Lex, your approach is excellent in that you let the interviewee express themself without any undue pressure and you ask probing questions.    Krugman I feel doesn't do enough rigorous analysis on some of his assertions, such as those on wealth inequality and safety nets.   <br><br>The common notion of wealth inequality is that it is detrimental to a healthy economy especially if the imbalances are large.   This perspective as applied to a largely free economy.<br>Where I find Krugman falling short is his one-sided characterization of immense wealth as a negative.    Amazon is a perfect example.   The company and it's founder are extremely wealthy because they returned a value measurable in dollars that far exceeds the companies profits or wealth of Jeff Bezos.   The same applies to Walmart.   To wit.   The Walmart family is worth somewhere around a hundred billion dollars.    The savings they pass on to consumers?  Trillions.   Yet that calculation is never made, the focus is mostly on the "negatives".   Amazon not only saves consumers money but also vast amounts of time and their incredibly innovative delivery system puts every other company to shame, the USPS, UPS and Fedex to mention a few.       <br><br>One negative ascribed to Amazon, the pace of work at the warehouses, and the salaries of those who work in them.   Not mentioned, many of these workers have very limited skills, addiction issues and are often irregular in their work habits.    Naturally, they are the most prone to complain about their own lack of success as being the fault of some "other".   Yet countless people with little education do very well if they stay positive, focus on improvements and defer gratification.    How many high school students who goofed around in school suddenly grew up in their mid-twenties to early thirties, got a college education, and elevated themselves?   Happens all the time, from earning $12 an hour to $50-$250 an hour.,(reply>), I was scrolling through the comments to see if there was anyone commenting something about the interview's content, finally found your comment. And I have to agree. I think this interview lacks depth. 1 hour for such controversial topics? Some of Krugman's justifications are either left unjustified or pitched as a truth, yet I think most of his assertions are very debatable or quite false (like the fact the 2008 crisis and the Government's intervention didn't bring inflation... or that safety net programs for health and/or education are better than the market taking care of those). I dunno. I try not to be biased, but I always find it so hard to agree with these sort of people. I think they usually end up defending the interests of politicians...