21 Oct 2011

Murphy Debate With Sumner in January

Economics, Federal Reserve, Inflation, Market Monetarism, Shameless Self-Promotion 28 Comments

It’s on. (I was going to link to an Eazy-E video of the song with that title, but remembered that women and children read this blog.) We haven’t picked an official date yet, but Sumner and I will go toe-to-toe in January. The topic? Anthropogenic climate change. He’s for, I’m against. Or maybe we’ll talk about the Fed targeting NGDP instead.

At this point, after consulting with my trainers, I don’t hope to knock-out Sumner during the bout, but rather just contain him:

Oh, when I was looking through old posts for the one on consumption vs. income taxes, I saw some funny titles relating to Sumner: one, two, and three.

28 Responses to “Murphy Debate With Sumner in January”

  1. Brent says:

    Haha. Should have still done the Eazy-E props!

  2. kavram says:

    Only a matter of time now until Kruggie feels the heat and is forced to step up to the plate. He can’t ignore you forever, especially now that you’re ko’ing his Keynesian allies

  3. Joseph Fetz says:

    Here’s something for a little inspiration (you’ve already used ‘Eye of the Tiger”).



  4. Martin says:

    Very cool, look forward to it.

  5. David says:

    “Ya can’t stop him, ya can only hope to contain him!” My money’s still on Robert “The Crusher” Murphy.

  6. Silas Barta says:

    Awesome that this’ll happen … but please, PLEASE talk about monetary theory and economic paradigms instead of AGW.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      Yes, I agree.

  7. Blue Aurora says:

    Will you ask Sumner about what he knows of the econophysicists, after the debate? I think you two ought to be looking at these guys, cos’ what they’re publishing in Physica A is worth investigation. Here’s a book by one of their leading figures, Joseph L. McCauley.


  8. Comte says:

    The description of the debate you gave is ambiguous. Are you and Sumner debating whether AGW is actually occurring, or whether state action is necessary to combat it?

  9. Mike says:

    Don’t be dense, guys. He’s obviously joking. Why on earth would they discuss anything except monetary policy? Can’t wait!

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      I may be wrong, but I think that Murphy has done a lot of research on the effects of environmentalist interventions on the economy. So, when he mentioned the who AGW thing, it didn’t seem so strange to take him at his word.

      But, then again, I am notorious for completely missing jokes altogether.

      • Dan says:

        It was a joke.

      • Silas Barta says:

        I agree with Joseph_Fetz. In addition to Bob having researched and published work on the economics and politics of AGW[1], Sumner has written a lot about it in passing on his blog. Plus, there’s a long history of much-anticipated dialogues veering off onto less interesting topics (especially given the presenters).

        [1] I was going to call his work “misguided” until I realized I had reviewed some of that work before submission, making me one of the “misguiders”.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Just for that, Silas, we might talk about whole life insurance. I think it’s a good way to prop up total spending.

          • Joseph Fetz says:


          • Silas Barta says:


            I just re-read the comment and I have no idea what I meant by “especially given the presenters” … it’s not even a good attempt at being funny. Forget that part.

  10. Rob says:

    Scott will probably argue that Anthropogenic climate change is caused by setting the NGDP-target too high while Bob will claim it is caused by structural distortions to the supply chain of sunlight.

  11. Max says:

    Take his head off, Bob!

    You’re fighting your way up the food chain. Soon, you’ll dethrone Krugman. You’re a true iconoclast!

  12. Blackadder says:

    I for one demand that the debate be on the subject of AGW. Anything else would be incontrovertible proof of intellectual dishonesty on Bob’s part.

  13. Wonks Anonymous says:

    Scott lives in more northerly climes. Makes sense that he’d favor global warming while Bob Murphy would be willing to resort to statism to prevent it. You picked a terrible month though, in January the audience will be on the pro-warming side.

  14. David S. says:

    I can’t believe this Sumner guy’s actually going to waste his time with you. First Karl Smith, and now him. These guys seem to be good economists, but are too nice for their own good. At least Krugman knows better than to waste his time.

    • skylien says:

      And why are you wasting your time here? Why aren’t you doing yourself a favor and stay away from this blog? For the most part you don’t even make any arguments anyway at all.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        I suppose the implication of his own comment is he’s not noteworthy enough?

        • skylien says:

          Yes. Maybe that or/and posting insults here helps him compensate his inferiority complex.

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            I think that it is more akin to the intellectual equivalent of little man syndrome.

    • TGGP says:

      David S, have you seen how much time Sumner devotes to responding to comments on his blog? The man just gives and gives, and I’m happy for that.

  15. Teqzilla says: