Krugman loses debate -- Calls debates useless next day.

[Tudo]

Just a over paid lowlife who has been wrong every time while we have an underpaid medical doctor who has been right every time.

 

[ctiger2]

Schiff is a blowhard. He's so arrogant and rude.

I agree, but you have to also understand Schiff has a GIANT chip on his shoulder from being belittled/mocked for YEARS on all these financial network shows. So, all that pent up rage is coming out now.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree, but you have to also understand Schiff has a GIANT chip on his shoulder from being belittled/mocked for YEARS on all these financial network shows. So, all that pent up rage is coming out now.

Ron was mocked too. Still is, some places.

 

[bolil]

They should let them duke it out in the octagon. Ron "Retribution" Paul VS the Natural Born Liar Paul Kauffman.

 

[aaroche26]

AA

 

[lordindra3]

The good doctor is a little older and not as sharp of a debater as he was in 08... Can you imagine what Schiff or Jim Grant would have done to Krugman?

 

[rideurlightning]

Schiff is a blowhard. He's so arrogant and rude.

He has every right to be after his father was jailed by the same scumbags he's fighting right now.

 

[economics102]

Partly it’s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it’s also the fact that because we don’t really know what happened — what really did go down during the Diocletian era? — you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.

This is laughable. If anyone was attempting to show off their esoteric knowledge of ancient times in the debate, it was Krugman when he responded to a DATA POINT Ron Paul brought up (gold standard stable for 1000 years during Byzantine era) with a nervous, self-protecting joke about not defending the policies of the Diocletian empire.

 

[Brown Sapper]

You just wouldn't understand... why would someone try to explain to you which you wouldn't understand...now respect my keynesian authority!

Sadly my economics teacher told me that twice in one semester.

 

[MrDauven]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100153583/why-the-new-york-timess-paul-krugman-is-clueless-about-the-european-economic-crisis/

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Though Ron was having an off day during that debate (some stammering and rambling), that does not mean Krugman won. Seems like Krugman is just pissed because he lost to someone without a degree in economics and isn't a pseudo-intellectual.

 

[sailingaway]

Krugman clearly lost. He even did a spin article that day and the next day an article about how debates were useless. If he had won, no need.

 

[McGs]

Ugh, I've watched Peter Schiff debate some really stupid people and he's always kept his cool. He's even talked to those occupy socialists without losing it.

Why do you all keep saying he's arrogant?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Since GDP INCLUDES government spending that ratio is flawed.

So true. Robert Higgs proposes an alternative measure, called something like Net National Product, in a chapter in his book Against Leviathan. It's essentially the spending of the government subtracted from (instead of added to, as in GDP) the output of the private sector. It is a good idea, it would be a much more useful statistic. When you look at NNP (or whatever he called it) it becomes clear that the Great Depression continued all throughout WWII and only ended in 1946-7. If you look instead at a standard graph of GDP throughout American history, on the other hand (of the kind found in virtually all history textbooks) you can clearly see that WWII was a period of growth and prosperity absolutely unparalleled before or since -- not even close to being paralleled -- just astronomically better than any other economic period known to man. Obvious conclusion: we should have a WWII every four years! Either one ongoing war or successive wars with no down-time between. The economy'd be on fire then!! Everything would be super terrific!!!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Sadly my economics teacher told me that twice in one semester.

It's by far the strongest argument Keynesians possess. They would be well-served using it as often as possible.

 

[Ivash]

What a whiny little man.

I am truly glad that Paul wiped the floor with him.

 

[IBleedNavyAndOrange]

Peter Schiff dedicated some time on his show today to piling on Krugman....

fish in a barrel

 

[HigherVision]

He does make a good point about the uselessness of face to face debates. They generally don't accomplish anything. Also calling Krugman an "idiot" or "bad person" or whatever other pejoratives you all are slapping on him doesn't really add much to the discourse. The "other side" does the same thing towards Ron Paul and it just seems so childish. Only a person without logic resorts to ad hominems.

I think they're only 'useless' for the person on the losing side. Unless it's Fox News or MSNBC and they just scream at you the whole time and don't let you make any points, but that's not what happened with this pretty fair debate. And he is a bad person.

 

[RP Supporter]

Nice. Sadly outside of here most people I've seen comment on the debate have been favorable to Krugman, providing well reasoned arguments for why Paul was wrong.

...Nah. Actually they just make snide remarks like "The 80 year old gynecologist versus the noble prize winner. Gee I wonder who won," or "Paul's a crackpot." It's a bit amusing what passes for fact with these people, but at the same time, it's depressing. How can we ever hope to get through to others if most seem to buy into the current system? I don't understand how. You'd think the last few years would have woken more people up, but some cling to the same failed system more stridently than ever before.

 

[HigherVision]

Nice. Sadly outside of here most people I've seen comment on the debate have been favorable to Krugman, providing well reasoned arguments for why Paul was wrong.

...Nah. Actually they just make snide remarks like "The 80 year old gynecologist versus the noble prize winner. Gee I wonder who won," or "Paul's a crackpot." It's a bit amusing what passes for fact with these people, but at the same time, it's depressing. How can we ever hope to get through to others if most seem to buy into the current system? I don't understand how. You'd think the last few years would have woken more people up, but some cling to the same failed system more stridently than ever before.

It reminds me of in school when students kiss ass and suck up to the teacher in order to win their approval. Krugman is like the academic scholarly professor that they all want to impress and be on the side of. Ron Paul is just an old guy who's lived in the real world, been a doctor working all of his life and served active duty in a war once. What does he know?