Krugman loses debate -- Calls debates useless next day.

[NDGirl1959]

Another self-serving and misleading neo con

Found this little illustration of a butthurt man:

h xxp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

from the same article
"So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it."

 

[Occam's Banana]

Definetly a God complex. Did you see the way he was flabbergasted when Ron Paul said, "pretense of knowledge".

The guy is so full of himself it's pathetic! His ego just can't stand it that Paul brought the truth and people are seeing through his and "their" BS..

On a larger point, Krugman is the unconstrained vision personified.

There's an audio clip out there on the 'netz of an interview Krugman did a while back. He talked about how much he loved Isaac Asimov's classic "Foundation" trilogy.

For those who aren't familiar with Asimov's story, a character named Hari Seldon is the super-genius founder of a highly mathematical social science called "psychohistory" - which is used by a small & super-secret group of elites to plot out & guide the restoration of civilization after the decline of the Galactic Empire into barbarism.

I suspect that Paul Krugman actually fancies himself to be something of a Seldon-type person. If so, it would certainly explain the blithe hubris Krugman so frequently exhibits.

EDIT: Found a Krugman quote regarding psychohistory here: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-20/markets/30028859_1_first-book-paul-krugman-economics

Interviewer: The first book you’ve chosen isn’t about economics at all; it’s a work of science-fiction, Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy. But was it part of what inspired you to become an economist?

Krugman: Yes. This is a very unusual set of novels from Isaac Asimov, but a classic. It’s not about gadgets. Although it’s supposed to be about a galactic civilization, the technology is virtually invisible and it’s not about space battles or anything like that.

The story is about these people, psychohistorians, who are mathematical social scientists and have a theory about how society works. The theory tells them that the galactic empire is failing, and they then use that knowledge to save civilisation. It’s a great image. I was probably 16 when I read it and I thought, “I want to be one of those guys!” Unfortunately we don’t have anything like that and economics is the closest I could get.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

great interview

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

The thing I hate most about Keynesian economics is it's based on the idea that an ideal economy is one with full utilization of resources (employment and processes). This ignores the single most valuable product of our country over time: ideas from innovative individuals in sectors that were previously unknown. This shows that:

1. Full production may not be the best metric for evaluating a country's economy because its relation to a primary essential product is unknown.
2. The impact of government policies resulting from Keynesian economics on these essential products is unknown.

If we cannot show that these policies help (or at least do not damage) the ability of new ideas and sectors of the economy to emerge, why do we insist that these policies are essential to our survival? Why are we so reluctant to allow business structures and models to change/fail when they lose efficiency/effectiveness, when history shows that these changes often lead to innovation?

If you want full utilization, you don't need to look further than an ant hill. Every ant has its purpose, is always busy, and has a single overall product - it's the perfect Keynesian economy. Now who wants to be an ant?

 

[sdsubball23]

So what do you guys make of Krugman's comments in one of his blogs about the debate and Roman History that Paul referred to?

Krugman's blog article link: hxxp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/dont-know-much-about-ancient-history/

Somehow, though, people like Ron Paul don’t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. 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.

 

[Lucille]

they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. 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?

We don't?

http://mises.org/daily/3498

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/03/episodes-of-hyperinflation-from.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cashin-gartman-diocletians-lessons-central-planning

 

[libertyfanatic]

I don't really understand why everyone is so excited about Ron Paul defeating Krugman in a debate. Just about everyone on this forum could do that.