Discussion in 'Economy' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Oct 25, 2010.
My guess is that Krugman will simply ignore this.
I don't really see what's the point in debating guy that has been consistently wrong....
I do like to see it, but economic debates are only fun if peter schiff (BTW he has new radio show at 6 PM eastern time at schiffradio.com - weekdays) is there. I think the debate will be pretty bland.
But I hope he accepts it anyway. Though I doubt it. Where should we tune in to watch it / see if he accepts?
I don't really know much about this, but Murphy seems to be like some sort of austrian heavy weight.
Krugman accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen in the United States. And seriously..I don't see anything constructive about debating someone so opposed to your belief system if all they want as an outcome is to discredit you.
And that, lately, is pretty easy to do. Its part of the "So when did you stop beating your wife" debate mentality.
The point in debating him is because despite being consistently wrong he's still held up as one of the best economists in the country.
Peter Schiff makes them fun because Schiff is so confrontational, and a debate between Schiff and Krugman would certainly be interesting. I don't know whether Murphy is a better choice than Schiff, but I'm not concerned either way.
I think the logistics would be decided only after Krugman accepts, because there's no point in putting it all together if he never accepts.
Umm... no, he didn't. Unless you count his articles calling for the Fed to create a housing bubble to get us out of the Dot-Com bust as predicting what would happen. But even then he thought the housing bubble would be a good thing, which it obviously was not. The Austrian school, however, did predict what would happen.
Isn't the purpose of a debate to discredit your opponent and convince people that you're correct and they're wrong?
Krugman can't let his advocacy of a housing bubble from the early 2000s be brought up again. Also his Nobel Memorial was for showing the interactions of 2 ideas from Ricardo and 1 from Smith so that is something he doesn't want to defend either.
His prize was given for a much simpler way of looking at comparative advantage and how it compounds through economies of scale and scope. However since no billion dollar businesses can be shown to have grown out of his idea his intellectual stock is in freefall. The Memorial prize is an economics prize and significant economic returns to somebody or better yet everybody should result from the discovery and that not happening ranks right up there with the collapse of Long Term Capital Management with two Memorial prize recipients as part of the company. The Memorial committee is not especially proud of Krugman.
Krugman: wrong in the Trillions column but still has a Noble Prize.
I have to thank Obama and the Democrats for once and for all showing Keynesian economics to be an Epic Fail
The Stimulus failed because it wasn't big enough. Sure it was bigger than the entire US Federal budget until 1983, but it's just wasn't big enough
The same with Japan's Lost Decade according to Krugman. If only they had spent more during that decade of stimulus spending.
I guess a $1.3 TRILLION deficit isn't big enough either. You probably need a deficit about $6 or 8 trillion to start moving unemployment
Separate names with a comma.