This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I Dare Paul Krugman To Debate Austrian Theory
How much would it be worth to you to see arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman debate a top-notch Austrian theory economist on business cycle theory?
Krugman has prattled for years about Austrian theory being a flawed dead-end of economics. My guess he has never read anything by Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard, the greatest scholars of the Austrian School. He doesn't understand it in any way; I have read his critiques and they are uniformed.
Robert Murphy, one of the bright young lights of Austrian theory economics, has challenged Krugman to a debate. Now let me say others have tried to draw Krugman out, but he won't do it. Murphy, who got his Ph.D at NYU, has made an offer of debate that Krugman will be hard pressed to refuse. Here's the challenge:
When Krugman agrees to debate Murphy at the Mises Institute, $100,000 will be donated to the Fresh Food Program of FoodBankNYC.org, a non-profit dedicated to feeding the hungry of NYC .
Murphy is soliciting donations for the debate through The Point, a web site that hosts campaigns. Launched only 4 days ago, they already have raised $22,000. I just pledged $100. If Krugman doesn't accept the challenge, I will not be charged. If he does, I get a charitable donation deduction to the Food Bank of NYC.
Here is where you can donate: Murphy-Krugman Debate. Please join me. This will be money very well spent.
Here is a video about it:
»
- Econophile's blog
- 10994 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
So no government at all? Ok, are town meetings allowed then? Or is that too a violation of the "free market ideal"?! We just should stay home and make up our own rules, right? Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that sounds!
Krugman might obey the "arguing with idiots"-rule with Austrian economists: Don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Yes, no government at all. All meetings are allowed, but they have no authority over the individual unless he accepts that authority. The protection of private property is the only rule necessary and that can be accomplished through private legal proceedings ( of which there are many historical examples).
You have been brainwashed to believe government is essential. So, give one example where government can provide a service at the same cost as private enterprise. I can wait...
There's plenty of examples where services are provided by the government not just "at the same cost" as a private enterprise but cheaper. You didn't really think through this argument, did you?
One historic example is fire services. Originally they started out as private enterprises, operating on a pay-per-incident basis. That worked well until it became apparent that many of the fires were set by personnel of the fire services themselves. They had a direct financial interest in arson. Fire services were quickly turned into community or government financed constructs.
There's also countless services that private enterprises are simply are not willing to offer.
Think of governments as insurance companies, funded by taxpayers but with no direct financial interest in wriggling out of insurance obligations. Often it will be nominally more expensive - until you realize that the 'efficiency' of private insurers is mostly based on not paying when it gets expensive and on kicking out high-risk participants.
It is actually cheaper to let all buildings burn and pay to rebuild them than to pay for insurance, equipment, salaries, pensions and the obvious- cost of government administration. There have been studies and models.
You might want to think your responses through. Government is no guarantee against firemen starting fires, as we continuously see (Arizona Fires). The cost of government administration is a huge cost- from legislators, police powers, tax collection and the actual departments to oversee costs. All on top of the actual service.
Next, if countless services are not funded, then obviously, people do not see the need. Those fundings will be for the benefit of a few at the expense of all. Keep your hand out ofmy wallet- I can make my own funding decisions thank you.
Finally, insurance companies are insurance companies. Why would I need a government on top of already existing insurance companies.If I want insurance, I can purchase it and detail the language of the contract to protect myself. As for not trying to wiggle out of obligations- read eminent domain, AIG, Bank bailouts, etc. Don't governments have a greater obligation to the taxpayers? Or just the ones that bribe and own them?
And presumably at some point insurance companies would fund and maintain (or subcontract out) their own fire services if it were cost-effective to do so. That is, if it were less expensive than just letting buildings burn to the ground and paying the claim to the insured.
It is becoming fairly obvious that government services are provided, to the extent that they are provided at all, only grudgingly and as a side-effect of the real purpose of government, which is simply wealth extraction via an elaborate protection racket. Witness the recent case - à la Crassus - of the Tennessee firemen who stood by while an old woman's house burned to the ground because of her failure to pay a $75 fee.
http://www.indyposted.com/114773/tennessee-firefighters-watch-house-burn...
For example check this historic example of a nice private libertarian enterprise built around on-demand fire services, where negotiated contracts were used to set a fair current market price for fire services:
http://wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_firefighting
So, in their dissatisfaction, the people would find another servicer or create a contract for services. One example does not prove a point.
The use of the absurd is running rampant here. Negotiated contracts are not valid in our present society when made under duress.
Let me make one hopefully pertinent point: Austrian economics is not a panacea. The same crimes will be perpetrated. The same thieves will operate in the world's markets. The difference is this: they're effects will be marginalized by the market and the corrections will be quicker with less distortion. The costs will be less and the individual will have the liberty to act in their best interests. My labor will be mine.
