Paul Krugman Is Refusing To Help A Charity By Not Engaging In A Debate

Austrian school advocates are rallying to force Paul Krugman into a debate with an Austrian scholar by pledging to make a donation to a food bank if Krugman actually debates Bob Murphy. He will either have to debate Austrian business-cycle theory or explain why a New York City food bank would miss out on $100,000+ in “right-wing” money.

Bob Murphy writes:

As many readers already know, last week I launched a campaign to pressure Paul Krugman into debating me. In just the first week, this sophomoric 7-minute YouTube video has generated $35,000 in pledges (it's up to 50,000 now). At this point, I don’t see how Krugman will ever live this down until he debates me on Austrian versus Keynesian business-cycle theory.

In the present article, I’ll give a little background of how I came up with the idea. Then I’ll point out the broader implications of this episode, which go well beyond my jousting with Krugman.

Krugman knows he'd have his a$$ handed to him so is avoiding the debate.

2nd.

Wait a minute... So Krugman doesn't want to take part in a debate and rather than just accept it Murphy turns it into "Well if you won't debate me, this charity suffers."? That's like saying "Be at the train station in an hour or the puppy gets it." It's nothing more than blackmail and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would support it.

I can take a wild guess why he won't debate...probably the same reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists...

Originally posted by bozzchem
Krugman knows he'd have his a$$ handed to him so is avoiding the debate.

2nd.

That's pretty much it.

Originally posted by Whyhi
I can take a wild guess why he won't debate...probably the same reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists...

Considering the Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics for his work in the Austrian school, I don't think its quite in the same category.

The prize has subsequently been politicized since its inception, which is why Keynesian socialists like Krugman are winning it these days. It has nothing to do with the integrity of the work and everything to do with promoting looting of the citizens on behalf of private banks.

Back when the Nobel prize in economics actually meant you contributed something meaningful to the field, it was given to people who could articulate connections between micro and macro economics that didn't rely on "animal spirits" as a causative agent.

Originally posted by Jenna
Wait a minute... So Krugman doesn't want to take part in a debate and rather than just accept it Murphy turns it into "Well if you won't debate me, this charity suffers."? That's like saying "Be at the train station in an hour or the puppy gets it." It's nothing more than blackmail and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would support it.

edit on 2-11-2010 by Jenna because: Added names for clarity.

Because no puppy is being harmed or threatened in this process.

No one is holding a gun to Krudman's head forcing him to debate.

He can debate and ensure the charity gets the cash or he can continue hiding behind his fraudulent Nobel prize.

Murphy would mop the floor with him which is the only reason Krugman hasn't taken up Murphy's challenge.

Originally posted by Whyhi
I can take a wild guess why he won't debate...probably the same reason Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists...

Although it's the creationists who cannot debate but rather preach (much like the Krugman's).

Originally posted by mnemeth1
He can debate and ensure the charity gets the cash or he can continue hiding behind is fraudulent Nobel prize.

He's not hiding behind anything "fraudulent". You seem to itch to just spew out diatribes. In one of your threads, it's Einstein who's a moron, and in another, Krugman is a fraud. You, of course, mastered all sciences from mathematics to obstetrics, and are well equipped to pass judgments like these ones.

If somebody wants to BUY their 5 minutes in limelight, it's Krugman's right to deny the individual such purchase. If the opponent has ANYTHING of substance to say, they can always publish a paper in peer-reviewed journals. No gladiator fights are necessary.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
He can debate and ensure the charity gets the cash or he can continue hiding behind is fraudulent Nobel prize.

He's not hiding behind anything "fraudulent". You seem to itch to just spew out diatribes. In one of your threads, it's Einstein who's a moron, and in another, Krugman is a fraud. You, of course, mastered all sciences from mathematics to obstetrics, and are well equipped to pass judgments like these ones.

If somebody wants to BUY their 5 minutes in limelight, it's Krugman's right to deny the individual such purchase. If the opponent has ANYTHING of substance to say, they can always publish a paper in peer-reviewed journals. No gladiator fights are necessary.

Here's the latest blog post from Krugman:
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...

In it he's calling for a target inflation rate of 4%.

He says:
"But how do you get inflation? Only by having a full-employment economy. "

Any two year old can see the insanity of this. See Zimbabwe and Wiemar Germany for a refutation of this utter nonsense.

You don't need a degree in economics to understand that inflation does not create jobs, it destroys them. Further, the Fed's mandate is to PREVENT inflation, precisely because they knew full well at the time of the Fed's founding just what inflation leads to.

The Fed's mandate:
www.federalreserve.gov...

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

stable prices means prices remain flat.

moderate long term interest rates means "moderate" - not zero.

The Fed has no authority to create inflation nor to drop rates to zero per their mandate. They are acting illegally right now and they WILL destroy this country sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Any two year old can see the insanity of this.

At least you do.

I read the blog and other posts by Krugman. It's highly speculative but nothing outwardly "crazy". It's thinking out loud, about the correlation between the money supply and employment numbers.

You don't need a degree in economics to understand that inflation does not create jobs

I know you don't. You personally also don't need physics education to declare that "All science is a lie" (which you did).

The Fed's mandate:
www.federalreserve.gov...

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

stable prices means prices remain flat.

