This needed it's own thread. Of course the video will get posted once it's available. But this is a pretty big deal.
4pm ET...in a few minutes:
http://www.bloomberg.com/tv/
:EDIT:
Figured I might as well also add this (previously mentioned here):
Jeremy Hammond's new book, Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis...
Omg! RP just referrenced the Byzantine empire. He wins just on that.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm afraid it's just going to be an ambush
Anyone get to see it? The video wouldn't load for me. Maybe high traffic? Judging from the comments there wasn't much of a debate. And they ambushed Ron Paul with the Dallas Fed chairman.
Yup, if what people on zero hedge and dailypaul are saying is true then this "debate" was a farce
I really wish Ron Paul was a better speaker. It's truly frustrating
My opinion. I haven't seen the segment yet but I'm betting RP isn't going to come out looking good.
Clayton -
he should ask why Krugman can't pick on somebody his own size (academically speaking)?
Agreed, Clayton.
Bob Murphy, of course, couldn't get the call. They get an old man that they know can't respond in the necessary language. Murphy isn;t a figurehead like Paul is either. F the MSM. F Krugman.
This was rather painful to watch. Ron Paul was owned.
If it's any consolation, the girl was made of plastic and Krugman is a toadface moron who happens to be on the right side.
Ron Paul was owned.
FTFY - now I know why Ron Paul agreed to go up against Krugman and I feel silly for doubting his judgment. I also know why Krugman won't accept Bob Murphy's challenge... he couldn't hold a candle to Bob Murphy. Ron Paul's not any kind of economist and he cleaned Krugman's clock on every point.
@Clayton
The sad part is the average person watching it, who hasn't done much research on economics, will probably think, "Oh, Krugman is an NOBEL PRIZE winning economist? He's probably right then. I'll leave the economy to the experts."
I am not an economic scholar. I am familar with the Austrian talking points which Paul seemed to cover. But, it was a lot of my word against his arguments. More government is better vs less government is better. FED prolonged the great depression vs. FED the savior.
I came out of it feeling like Krugman came out in a better light.
I hate it when Paul uses absolutes like no wars in the Byzantine empire. I am not sure if that is true, but it seems like it is a very far-fetched statement that ends up casting doubt on the viewer, it can even be true, but even I do not believe Paul until I look it up.
Clayton: Ron Paul was owned. FTFY - now I know why Ron Paul agreed to go up against Krugman and I feel silly for doubting his judgment. I also know why Krugman won't accept Bob Murphy's challenge... he couldn't hold a candle to Bob Murphy. Ron Paul's not any kind of economist and he cleaned Krugman's clock on every point. Clayton -
Krugman really didn't let Paul make any rebuttals and also got that sneaky "last word" in.
Seemed more like drama than anything because instead of Krugman responding to Paul with questions for the subjects he's not familiar with such as "Exactly what do you mean when by competing currencies?", you know something that would bring about an actual conversation- he rather just dismiss it as beneath something for him to address and it just becomes a "I'm more right than you are" argument. Dissapointing but expected.
Ron Paul swept the floor with him. I completely surprised, to tell you the thuth. The man still has it, after all.
If you have any doubt Ron Paul owned, you need to watch the video again and listen to both their points carefully. Ron made great arguments, and the Roman/Byzantine Empire references were great. I think that's a great rhetorical point; having the market manage currency is a modern idea, and having the state do it is actually the outdated idea. Just great.
Meh RP didn't do that bad. He has a tendency to babble but he did control the debate so that's good.
Clayton: FTFY - now I know why Ron Paul agreed to go up against Krugman and I feel silly for doubting his judgment. I also know why Krugman won't accept Bob Murphy's challenge... he couldn't hold a candle to Bob Murphy. Ron Paul's not any kind of economist and he cleaned Krugman's clock on every point.
I agree that Ron Paul did a very good job, but the one thing that really gets me about his debating style is that he rarely goes for the jugular. Krugman left himself open on several points and Ron Paul just didn't go for the attack. What I have in mind here is about the competing currencies part of the debate. I would really love to see someone like Murphy take on Krugman. You are totally right. After seeing how well Ron Paul did against him, Murphy would obliterate Krugman.
Krugman's obvious disadvantage is that he doesn't seem to understand the Austrian argument.
He seems to think he can dismiss things out of hand. Perhaps he's counting on the audience to do the same.
He did seem rather timid there as well. Perhaps there are viewers who will enjoy Krugman's mannerisms but I personally found him to be like a little mouse there.
That being said I didn't like how Paul also seemed a little disorganized. I agree with gotlucky, he needs to know when to go for the kill.
Ron Paul isn't a good debater. This isn't a shot at him - I think he makes good points, but he has a tendancy to lose focus and speak of issues in a cosmic context. It just goes to show that debating is an entirely different skill than being well-versed in theory, which Ron Paul is. Krugman is not a good debater either - probably even worse, especially for an "accmoplished" economist. I'm pretty sure that if joe-6-pack was watching this interview/debate then he would label it a draw.
