Question

TRANSCRIBE : When it comes to the more bigger macro issues, what we've learned thanks to things, some things I think we suspected, but but I now much more confirmed is that there are huge differences in priorities perceptions between the the small wealthy minority and the population at large in the now seen in the last four days, I think for different articles that that used f Scott Fitzgerald. So yes, the very rich are different from you and me. You see that very clearly on on a couple of big issues. One of them is his taxes. The polling overwhelmingly says that that people believe that the rich don't pay enough in taxes and the taxes on top incomes and corporations should go up. And yet an enduring piece of the political agenda has been to cut top tax rates. When, when, when Bowles Simpson produced their initial draft PowerPoint, cutting marginal tax rates was right at the top of the agenda, and what was that doing in a document that was allegedly about fiscal responsibility on the social safety net, the public wants to spend more on social security and on health care, but we know from these very difficult to conduct by illuminating surveys that the point 0.1% is wants to cut taxes at the top, not surprisingly and wants to cut spending on entitlement programs diametrically opposed to public opinion at large, the web what you see of course is that to a remarkable extent the policy agenda set in Washington reflects the preferences not of the general public, but this very small wealthy minority. And sometimes that has extremely, not just kind of unfair consequences but extremely deleterious consequences for the conduct of of economic policy. So the. The Case in point, that were some of my thing interests come together with all of this is, how did we deal with the aftermath of the great financial crisis. For the first few months we had a more or less a response that was at least in the right direction fiscal stimulus monetary easing, then a weird thing happened, somehow, even though unemployment was still above 9%, everyone inside the beltway was talking about the great threat posed by budget deficits and the urgency of entitlement reform, and this was not, I'd like to say it was debate, but it didn't even feel like a debate, it felt, you can actually document this to a remarkable extent both the political establishment and the and the media, simply stated as facts that this was what had to be done. So there was a great article by Ezra Klein at the time about the trouble with Alan Simpson, where he quoted various reporters who would ask, so will President Obama do the right thing. These were not opinion writers these were supposedly reporters and the right thing meant cutting social security and medicare. It simply became defined as this was the responsible the right thing to do. The so what happened. What happened very clearly, was that, oh I'm sorry I should say that it was also very clear that this was not the right thing. If there was, if there was one mean the peculiar thing about the aftermath. Nobody really saw the financial crisis coming except for, except for people who saw five other crises coming that didn't happen. Right. But once it happened. The, we all understood hadn't quite realized just how much havoc the bursting housing bubble would wreak with hadn't realized how much shadow banking had restored.

Answer 1

Answer:

hey you......

Explanation:

what is this question