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

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'd purchase the PPV to see Krugman and Peter Schiff in the steel cage.
 
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.

Yeah, the standard "i don't have shit" response when someone doesn't have SHIT.

Why the fuck would i waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist? You made the claim, you prove it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the standard "i don't have shit" response when someone doesn't have SHIT.

Why the fuck would i waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist? You made the claim, you prove it.
Given all of the 100s of columns in Krugman's archives you are willing to bet that he never got anything right? You do realize how improbable that is don't you, not to mention that you have made him out to be the most valuable economic indicator in the history of the world. Someone who is always wrong is worth billions by simply betting against his predictions. Who pray tell has made billions by always going all in on bets against Krugman's predictions?
 
Yeah, the standard "i don't have shit" response when someone doesn't have SHIT.

Why the fuck would i waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist? You made the claim, you prove it.
Given all of the 100s of columns in Krugman's archives you are willing to bet that he never got anything right? You do realize how improbable that is don't you, not to mention that you have made him out to be the most valuable economic indicator in the history of the world. Someone who is always wrong is worth billions by simply betting against his predictions. Who pray tell has made billions by always going all in on bets against Krugman's predictions?

What are you talking about?

This guy claimed that Krugman "accurately predicted everything that happened in the US", which I assume he means the credit crisis, housing collapse, recession/depression that ensued, etc.

I never implied that Krugman "didn't get anything right".

But Sallow will be hard pressed to provide a link to where Krugman predicted this mess. in the face of so much evidence otherwise.
 
Yeah, the standard "i don't have shit" response when someone doesn't have SHIT.

Why the fuck would i waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist? You made the claim, you prove it.
Given all of the 100s of columns in Krugman's archives you are willing to bet that he never got anything right? You do realize how improbable that is don't you, not to mention that you have made him out to be the most valuable economic indicator in the history of the world. Someone who is always wrong is worth billions by simply betting against his predictions. Who pray tell has made billions by always going all in on bets against Krugman's predictions?

An interesting point, and I get it. However, every country that has not followed his Macroeconomic recommendations is better off than the one that did (if only partly).

He's only worth billions in your model if governments don't listen to him. The USA didn't do so well.
 
Krugman is now a columnist, and in that capacity not an economist.

But as Kennedy pointed out he has totally fucked up in his appraisal of the Japanese deflationary trap.

I read a whole series by Krugman in which he lectures the "science" on learning lessons from this event about the shortcomings of the profession and it's religious ideological adhesions.

Krugman seems to have wasted that advice upon himself, calling for ever more stimulus when his whole history proved them futile.

But he is speaking as a columnist/political partisan, not an economist. That's why he is listed as an editorialist.
 
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.

short answer? No.

the debate will end when his opponent asks him why after twice the money he calculated needed to be spent, was, and we still have no jobs etc...he'll pout and say he was taken out of context then ask for his blankey and bottle.
 
Krugman is now a columnist, and in that capacity not an economist.

But as Kennedy pointed out he has totally fucked up in his appraisal of the Japanese deflationary trap.

I read a whole series by Krugman in which he lectures the "science" on learning lessons from this event about the shortcomings of the profession and it's religious ideological adhesions.

Krugman seems to have wasted that advice upon himself, calling for ever more stimulus when his whole history proved them futile.

But he is speaking as a columnist/political partisan, not an economist. That's why he is listed as an editorialist.


well said, BUT he puts the economist hat back on when hes right.....which hasn't been a while but hey...he gets to take pot shots form the cheap seats then cannot be called out on his blather.
 
short answer? No.

the debate will end when his opponent asks him why after twice the money he calculated needed to be spent, was, and we still have no jobs etc...he'll pout and say he was taken out of context then ask for his blankey and bottle.

actually Krugman called for twice the stimulus from day one of Obama's term. Thankfully nobody listened.
 
short answer? No.

the debate will end when his opponent asks him why after twice the money he calculated needed to be spent, was, and we still have no jobs etc...he'll pout and say he was taken out of context then ask for his blankey and bottle.

actually Krugman called for twice the stimulus from day one of Obama's term. Thankfully nobody listened.

Actually no, he said roughly 600- 630 billion. Mid nov. 08.
 
short answer? No.

the debate will end when his opponent asks him why after twice the money he calculated needed to be spent, was, and we still have no jobs etc...he'll pout and say he was taken out of context then ask for his blankey and bottle.

actually Krugman called for twice the stimulus from day one of Obama's term. Thankfully nobody listened.

Actually no, he said roughly 600- 630 billion. Mid nov. 08.

But when that was the plan he changed gears and called for a $2 Trillion stimulus.

Of course that's the problem with Keynesians, they are just like the founder of the movement - the government always needs more money.
 
$5 Trillion is too low, $15 Trillion might be too high $8 Trillion Stimulus is jussssssssssst right

goldilocks1.jpg
 
$5 Trillion is too low, $15 Trillion might be too high $8 Trillion Stimulus is jussssssssssst right

goldilocks1.jpg

:lol: Krugman and other loons at their job?

To Krugman's defense, I think the stimulus in Krug's mind should have been enough to replenish american's savings to 10% (from was it 1%?) while spending that 10% by government.... I don't remember the exact amount that was though I can look it up.

Of course the whole idea is completely idiotic.

If US citizen wants to replenish savings the businesses that were more consumption stuff oriented NEED to shrink. And of course even if that wasn't so, what's the point in taking 10% debt that you have to pay interest on, while generating 10% savings?

Let's just order some more stuff from china with government money and BAM! you have your savings rate :lol: Problem is that the economy needs to restructure completely, and stimulus is just on the way of it... Taking government debt instead of individual debt to get some savings is not any different.
 
actually Krugman called for twice the stimulus from day one of Obama's term. Thankfully nobody listened.

Actually no, he said roughly 600- 630 billion. Mid nov. 08.

But when that was the plan he changed gears and called for a $2 Trillion stimulus.

Of course that's the problem with Keynesians, they are just like the founder of the movement - the government always needs more money.

yes and they always up whats needed after what they said was needed before has not been effective (this way they can never be wrong)...........Morgenthau said as much, in what was it 38? same old tired sheeet.
 
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.
When is the last time you've seen a liberal exhibit public shame?
 
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.

We'd BOTH like to see that debate, I can tell you that, Kevin.
 
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.

We'd BOTH like to see that debate, I can tell you that, Kevin.

Though for different reasons I'd assume?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top