For those of you who haven't heard, there's a drive at thepoint.org to try and shame Paul Krugman into debating Robert P Murphy. If Krugman accepts the debate, the money will be donated to a food bank in NYC. If he doesn't accept, no one's accounts ever get charged. This is a lose-lose for Krugman. If he accepts, the mass Krugman audience will AT LEAST be exposed to an economic theory of smaller government and sounder currency. There's also a good chance Murphy will beat Krugman. If he ignores the challenge, Krugman will have to explain on his blog why it isn't worth an hour of his time to get $100,000 donated to feed poor people. So donate. Even $5. It won't be taken from your account unless Krugman accepts. (It's tax deductable anyway). Tell your friends, make it your facebook status. Krugman is the intellectual rally point of the statist-left, and we have a good chance to bring him down. Even if you think its a long shot, its a hell of a lot better than voting.
I want to donate, but will I be able to watch this streaming live or at least watch it afterwards if I do so?
Even if you think its a long shot, its a hell of a lot better than voting.
Hahaha. True that.
i think it is only a lose-lose if this gets picked up in the mainstream media. if i never read this website (or the coordination problem blog) i would probably never have heard of it.
i am considering donating, though. i mean i would certainly like see krugman answer a few questions on the subject.
the only problem is that if everyone else pays, i won't have to. so i think i might take my chances and hope to benefit at the expense of others.
choices choices. :(
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Yes its a public goods problem. But free markets are a public good, so if you support them, deal with it.
I think they are minutes away from 50thou!!!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
What if he accepts?. That's what I'm worried about.
"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."
What if he accepts the debate, flies to Mises Institute, sits at the podium, and puts headphones on takes a nap instead of debating. Would we get our mone back?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Esuric:What if he accepts?. That's what I'm worried about.
I'm afraid that Krugman will make a simple mistake like conflating general price inflation with relative price inflation, and Murphy will spend the entire time trying to remedy this confusion rather than dealing with other significant points. Also, I'm not sure that Murphy is the best choice to debate Krugman; I would ask Roger Garrison, since his work seems to specialize in this sort of thing. Also, Krugman can just appeal to his own authority and win major points with the media/crowd.
I'm trying to promote this on other forums. I've already got Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Do any of you have any other good ideas?
Hmm... after searching for many websites to post this on, I've concluded that political forums are probably only engaged in by .5% of the US population. Tops. NYTimes doesn't appear to have one. Most of the major media outlets don't. Their homepages try to sell you stuff but there's no discussion forums or anything. Kind of sad. I'm surprised this isn't a bigger deal though. This is waaaaaaay better than voting. And we're not even fighting anyone. Krugman's crowd probably wants the debate to go through as much as anyone (which is why i was trying to reach them on a nyt forum...)
That is why I thought it couldn't work. Too easy to cheat. Especially when it is his opponents putting the money in as opposed to his supporters. But why would his supporters do that? Better to close the lid on debate from their view.
Someone on Murphy's blog already hinted at a Murphy-Garrison versus Krugman-Delong setup.
I think targetting conservative websites is a good idea. In general, conservatives dislike Krugman, and there are far more conservatives than libertarians.
I'm not an Austrian, so I don't have a pony in this race, but I really want to see this debate happen.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I don't know how much it would help, but I could write a column about it in the newspaper. Arizona State University is pretty big and I've have people from different states e-mail me about certain columns, so it could help. Do you think it's worth a try?
Absoulutely
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I think this is a terrible idea. Krugman's knowledge of AE is very rudimentry at best. Even Murphy is not well versed in Keynesian ways. As such this will turn into a intellectual bullying instead of debate.
what does Murphy want out of this debate anyway? Scoring one up on Krugman won't amount to much.
We are far better of introspecting and debating ourselves.
Caley McKibben:That is why I thought it couldn't work. Too easy to cheat. Especially when it is his opponents putting the money in as opposed to his supporters. But why would his supporters do that? Better to close the lid on debate from their view.
you12:what does Murphy want out of this debate anyway? Scoring one up on Krugman won't amount to much.
you12:We are far better of introspecting and debating ourselves.