So without government funded fire departments, the whole world would burn down and come to and it would be the end of the world as we knew it ?
There is always a market solution for everything.
That is your problem right there, you wrote it, not me. That is why communism doesn't work.
So without government funded fire departments, the whole world would burn down and come to and it would be the end of the world as we knew it ?
There is always a market solution for everything.
That is your problem right there, you wrote it, not me. That is why communism doesn't work.
"All meetings are allowed, but they have no authority over the individual unless he accepts that authority."
That is just typical Wild West romantic talk, kindergarten stuff. That real Wild West was pretty shithole place by modern standards, the rule of law was spotty at best. BTW, the most free people in this world are criminals, they would not accept any other authority except their own towards other people. They liked the Wild West, they could do almost anything.
So what would your governmentless society do then with these bad apples...hire a sheriff (public sector worker!). Eventually your society would form a government with all the necessary institutions to establish and enforce laws.
Didn't think you could come up with an example. Using derogatory terms does not make an argument.
Yes, a community would hire police protection and the cost would be less than that of government. This is the point, more important, the sheriff would work for you- not some distant ruler ruling in their best interests.
You assume that only government can organize society. Any community can organize a society and at less cost than a government. You assume anarchy, but the reality is that people live in communities and value their property- enough to pay to protect it. Further, the people who need the most protection will end up paying their share, rather than foisting the costs on the greater community.
The individual would have more responsibility to monitor the actions of their community, to be an active part, but then- it is the relinquishing of this responsibility that has landed us in our present circumstances.
As for safety- just how secure do you really feel? Why are we fighting so many wars? Why are we afraid of the police? Security systems on homes. Video surveillance. Guns for personal protection. Wow, it almost sounds like the wild west...
the wild west was less wild. an armed society is a polite society.
keynesianism = centralization of power
austrianism = decentralization of power
is there really a debate?
+++ here and for all responses so far. Nice crisp, cogent drill downs IMHO (coming from the proverbial choir of course ;~).
(though, honestly you might want to watch the derogatory missiles yourself...waay to easy & just not worth mucking up the discussion).
'Society' wouldn't have to do anything.
'Bad apples' would be dealt with when they attacked someone or tried to steal their property.
The right to defend yourself and your property is a natural right that government only infringes upon.
Criminal corporations are in control, in control of what? The market isn't a free market, we have the federal reserve and much regulation. If it was merely a matter of regulation, why is this recession affecting much of the world?
What is this mythological "free market" in which there are no players which are not obeying the common rules? Totally free market would mean the strongest and meanest a-holes would always win and take it all and keep on taking.
Because they would own the markets eventually, setting their own rules. Might makes right kind of markets. USA has now the most free markets in the world and criminals did take over. You want even more of that?
You are describing complete anarchy and might-makes-right philosophy, which is inconsistant with the free market.
There are plenty of materials available that describe the workings of a free market, but I would hardly expect the likes of you to actually educate yourself.
I don't think that the likes of you are stupid. The fact that you have made your way to the digital agora today argues for your intelligence and curiosity and as an intelligent and curious human being you have my respect. That said, ad hominum attacks are kind of a cop out, way too easy and debase the discussion. I am pretty sure they are rather beneath you Devore. Right?
.
if you cannot explain it to your mother, then you do not know it.
"The movement that I'm in favor of is a movement of libertarians who do not substitute whim for reason. Now some of them do, obviously, and I'm against that. I'm in favor of reason over whim. As far as I'm concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -- Murray Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html
wow. that guy sounds like an idiot.
Funny, do you buy from a holes? I don't. Do you employ a holes? me neither. How about if you have no choice and the government has eliminated all competitors so you have to buy from the a holes? Wow, sounds like the present day market...
no, this is 'jungle law'. the purpose of government (our collective force) is to protect the property of smart wimps so they have an incentive to keep coming up with great shit like Ipods. any bully who messes with the smart wimps wealth or property is essentially trying to take all of our Ipods by removing the smart wimp's incentive to innovate. This is why we need a republic of laws to protect 'free trade'. Additionally, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to know that our Ipods would be in jeopardy someday by career politicians colluding with corporate welfare seekers. They constructed our Constitutional Republic to protect our Ipods. They were very clever.
*chuckles
Thanks for the video ... I didn't know Paul's name was pronounced Crudman
How about they both debate someone who understands merchantalism? Economics as a means of national power? How mindless unilateral free trade zombies have destroyed the American economy? Wonder how that would go...or is that too much to ask?
It is quite ironic that by those free trade agreements with China, Americans saved the Chinese communist party there. Giving them a nice way out, getting the economy of China growing big time while staying in power for another a couple of decades at least. Still going strong...
Austrian theory ain't nuthin' but shit.
Can I haz my 100K nao plz?
The reason Krugman will not debate Keynesianism is that he gets bigger kickbacks from Money Changers.
