Lookin forward to this
Reminds me of a recent post from Tom Woods:
Watch economist Robert Murphy take apart Paul Krugman. Oh, wait, you can also see him do it here. And here. And here he hits another Keynesian. In this piece, Murphy writes: “In this short commentary, Krugman has outdone himself. He manages to blend in a combination of (a) blatant, demonstrable falsehood, (b) misleading innuendo, (c) attacks on the motivations of those who disagree with him, and to top it off (d) a hypocritical implied criticism of the very policies he himself supported.” And here Murphy smacks down Krugman on the Fed and employment data.
And that’s just this week.
Now check out KrugmanDebate.com.
Yeah, but Krugman has a Nobel Prize. Where is yours? ;-)
Bogart: Yeah, but Krugman has a Nobel Prize. Where is yours? ;-)
So has Hayek, but he is dead now, so his followers can speak for him.
After all, Keynes is dead too, but that doesn't stop Krugman from spreading mass misinformation.
Bogart:Yeah, but Krugman has a Nobel Prize. Where is yours? ;-)
Schwartz opines: "Often Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled," noting "the mantle of authority whereby what ever they say - whether sensible or not - is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others."
Did you even read the summary?
I'm pretty sure Bogart was being sarcastic.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Unfortunately, I wasn't in Madrid at the time (although, I wasn't even aware Krugman was speaking here), so I couldn't see this live.
Nevertheless, I think this is from the question and answers session of the same debate, here is Krugman's response when asked on his advocacy of the housing bubble: "I was joking."
John James:Did you even read the summary?
Did you even read his semi-colon/dash/closed parenthesis? ;-)
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
gocrew: Did you even read his semi-colo/dash/closed parenthesis? ;-)
Did you even read his semi-colo/dash/closed parenthesis? ;-)
Lmao. Well played.
I actually like Krugman's answer / perspective around the 1:40ish mark to the inflation is theft question. The real concern is the monoplization of money by a central power, not some guarantee by a currency
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I thought the Austrian's performance in the debate was rather poor, and he came off as somewhat incoherent. He also failed to respond to Kruman's so-called "definitive refutation" of what he calls "supply-side economics." There is no clear, 1-1 relationship between high-powered money and prices; interest rates remain low in the face of high government spending due to the monetization of debt (alleviated the crowding-out-effect); no one believes that sharp cuts in fiscal expenditure yield automatic stimulative results.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
gocrew:Did you even read his semi-colon/dash/closed parenthesis? ;-)
Yeah I did. That made it obvious it was meant in humor and he wasn't honestly suggesting a Nobel makes one automatically correct or something of that nature.
But the fact that Krugman has a Nobel was directly addressed and shot down in the debate (and then quoted in the summary). So it doesn't quite work even as a joke.
It would be like someone saying: "JK Rowling has of course sold millions of copies. But simply writing a popular best-selling book doesn't automatically mean you know what you're talking about...especially when you pontificate in matters outside of your specialty." And someone responds "Oh, but she has a book that sold millions of copies!"
And the way the OP is formatted, it's kind of cumbersome to read and follow, so I was curious to know if he even read the full summary before posting that.
But the fact that Krugman has a Nobel was directly addressed and shot down in the debate (and then quoted in the summary). So it doesn't quite work even as a joke. It would be like someone saying: "JK Rowling has of course sold millions of copies. But simply writing a popular best-selling book doesn't automatically mean you know what you're talking about...especially when you pontificate in matters outside of your specialty." And someone responds "Oh, but she has a book that sold millions of copies!"
That's why I was curious if he read the entire summary.
I nly listened to Krugman's response. He probably unfairly mistook the criticism of him as a personal attack. But I thought his response was spot on! ;)
John James:Yeah I did. That made it obvious it was meant in humor and he wasn't honestly suggesting a Nobel makes one automatically correct or something of that nature. But the fact that Krugman has a Nobel was directly addressed and shot down in the debate (and then quoted in the summary). So it doesn't quite work even as a joke.
Apparently others thought it still worked as a joke.
John James:And the way the OP is formatted, it's kind of cumbersome to read and follow, so I was curious to know if he even read the full summary before posting that.
So you're saying that, when you asked Bogart "Did you even ready the summary?", that wasn't your way of saying "WHAT ARE YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING?! GOD!!!"?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Nevertheless, I think this is from the question and answers session of the same debate, here is Krugman's response when asked on his advocacy of the housing bubble: "I was joking."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:
Perfect bit! :)
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
From EconomicPolicyJournal:
Travis Holte emails: Krugman confronted on Murphy challenge. Hilarity ensues.
Didn't Murphy publicly withdraw his prediction of high inflation? I mean, obviously an expansion in the money supply won't affect prices if it's being stored in bank reserves because the Fed is paying them above-the-market interest rates to do so.
Paul Krugman is a pompous jackass. The fawning over him towards the end was disgusting.
I only listened to Pedro Schwartz's speech and his answer at the end. I like how he pointed out the vilification of Austrian/free market people as really just being callous towards those poor unemployed individuals. Talk about ad hominem and straw man! Even if they didn't care, that doesn't refute the merits of their arguments.
DiLorenzo posted a nice cut of the best segment of the debate on LRC Blog:
Spanish Austrian School economist Pedro Schwartz exposes Paul Krugman as the intellectual dinosaur that he is. (Video includes a cameo appearance by Mark Thornton).