I'm afraid that Krugman will make a simple mistake like conflating general price inflation with relative price inflation, and Murphy will spend the entire time trying to remedy this confusion rather than dealing with other significant points.
On this, on the paradox of thrift, on other things. The guys might even talk past each other.
I think there's going to have to be a format to avoid this kind of thing. We'll see, if it happens.
Bump. This is too important
I've read about this from the recent article by Murphy on the Mises Daily, but has there been anything posted about what topics are to be discussed and is there a time limit for giving a position? If there isn't a list of topics or if Murphy hasn't posted one should the forum come up with a list of what's to be discussed such as theory, business cycles, and the current crisis?
really, the list of topics should be pretty simply. krugman has only offered one critique of abct which was composed of 3 simple points (replicated and color coded below form his 1998 slate article). murphy's goal should be to answer each of these points as simply as possible (avoiding diversions to pet austrian topics like methodology).
Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?
Most modern hangover theorists probably don't even realize this is a problem for their story. Nor did those supposedly deep Austrian theorists answer the riddle. The best that von Hayek or Schumpeter could come up with was the vague suggestion that unemployment was a frictional problem created as the economy transferred workers from a bloated investment goods sector back to the production of consumer goods. (Hence their opposition to any attempt to increase demand: This would leave "part of the work of depression undone," since mass unemployment was part of the process of "adapting the structure of production.") But in that case, why doesn't the investment boom—which presumably requires a transfer of workers in the opposite direction—also generate mass unemployment? And anyway, this story bears little resemblance to what actually happens in a recession, when every industry—not just the investment sector—normally contracts. http://www.slate.com/id/9593/
Most modern hangover theorists probably don't even realize this is a problem for their story. Nor did those supposedly deep Austrian theorists answer the riddle. The best that von Hayek or Schumpeter could come up with was the vague suggestion that unemployment was a frictional problem created as the economy transferred workers from a bloated investment goods sector back to the production of consumer goods. (Hence their opposition to any attempt to increase demand: This would leave "part of the work of depression undone," since mass unemployment was part of the process of "adapting the structure of production.") But in that case, why doesn't the investment boom—which presumably requires a transfer of workers in the opposite direction—also generate mass unemployment? And anyway, this story bears little resemblance to what actually happens in a recession, when every industry—not just the investment sector—normally contracts.
http://www.slate.com/id/9593/
This won't happen. Not sure why people think there is a chance it will.
i wouldn't say there is "no chance". but the probability is very tiny.
still, it would be very cool if it happened.
Moneybomb anyone?
If it doesn't happen it would be a huge win. It would show the public how commited these guys are to being ivory tower intellectuals.
It would show the public how commited these guys are to being ivory tower intellectuals.
you say that like it's a bad thing. :P
but when it comes to engaging the public on economic issues, i don't think there is anyone more active than paul krugman (certainly not at his level of exposure). so i don't think anyone is going to accuse him of hiding in an ivory tower.
really, the only way this would be considered a huge win is if academic economists (and possibly the popular media) consider murphy a genuine "contender" and not just some crank trying to get media attn.
this is why i really wish that someone with a university position was chosen to debate krugman instead of murphy. not to put murphy down. it's just that i think the debate would be taken as more of a serious challenge. for better or wose, those are just the break. garrison probably should have been the man to do it. but i don't know how he would do in front of a crowd.
really, economics isn't properly discussed in front of a live audience anyways. the best result would have been krugman and garrison doing a 4-piece debate in a popular (and less rigorous) econ journal like the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
When Krugman doesn't debate - and he won't - almost nobody is going to hold it against him. Anyone with a clue already knows the guy is a hack, this isn't going to convinence much of anyone that isn't already.
Here's a Mises article responding to the Krugman piece Student linked above:
http://blog.mises.org/3499/older-paul-krugman-attack-on-austrian-economics/
I know Krugman's a professional idiot, but his criticisms in the Slate article are so simplistic and easily defeated that I feel like there's some technical detail I'm missing that makes them not so trivial. Am I being too hopeful here or can someone point out what I'm missing?
I'm certainly loving the idea of some form of Austrian contact with the mainstream profession, but I don't think this will happen, nor do I think this is the best way for Austrians to go about this. Firstly, being right doesn't make you the best debater. At all. I don't know of Murphy's oratory skills other then his lecturers (which are great as well as comical), nor do I know of Krugmans, but having the best ideas does gurantee a win (usually its a loss, just look at any political debate ,its always about who can promise the biggest free lunch). Krugman also has a huuuuuuuuge advantage in this debate because he has the mainstream lingo/theories/history on his side. Its up to Murphy to explain the Austrian ideas, the technical problems with Keynesian economics, and do pratically an entire revision of economic history when Krugman wants him to.
Also, whatever the outcomes of this, it won't be an earth shattering event. First of all guys, its an economics debate. Throngs of people aren't going to be watching this thing, and I'd be suprised if it gets any real news attention. The amount of people watching this will be very small, and the vast majority of that small population will already be deeply entrenched in their philosophy that the outcome won't change it.
While I think this new video is funny, I don't think it helps the Austrian school's credibility or for Murphy to be taken seriously. The animated videos were a good intro, but this seems like a bit much (also some things I didn't want to see haha).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2xXOQY-NY&feature=player_embedded
Esuric: I would ask Roger Garrison, since his work seems to specialize in this sort of thing. Also, Krugman can just appeal to his own authority and win major points with the media/crowd.
I think Dr. Murphy is fine. His doctoral's dissertation revolves around capital theory. He's taught classes on business cycle theory and likely has a better grasp on the topic than anyone here.
The other point is no other Austrian has stepped up to the plate. Dr. Murphy has. It's unlikely that we could just nominate our favorite Austrian here, and push them into a debate with someone else. In this case Murphy has stepped forward and volunteered himself. We're better off having someone who's willing to do the job.
Thats my IMHO
And don't kid yourselves, these types of debates aren't academic. The best debators are those who can popularize the topic, because it is only through popularization that what you say actually makes sense to the majority of people who are listening to you.
Join my group on Facebook, guys.
Murphy v. Krugman Debate
Nielsio: If it doesn't happen it would be a huge win. It would show the public how commited these guys are to being ivory tower intellectuals.
It won't be a big deal for Krugman to debate Murphy. Just about the only people who will realize Krugman is a loser are the same people who already know it.
He has nothing to loose and everything to gain. His supporters are all economic buffoons. They will declare victory on the basis of his mere participation. They will go on to say: What, Austrian business cycle theory? Krugman refuted that already.
Just like Oscar Lange refuted Mises on the Calculation debate.
What about getting a debate with Pelosi... :)
The missing detail is that he does not know the theory. He just pretends to by reading one paragraph from Wikipedia and writing an article referring to Hayek to make it sound like he does. That is why he calls it "Hangover Theory".
Not only will EVERYONE with a backbone think its incredibly rude to waste the time, energy, and money of so many people, but it will lend plausibility to the idea that Krugman is a hack.
No. They'll just laugh at people wasting their money and not think anything of it, because they don't think that some obscure minority position could possibly have anything worth engaging. Also, Krugman does not know enough about ABCT to debate it anyway. It would amount to Murphy simply giving a seminar with someone possibly interrupting occasionally. But this assumes he would accept the debate. This stunt has nowhere near enough publicity to result in any significant backlash if he ignores it. A few guys on the internet might think he is chicken. Woop-dee-doo. Nothing lost for trying in that case. I would rather Austrians do not waste their money on NYC bums.
It's good publicity with the LvMI and whoever else would be affiliated. What's the worst that could happen? What if the news hits that tons of money was donated to the needy at the expense of LvMI readers?
What's the worst that could happen?
A lot of money thrown away is what.
The people donating the money don't see it that way. If they get some sort of satisfaction out of it, so be it. It's their subjective value preferences.
Caley McKibbin:A lot of money thrown away is what.
How do you draw this conclusion?
It's their subjective value preferences.
No. It's their belief that the ploy will work. They can donate money any time.