Shaming Paul Krugman into debating Austrian economics.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,681
This is interesting.

I'd love to be "on board" but I'm still hung up on globalized "free trade".

The Austrians are just plain wrong on that, at least when it comes to "free trade" with murderous communist regimes.

Still, I'd be willing to contribute.



Why Paul Krugman WILL Debate an Austrian
Posted by Thomas Woods on October 22, 2010 08:14 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/67683.html

Many Austrians have tried to get Krugman to debate business cycle theory. He’s too busy and too sophisticated to debate an Austrian, of course. Until now.

Economist Robert Murphy has come up with a clever way to make this happen. Through a website called The Point, people can pledge an amount of money to make the debate happen. Not one cent is charged to them until it does happen. The money will go to a charity for the hungry in New York. So if it hits, say, $100,000, Krugman will have to explain why getting $100,000 to New York’s hungry isn’t worth one hour of his time. Brilliant. I’ve already pledged. Bob is up to around $5,000 already. (UPDATE: up to $10,000!)

Donation site:

http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/campaign-0-1240
 
As Jim Rogers said, "Krugman is an Idiot" :)

Paul Krugman is a Marxist Communist Politician, not an Economist
 
This is interesting.

I'd love to be "on board" but I'm still hung up on globalized "free trade".

The Austrians are just plain wrong on that, at least when it comes to "free trade" with murderous communist regimes.

Please elaborate.

Economist Robert Murphy has come up with a clever way to make this happen. Through a website called The Point, people can pledge an amount of money to make the debate happen. Not one cent is charged to them until it does happen. The money will go to a charity for the hungry in New York. So if it hits, say, $100,000, Krugman will have to explain why getting $100,000 to New York’s hungry isn’t worth one hour of his time. Brilliant. I’ve already pledged. Bob is up to around $5,000 already. (UPDATE: up to $10,000!)
Very clever indeed. Rather than putting the gun to Krugman's head directly, he puts it to that of an innocent third party. I wonder whether it will work. Were I the target of this sort of trick, it would fail catastrophically. The result will say something of the fabric from which Krugman is cut.
 
Thye should send a letter every week to the Food Bank telling them how much money would be available if Krugman would get off his a$$.
 
Be glad to elaborate...

Please elaborate.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265068

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257022

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=262243

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251768

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235581

A very quick summation of my position.

"Free Trade" with a nation like China is national suicide. You cannot compete, no business model can compete, with a government run prison state, built on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

No nation can remain free and independent if it does nothing for itself, especially when it goes off in search of empire on top of it.

To sell off our entire industrial base and go into massive debt to a nation like China goes beyond foolhardy, beyond insane, it is, quite frankly, treason.

"Free Trade" as it's understood right now, is a globalist sham, a tool to destroy one of the last thorns in the side of the global governance crowd and assimilate us, the American people, the American middle class, into a Borg hive nightmare of third world globalism.

This thread will go off the rails if he does, mark my words. :p:D

The reason for the links. ;)
 
"Free Trade" with a nation like China is national suicide. You cannot compete, no business model can compete, with a government run prison state, built on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

No nation can remain free and independent if it does nothing for itself, especially when it goes off in search of empire on top of it.

It's the opposite. Formation of capital that allows increased productivity only occurs in an environment where people are free and have opportunities to profit. Forced labor doesn't encourage creativity.

Your argument shows complete lack of understanding of how comparative advantages between two different economies tend to benefit both parties. I'm not going to give the explanation as anyone can easily read a well-developed presentation on Mises. But I do offer the following thought experiment:

Suppose the chinese were not communists or oppressive. Suppose however that one chinese inventor created something that allowed goods to be produced much cheaper, at the same price that they would be produced if they produced "on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants". The effects as seen from the United States would be the same, because we would just see cheaper products. The details of how they achieved that have no effect whatsoever on whether Americans can compete. All that matters is the final product and the price. So in this example you wouldn't oppose importing those goods, as they were not built "on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants", yet the effects on local producers are the same.
 
Last edited:
It seems AF erroneously believes that trade deficit implies debt. The problem with our current situation is government monopoly and Government imposed additional costs to business (Vis a vis regulation, taxation, mandates, etc.), not because we allow individuals to purchase goods from China if they wish. No one is forcing anyone to buy Chinese products. Why would you want to force them to buy American AF? It seems you are not against coercive force if you believe it is better for "them".

I have all ready debunked all the claims AF has thrown out. It is up to the reader to decide if actual economics trumps Nationalism, but it should be obvious to anyone.

AF you should stop erroneously attributing America's problems to China. For someone who proclaims himself to be against corporatism, it seems the only option you want available to American's is exactly that. Once you erect trade barriers the reciprocal effect is ghastly, not to mention now since you can only buy products made within the US territories, that is a de facto subsidy to every single business in America, which currently they all ready receive massive subsidies, laws in their favor, etc. The only thing you would do is drive up the cost of everything and increase the power of corporations.

Yes, I agree with you that the 60+ million dead under Mao is horrible, but after Mao's death is when they started to capitalize their economy. In many areas today China is far more free-market than America. You seem to be under the assumption China's current capacity came about because of Mao. It didn't.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss10.html

A great satirical essay by Bastiat which delves into this matter.
 
Last edited:
I have all ready debunked all the claims AF has thrown out. It is up to the reader to decide if actual economics trumps Nationalism, but it should be obvious to anyone.

No, you have not "debunked" anything.

We, meaning I, you and others have argued our points.

I remain unconvinced, firmly, with no equivocation.