I think Peter Schiff would be the best Austrian representative in a <30 min. debate. It's not that I agree with all of his positions, but his impomptu speaking ability is above average, which is the best skill to have in a debate. Schiff would have completely wrecked Krugman in a media interview like this (though he would have interrupted him after every sentence and the viewer could see that as a negative). Now a formal debate is a different story. Any Austrian that could prepare his case would absolutely level Krugman. Krugman has a distorted view of Austrian theory and would be flumoxxed at the sophisication of ABCT if an Austrian scholar could explain it in a non-soundbite context.
It's too bad that this will never happen. There's nothing to gain from Krugman's perspective if he debated an academic Austrian in a professional setting.
Schiff versus Krugman?
That would be genuinely interesting.
Unfortunately Schiff isn't the Republican candidate. I would vote for him in the primaries. He might do slightly better against Obama than Fred Karger.
Friedmanite:This was rather painful to watch. Ron Paul was owned.
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your profound insight. I'm sure the rest of us would love to read about it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Tune in to Schiff Radio this morning to hear Peter's take on the debate.
Daniel Muffinburg:I dont know why people are saying that RP did a bad job.
Because it's how they're able to be "different" and "edgy". It makes them cool because if you criticize Paul for not doing a good enough job, you can't be called a "Paulbot".
bloomj31:[Krugman] did seem rather timid there as well. Perhaps there are viewers who will enjoy Krugman's mannerisms but I personally found him to be like a little mouse there.
That's how he always is. That's who he is.
FunkedUp:I think Peter Schiff would be the best Austrian representative in a <30 min. debate.
I disagree. Schiff's good, but Murphy or Woods would be best. Murphy even addresses that notion in his promo video.
It's not that I agree with all of his positions
What does Schiff say that you disagree with?
John James: FunkedUp:I think Peter Schiff would be the best Austrian representative in a <30 min. debate. I disagree. Schiff's good, but Murphy or Woods would be best. Murphy even addresses that notion in his promo video. It's not that I agree with all of his positions What does Schiff say that you disagree with?
Murphy would be better in a real debate (60 mins minimum; 15 mins both sides and a rebuttal), but in terms of responding on the fly to news media questions, like this interview, then Schiff would be the best choice to put up against an anti-Austrian. Like I said before, being well versed in theory doesn't necessarily translate into good debate performance. That is an entirely different skill, especially when you're forced to condense your message into a sound bite.
Schiff has neocon moments, especially with Iran. He's also a minimal government advocate (what ever that means), and at times argues for what type of taxation is most efficient, but, hey, I still think he's an overall good guy in spite of those shortcomings.
FunkedUp:Murphy would be better in a real debate (60 mins minimum; 15 mins both sides and a rebuttal), but in terms of responding on the fly to news media questions, like this interview, then Schiff would be the best choice to put up against an anti-Austrian. Like I said before, being well versed in theory doesn't necessarily translate into good debate performance. That is an entirely different skill, especially when you're forced to condense your message into a sound bite.
I agree Schiff is definitely among the best at this type of venue, but I don't think you're giving Murphy or Woods enough credit. Woods is uncanny. The only reason you don't see him on the news is because they rarely have occasion to have a historian on the aire. (That, and if they ever did have a reason to have him on, he'd make everyone look bad.) I don't think he'd be best to go up against someone with Krugman's credentials, if nothing else than just the appearance of it on paper (and possibly Krugman could pull out some kind of higher level econ that Woods wouldn't be able handle, but then again, in a news venue that would be unlikely).
But Murphy is incredibly effective in a conversational format (in fact, that's how his lectures end up sounding anyway). He's not on the aire a lot, but he's able to work it. I guarantee he'd wipe the floor with Krugman in either setting. Even for people who couldn't follow the debate (which shouldn't be many, since Murphy is so effective at breaking things down), but even for people who weren't paying much attention, I think Murphy would still come out looking like the victor if for nothing else than his demeanor and his ability to make salient points in a very concise way. And he'd come off as much more friendly, personable, and human than Krugman. Not to mention less creepy.
It would be a massacre even if he were in Ron Paul's seat in that interview. That's why Krugman won't debate him. I think Krugman is actually smart enough to realize he doesn't have a case. He may have not fully understood Austrian theory before, but I think he's come quite a way. It's possible he's even starting to figure out he needs some Austrian theory to make better forecasts. I think you can only ignore it for so long. If you're smart enough to understand it at all, I don't think you can actually be acquinted with it (as opposed to not really know what it is...a place I think Krugman was in for a long time before) and still deny it's validity or at least it's success in forecasting (at least, not deny it in your own mind. You might be able to deny it in a New York Times editorial.)
