Will Paul Krugman be Shamed Into Debating an Austrian Economics Wunderkind?

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
Libertarians frustrated by what they view as the lack of engagement by arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman with their arguments have come up with a clever ploy: they're promising to donate $100,000 to the Fresh Food Program of FoodBankNYC.org if Krugman will debate one of their stars.

The idea is meant to bribe and shame Krugman into debating Robert Murphy, an economist trained in the Austrian school of economics.

Basically, if Krugman refuses to debate Murphy, it will be tantamount to depriving the FoodBank of $100,000. What good liberal would want that on his conscience?

News Headlines

My guess is that Krugman will simply ignore this.
 
Libertarians frustrated by what they view as the lack of engagement by arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman with their arguments have come up with a clever ploy: they're promising to donate $100,000 to the Fresh Food Program of FoodBankNYC.org if Krugman will debate one of their stars.

The idea is meant to bribe and shame Krugman into debating Robert Murphy, an economist trained in the Austrian school of economics.

Basically, if Krugman refuses to debate Murphy, it will be tantamount to depriving the FoodBank of $100,000. What good liberal would want that on his conscience?

News Headlines

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.
 
Libertarians frustrated by what they view as the lack of engagement by arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman with their arguments have come up with a clever ploy: they're promising to donate $100,000 to the Fresh Food Program of FoodBankNYC.org if Krugman will debate one of their stars.

The idea is meant to bribe and shame Krugman into debating Robert Murphy, an economist trained in the Austrian school of economics.

Basically, if Krugman refuses to debate Murphy, it will be tantamount to depriving the FoodBank of $100,000. What good liberal would want that on his conscience?

News Headlines

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

Priceless.

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 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.
 
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
 
Krugman accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen in the United States.

I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.
 
Stimulus should have been um $3 Trillion, maybe $4 trillion, yeah that sounds well maybe its a little light...hmmm maybe a $5 trillion stimulus would have really stimulated thing?

Paul?

Krugman?

$5 Trillion?

$6 Trillion?
 
Stimulus should have been um $3 Trillion, maybe $4 trillion, yeah that sounds well maybe its a little light...hmmm maybe a $5 trillion stimulus would have really stimulated thing?

Paul?

Krugman?

$5 Trillion?

$6 Trillion?

Scrap murphy... We need CrusaderFrank to debate krugman :eusa_pray: You understand the science of debating economics :lol:
 
Stimulus should have been um $3 Trillion, maybe $4 trillion, yeah that sounds well maybe its a little light...hmmm maybe a $5 trillion stimulus would have really stimulated thing?

Paul?

Krugman?

$5 Trillion?

$6 Trillion?

Why are you being such a cheap bastard?

Fucking go all out. Nothing less than 10 tril.

We could give ever citizen $30,000 with that. That would solve everyone's problems.

Imagine how much stuff everyone could buy with all of that money.
 
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.

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?

No..not always.
 
Krugman accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen in the United States.

I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.

Nonsense.

And this here is why there's no reason for Krugman to "debate" anyone. If all it's going to be is about terrorial pissing..it's not worth the time.
 
Krugman accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen in the United States.

I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.

Nonsense.

And this here is why there's no reason for Krugman to "debate" anyone. If all it's going to be is about terrorial pissing..it's not worth the time.

Translation: "I have no proof." :clap2:
 
Krugman accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen in the United States.

I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.

Nonsense.

And this here is why there's no reason for Krugman to "debate" anyone. If all it's going to be is about terrorial pissing..it's not worth the time.

Asking for proof isn't territorial pissing. It's actually pretty standard as far as discussions go.
 
I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.

Nonsense.

And this here is why there's no reason for Krugman to "debate" anyone. If all it's going to be is about terrorial pissing..it's not worth the time.

Translation: "I have no proof." :clap2:

Quite simply..

There is enough material out in the internet..and search engines to find what ever information that is needed to acclimate yourself to the material without the help of others.

I've played the link game before..many times. And running around in circles isn't really fun or enlightening.
 
I'm not even going to bother debating this ridiculous post.

I'll cut right to the chase...

Provide a link to that nonsense RIGHT NOW.

Nonsense.

And this here is why there's no reason for Krugman to "debate" anyone. If all it's going to be is about terrorial pissing..it's not worth the time.

Asking for proof isn't territorial pissing. It's actually pretty standard as far as discussions go.

You've addressed the wrong point.

The debate would be territorial pissing.

My "googling" and doing work for others would be a waste of mouse clicks.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top