Selling off our industry, and financing our insane foreign policy through debt (not trade deficits but hard debt in the form of US Treasuries) sold to the Chinese will be the country's undoing.

My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.

We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.
 
My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.

We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.

that's probably correct, and one reason for that is that your anti-trade mentality is shared by the majority of people who have any clout
 
No, you have not "debunked" anything.

We, meaning I, you and others have argued our points.

I remain unconvinced, firmly, with no equivocation.

Selling off our industry, and financing our insane foreign policy through debt (not trade deficits but hard debt in the form of US Treasuries) sold to the Chinese will be the country's undoing.

My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.

We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Free-Trade. The reason our children will not have the same opportunities is because of Government imposed restriction on the freedom and liberty of commerce. That is the sole reason.

You seem to be attributing the entirity of the problem, not on the correct source (Local Governments to State Governments to the Federal Government), but to China for some mystifiable reason I cannot discern. I suppose to Nationalists it is easy to blame everyone, but their own country. It is one of the only reasons I can fathom for such a belief.

AF, would you please read through this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16106/16106-h/16106-h.htm

It is Bastiats greatest work when it comes to free-trade.

Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the domain of literature.

It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they are good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if there is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that our legislators are bad political economists. [56] A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by our legislators.

Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France with cotton valued at $200,000. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten per cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. duties, which raised its value to $280,000. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original value, which equalled $40,000, and the price of sale was $320,000, which the consignee converted into merchandise, principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay for transportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &c., ten per cent.; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its value had risen to $352,000, and it was thus entered at the custom-house. Finally, Mr. T realized again on this return cargo twenty per cent. profits, amounting to $70,400. The goods thus sold for the sum of $422,400.

If our legislators require it, I will send them an extract from the books of Mr. T. They will there see, credited to the account of profit and loss, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the one of $40,000, the other of $70,400, and Mr. T feels perfectly certain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.

Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered into the custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the United States have [57] exported $200,000, and imported $352,000; from whence they conclude "that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign nation $152,000 of her capital."

Some time after this transaction, Mr. T dispatched another vessel, again freighted with national produce, to the amount of $200,000. But the vessel foundered in leaving the port, and Mr. T had only further to inscribe upon his books two little items, thus worded:

"Sundries due to X, $200,000, for purchase of divers articles dispatched by vessel N."

"Profit and loss due, to sundries, $200,000, for final and total loss of cargo."

In the meantime the custom-house inscribed $200,000 upon its list of exportations, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this entry on the list of importations, it hence follows that our enlightened members of Congress must see in this wreck a clear profit to the United States of $200,000.

We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the Balance of Trade theory, the United States has an exceedingly simple manner of constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will have swallowed up.

You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You [58] know that it is impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you exercise them practically upon your fellow-citizens, as much, at least, as is in your power to do.

But lest even Mr. T's books may not be deemed of sufficient weight to counterbalance the convictions of the Horace Greeley school of prohibition, I shall proceed to furnish a table exhibiting various classes of commercial transactions, embracing most of the classes usually effected by importing and exporting houses, all of which may result in undoubted profits to the parties engaged in them, and to the country at large, and yet which, as they appear in the annual Commerce and Navigation Reports issued by the government, would be made to prove by Mr. Greeley that the result has in each case been a loss to the country. The sums are all stated in gold:
 
that's probably correct, and one reason for that is that your anti-trade mentality is shared by the majority of people who have any clout

No, you are wrong, "my side" has no clout in this debate.

"Your side" has clearly won the field.

My side gets buried in a flood of globalist regulations that I deal with every single day, as middle class wages stagnate, real unemployment runs about 16-17%, more productive work gets outsourced to cheap sources overseas as we're told to "enjoy it, shut up and get to Wal Marx and consume damnit".

NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, IMO, WTO, and all the rest of the alphabet soup agencies and agreements that now run our country.

Tell me, who is my representative there?
 
Let me illustrate what AF is advocating in practice:

Imagine Y country who has a taxation rate of 50% (taking into account all such taxes), regulations which mandate increased pay to employees (Through either benefits or minimum wage), and laws which only those who make over a certain amount can afford.

Your typical socialistic economy. As these businesses come into contact and competition with other entities residing in countries with more favorable commercial policies they will obviously be unable to compete. In this, they petition and influence their legislature to enact tarriffs for their own benefit, pushing it off as a benefit to laborers and citizens alike. In actuality, the only benefit is to the producer, to the business who currently resides within the territory of country Y at the expense of all the non-producers, non-businesses (E.g. employees), in the entire country. With competition reduced, they can now go back to their aforementioned ways. Now instead of having the option to purchase cheaper goods from more commercial palatable territories you are forced to shoulder the burden of the entire tax structure instead of getting the benefit of the commercial policies of other countries who are more favorable to the liberty and freedoms of commerce.

You may have businesses that do very well, but at the expense of the body of the people. A tariff is a subsidy to internal businesses. The alarming picture here one should ask is --

Why is it cheaper to produce a good in China, ship it halfway across the world, and sell it cheaper?

China has no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, has far less regulations, etc. China actually has a more favorable commercial policy than America has. That is a sad state of affairs. Instead of correctly attributing the problems AF instead says -- look they can produce a good cheaper than we can and thus they are a problem, not our own policies which artificially raise the barrier of market entry and price production!

I could go on much more, but AF seems to believe that China is still a slave economy. They aren't. They have atrocious civil liberty record, but their economy policy is actually more market oriented than ours is. If you want production to return to America, then we must correct our socialistic and fascistic economy and turn it into one of laissez-faire.
 
Back
Top