentives for companies that outsource.

Nov. 10 2010 11:26 AM
Hoosier in NYC from NYC

Brian, why don't you get someone who can or is willing to have a real debate with these guys? When a caller challenges them, you attack the caller. If they are so great, why do you need to carry their water? I suggest you bring in another real economist, like Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz instead of just feeding them soft questions and defending what they say? I can listen to Fox without paying any membership dues whenever I want

Nov. 10 2010 11:26 AM
The Truth from Becky

What do you mean he is now more "open" to it all? All the President has done was extend his hand for biparitsanship and it has been bitten off - sounds like you are saying now he is being a good *fill in the blank* Why does he have to bow to the repubs to get along with them? Get outta here!

Nov. 10 2010 11:24 AM
TPK from NJ

Why don't you ask the Dean, Glenn Hubbard about his starring role in the recent movie 'Inside Job' in which his career as an economist is questioned quite explicitly.

Nov. 10 2010 11:24 AM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

These guys are talking about cutting entitlement spending but never military spending, which is now about 702 billion dollars per year. Anything new here from these good old conservatives?

Nov. 10 2010 11:24 AM

How can Mr. Hubbard comment on the Bush economic policies and not mention Iraq?

Nov. 10 2010 11:19 AM

same old, same old conservative economics we've heard for the last thirty years and it has not worked......why don't the guests comment on the one trillion dollars we've spent on Mr. Bush's wars. Where would we be if we still had that money?????

Nov. 10 2010 11:19 AM
bob from huntington

what about re-distribution of wealth?

do we continue to restore an economy that continues to disproportionately reward the wealthiest?

Nov. 10 2010 11:19 AM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

These guys are presenting the same old same old conservative economic notions.

Nov. 10 2010 11:17 AM
Mike from BK

Conservatives state that we need less regulation, in all sectors of the economy. The conservatives always stress "free market" and "the invisible hand". It just boggles my mind. under Bush we de-regulated the economy in finance, healthcare, energy, free trade just to name a few. So lets look at this de-regulation

1. Finance - Worst housing market - EVER. We came very very close to a depression. If it weren't for the bailouts, we may all be unemployed right now.
2. Healthcare - We allowed the "free market" to get "fair prices" for prescription drugs and as a result, we pay way higher prices than Canada, UK, France, Mexico, Cuba etc.... for the same drugs. I did not even mention the fact that we pay almost double for the same healthcare than other Western countries.
3. Energy- Under Bush, oil was around $150 a barrel of oil. This issue really kills me. If Jimmy Carter were reelected in 1980, his energy regulation standards would probably have led to oil prices to be around $40 a barrel right now. Everyone who complains about energy standards will only hurt their pocketbook in the future. Why can't people see this.
4. Free Trade- More jobs are created.....Overseas.

Why do people believe in tricks down economics? The theory goes, you give the rich more cash and they reinvest the money to create jobs, that's why we need to give them tax breaks (top 2%). So if this is the case, why are corporations sitting on tons of cash (Financial Times yesterday) and not reinvesting it to create jobs? They won't, they will just keep it for themselves and not create a single job.

Nov. 10 2010 11:16 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

All of these fiscal and monetary tricks are not going to work this time. It is not the government that has to shrink, but the standard of living of the American people that has to shrink back to what it was in the '50s, before suburbanization kicked and America went on an overconsumption binge.
But no politician will tell the American people the truth, that they live at an unsustainable level based on growing debt. What America has to do is to cut energy consumption in half, and double the output of well trained, technically trained workers.

Nov. 10 2010 11:15 AM
Shan J. from New York

Hi Brian,

Please ask Mr. Hubbard about his testimony in the new documentary, "Inside Job." It seems to portray him as financially inept while in government and rife with financial conflicts of interest with Wall Street.

Nov. 10 2010 11:15 AM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

Right now the Federal Reserve owns more US treasury bonds then anybody.

Nov. 10 2010 11:12 AM
Henry from Katonah

Glenn Hubbard was an economic advisor to which Bush administration? If you mean George H.W. Bush, I will hear him out.
If he was with the most recent Bush administration (2001 - 2009) , he should be apoligizing, not expressing his opinions.

Nov. 10 2010 11:12 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.