Flat prices mean no inflation, so on the face of it, your statement is wrong. Even when inflation was higher, prices would climb a little bit but were still considered stable.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
blah blah ad hom

Flat prices mean no inflation, so on the face of it, your statement is wrong. Even when inflation was higher, prices would climb a little bit but were still considered stable.

No kidding, flat prices mean no inflation - which is the Fed's mandate.

By creating inflation they are in conflict with their mandate - hence, they are acting illegally.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No one is holding a gun to Krudman's head forcing him to debate.

He can debate and ensure the charity gets the cash or he can continue hiding behind his fraudulent Nobel prize.

Nope no gun, just telling him if he doesn't take part a charity will suffer. And later if he doesn't give in to the demands of his blackmailer people will say "See! He let that poor charity suffer instead of giving in." This will be used as proof of whatever people want to accuse him of rather than being recognized for what it is.

Originally posted by Jenna
Nope no gun, just telling him if he doesn't take part a charity will suffer. And later if he doesn't give in to the demands of his blackmailer people will say "See! He let that poor charity suffer instead of giving in." This will be used as proof of whatever people want to accuse him of rather than being recognized for what it is.

Blackmail:
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.

Asking Krugman to debate in order for a Charity to get money it otherwise would not get does not fall under the definition of blackmail.

No one is being threatened with extortion. No one is being threatened with violence. No one is being threatened with criminal exposure.

People are volunteering to donate to a private charity - all Krudman has to do is show up.

Krudman can hide and let the charity go without the donations or he can show up and help the charity out.

Originally posted by mnemeth1blah blah ad hom

It's rich of you to complain about "ad hom", whereby you summarily call Krugman a fraud. So please reap what you sow.

No kidding, flat prices mean no inflation - which is the Fed's mandate.

By creating inflation they are in conflict with their mandate - hence, they are acting illegally.

Only Sith deal in absolute...

See about effects of inflation:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1blah blah ad hom

It's rich of you to complain about "ad hom", whereby you summarily call Krugman a fraud. So please reap what you sow.

It's rich of you to attack me with ad homs while I'm pointing out the egregious errors in Krudmans logic then claim I'm reaping what I'm sowing.

Only Sith deal in absolute...

See about effects of inflation:

en.wikipedia.org...

Inflation is absolute, prices are either rising or they are not. There is no "prices are rising while at the same time remaining stable"

If prices are rising, then the Fed is in conflict with their mandate.

Further, ZIRP is against the mandate as well.

They are breaking every single measure of their mandate right now.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's rich of you to attack me with ad homs while I'm pointing out the egregious errors in Krudmans logic then claim I'm reaping what I'm sowing.

You didn't point jack. You just said that a 2-year old can see that Krugman is wrong. I read a few blog posts by Krugman and his opponents, and I'm not sure that he's wrong at all, although it's clear that there is a lot of speculation there.

Inflation is absolute, prices are either rising or they are not. There is no "prices are rising while at the same time remaining stable"

Your body temperature can rise by a fraction of a degree and still it won't mean fever.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Krudman can hide and let the charity go without the donations or he can show up and help the charity out.

And you don't see the problem with that?

Ok then, since that's how you feel about. If you don't show up at the train station tomorrow to debate me on where rainbows come from, the "Feed the starving kittens" foundation doesn't get this $1k I'm generously willing to donate. What? You don't want the kittens to starve do you? What do you have against kittens? You're not a kitten-hater are you? "Hear-ye Hear-ye, let it be forever known that Mnemeth is a kitten hater who wouldn't debate me on where rainbows come from to keep the poor kittens from starving!"

Now do you understand my point?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You didn't point jack. You just said that a 2-year old can see that Krugman is wrong. I read a few blog posts by Krugman and his opponents, and I'm not sure that he's wrong at all, although it's clear that there is a lot of speculation there.

So you aren't sure if full employment is necessary before inflation can occur? As if history hasn't be absolutely 100% clear as to what the answer is?

Inflation is absolute, prices are either rising or they are not. There is no "prices are rising while at the same time remaining stable"

Your body temperature can rise by a fraction of a degree and still it won't mean fever.

Inflation is a sustained rise in prices over time. This is either occurring or it is not occurring.

Since the Fed was created, the value of the dollar has declined by over 95% and counting.

Coins are no longer made out of copper, nickel or silver because the Fed has destroyed the value of our money so badly.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Krudman can hide and let the charity go without the donations or he can show up and help the charity out.

And you don't see the problem with that?

Ok then, since that's how you feel about. If you don't show up at the train station tomorrow to debate me on where rainbows come from, the "Feed the starving kittens" foundation doesn't get this $1k I'm generously willing to donate. What? You don't want the kittens to starve do you? What do you have against kittens? You're not a kitten-hater are you? "Hear-ye Hear-ye, let it be forever known that Mnemeth is a kitten hater who wouldn't debate me on where rainbows come from to keep the poor kittens from starving!"

Now do you understand my point?

No, I don't.

If starving kittens would get a thousand dollars for me showing up to debate you (which I am confident I would utterly smash you in an econ debate) I would be there.

You see, since I am confident in my position, not only would I show up to debate you, I'd do it even if it there were no money being offered at all.