This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Great FreedomFest Debate Was Like Watching Tom and Jerry
by Keith Weiner
With apologies to his fans, Jerry is an evil little mouse who constantly pesters Tom the Cat. Tom tries and tries, but cannot seem to overpower someone who is a fraction of his size and strength.
Watching Stephen Moore attempt to debate Paul Krugman was like that.
The “economics” of Krugman is Keynesian economics. It consists of central planning your life by force, because market failure. And Krugman repeated this phrase “market failure” several times. Of course the solution was always government intervention.
Here is an interesting endorsement about one of Keynes’ books.
"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might,
so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."
This was said by someone who knows all about fascism, Benito Mussolini. Fascism is a corporatist system. Although it has private ownership in name, it’s all under government control. Krugman is a real economic lightweight who proposed fascism for nearly everything that came up. His debate tactics consisted of context-dropping, asserting simple fallacies, and cherry-picking data.
In the TV cartoon, Jerry would steal something and run into his mouse hole. Tom would be left whacking at the hole with a broom, in vain. At FredomFest, Krugman would say that the government must spend more to get the economy out of recession. Moore disagreed, and Krugman displayed a chart showing government spending and GDP growth rates for many countries around the world. Government spending and growth correlated very well.
Instead of flailing away with a blunt instrument, I would have said “Seriously, Paul? What a simple fallacy. The definition of GDP includes government spending. You haven’t proven anything. It’s a tautology that if government spending goes up, GDP goes up. This is the flaw in GDP. Sometimes, rising GDP means the people are being impoverished.”
Next, Krugman moved on to one of the central fallacies of Keynesianism. In Krugman’s words, "You just gave the logic for government deficit spending. Your spending is my income. Where is the income supposed to come from, if everyone cuts spending? Government has to make up the difference."
I would have said, “Seriously Paul. Again?! This is like the Broken Window fallacy [which Krugman said in 2011 “ceased to be a fallacy”]. Not all spending is consumer spending. Investment spending is important. When people slow consumption, it doesn’t mean they hoard dollar bills. They increase their bank deposits. Banks lend to promising companies. You know, that next new product or lifesaving technology? Except you don’t know it, because government spending has crowded them out.”
In an economic downturn, people go on fewer gambling and drinking binges to Las Vegas. Krugman is basically saying that the government has to take up the slack, and go on gambling binges. Because demand shortfall.
Shortly after telling Moore that one cannot cherry-pick one’s data, Krugman showed a graph comparing Jerry Brown’s California to Sam Brownback’s Kansas. For one year. I felt embarrassed for him, as there were sounds of amused laughter from the audience.
Why did it come to Kansas vs. California for the year 2014 (I didn’t write the year in my notes)? It’s because Moore was defending free markets by appeal to aggregate statistics. Moore used red states as examples of freer markets, and blue for less free markets. He showed a few charts in which red states fared better than blue.
Krugman’s cherry-picking got him safely back to his mouse hole, with Moore stuck outside, banging with a floor cleaning tool.
You cannot defend freedom using statistics, as you cannot get a mouse out of the wallboards with a broom.
Both Krugman and Moore were nervous speakers. Krugman was hunched a bit in on himself (though to be fair, he was in hostile territory and he knew it). Both spoke too rapidly and with a jittery character to their voices. Each has a nervous tell, with Moore incessantly taking little sips from his iced tea and Krugman playing with his fingers.
Krugman took the lead on each issue. Moore often respond with a long caveat, which conceded the point to Krugman. For example, Krugman said that some kids are born disadvantaged, so we need to give them each $8,000 to $10,000 (per year, I assume) in free money. He actually said they “choose the wrong parents.”
Someone please tell him that this is only possible by robbing the taxpayers. Maybe add that it will just accelerate America’s collapse into bankruptcy. Trillions in welfare spending do not fix anyone’s problems, and are actually the cause of the disadvantage Krugman discusses.
Moore said he supports a social safety net, because America is rich, we can afford it, and it’s morally right. When the broom failed to defeat the mouse, not even Tom tried singing to Jerry.
The topic moved to healthcare. Moore noted that government involvement has caused costs to spiral. Krugman offered another whopper. It’s because innovation.
This is absurd, and even Krugman knows it. In computers, there’s been decades of both rapid innovation and falling prices.
Krugman moved on to his shining moment, in the Ellsworth Toohey sense of shine. He unshrunk from his hunch, and his voice rang with moral clarity. “Obamacare is a life saver!”
The audience booed.
“I know someone whose life was saved by Obamacare. If you don’t know anyone like that, then I’m sorry for your narrow little world.”
This is a faux-apology and a presumption. Who the heck is this guy to apologize to me for my life not conforming to his ideology? Not to mention, Krugman glosses over the people harmed by it. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, even if handout beneficiaries think there is.
Worse yet Krugman implies that, to be moral, you must sacrifice yourself. He is cashing in on the guilt many people feel, at their own success. He’s learned that all he has to do is raise the specter that someone else is suffering, and they will concede him anything he demands.
This being FreedomFest, and not the People’s Workers’ Party, a large majority of the audience supported Moore. However, moderator Mark Skousen asked a very clever question, “If you did not enter this room in agreement with Paul Krugman, did you change your mind as a result of what he said today?” I estimate about 50 people clapped or cheered.
Krugman won because he appealed to people’s sense of right and wrong. Morality trumps economics any day of the week. Moore didn’t even respond to Krugman’s economic errors, much less smack down his phony judgmentalism.
- advertisements -


It's very likely the ONLY reason Krudman agreed to this 'debate' was because it was a guy like Moore on the other side. I can think of many others who would have literally reduced Krudman to a drooling, babbling idiot within the first 10 minutes.
I would even place my bet on the average ZH'er any day of the week. It still mystifies me why no one just asks: 'Hey Paul, why don't we just pay every person in the USA $10 million dollars every year?' I mean, wouldn't this solve all the problems, and take the economy into high orbit?
The crux of Krugman's ideology is that he believes it IS POSSIBLE TO GET A FREE LUNCH...from the government.
See?
His thinking comes apart because he makes no distinction between printing of currency and creation of money.
Currency is a concierge parking ticket. It is a piece of paper by itself. The car that it represents is money.
Krugman makes no distinction.
So he believes that in printing more parking tickets that all the capital needed to produce more cars has been created and exercised.
He really does think they print money at the Federal Reserve.
"Currency is a parking lot ticket"---whereas money is the actual car"--- that's so good; I"m going to steal it. I've been looking for the way to point that out to people for years. "Printing more parking lot tickets is the same as building a lot of new cars"--- Yes; this is exactly the confusion.
Peter Schiif would have wiped the foor with him...
He should have just "Alex Jonesed" Paul Krugman like he was Piers Morgan!
no.
when you have a clearly intellectually superior position, you don't need to engage in infantile shouting like that, like you're some sort of bill oreilly.
Share your wealth Paul.
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/paul-krugmans-house/view/bing/
"Krugman displayed a chart showing government spending and GDP growth rates for many countries around the world. Government spending and growth correlated very well."
I found the exact opposite of that when I charted it out myself. My chart showed that low government spending areas has high GDP growth rates, while high government spending areas had low GDP rates.
FreedomFest with Statist apologist Krugman and a punching bag. Who funds FreedomFest again?
Doug is great, but the real debate wet dream would have to be Hoppe. In the first 90 seconds, he would've knocked him out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJwmMu15Exc
Krugman wouldn't get in the ring with Hoppe or Lew Rockwell. TC, you are being generous giving him a survival time of 90 seconds.
And what about Walter Williams, my hero, and Thomas Sowell? They would have him squawling like the wuss he is.
So what was the point of the debate? An intellectual Pygmy debating a fucking mouse?
Jim Grant would have destroyed Krugman.
"Krugman won because he appealed to people’s sense of right and wrong." No, Krugman's arguements are considered intellectually superior by those who have no idea how entriprises are actually run and commerce occurs.
How many business leaders or entreprenuers are out there clamoring for moar government spending in order to strengthen their business? Outside of the MIC, there are very few. Real people who operate businesses know that you grow your enterprise by offering superior goods and/or services to your customers and potential customers.
Eliminate the food stamps, eliminate Medicare, eliminate the monster GSEs, eliminate the NIH, etc.
Go ahead and you will see almost every major corporation begging, screaming for govt-spending to be reinstated as their easy revenues and free IP streams dry up. Big business absolutely does suck on the government teat and the MIC is only one of many.
Real people who operate business know that you grow your enterprise by putting superior lobbyists in DC; the quality of goods and services has nothing to do with it. Rent-seeking 101 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking )
Here's the "Fixed Fortune 200", note how many are not MIC: http://influenceexplorer.com/fixed-fortunes/
"Go ahead and you will see almost every major corporation begging, screaming for govt-spending to be reinstated as their easy revenues and free IP streams dry up..."
You left off a phrase.
"...because they aren't real businesses."
There. Fixed that for ya.
Businesses are only businesses if they offer a product or service that fills a GENUINE human need/desire. When they fill only an imaginary desire or need we call them a 'racket'. EXAMPLE: A protection racket.
No, Mediocritas. You cannot legislate needs and desires into (or out of) existence, only give some peoples' desires primacy over others'.
well said!
a legitimate business exists through providing goods and services through *voluntary* exchange and which the market values.
voluntary, not coerced exchange at the end of the barrel of a gun.
It appears that Keith would make a formidable opponent to Krugman too.
Would like to add that the people's "sense of right and wrong" is backwards and that the closing statement of this article does not make that very clear.
If ever there were a litmus test to affirm a principle as factual or deny it as contradicting the fact, we simply push the principle to its furthest end and ask then if it is true or false. How can it be that the sacrifice of one's self for another is the hallmark of the good? If everyone were sacrificing themselves to everyone else, then how could the good ever come to be? The fallacy then is the nature of what is good as according to Krugman is not the good, but its opposite.
This event sounds like a staged event and Moore = Strawman
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose". This is what they want, but there is always a price to be paid and just like what is happening in Greece, if you take away all hope, society will disintegrate. They think they can rebuild the rubble into a shining city, but all they are doing is creating the new barbarians. Hell, the EU is importing barbarians from the third world and isn't that working out well....
My dream debate would be Krugman vs Doug Casey.
Doug reminds me of Hunter S Thompson, if HST was an economist.
I'd prefer to see Krugman debate a flamethrower.
If it was a Libertarian Flame Thrower, Krugman would win. If it was a Mises Flame thrower it would set the audience on fire and Krugman would still win. Libertarianism is neither political system or economic system. It is another irrational religion with a simi-wrathful tough love demi-god who smokes pot laced with amphetamine..., better for the sociopathic delusions of grandeur.
Exo-
And please tell us why it is that we should pay any attention to your dumb shit drivel. I don't know about you and your fellow travelers but at least they believe in the Constitution, which is the freedom to pursue any "ism" you choose so long as you leave others alone to do the same. Krugman does not like freedom of the individual, he is a statist. What are you, besides irrational?
Well, I wouldn't agree with your venomous imagery, but I do know that 2 out of 3 Austrian theories of money are faith based.
They could better their means and grasp an attainable end if they let go of their faith and embraced the facts.
Sorry Tara, but...
HST could verbally Fry a Motherfucker much more Eloquently and Efficiently than Anybodys Wetdream of a Flamethrower in his day!
Congratulations to the person who got Krugman to debate someone on the topic away from the non-confrontational MSM. WTF! to the person who put up Stephen Moore as his opposition.
The obvious choices for this event would have been Peter Schiff or Robert Murphy. Besides that anyone at the Mises Institute would have done a better job. Moore is nervous in his default demeanor and is giddy like a little girl when something confrontational happens. He doesn't make good points even in interviews in friendly territory like Fox News/Business.
Correct, not only is Moore a lightweight intellectually, he's even Cato lite, plus, he grins like he's retarded. He needs to develop a moose drool and he would be full retard. As the old saying goes, listen to him for an hour and eat a bowl of jello and you can go to bed with nothing on your stomach and nothing on your mind.
He's a perfect fit for Faux News, he and O' Reilly would make good blow buddies, Moore is meek and O'Reilly wont stop interrupting, a buffoon.
+++++ Robert Murphy.
Gotta hand to Krugman however. His philosophies are irrelevant, other than the publicity they garner and he himself as a lightning rod for debate over 'Keynesian economics' - which, as a phrase, has been uttered so many times over the past 6 or 7 years, as to have nearly lost its meaning.
GDP goes up when the government says it goes up ... notwithstanding the state of the economy.