Corrupt him higher and he will sell his soul to you.
Keynesianism (socialism) is wealth transfer system and nothing else.
Gold is money and nothing else.
Don't you get this?
I'm sorry, but these Mises videos are horrible. The style, not the content.
I shared this video with a pro-Krugman friend whom I often debate and we both enjoyed it very much.
Here's the thing. Talking about economic "theory" is nonsensical. It elevates economics to a science which it is most def not. The fact is all economics is common sense - which is exactly why the likes of Krugman have no grasp of it. Krugman and his ilk would run the this country into the ground. Bernanke is no different than Krugman except he is SLIGHTLY less extreme. It is really quite simple. Don't spend more than yopu can afford. NEVER print money and never artifically lower interest rates for long periods of time. Right now rates should be at 3-4%. This would mean a recession for sure but it would help the deleveraging process which is necessary.
>Talking about economic "theory" is nonsensical.
Especially for someone who has no clue.
We get these arguments because some people insist on viewing economics - just as they view everything else - as a tool for making things work in a way that fits some arbitrary model of fairness, rather than choosing a desired end state and wielding the tool to get there. If the tool won't conform to how they think things should be, it gets modified or discarded.
We're all going to hell in a handbasket, but hey, it's all good because a bunch of busybodies somewhere think that's the fair way to do it. This is how we get the speaker of the house telling us that unemployment insurance is the fastest way to create jobs, and tinpot dictators declaring inflation to be "illegal".
This is paying short shrift with the international financial situation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gma5ndHOhOc
Get a load of Max Keiser going after the fraud from Paris in this video.
Press TV focuses on the financial fraud being perpetuated by the fractional reserve banking system.
It's not Austrian Theory, it's Austrian Fact.
Keynesianism is still just a theory looking for facts.
That's right.
Anyone trying to discredit it is a flat earther.
Worse, Keynesianism is intellectual cover for a very old set of fallacies that makes it easier to pillage the people "legally".
We have a winner! how much more overt does this need to be before people understand exactly what this is, and how well the JMK's original theory was timed to coincide with the largest theft ever...until now.
Unlike the likes of Bernanke, Friedman, and Krugman, there's evidence that Keynes and Greenspan knew good from bad, and chose bad. It'd sure be interesting to see how the Devil (or the anti-John Galt) approached them. It'd make the conversations between honest people and looters in Atlas Shrugged look blunt and contrived, I'm sure.
Possible headline responses to Krugman / Murphy proposed debate:
NEW YORK FOOD BANK CLOSED DUE TO 'ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES'... PAUL KRUGMAN VICTIM OF HIT AND RUN WHILE LEAVING RESTURANT IN MANHATTAN ... ECONOMIST KRUGMAN ARRESTED FOR RUNNING METH LAB IN UPPER EAST SIDE... FIRE DESTROYS MISES INSTITUTE ... FAMED ECONOMIST KRUGMAN RUSHED TO DETOXIFICATION CENTRE FOR UNKNOWN SUBSTANCE ABUSE... MISES INSTITUTE MURPHY ARRESTED FOR ALLEGED LINKS TO AUSTRIAN TERRORIST GROUP... i could go on but my fingers are big ,and typing is impossible when i am laughing.feel free to add or edit.
Murphy is a good pick for the job.
Here he is for those who don't know him.
http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia#p/search/4/dZf3Qye0BtQ
He's a smart guy, and I like that he asks simple questions.
But isn't there a simple answer?
Just raise reserve requirements, lower the multiplier, soak up cash that way.
I dunno, seems pretty air-tight to me, but then I'm no economist like Murphy.
Because any reserve requirement besides 100% is fraud and theft of property. Since the banks won't consider this, you are still allowing a small class within society to be sanctioned criminals.
You are allowing a small class to counterfeit money, but denying the greater population the same option.
If the banks want to make money, they should loan out savings for a fee and pay to saver for the use of his money after receiving his permission. Of course, it is much easier to let them lend counterfeit money in astronomical amounts, burdening the taxpayer with a debt as they collect interest where citizens have no recourse or means to check their behavior unless they can get Congress to revoke their charter- the same congressmen they own using the counterfeit money they create.
You're right, it is simple- 100% reserve requirement. And yes, you are no economist like Murphy.
fractional reserve counterfeiting, designed by banker theives to serve banker theives.
LOL
So, what you're saying is that I'm right and Murphy is wrong in this video to which I am referring - an increase in the reserve ratio WOULD sop up the extra liquidity.
Thanks.
Of course it would sop up liquidity- providing it is destroyed and not merely transferred to another balance sheet to be leveraged in another manner. This is the problem with the Federal reserve, but then, Murphy knows that.
Hawt Damn Econophile great share.
I guess I'm an unsophisticated rube, cause this sounds like genius to me.