Paul Krugman - Robert Murphy economics debate challenge

[Thane Eichenauer]

Robert Murphy has setup a challenge asking Paul Krugman to debate him on Austrian business cycle theory. If Krugman debates then FoodBankNYC.org gets $58,000 (minus an administration fee). If Krugman does not debate FoodBankNYC.org gets $0.

http://KrugmanDebate.com/

Video on the challenge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2xXOQY-NY

 

[Teaser Rate]

Although I’m sure it would be very entertaining to watch and would like to see it, this debate will never happen.

Krugman is in another dimension than Murphy when it comes to accomplishments, prestige and respect; he has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose.

Even in the event that Krugman wipes the floor with Murphy, he would still end up losing ground by giving an obscure point of view the exposure and legitimacy of being seen on the same stage as a Nobel-prize winner.

And let’s be honest, the only reason why Murphy is targeting Krugman for a debate is to exploit his fame, I’m sure there are plenty of lesser known Neo-Keynesians who would be happy to debate him, but his goal here isn’t to have an open academic discussion, the proposed debate is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Although I’m sure it would be very entertaining to watch and would like to see it, this debate will never happen.

Krugman is in another dimension than Murphy when it comes to accomplishments, prestige and respect; he has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose.

Even in the event that Krugman wipes the floor with Murphy, he would still end up losing ground by giving an obscure point of view the exposure and legitimacy of being seen on the same stage as a Nobel-prize winner.

And let’s be honest, the only reason why Murphy is targeting Krugman for a debate is to exploit his fame, I’m sure there are plenty of lesser known Neo-Keynesians who would be happy to debate him, but his goal here isn’t to have an open academic discussion, the proposed debate is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Obscure? Legitimacy? Hayek won the 1974 Nobel Prize which was denied to Mises, for his elaborations upon Mises ABCT, the precise point of debate that Murphy is going after Krugman and the Keynesians.

I also dismiss your alleged reason of a publicity stunt. Yes, it is for more exposure, and to intellectually demolish the Keynesian economic thought, but it is no 'stunt'. It isn't like Austrianism is some wacky School. It was and used, the main economic orthodox thought-process from the time of Menger to about 1920. So, we aren't coming from a totally heterodox position like say -- Venus Project people or the Greenies.

I mean if you wanted to refute Keynesian you would probably object to people debating Keynes in his time because -- it's just a publicity stunt, why not go after a disciple and not the leading intellectual figure head. Which is the precise reason Murphy picked Krugman.

PS: Respect and prestige from whom? Ideological Socialists and Statists and intellectually bankrupt societies like the Nobel Prize committees? Yeah, that engenders a great deal of euphoria to win something from the same people who gave Barack Obama the peace prize! Haha.

 

[Teaser Rate]

Obscure? Legitimacy? Hayek won the 1974 Nobel Prize which was denied to Mises, for his elaborations upon Mises ABCT, the precise point of debate that Murphy is going after Krugman and the Keynesians.

That doesn't change the fact that Murphy and Krugman are not on the same playing field.

I also dismiss your alleged reason of a publicity stunt. Yes, it is for more exposure, and to intellectually demolish the Keynesian economic thought, but it is no 'stunt'. It isn't like Austrianism is some wacky School. It was and used, the main economic orthodox thought-process from the time of Menger to about 1920. So, we aren't coming from a totally heterodox position like say -- Venus Project people or the Greenies.

The part is bold is just outright false. Yes, the Austrian school was more mainstream back at the beginning of the 20th century, but it was never, as you put it the main economic orthodox thought-process.

And yes, as far as 95% of economists are concerned, the Austrian school is a very wacky, unsound school of thought.

Lastly, I never said something being a publicity stunt was a bad thing, the Keynes-Hayek rap was a publicity stunt and it was a great success. The main purpose of the debate is to spread the message of Austrian economics to a mass audience, and there's nothing wrong with that, but Krugman has no incentive to play along.

I mean if you wanted to refute Keynesian you would probably object to people debating Keynes in his time because -- it's just a publicity stunt, why not go after a disciple and not the leading intellectual figure head. Which is the precise reason Murphy picked Krugman.

You seem to have confused a post which basically said I want to see the debate, but it will never happen because one participant has nothing to gain from it to I love Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics.

PS: Respect and prestige from whom? Ideological Socialists and Statists and intellectually bankrupt societies like the Nobel Prize committees? Yeah, that engenders a great deal of euphoria to win something from the same people who gave Barack Obama the peace prize! Haha.

People with economics degrees.

 

[StilesBC]

I agree, it is a no lose stunt from Murphy. If Krugman ignores him, he wins. He can say that Krugman is a hypocrite, because he advocates social welfare programs while at the same time wouldn't give an hour of his time to feed thousands of hungry people. He can also say that Krugman is avoiding him because he's afraid to confront the ideas in anything other than a one-way Op-Ed.

It was a great idea. One of many from the Mises Institute. They've really got their shit together of late. They're actually using their own ideology to defeat bad ideas: allowing the complete reproduction of everything, offering material for free, using new social media technology to spread the ideas, etc. It's things like this that makes me so optimistic about the future of liberty.

The philosophy of liberty suggests that, no matter how much it is opposed, a superior method of organizing resources will eventually be adopted.

It's for this reason that I feel Wikileaks is the most significant geopolitical development since 9/11. It demonstrates how just a few people with only a few hundred thousand dollars can basically overcome the will of tens of thousands of the world's most "powerful" people with trillions of dollars at their disposal. Likewise, the superior ideas of liberty will overcome those of tyranny.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Although I’m sure it would be very entertaining to watch and would like to see it, this debate will never happen.

Krugman is in another dimension than Murphy when it comes to accomplishments, prestige and respect; he has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose.

Even in the event that Krugman wipes the floor with Murphy, he would still end up losing ground by giving an obscure point of view the exposure and legitimacy of being seen on the same stage as a Nobel-prize winner.

And let’s be honest, the only reason why Murphy is targeting Krugman for a debate is to exploit his fame, I’m sure there are plenty of lesser known Neo-Keynesians who would be happy to debate him, but his goal here isn’t to have an open academic discussion, the proposed debate is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

What a ridiculous post.

You see, this^^^ is one of the "gotcha" arguments from the central planners: that the ABCT is an "obscure" or dare we say ..."kooky"...view of economics that no "real" economist takes seriously. LOLOLOLOL

What a joke. THAT is your argument against us? That you're more popular? That more central planners fill the Nobel boards than a few decades ago? That more Keyensian central planners suck off the tit of government bureaus than Austrians?

LOLOLOL....You win buddy. Krugman has more "awards"! Ohhhhhh, I'm so impressed that Krugman's central planning retards got together in another circle jerk and gave him some awards. LOLOLOL


This is why we as Austrians laugh at you fools.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That doesn't change the fact that Murphy and Krugman are not on the same playing field.



The part is bold is just outright false. Yes, the Austrian school was more mainstream back at the beginning of the 20th century, but it was never, as you put it the main economic orthodox thought-process.
[/I].

Tell that to Jevons, Wicksteed, Wicksell, etc. The Causal-Realist approach was the orthodox method of thought and teaching in Economics up until about 1920. I don't think you have one clue what you are talking about. I think Marshall and Walras has infected your brain a bit too much.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I pledged $50 to this already, I think I'm gonna add another $50.

 

[Thane Eichenauer]

If Austrian business cycle theory is invalid then I would think Krugman would want to expose it for its faults. Exposing bad ideas is very worthwhile in my opinion.

 

[Thane Eichenauer]

More polish

It appears that Robert Murphy has added some fine polish to his KrugmanDebate.com web site. Replacing the bare bones project page from ThePoint.com is a readable yet slick interface that communicates all the details. He has a new introduction video to explain what the challenge is all about in a bit less than 4 minutes.

The total is now up to $63,243. Take a look. I think you will be inspired. Be sure to pass this on to a friend.

​

 

[Sola_Fide]

Wow! Great!