And Murphy may not have the Nobel award, but a PhD in economics from NYU is nothing to shake your nose at, so he even has academic ground to stand on, just on the paper matchup side.
And his comfort and personality just can't be understanted. He really is Krugman's kryptonite. I would seriously pay good money to have that debate take place.
Schiff has neocon moments, especially with Iran.
I haven't heard him say much of anything on that end. More often than not I hear him agree with Ron Paul foreign policy.
He's also a minimal government advocate (what ever that means), and at times argues for what type of taxation is most efficient
Yeah we went into this quite a bit here. My assessment is here. The taxation thing I think is just a matter of practicality. He knows zero taxation is a longshot (as, ultimately it would mean no government), so in the mean time, it's not a waste (let alone hypocritical) to have a debate on the least harmful way for taxation to occur.
Yeah I agree. I have listened to a number of talks of his, as well as his radio show, and I've read one of his books. I like him a lot, but some of the things he says are a little iffy to me. Maybe I'm wrong on this, for example, but he often goes back to what strikes me as a slightly nationalistic refrain when talking about macro trends in the economy (the reason America is in the tank is that we don't produce "stuff" anymore! We need to become a world manufacturing center again!). He may be right on that point, but I don't see why there's anything objectively better about goods than services. That seems like a slippery slope back to autarky.
Other than that and his minarchism (unimportant debate in the here and now) I think he's great.
Stephen Adkins:I don't see why there's anything objectively better about goods than services.
There's not. And he doesn't make that argument. The notion of trade deficits was the crux of the disagreement between Schiff and Murphy back in 2007, which Murphy has since conceded he was wrong.
Putting Krugman up against anyone articulate and humorous is just unfair.
If I had to pick someone to represent the monetarist side, it would be Paul Volcker or Milton Friedman.
I dont' think Krugman would even classify himself as a monetarist.
He calls himself a "market monetarist". But compared to the Austrian school that's practically communism.
"There's not. And he doesn't make that argument."
I'm flipping through his book The Little Book of Bull Moves because I could have sworn I remember raising an eyebrow at several spots in it when he seemed to be a little too focused on that line of reasoning. I could have misunderstood, or I may not be remembering correctly.
Anyway the point is that Schiff is absolutely one of the pithiest proponents of the ABCT, perhaps second only to Tom Woods. I still use his "Wall Street may have gotten drunk, but the Fed supplied them with the alcohol" line when I talk to people about the crash.
Inflation is theft!. So is deflation, but you will never hear Ron Paul mention that.
Stephen Adkins:I'm flipping through his book The Little Book of Bull Moves because I could have sworn I remember raising an eyebrow at several spots in it when he seemed to be a little too focused on that line of reasoning. I could have misunderstood, or I may not be remembering correctly.
Be sure to check out that post I linked to and the various links there. Murphy admits that It could be possible [to have a healthy economy with a huge trade deficit], but that's not what's happening in our economy, and that Schiff was warning about it, and I [Murphy] wasn't looking at the big picture.
I've never heard Schiff assert anything along the lines of "goods are objectively better than services." All the argument's I've heard him make in that area are focused on the present US situation.
So is deflation
Not if it comes as a result of prior inflation...The destruction of prior artificial fiduciary media is painful, but it isn't a hidden transfer of wealth in the sense that the original inflation was
Friedmanite:[deflation is theft!]
I would ask you to explain that just to watch you dance around it or fall over yourself trying to explain something that isn't inherently true, but I don't feel like waiting around for it so I'll just point you here.
"All the argument's I've heard him make in that area are focused on the present US situation."
Yeah I thought of that as well. Now that I look at it, he says things like this: "The United States will have no choice but to rebuild its manufacturing base, shore up its crumbling infrastructure, and support those few industries where it remains a world leader." I'm not sure if that's what I remember being skeptical about (it has been a few years now), but if it was I have changed my mind, since he was obviously not saying that all nations in all places at all times must shore up their manufacturing base, but only that this is the reality of the structure of production in the United States, since we are so dependent upon our service industries and those may be drying up for us before too long. If this is what he always says then I have no disagreements there.
There may be other things that I disagree with from this book, but I don't remember what they are and I can't find them, soo yeah. Schiff is great.
Actually, Schiff is pretty into manufacturing decline.
What he sees is a nation facing an economic storm brought on by growing federal, personal, and corporate debt, too-little savings, a declining dollar, and lack of domestic manufacturing.
ed: Ninja'd by Stephen.
Be sure to check out that post I linked to and the various links there.
Pretty insightful stuff. I have to admit I still have some trouble wrapping my head around international trade matters, especially with all the "pegged" currencies (manipulated measuring sticks) and so forth. Incidentally, do you have a favorite book on that subject? Doesn't have to be "austrian" though I imagine it probably would be.
Nice try but nope. How can one be a non-market monetarist anyways?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger