01 May 2012

Clarification on the Krugman Kampaign

Economics, Krugman, Ron Paul, Shameless Self-Promotion 203 Comments

Wow just when I’m sulking because Bob Wenzel is getting all the attention for his NY Fed talk, along comes a resurgence in interest in the Krugman Debate Challenge.

Daniel Kuehn really impressed me with this post. I think he must have felt bad that Krugman fans were zinging me at the Reddit blog. Here’s Daniel:

Way back when I said it wouldn’t be a very worthwhile debate. There was a lot of really bad Austrian commentary on Keynesianism at the time, I wasn’t familiar with Bob, and I hadn’t had the chance of stumbling on any discussion of Bob’s that made me think it would be an interesting debate.

My view on that has changed over the almost two years since I wrote that post. Bob is a sharp guy and a fair guy, and this would be a debate worth seeing. To press the issue, up-vote this comment on reddit, and share the link.

In a lot of ways Bob will have a big advantage – I think he’s probably more familiar with Krugman’s position than vice versa (something I am not willing to concede for a lot of major Austrians or Austrian-fellow-travelers that have made a big splash in various social media).

I think Krugman is right on almost all points, obviously. And the guy is not some pundit or partisan as many suggest. He’s a brilliant economist with a real talent for communicating what he knows.

So I’ll be rooting for Krugman – but this will be a good debate to see nonetheless.

Now here’s what I said in the comments:

Daniel, thanks a lot for this post. I am impressed that you said this, knowing that a lot of “your allies” are not my biggest fans at the moment. I am being serious, this was a brave post, as far as bravery and the blogosphere go. When the libertarians take over, and are going to string you up, I will plea for leniency.

Hey everybody: Just to clarify the genesis of the food bank campaign: A girl had emailed me and told me that she went to a Krugman book signing in a Barnes & Noble or some such place. In the Q&A, she raised her hand and said, “Dr. Krugman, why don’t you debate an Austrian economist?” (Maybe she was more specific about business cycle theory; I don’t remember.) She said that his public response was something like, “Well, I realize I will sound like an elitist for saying this, but the profession doesn’t take Austrian economic seriously. It was useful in its day, but that was before the Depression. There would be no point in me debating something that only non-professionals believe in.”

So he *publicly declared* that he wouldn’t debate an Austrian. Hence, I needed to come up with some angle. Thus the Food Bank campaign was borne…

Up till now, Krugman could have played the high-principle card, saying, “I’m not going to waste my time debating this punk Murphy, because to do so would lend legitimacy to his gold-bug views.” But oops, now he can’t say that, since he just admitted he debated Ron Paul to sell books.

Really, doesn’t this cause even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance among Krugman’s fans? If Krugman wanted to have fun with it, and to make sure he wasn’t open to every Tom Dick and Harry, he could come out and say, “I’ll do it if Murphy’s fans donate $150,000 to the food bank, and another $150,000 to the Center for American Progress.” That would turn things around and he could say he wasn’t opposed to the debate in principle, but that his time was valuable blah blah blah.

Yet thus far he has just ignored it, when there is $72,000 already on the line. And that number would probably quadruple very quickly, if people actually thought it was going to happen. (I.e. a lot of people aren’t pledging their full reservation amounts, because they don’t think he would ever actually debate me.)

So again I ask: Doesn’t this cause just the slightest bit of weirdness among Krugman’s supporters? He should be able to destroy me, right? So why not do that, and pluck hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the hands of right-wing gold bug nutjobs? Krugman has a popular blog, and goes on TV to debate George Will and Ron Paul. It’s not like he’s “above” debating people he thinks are morons, right?

203 Responses to “Clarification on the Krugman Kampaign”

  1. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I posted that before I saw the reddit stuff, actually. No sympathy involved – all completely sincere.

    Krugman is basically right that Austrianism is a fringe position. I personally think there’s value in talking to this particular fringe position myself, but it’s not all that outlandish for him to say “look – I’ve got my hands full with the RBC guys, the EMH guys, and the New Classicals and the “very serious people” who don’t have much of any theory – I don’t need to deal with the Austrians”.

    Ron Paul is a congressman. He’s vying to be the leader of the free world. He has a massive following. And he is a senior representative on a committee that grills the Fed chairman a couple times a year. There are reasons to debate him, and as you noted in your last post it has benefits for Krugman. Ron Paul and Bob Murphy are not interchangeable (if I had to choose I’d prefer that nobody ever heard of Ron Paul myself).

    I figure the giving adds a little pizzazz to the prospect of the debate. It’s just a nice touch. I don’t like these accusations that you’re “holding the food bank hostage”. A conditional pledge is still better than no pledge, so how is this some affront to the food bank? Since when were they entitled to the 72K? I also don’t like the assertion that Krugman is somehow denying the food bank these donations. That’s B.S. too. The only people who made conditional rather than unconditional pledges are denying the food bank donations in all this.

    Pro-Krugman whiners: if you want to complain about anyone being stingy with the food bank, blame me. I didn’t pledge anything.

    Pro-Murphy whiners: see the above. Blame me – I never pledged anything.

    That whole faux controversy is the stupidest thing of all. The food bank think makes it interesting and just might get a lot of help to a lot of people if it actually happens. Leave it to the internet to turn that into a bad thing!!!!

    • joeftansey says:

      “if I had to choose I’d prefer that nobody ever heard of Ron Paul myself”

      Why do you say this? Not that I disagree…

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Bob Murphy does less damage when he’s wrong than Ron Paul does when he’s wrong, Bob adds more to the discussion, and we would be without several funny youtube videos if we never heard of Bob.

        Ron Paul is also one of the premier recipients of hero-worship in America today, and that makes me throw up in my mouth a little, and I don’t like the taste of that.

        • joeftansey says:

          What damage does Ron Paul do when he’s wrong?

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            He steers us toward a more austere fiscal and monetary stance than we otherwise would be. He also weakens the safety net by being a major voice of dissent on that point.

            Yes – Iraq and drug war… etc. etc. It seems to me there are plenty of people on the right side when it comes to the recession who are also on the right side of those things, I don’t see how Paul is being indispensable on those points.

            He also promotes a view of the Constitution which – if widely adopted – would do a lot of damage to American self-governance.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              He steers us toward a more austere fiscal and monetary stance than we otherwise would be. He also weakens the safety net by being a major voice of dissent on that point.

              Check, check, check…

              Yes – Iraq and drug war… etc. etc. It seems to me there are plenty of people on the right side when it comes to the recession who are also on the right side of those things, I don’t see how Paul is being indispensable on those points.

              You have a funny way of saying you agree with Ron Paul on these issues..check.

              (BTW wasn’t the question what you disagree with Paul about? You answer with what you agree with him about).

              He also promotes a view of the Constitution which – if widely adopted – would do a lot of damage to American self-governance.

              You mean it would do damage to federal unconstitutional governance, and bring about more state and local level self-governance, and constitutional, i.e. small, federal government…check.

              …..is that it? You wish the world never heard of Ron Paul because

              1. Reduce government spending (good thing, hello!)

              2. Wean the American people off lethargy inducing welfare.

              3. End the Iraq and drug wars (both good things that you even agree with)

              4. Shrink federal government down to its constitutional size, which of course allows more state level self-governance.

              If I didn’t know any better, you only don’t like Paul because he would cut government spending, and work to move the country closer to self-governance in the only true form that can exist, i.e. the individual level (since state level governance is closer to the individual as compared to national governance).

              1, 2, 3, 4, these are all things that millions of people in this country value, it’s what the founders valued, it’s moving away from these principles that have created the mess we’re in, and plus, it would again falsify the Keynesian dogma, just like it did in 1946 here, and just like it did in the recent example of Ireland, which is now improving after two years of painful correction.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                OK MF – if you’re not interested in engaging my positions don’t bother.

                I’d love to see the federal government get smaller. I don’t want to see that done during a depression and I don’t want it done with grand-standing about a valuable safety net.

                I don’t want people dependent on welfare – all the work I’ve done on safety net and training programs over the last six years has been to make them LESS dependent on handouts. There’s a difference between a safety net and a dependence relationship.

                We’ve been through Iraq and the drug war. Paul has not been impressive enough to outweigh all the cons. I just mention that because if I didn’t someone else was going to.

                And my whole point is precisely that I want the federal government and the states to operate within their constitutional purview. You seem to think I’ve said exactly the opposite.

                On almost all these points you’ve distorted my position. If you want to actually discuss things with me, don’t do that. If you want to debate someone that holds those views, go find someone that holds those views. I don’t.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                OK MF – if you’re not interested in engaging my positions don’t bother.

                I just systematically engaged your positions one by one. How can you possibly say I am not engaging them?

                I’d love to see the federal government get smaller. I don’t want to see that done during a depression and I don’t want it done with grand-standing about a valuable safety net.

                Don’t you get it? We have big government precisely because of decades upon decades of government increasing Keynesian deficits and spending. How else do you think the government grows? By spending more. And no, I don’t mean relative to GDP, which of course can be boosted by government spending itself, but I mean in absolute terms. The feds are sticking their noses in virtually all walks of life. Why? Because Keynesians and other statists have succeeded in growing the size of government through government spending.

                We have big government today because of years of piling “solution” upon “solution” you are calling for today.

                If you want to see an end to the depression, then you must call for LESS government, not more, for it is government that wrecked, and continues to wreck, the economy. The government didn’t stand back after the collapse of 2008, and the result has been a prolongation of pain, and now, there are signs of a new artificial boom taking place, which of course will result in even worse pain in the future when the manipulated boom comes to an end.

                I don’t want people dependent on welfare – all the work I’ve done on safety net and training programs over the last six years has been to make them LESS dependent on handouts. There’s a difference between a safety net and a dependence relationship.

                Like there’s a difference between offering someone free money, and actually giving them free money? The difference is marginal, because the latter is exacerbated by the former.

                You want the state to spend more money on X? You will see more of X. You want the state to support people with welfare? You will get more people on welfare. Social safety net is just a euphemism for welfare. And it’s not a net, it’s a magnet.

                The Food stamp program was originally intended as an emergency safety net. Now over 40 million people are on them.

                Look at this chart:

                http://i.imgur.com/DlaTl.png

                This is how you prolong poverty. By financing it.

                We’ve been through Iraq and the drug war. Paul has not been impressive enough to outweigh all the cons.

                What cons? You haven’t shown any cons!!!

                And my whole point is precisely that I want the federal government and the states to operate within their constitutional purview.

                Bulls$!t

                Nowhere do the Feds have constitutional authority to enact the Fed.

                Nowhere do the Feds have the constitutional authority for probably over half of all the government spending you say should not fall right now.

                You seem to think I’ve said exactly the opposite.

                You have. I see what you advocate, notice it’s not constitutional, and now you’re saying it’s constitutional.

                On almost all these points you’ve distorted my position.

                Where?

                If you want to actually discuss things with me, don’t do that.

                Don’t do what? What did I distort?

                How can you be for smaller government and constitutional government, but at the same time be in favor of unconstitutional central banks, and unconstitutional spending?

                If you want to debate someone that holds those views, go find someone that holds those views. I don’t.

                I debate you because you don’t have my views.

              • skylien says:

                “And it’s not a net, it’s a magnet.”

                Haha, nice line!

            • joeftansey says:

              So when you say Ron Paul does damage, does he do NET damage or are just some of his positions bad?

              Also, your link to “damage” seems to be that he shifts the debate towards more austerity than we otherwise would have. But don’t practically all libertarian figures do this?

              • Anonymous says:

                Why would it be a negative for the government to be smaller in a recession? The smaller the government, the smaller the tax burden on the economy. That is merely one reason and yet that in and of itself would do great things for our economy.
                All the government has done is to tell us to spend more money and printed more money to keep interest rates low. The interest rates are low but if the government would have championed saving money then the same thing would have happened because the banks money supply would be greater, thus causing interest rates to go down making it easier to borrow money. All of that would have happened without the inflation that was caused by printing more money. Inflation affects lower income families greater than it does higher income families as well which causes greater economic turmoil. Did you ever hear of the great depression of 1920-21? I didn’t think so. That’s because during that recession, the government cut its budget, and LOWERED taxes,(Gasp!)which allowed more money to remain in the market and aid in the recovery.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Dude – tell me more about this 1920-1921 recession. It sounds fascinating!

              • Bob Murphy says:

                It was awesome. Warren G. Harding literally put GNP (that’s what presidents cared about, back then, not GDP) on his back, and then walked up the stairs inside the Statue of Liberty. Then Hoover shot him, threw GNP out the window, and peed on it as it fell.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Dude – tell me more about this 1920-1921 recession. It sounds fascinating!

                I got to admit, I laughed.

              • Ken B says:

                We can say “peed” on this blog? Cool. That is going to be WAY useful.

            • rayray says:

              Like that really long depression in 1920.

          • rayray says:

            Everyone knows that government spends money more wisely than private individuals.

            • Egoist says:

              From your perspective, you spend a given sum of money more wisely than others, including those in the state.

              From the perspective of those in the state, they spend a given sum of money more wisely than others, including those in the citizenry.

              Your slippery word is “wisely”, as if it is neither yours nor anyone else’s personal preference, but the non-existent preferences of some sacred out there entity called “libertarian wisdom” or “anarchist wisdom” or “market wisdom.” It’s not YOUR wisdom, and it’s not ANYONE’S wisdom.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Vote Vurp 2012!

        • Robert Fellner says:

          ”Bob Murphy does less damage when he’s wrong”

          I’m glad you have finally begun to be a bit more honest about your totally unjustified hubris and condescension, Your earlier attempts at painting yourself as someone interested in both sides of the discussion and trying to advance the discourse blah blah blah were so obviously disingenuous.

          • Richie says:

            Indeed. I think it’s coming from the fact that his hero (a Nobel-prize winning Princeton “economist”) did terribly in a discussion with a self-educated politician.

            I couldn’t care less about Ron Paul, but DK’s facade of fairness is getting old. The veil is slowly being lifted with statements like this:


            Krugman is basically right that Austrianism is a fringe position.

            • Daniel Kuehn says:

              Richie –
              Ummm.. that’s a numbers thing. You show me the numbers that say Austrians form a major share of the community of economists, or you show me the impact on the major journals or debates in recent decades (they obviously were not fringe at one point in time), and I’ll change my view. That statement, as far as I can tell, is pretty incontrovertible fact. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary? How have I missed this point?

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            You must be a really unhappy person, Robert. I have no idea where this is coming from.

            • MamMoTh says:

              You must be a really unhappy person, Robert. I have no idea where this is coming from.

              From being in a fringe position.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                The individual is always fringe compared to the entire population.

                Being called fringe is a compliment, because it shows that people are recognizing you as more of an individual, for better or for worse.

                Philosophical collectivists have a problem with perceiving themselves as individuals, so they take that frustration and attack those who think more individualistically.

                The fringe man is the boogeyman of the groupthink man.

            • Richie says:


              but it’s not all that outlandish for him to say “look – I’ve got my hands full with the RBC guys, the EMH guys, and the New Classicals and the “very serious people” who don’t have much of any theory – I don’t need to deal with the Austrians”.

              You use “fringe” as a pejorative and as a justification for Krugman to dismiss Austrians.

              I am not arguing that Austrians form a major share of the economics community. I wouldn’t expect them to. Austrian economics doesn’t appeal to those with the guns and it is not useful for politicians to appeal to the mindless voters.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                I don’t use “fringe” as perjorative at all.

                “Austrian economics doesn’t appeal to those with the guns and it is not useful for politicians to appeal to the mindless voters.”

                You have got to be shitting me. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE RON PAUL MOVEMENT AND A NON-TRIVIAL PORTION OF THE MORE LITERATE TEA PARTIERS ARE ALL ABOUT??????

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I don’t use “fringe” as perjorative at all.

                The problem is that the word “fringe” can mean two different things. It can be pejorative, and it can be non-pejorative.

                I rarely if ever see the word being used in the non-pejorative sense, and I am guessing Richie doesn’t either.

                Personally, every time I see the word, it’s being used pejoratively.

                Wikipedia defines fringe as:

                “A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, conspiracy theories, unproven esoteric claims about medicine, pseudohistory and so forth.”

                Sounds pejorative to me.

                Although it goes on to write:

                “Some fringe theories may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.”

                This still makes fringe a pejorative to Austrians who consider Austrian economics not a hypothesis, not conjectural, and not mere speculation, but how the economy actually works.

                Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that “‘fringe science’ is a term also suggesting kookiness.”

                If all you mean is that it is not the most popular doctrine, then why not use the word “fringe” to describe Post-Keynesianism, or MMT, or Market Monetarism? Why only Austrianism?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                You have got to be shitting me. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE RON PAUL MOVEMENT AND A NON-TRIVIAL PORTION OF THE MORE LITERATE TEA PARTIERS ARE ALL ABOUT??????

                You’re confused. You’re conflating Austrian economics with The Tea Party movement with the Ron Paul movement.

                The Ron Paul movement is about increasing individual liberty, which is a reduction in violence qua violence, not an increase in it.

                The Tea Party movement is about shrinking government, which is a reduction in one form of violence, without being explicit whether there is an increase in violence elsewhere.

                Austrian economics is the science of human action. It only includes guns as a happenstance because guns are an economic good, and the science of human action applies to all goods.

                The Keynesian movement is an intellectual movement that apologizes for state spending, which requires violence in the form of coercion via legal tender and taxation laws to compel obedience and non-resistence. The state cannot spend what it cannot tax or print, and both taxing and printing money are based on violence, not consent.

                The liberal movement is an intellectual advocacy for state violence in the form of coercive regulations against non-violent offenders, coercive minimum wage laws, welfare programs that require coercive taxation, and more and more we can add war mongering to the list, since the anti-war movement has pretty much evaporated since Obama was elected.

                Your ALL CAPS nonsense is just a knee jerk defense of your own advocacy for violence. You want to portray anti-statists as violent, when most anti-statists are anti-statists because they want to reduce state violence.

                Of course you in your blind stupor fail to grasp that government action is fundamentally based on initiations of violence, you pretend that taxes are not based on violence, and that inflation is not based on violence.

                You only define violence as any initiations of physical force not authorized by a “perfect” democratic state, i.e. a state that acts only in the way you want it to act. In other words, you only consider it violent if you personally disagree with it.

                Is the drug war based on violence? Where are Obama and the Democrats on this? Oh that’s right, they’re with the Republicans.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                MF – Ron Paul explicitly espouses Austrian economics and the major Austrians have been inspirations for man Tea Partiers. This is widely reported on in the case of the Tea Party, and if you don’t believe me on Paul you can look up what he’s said on the matter.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                MF – Ron Paul explicitly espouses Austrian economics and the major Austrians have been inspirations for man Tea Partiers. This is widely reported on in the case of the Tea Party, and if you don’t believe me on Paul you can look up what he’s said on the matter.

                DK, as a Congressman who only entered politics to reduce government, Ron Paul primarily espouses LIBERTY. His Austrian economics may be an intellectual impetus for it, and it may be what he explicitly espouses when he talks about the economy, but the Ron Paul movement is not an Austrian School movement. It is an individual liberty movement.

                The Austrian economics is secondary to this, because Austrian economics is VALUE FREE. Austrian economics doesn’t prescribe democracy over fascism, or communism over anarchy. It only talks about the sciences of human action.

                It is simply baffling how you can be so wrong at this stage in your life after everything that has been happening.

                Espousing Austrian economics HAS NOTHING TO DO with espousing guns rather than flowers, or welfare versus warfare, or ANY moral issue whatsoever.

                The reason why you see so many libertarians who are Austrians is SOLELY due to the fact that they are both intellectually grounded in the individual, contrary to Keynesianism which is grounded in aggregates, where the state resides, which is why there is an affinity for Keynesianism among statists.

                The difference between libertarianism and Austrian economics is that libertarianism says we ought to respect individuals in action, whereas Austrian economics says this is the science of individuals in action.

                Sciences of aggregates, like Keynesianism, are applicable to the state.

                Sciences of individual action, like Austrianism, are applicable to individuals.

                Clear as mud now?

              • Richie says:


                I don’t use “fringe” as perjorative at all.

                Perhaps, but as MF stated, when one reads the word “fringe”, one does not think, “Wow, thanks for the compliment!”


                You have got to be shitting me. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE RON PAUL MOVEMENT AND A NON-TRIVIAL PORTION OF THE MORE LITERATE TEA PARTIERS ARE ALL ABOUT??????

                Why are you yelling?

                My point is that Austrian economics does not call for government solutions. Again, as MF stated, Ron Paul discusses liberty. He does not give campaign speeches on ABCT, nor do I believe most “Tea Partiers” know of or even understand ABCT. Are you purposefully being obtuse?

            • Robert Fellner says:

              Posting a comment attempting to highlight examples of your deeply ingrained biases and double-standards is evidence that I “must be a really unhappy person”?

              I think we just got a sneak peek at the quality of logic you employ behind some of your other (economic) “must be” statements!

        • Ken B says:

          “Bob Murphy does less damage when he’s wrong than Ron Paul does when he’s wrong, ”
          Well that’s not 100% clear Daniel, since as far as I know RP never talks about god. But in general I agree with DK about Paul. Paul is not a good face for libertarianism broadly conceived to present to the public. He’s isolationist, inconsistent, and prone to obsessions. Plus of course the Ron Paul Newsletter and its racist tone.

          It’s a sad statement about the state of US politics that Ron Paul sometimes seems like the only sane one left in congress. That’s not enough to make him president.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            “Plus of course the Ron Paul Newsletter and its racist tone.”

            Ya, not meaning to dig this up again but it was pretty disturbing how non-nonchalantly people brushed that off.

            “Ron Paul sometimes seems like the only sane one left in congress.”

            Heh. Now I can’t say that’s an impression I’ve ever had 🙂

            • Ken B says:

              Daniel, there have even been days when I thought you were the only sane commenter on a thread! 🙂

            • Beefcake the Mighty says:

              Hey DK, can you explain to me why I’m supposed to be so “disturbed” over those newsletters? Or, since you’re so legally anal, why it was “disturbing how non-chalantly people brushed” them off?

              This should be good.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Cause playing on a captive audience’s fear of black people for political gain is not a nice thing to do.

              • Beefcake the Mighty says:

                God, you really are a brain-dead liberal. I thought it might have been an act.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Cause playing on a captive audience’s fear of black people for political gain is not a nice thing to do.

                So you’re saying the writer of the newsletter is not really racist, but is lying for political gain?

                You know who plays on captive audiences’ fears for political gain? Fiscal spending Keynesian politicians.

                “If we don’t spend this money, then you’re all going to suffer! The economy will implode! Vote for us spendthrift politicians who will spend spend spend, so that your lives will be spared!”

                Then there are the economists and pundits who do the same thing for personal gain, such as Krugman, who plays on people’s fears of the market to convince them to support more government spending.

                Oh but when left leaning politicians do it, it’s a “good” form of it.

                Do you ever criticize left leaning politicians for playing on the prejudices and fears of their audience?

                You’re so partisan!

              • Richie says:


                Cause playing on a captive audience’s fear of black people for political gain is not a nice thing to do.

                Neither is playing to a captive audience’s fear of Muslims, or unemployment, or “free” trade, or … well, you get the point.

              • Ken B says:

                @Richie: I get the point. Attacking people for their race is just the same as attacking their ideas. It’s a dreadful, shameful point, but I certainly get that you made it.

              • Richie says:

                Nope, the point is that exploiting people’s fear and ignorance for political gain is not the right thing to do. I’m not trying to equate racism with an idea or whatever else. Nice try though.

              • Ken B says:

                Compare and contrast:

                1) “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

                2) “Free trade benefits both parties.”

                3) “It should not be a capital crime for consenting adults to have gay sex in private”

                One of these things is not like the others.

            • Chris Barcelo says:

              http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/03/was-murray-rothbard-racist.html Not to bring in Wenzel on Murphy’s blog here but this was a good article regarding Ron Paul, and Rothbard as racists. Also how long ago did you sidetrack the debate with Major Freedom it was getting interesting and you ran out of answers.

        • Richie says:


          Ron Paul is also one of the premier recipients of hero-worship in America today, and that makes me throw up in my mouth a little, and I don’t like the taste of that.

          How precious. You worship Krugman and DeLong, although you pretend to be scholarly and fair, but everyone knows that’s total BS.

          Funny also that I don’t read your complaints on the hero-worship of Obama. What a blind partisan you are.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Liberals and conservatives alike are frustrated with Obama right now. There was a brief obsessive moment in 2008. I think I called it obsessive at the time. It didn’t last long. If you honestly think there’s more hero worship of Obama than Paul you need to get your head examined.

            The fanfare in 2008 was different in origin. I think it was (1.) a reaction to Bush, (2.) excitement over our first black president. In my view, both of those things are entirely legitimate things to get very excited about. That doesn’t mean he deserves hero worship – it just means that it comes from an understandable place.

            The Ron Paul deal is different. Read the comments whenever anyone speaks a word against him. It’s pure devotion to the man himself. And what’s scarier is that it’s from people who allege to hate the hero-worship of Washington politicians.

            • Richie says:


              The Ron Paul deal is different. Read the comments whenever anyone speaks a word against him.

              True, but read the comments whenever someone speaks a word against Obama (or back in the day, Bush). You pretend as though the Ron Paul cult is somehow different.

              You worship Krugman and DeLong. To use your phrasing, whenever Dr. Murphy or someone else speaks a word against either of them, you are quick to defend them by giving an interpretation of what they “meant” to say.

            • Bharat says:

              “frustrated”

              If Ron Paul had signed the NDAA, I would have called for his impeachment. I am not devoted to the man, I am devoted to his ideas. He happens to be very consistent in speaking and acting for those ideas.

              I do not hear any liberals asking for Obama’s impeachment. (If there are, I’m sure there are very few) Some are “upset” he passed it. They likely will vote for him regardless.

            • Bharat says:

              So either your use of the word “frustrated” is a severe understatement or you idolize the man. I find the second far more likely.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            And I don’t know what you mean about me worshiping Krugman and DeLong. Because I think they’re thoughtful economists? Give me a break. I’ve been more than willing to openly challenge both of them on both their style and their substance. Not despising them doesn’t mean that I worship them.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Guys let’s cut Daniel some slack on this thread at least. Look at the comments at his blog; he was taking heat from Krugmaniacs for endorsing the Murphy-Krugman debate. If you want to criticize Daniel for supporting oppression of Afghan civilians, fair enough, but he has been cool on this one.

              • Ken B says:

                DK opposed the fight against the taliban?

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Ken B: +1

                Bob: Yes, and that guy’s really been harping on the food bank point.

                I am pulling my hair out trying to understand why everyone is obsessing over donations to a freaking food bank. You’d think that would be the least acrimonious element of the whole thing, but oh no!!!

              • Major_Freedom says:

                That’ different. That’s not an academic topic. That’s an event.

                One instance of a convenient shout out to your debate challenge, does not mean DK is intellectually fair. Everyone sees it. He supports Krugman and DeLong the same way Ron Paul supporters support him, and Ron Paul supporters are the cult of personality types?

                He never complains about the Obama cult. He never complains about the obvious cult on Krugman’s blog.

                This is nothing but DK’s ideology hitting another ideology, and DK trying to hide that behind a veil of academia.

              • Dan Hewitt says:

                I blame Daniel for not pledging anything!

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                Dan Hewitt –

                I think that’s the first non-idiot thing I’ve read about the food bank donations in the last twenty four hours!

                Yes – blame me. I have not donated. I am personally comfortable with that. I’ve donated elsewhere at other times. I could probably do more, but I’m not especially ashamed of where I fall out on all this. Financial priority right now is the down payment and then after that building the nest egg back up for future spawnlings. By all means, blame me! I’ve got no shame about my priorities.

              • Dan Hewitt says:

                DK, it was only a joke, and I have not pledged anything either. As much as I like Bob, he is not the Austrian I would choose to debate Krugman.

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                I know it was a joke, but I was serious about it being the first non-idiot thing.

                It’s absolutely unreal how outraged people have been over that. $72000 in conditional donations have been pledged. Everybody should be happy about that. Nobody should be using that as a bludgeon, but it seems like people in both sides have been.

                Who would you choose to debate Krugman?

                Horwitz is very good, but I think he can really caricature Keynesian positions. I’m never quite sure if that’s a rhetorical strategy or what he actually thinks. Garrison has a good grasp of both. I think Bob would be pretty good though. Boettke has the same faults as Horwitz except probably more so.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Yes, DK wants people to blame him, so that he can deflect attention away from people blaming Krugman and thus blaming Keynesianism.

                Do not attack the intellectual queen bee. Sacrifice the workers!

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                MF –
                Why would anyone blame Krugman for me not donating money?????

              • Dan Hewitt says:

                Hard to say, as the result would probably be both sides talking past each other.

                Selgin probably, but Horwitz is a good idea too.

                And while we’re at it, on the Neoliberal/Keynesian side I would probably pick DeLong instead of Krugman. Less civilized but a better economist and better debater.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Why would anyone blame Krugman for me not donating money?????

                DK, you misunderstand. I mean this is just your invitation to have people blame you, for something, so that they won’t blame Krugman, for something.

                You’re trying to turn Austrians the blaming of Krugman for not doing the debate, into a blaming of you for not donating in general.

                You want to “interpret” the blame in this new way, so that you can get Austrians to believe that their blaming of Krugman is really just blaming “people” for not donating, such as…you! Deflect attention away from PK to you.

        • Seth says:

          Of course, Krugman does no damage when he’s wrong. Or is it just that he’s never wrong?

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            Wrong much less often.

            • Dan Hewitt says:

              DK, was Krugman wrong to prescribe a housing bubble 10 years ago?

              • Daniel Kuehn says:

                This is going to sound like a cop-out but I’d have to go back and look more closely at what was said. Krugman was being pretty tongue-in-cheek if I recall. I don’t think this was all due to Greenspan (although he probably has some sins of omission). And that’s an important point for thinking about Krugman too. He said that in 2002. It’s one thing for Krugman to say in 2002 that the Fed needs to loosen up. It’s another thing to say it should be allowed to grow out of control.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I’ll refresh your memory:

                http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-17/wall_street/30063851_1_interest-rates-housing-bubble-policy-makers

                Money quote:

                “In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.”

                Krugman is trying to rewrite his own history, and claiming that it was all just descriptive, not normative. Too bad the internet retains everything typed.

              • Dan Hewitt says:

                DK, the question then is what mechanism would allow the bubble to be halted (or controlled at least) in the presence of low interest rates? Krugman thought that the Fed could control it somehow:

                “Greenspan needed to create a housing bubble to replace the technology bubble. So within limits he may have done the right thing. But by late 2004 he should have seen the danger signs and warned against what was happening; such a warning could have taken the place of rising interest rates. He didn’t, and he left a terrible mess for Ben Bernanke.”
                http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/credit-where-credit-is-due/

            • Seth says:

              ‘Wrong’ and ‘damage’, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder. It’s also a false comparison.

              If I were to force you to borrow beyond your means and you ended up going bankrupt because of it, then I caused the damage.

              If I stayed out of your business and offered you no advice on borrowing, and you borrowed beyond your means and went bankrupt because of it, I caused no damage. You did. Though, in your’s and PK’s world where individuals only exist to make up the aggregates that you dream of managing, you’d reason that I caused the damage because I offered no advice against your bad decision.

        • Dan says:

          The idea that Ron Paul is loved makes you throw up in your mouth? That’s weird because the idea of Bush or Obama being hero-worshipped does that to me. Something about all the innocent people killed under those two sits wrong with me.

          • Ken B says:

            Yeah, and all those innocents killed under FDR.

            The point being that counting only costs is bogus. It’s preening not arguing.

            • Ken B says:

              That came out pissier than I intended.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ken B., it wasn’t the tone of your comment that was at fault, it was the apparent fact that you think the people who hang out at this blog generally supported US entry into World War II. I’m not surprised that you think FDR was right to fight the Nazis, but I am surprised that you thought it was such a self-evident position that you used it sarcastically.

                You know a lot of people here think Lincoln is a war criminal, right?

              • Ken B says:

                @Bob: Point taken. Actually I did have a little debate with David Henderson over at his blog on Lend-Lease. So I should have known!!

                Let me note parenthetically that this is one of the ways I seem to differ from libertarians: I support liberations.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ken B. wrote:

                Let me note parenthetically that this is one of the ways I seem to differ from libertarians: I support liberations.

                Oh, don’t stop there. Be like a standard Democratic liberal. He supports education, vaccinations, safe drinking water, good roads, and health care for old people. That’s why he differs from libertarians.

                (In case it’s not obvious, his stating such a conclusion is identical to you doing so.)

              • Ken B says:

                @Bob: Was FDR right to fight the Japanese?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I don’t think so, but I’m a pacifist and I understand why one could reasonably disagree (strongly) with my answer.

              • Dan says:

                I have no problem throwing FDR under that same bus. I puke in mouth when people talk glowingly about FDR and Lincoln as well.

              • Ken B says:

                “I puke in mouth when people talk glowingly about FDR and Lincoln as well.” This seems to be a common dietary theme on this blog.

                “Isn’t saying that you have to count both sides of the balance sheet another way of saying the ends justify the means? ”

                I’d say it’s being honest about the ends.

                ” Even after they had said they would surrender.” Oh what a relief. Here i thought for a minute you were fantasizing, but it turns out you just believe in time travel.

              • Ken B says:

                Now be fair Bob. Quietism and pacifism and isolationism run rampant in the Libertarian community. Look at Bryan Caplan.

                And of course I said ‘liberations” not liberty. Liberation is a process, and act not a state of being or result like (your riposte) clean water. I did not say libertarians oppose people being free, but quite a goodly number of them do oppose actually freeing them.

                Here’s a litmus test. Say the Iraq war of 2003 freed Iraqis with just a few hundred killed. I bet you a large chunk of the libertarian community would STILL say the war was a bad idea. And you know what they’d say concretely? Something about ends not justifying means.

              • Dan says:

                “I’d say it’s being honest about the ends.”

                Ok, but that is still an ends justify the means argument. Unless you are implying that the ends/means argument is when people are lying about the ends.

                “Oh what a relief. Here i thought for a minute you were fantasizing, but it turns out you just believe in time travel.”

                What are you talking about? I said we dropped atomic bombs and fire bombed Japanese cities. This is a fact. I also said this came after Japan was willing to surrender. This is also a fact. If you need sources I would be more than happy to provide them.

              • Ken B says:

                In response to my question Bob writes: “I don’t think so, but I’m a pacifist ”

                This seems to me Bob an example of what you just got your knickers in a knot about. You would have opposed the Allies liberating the Chinese from the Japanese. That’s an example of opposing an act of liberation just like I said. It is not an example of opposing liberty as I did not say.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                If you think liberating people necessarily requires dropping bombs (produced by taking money under coercion from a bunch of people who are opposed to the operation), then yes, you’re right.

                It’s a good thing the US government liberated people in WW2. Otherwise, half of Europe would have remained locked in a totalitarian prison for decades thereafter, with millions of people being deliberately killed by a dictator.

              • Ken B says:

                @Dan: Yes, I do think that consequences matter in morality, as they do in prudence. And so intended and anticipated consequences matter as well. Both the costs and the benefits.

              • Ken B says:

                RPM:”If you think liberating people necessarily requires dropping bombs
                (produced by taking money under coercion from a bunch of people who are opposed to the operation),
                then yes, you’re right.”

                I think sometimes it does take that.

                RPM: “It’s a good thing the US government liberated people in WW2.”
                Case in point.

                So come to think of it were the examples implied in the comment I was responding to.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                We also would have accepted, “Is so!”

              • Ken B says:

                Bob, when you make a convincing argument that Europe, or Manchkuo, or Iraq, or several others, could have been liberated (in a reasonable time) without military force I’d like to hear it. Until then I think it’s fair to conclude that pacificism or isolationism means you don’t get such liberations, and fair to say that pacificists and isolationists don’t support such acts of liberation.

                I concede I elided libertarians with pacificts and isolationists, for rhetorical effect. There being so many libertarian hawks on this board I marvel at such an oversight.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Ken B., the US didn’t “liberate Europe.” Half of Europe was dominated by the evil, mass-murdering Stalin, an outcome that would not have happened if the US had remained neutral.

                Iraq is hardly a paradise, post-US invasion.

              • Dan says:

                In what way was Iraq liberated? If you just mean the people have new rulers then I point to countries like Egypt who were liberated without military force.

              • Ken B says:

                @Dan: I don’t think you are following my argument. I don’t need to establish that Iraq WAS liberated, only that intervention was the only plausible way TO liberate it. Just like the only plausible way to evict Japan from China was intervention.

                I think in fact Iraq WAS liberated, and that the new govt is better for Iraqis than the old. That does not commit me to saying the intervention was justified, or worth it. It is quite reasonable to argue the cost was too high or that we did a bad job of it.

              • Dan says:

                Ken, I brought up Egypt as a country that overthrew a dictator without military force. So show me why that wasn’t a plausible way for the Iraqi people to have ousted SH.

              • Ken B says:

                @Dan: Even better they could have voted Saddam out, like the French will Sarkozy.

              • Ken B says:

                @Dan: Actually Iraq is rather interesting because in 1991 there WERE serious uprisings against SH. They were encouraged implicitly, by the American presence and Bush I’s tacit encouragement. And when they came the UN, mostly US, forces did nothing while SH slaughtered his opponents. I could twit Bob and you by noting that, according to your lights, standing by was the right policy. OK, the point is strong so considered yourselves twitted. But I will also note that we will likely all agree that suggesting you’ll help and then not doing so is the worst possible combination of intervention and non-intervention.

              • Dan says:

                The 91 uprisings in Iraq was attempted with military force. So that’s like saying because military force failed to overthrow Saddam clearly military force was needed to overthrow him.

                Egypt’s uprising was not attempted with military force and succeeded in ousting Mubarak. I’m not sure why you would think it isn’t even plausible that the same could’ve happened in Iraq.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Ken B., also, notice that what you are saying is, “OMG! If I have to hear another person objecting to ‘the ends justifies the means’ I’m going to need a drink. Anyone who denies that the ends justifies the means is just preening.”

              • Ken B says:

                No Bob, I’m just objecting to the knee-jerk failure to count the lives on both sides of the balance sheet. You see this all the time. Take the Iraq war from 2003 on. Some count only a few thousand dead, ignoring Irqi casulaties. That’s bogus. Some count huge numbers of Iraqis, without condsidering any estimate of those saved by the invasion. Also bogus.

              • Dan says:

                Isn’t saying that you have to count both sides of the balance sheet another way of saying the ends justify the means?

                Even if we look at Iraq through your balance sheet I’m not sure how the numbers would be in the same ball park. You have Madeline Albright saying that the death of 500,000 children because of our sanctions was worth it. You have 100,000 or more Iraqis killed since the invasion. You have the Christians wiped out of Iraq. Pile on top of that all the injuries and deformed from our bombs and toxic materials left behind. How many people do you think were saved by all of this? I’m betting the Iraqi people don’t feel like the US government liberated them.

                Another thing is how many people are saved by the USG bombing people in Yemen, Pakistan, etc. on a daily basis for years? It’d sure have to be a high number considering all the body bags piled under the drones.

                Were the Japanese liberated when we dropped two atomic bombs on innocent civilians and fired bombed their cities? Even after they had said they would surrender.

    • Jovan Galtic says:

      “if I had to choose I’d prefer that nobody ever heard of Ron Paul myself”

      What a strange display of a god complex…

    • Bharat says:

      “free world.”

      I guess you weren’t there when Obama signed the NDAA.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        This is an excellent example of the momentum nature of ideas. Even long after they’re falsified, they’re still chanted.

        Or, what’s more likely, he means “free” in the sense of the freedom of the state. The more free the state is, the more free statists feel they are becoming.

        Where oh where has this happened before? I wonder…

        • Bala says:

          No. I guess he means “free” as in NEWSPEAK.

  2. Daniel Kuehn says:

    In summation – unlike two years ago, I would like to see this and I would not sell yourself short because of the reasons I mentioned.

    But I don’t see much cognitive dissonance over Krugman, and I wish people would stop bashing each other over the heads with this food bank thing. Don’t take the one cool, interesting, generous part of all this and turn it into something to fight over!!!

  3. Major_Freedom says:

    I’ll say it:

    Krugman is scared.

    He constantly gets refuted on his blog by Austrians.

    He’s constantly exposed as not having the slightest clue about Austrian concepts. That alone is not really the problem, the bigger problem is that he has considered himself intellectually capable of judging it on his blog.

    This facade of self-imagined eliteness is nothing but a smokescreen.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I don’t think it’s that, I and I don’t think I’m just saying that because I like the guy.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        I think it is like that, and I think you’re just saying that because you like the guy.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          “like” is an understatement. I think that he’d wax his knob if he got the chance.

          • Egoist says:

            That’s not very couth.

            He would rather wax the knob of his own ego that he’s trying to superimpose into the realm that is his ideology.

            His ego finds enjoyment in controlling others through the power of the state illusion, because he lacks the power to do it himself mano a mano.

            I can easily make this obvious by getting this statist to cower away from my invitation for him to personally collect taxes from me, or personally “regulate” me, or do any of the other things his ego can only feel illusioned into accomplishing through the power of the state. Then we’ll see how serious he is about his Keynesian dogma.

            But because he is not doing that right now, it means he can’t do it now. So he believes he is empowered by the state doing his dirty work for him. He’s just a coward who would probably go berserk if the state illusion wasn’t there to make him feel empowered, i.e. safe.

  4. Major_Freedom says:

    Wenzel nails it:

    “Funny, Ron Paul hasn’t said a word about the debate since it ended and its likely a distant memory, just another debate with a Keynesian. But Krugman has already posted three times on the debate. Clearly, Ron Paul has gotten into Krugman’s head.”

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/more-evidence-krugman-knows-he-lost.html

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Yep, informed citizens marvel at the stupidity of politicians on a regular basis, and politicians are usually oblivious and just happy to be yapping in front of a camera.

      Why would you expect anything else?

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Yep, an informed congressman marvels at the stupidity of a pundit blogger on a singular basis, and the pundit blogger is characteristically antsy and just had to go yapping on his blog.

        Why would you expect anything else?

        Hey this silly game is fun.

        PS Krugman is misinformed. But your fawn goggles prevent you from seeing it.

        • Richie says:

          DK loves to point out that Ron Paul is a self-aggrandizing politician, but his slobbering love for Krugman blinds him to the fact that Krugman is a political hack pundit.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            If DK believes Paul is a self-aggrandizing politician, then DK must be an effective anarchist.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Make that 4 posts from Krugman talking about the debate.

              Wow, Krugman must really feel stung.

          • Martial Artist says:

            @Richie,,

            I think that your characterization of Krugman as a “political hack pundit” is incorrect. I think he is a self-aggrandizing pundit, whose self-appraisal is several points higher than warranted by any of his writings. And his narcissism shows not only in his writings and public statements but in his posture. Jung probably had a point that we are responsible for the character of our own appearance after the age of 30 (or 35).

            Keith Töpfer

    • stickman says:

      This is cute.

      I actually recall Wenzel writing a post a while back, talking about “slickster”(?) Krugman and “his obsession with Austrian economics”. Yes, because PK has a track record of obsessively commenting on everything that Austrians have to say… Oh. Wait.

      Krugman may be called many things, but an Austrian-obsessive is not one of them. (Never mind the amorphous “slickster” epithet.) However, going the other way…

      Actually, perhaps the pathological fixation with Krugman among Austrians makes it difficult to understand that the feeling probably isn’t mutual. Just like when I was 14 and dearly wished to believe that Christy Turlington thought as much about me as I did about her. Alas…

      The object of our affections is, most likely, not a mirror to our own feelings.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        I would debate Christy Turlington, in case that’s not clear. I bet Krugman is too “busy.”

        • stickman says:

          Typical elitist…. Thinks he’s too good for supermodels.

          PS – I would pledge to see Turlington vs Murphy in action.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Krugman is focused on not because he’s Krugman, but because he is the Keynesians’ unofficial de facto representative.

        It’s really weird, and kind of creepy, that you are trying to turn the Austrian vs. Keynesian intellectual clash into a personal, emotional, Austrians vs. Krugman the man clash.

        Speaking about the mirror, those who can only see a personal level love hate relationship, in what is actually an intellectual affair, just shows that you’re the very drama queen that you see in others.

        • stickman says:

          Sigh. There’s so much to say in response to this. I’ll settle for:

          1) The point is that (many) Austrians suffer delusions of grandeur when it comes to Krugman. Your bold assertion that he is “scared” to debate Bob is — with all due respect to the latter — patently absurd. There is a pathological obsession with PK and yet, most ironically, you and others have tried to insist that the obsession runs the other way.

          2) Drama queen?

          • Major_Freedom says:

            The point is that (many) Austrians suffer delusions of grandeur when it comes to Krugman.

            See this just shows that you are suffering from delusions of grandeur. You believe that Krugman is “above” such petty trivialities. You believe this because you share Krugman’s worldview, and so your worldview is treated as grandeur than it really is.

            That’s too funny. Anyone who says to another “My ideas are above such pettiness”, are holding their ideas as some grand, sacredness never to be spoiled.

            You too are afraid I see.

            Your bold assertion that he is “scared” to debate Bob is — with all due respect to the latter — patently absurd.

            No it isn’t. Your bold assertion that Krugman is above debating Murphy is what’s patently absurd.

            There is a pathological obsession with PK and yet, most ironically, you and others have tried to insist that the obsession runs the other way.

            I already told you that the pathology is not against Krugman the man. It’s about Keynesianism versus Austrianism, and PK is Keynesianism’s figurehead.

            Drama queen?

            Yes, drama queen. You want to make this a drama of Krugman versus an Austrian, rather than an intellectual endeavor, of Keynesian theory versus Austrian theory.

            Austrians are obsessed with ideas, not PK. PK is only a conduit because he is the figurehead of the set of ideas that Austrians know are destructive to the health and prosperity of people.

          • stickman says:

            I guess that this is what epistemic closure looks like.

            You believe that Krugman is “above” such petty trivialities. You believe this because you share Krugman’s worldview, and so your worldview is treated as grandeur (sic) than it really is.

            Um, I was very clear about why Krugman wouldn’t want to debate Bob: He almost certainly thinks — rightly, or wrongly — that he has bigger battles to fight. A legion of opponents want a piece of him… and he actively engages them every day for goodness sake. Why would he wish to be held to ransom into debating any particular school? Moreover, why is this so hard to understand??

            [Side note: Bob, if you’re reading this, what do you make of this notion that Krugman is simply too scared to debate an intellectual opponent such as yourself?]

            Also, please show me how and where I have endorsed Krugman’s specific worldview. I have never even called myself a Keynesian, for crying out loud. Your bare assertions here are indicative of the fact that are viewing this debate — and, indeed, it would seem much else — through grossly distorted lenses.

            Now, for the record… Personally, I’d very much enjoy watching Bob debate anyone: Hence my suggestion below that he target someone like David Glasner (or other monetarist) first.

            MF, the comforting narrative that you have erected for yourself is rather like a local hotshot ballplayer saying “Man, I saw Kobe Bryant walking around town the other day. I challenged him to a one-on-one, but he said he was ‘too busy’. Yeah right… He must have been scared!”

            But, alas, you are correct. There’s no sense in denying it any longer: I, personally, am very afraid.

            I am terrified… mortified… petrified… stupefied… by you. That’s why I’m slogging it out here in the comments section with you and have actively engaged Austrians in the economic blogosphere for these last few years.

            • skylien says:

              @ stickman,

              What are the bigger battles, and who are the bigger adversaries?

              Can you make a rough list so that we can see at a proximately which position the Austrians currently are?

              • skylien says:

                *approximately*

              • stickman says:

                A difficult job, but it would obviously include the UoC and other “freshwater ” school economists. Think big names like John Cochrane, Robert Lucas, Eugene Fama and Ed Prescot.

                Krugman has also singled out prominent individuals like Niall Ferguson (historian, though he may be), Allan Meltzer and almost anyone writing a WSJ op-ed. A guy like Stephen Williamson might even feature too.

                On the subject of well-known bloggers, he’s certainly voiced strong disagreements with the likes of Alex Tabarrok, Tyler Cowen and Scott Sumner.

                And, let’s not forget that a good portion of his vitriol is nowadays reserved for the mainstream Republicans such as Paul Ryan, Gingrich and Romney. (Add to this his whithering criticism of European policy makers and the queue of adversaries is getting pretty long…)

              • Ken B says:

                I’d like to see the Paul Krugman from during a republican presidency debate the Paul Krugman from during a democrat presidency.

              • skylien says:

                So what you essentially are saying is that there are the Chicagoers and NGDPers. I don’t see how it makes sense to count people who basically share the same idea. If a 100 people attack Krugman with the same argument, then it really is not necessary for Krugman to respond to any single one of them. To answer one of them would be enough actually. I really leave journalists from the WSJ and the politicians out of the equation because they do not represent a coherent school of thought for the most part.

                So he is permanently in debate with those guys, so why can’t he take on an Austrian once?

                I think I know why he doesn’t do it. I really think that he doesn’t care, and probably thinks he only can lose not win. That is not necessarily because he is scared of the debate; it is because you can rhetorically lose it while not losing it intellectually. I am not convinced that he really is scared of the debate itself. To be really scared this would mean he is not entirely convinced of his own position, and it really doesn’t look like as if he lacks any self-esteem, when he claims that we need 8-10 trillion in further QE and should prepare for an alien invasion…

                Although seen from a pure ideological point of view, then there is no bigger difference, no bigger battle and no bigger adversary to fight for a Keynesian than an Austrian. So he should really love to engage, but Krugman doesn’t take the Austrians serious, at least up to now…

              • stickman says:

                No, it would be a lot more than the “UoC and NGDPers”. There are very important distinctions to be made in the list that I gave you. (E.g. How would you place Paul Ryan in that dichotomy?) Regardless, I’m not sure how you can be so dismissive about the need to consistently engage these opponents; whether as a collective or individually.
                As we’ve already established, Austrians certainly spend enough time on Krugman alone to suggest that a single major opponent is enough to occupy the bulk of your intellectual battles… Let alone numerous of the most prominent names in the economic profession, and influential politicians. (I didn’t even mention his important disagreements with Ben Bernanke, or the likes of Greg Mankiw and John Taylor…)

                Although seen from a pure ideological point of view, then there is no bigger difference, no bigger battle and no bigger adversary to fight for a Keynesian than an Austrian.[…]

                Hmmm. Yes, and no. At the least, this in of itself is weak grounds for the necessity of any particular debate. A Rastafarian might be ideological diametric to an industrialist, but that doesn’t mean that Charles Koch would give much thought to debating Burning Spear 🙂

                […]So he should really love to engage, but Krugman doesn’t take the Austrians serious, at least up to now…

                This is converging to my point; he believes that he has bigger battles to fight! Like it or not, Austrian economics does occupy a pretty marginal position among practising economists. The rankings and impact factors of the relative journals — QJAE and RAE — make this clear. Pete Boettke has been candid about this issue at his website, and you can see for yourself here (PDF).

                Of course, that may be changing and I, personally, wouldn’t be engaging Austrians in the blogosphere if I didn’t think that there were gains to be had from it. However, I sincerely believe that the movement’s popularity with Internet laymen (and I don’t mean that as a snarky pejorative), leads to a vastly inflated sense of its importance as a driver of economic policy.

              • stickman says:

                Blegh. The link for Journal Rankings does not appear to be working. Try this heterodoxnews.com/document/ajes-ranking-journals.pdf

  5. Joseph Fetz says:

    There’s far too many MF’s and DK’s, I’m gonna get me some SLMB’s (otherwise known as sleep).

  6. Tel says:

    I just went to the Krugman Q&A Redit page and do you know what’s sitting up top of the charts?

    Brad DeLong and his NGDP targeting.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Well Tel, the guy has been pushing that goal hard for 3.5 years. You can’t blame him for asking Krugman about it.

  7. stickman says:

    Bob,

    As a non-Austrian, I’ll second Daniel’s sentiments on you. (I’ve previously done so here.)

    Of course, I can also understand why Krugman wouldn’t want to be held ransom to debating any particular person or school… If your stunt works, then what will the MMT guys cook up? I actually recall Krugman making the point about selecting among his adversaries in an interview; something to the effect of “I’ve got my hands full with the Republicans and, if someone isn’t well known, why give them the platform?”

    That said, I know that you have a debate (re?)scheduled with Scott Sumner. However, have you ever thought of engaging some of the other NGDP-style monetarists such as David Glasner or Lars Christensen? To my mind, these two in particular have shown a more sophisticated knowledge of ABCT and it’s chief protagonists… Certainly moreso than Sumner.

    • RPLong says:

      However, have you ever thought of engaging some of the other NGDP-style monetarists such as David Glasner or Lars Christensen? To my mind, these two in particular have shown a more sophisticated knowledge of ABCT and it’s chief protagonists… Certainly moreso than Sumner.

      This is a good point. There are a lot of Nick Rowes and Bill Woolseys out there. There may be some value in building up a momentum first before tackling Krugman. Krugman may become a bit more interested if RM takes out a few smaller fish first.

      But I don’t really know how these things work. I certainly can’t get anyone to debate me, and when I can, I just embarrass myself. 😉

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I would actually pledge to a fund where you would debate Glasner. He’s easily my favorite market monetarist. When he has some good posts and Lars and Scott don’t post in the same period I start to wonder if I’m a market monetarist… then Lars and Scott post and I usually decide that I’m not.

      That’s a sign of a good blogger, I think.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Glasner would probably debate me for free.

        So people don’t think I’m being coy, let me shout this from the rooftops: The reason I have postponed my debate with Sumner is that I recognize he might very well beat me, if we debated next week. Since I truly think he’s wrong, that would be very unfortunate. So I want time to prepare, before debating him. He (or his fans, since he’s too cool for school) has every right to periodically taunt me, the longer I delay.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Because I like you, here’s some weaknesses I have found in Sumner’s arguments, for what they’re worth to you:

          1. He tends to conflate consumers reducing their spending and accumulating cash, with an increase in investment, and hence unchanged AD. This is because he believes that since consumers abstaining from consuming leads to a physical accumulation of inventory all else equal, it’s the same thing as SPENDING more on inventory.

          2. He claims NGDP targeting is not based on any considerations of estimating the real side of the economy, i.e. supply, nor any historical considerations. But he believes NGDP of 5% is “optimal”, on the basis of NGDP = RGDP + inflation, where 5% NGDP requires an estimate of RGDP, and hence real production. Of course he thinks he can get out of this by saying RGDP = NGDP – inflation, but that is just circular reasoning.

          3. He circular reasons A LOT. I mean it’s his modus operandi. But you probably knew that, since all non-praxeologists are compelled to circular reason, since they deal in floating abstracts only, where words and ideas are never grounded in action, but divorced from it. He circular reasons BIG TIME with NGDP targeting. NGDP targeting is optimal. Why it is optimal? Because it brings about the optimal effect, stable aggregate spending. Why is stable aggregate spending optimal? Because it’s the effect of optimal NGDP targeting. Etc.

          4. As a Chicago-ite who is almost certainly subconsciously embarrassed and guilt ridden about supporting inflation, he is intellectually compelled to overcompensate for it by believing in EMH, so that the market cannot be “duped” by inflation, thus bubbles are impossible, etc. Here is where his circular reasoning takes on a whole new level. You already wrote about some, so I;ll just say what I’ve read. He actually told me once that he believes Warren Buffet just went on a 20 year lucky streak, and that he wasn’t exploiting any market inefficiencies. This was after he said that EMH predicts lucky streaks the same way a casino has lucky streak gamblers. I responded that casino gambling is his a priori way of viewing the economy, and that it’s not empirical. Then I said casinos also have inefficiencies that gamblers can exploit, such as card counting, signalling, etc. He never responded to this, my guess is because he thought casinos were the perfect example of purely random outcomes, when the reasoning behind EMH is even falsified in casinos. I also said that market inefficiency would predict the existence of Warren Buffets, since the a priori way of viewing investors not as gamblers, but as skilled and knowledgeable investors who are superior to other investors, is also fully consistent with the data.

          5. He blames the falling NGDP post 2008 for the recession post 2008 (although he sometimes puts insincere caveats to this that NGDP is “the likely explanation”, when his audience changes). I repeatedly asked why would NGDP fall at all when the Fed never stopped printing money the whole time. He has NOT even attempted to answer this. My guess is that because he knows he can’t say “The Fed didn’t print enough”, since that just moves us a step back, and thus asking why the Fed needed to print more than they did to prevent NGDP from falling, which of course gets us right back to the original question of why people dropped their spending despite the fact that the Fed didn’t stop printing, so he’s stuck on having to addressing “structural” issues. This will then lead to inevitable questions of why the structural issues should be there at all, which will then lead to heads exploding, as he can only consider “lack of regulation” or “too much prior inflation” as the culprits, without settling on either, lest his entire worldview blow up, either the free market deregulation Chicago Sumner, or the NGDP targeting Sumner.

          6. He doesn’t understand ABCT (big surprise!).

          7. He says the relative price and relative spending changes that would be brought about by NGDP targeting through treasury debt purchases are allegedly minimal and not worth worrying about. He doesn’t really grasp the nature of inflation entering the economy at only certain points and what that brings about.

          8. Here’s a BIGGY that you know: He believes that a treasury buying program of the Fed is somehow consistent with market prices of those treasuries. He actually believes that the Fed, when it announces to the market it is going to buy treasuries, and follows through with that promise through inflation to buy those treasuries, that the Fed ends up paying market prices for those treasuries. After all, the Fed just buys the treasuries at the non-Fed dictated prices from the primary dealers, right? I showed that this violates the basic law of supply and demand, but he didn’t respond.

          9. He caters to the sticky price and wage doctrine. My guess is that he does this so as to provide another justification for Fed inflation, but this time against the fiscal dove Keynesians, who would be disarmed against NGDP advocates, because the Fed can bring about more demand at will without need for fiscal spending, and along with this the zero bound liquidity trap is considered an illusory barrier to further monetary stimulus.

          10. He squirmed pretty hard when I asked about how big is he willing the government to get by way of the government financing itself through the Fed, like would he support the fed buying so much government debt, at of course higher than market prices, to target NGDP, that small government turns into big government. He defended this by saying “Government can get big in any monetary regime.”

          Anyway, those are just some off the top of my head.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Oh, and an addition to 9. He accepts that wages fell in 1920 by a lot, but in order to rescue the need for NGDP, he claims it “wasn’t enough”, because wages didn’t fall by as much as GDP, or some other metric I don’t recall. Ergo, wages are sticky and inflation is justified. I said that wages would have kept falling had the Fed not reignited inflation in 1922, but he didn’t respond.

  8. David R. Henderson says:

    Bob,
    “Born,” not “borne.”

    • Bob Murphy says:

      David are you sure? I’m not, but are you?

      • Ken B says:

        Spelling is a burden.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        You guys seem to think that this whole issue has been easy for me to bear. Have you visited the Reddit post?

        • Ken B says:

          Can’t bear reddit, too much carrying on, nothing there conveys anything, just won’t suffer the place.

    • Dan Hewitt says:

      Yes, “born” is the appropriate word in this context.

    • Silas Barta says:

      Agree with Dan_Hewitt and David_R._Henderson: “born” is for birth/origination; “borne” is for “carried/transmitted by” e.g. airborne, waterborne, load borne by the pillars.

      The More You Know …

      • Ken B says:

        A fetus is borne but a baby is born.

  9. joeftansey says:

    Dr. Murphy,

    I suggest your blog would benefit from a dramatically improved comments section.

    Pending overhaul of the website… a Bob Murphy forum??

  10. Greg Adams says:

    Does it really surprise anyone that the majority of the academic economics professionals are non-Austrian? This ratio is not a metric to be used to strengthen the Keynesian position. That is, unless, the foundation of one’s school of thought is built on a bastardization of science and logic.

  11. Andrew says:

    Hey Bob,
    Why not debate somone who has knowledge of both sides of the debate, and explicitly rejects your position, such as Tyler Cowen or Bryan Caplan? This would provide for a much more interesting debate then simply debating someone, such as Karl Smith or Paul Krugman, who is almost completely ignorant of your position.

  12. Matthew Murphy says:

    Has Daniel Kuehn learned nothing from Bob Murphy over the years? Or any other Austrian/libertarian.

    Yeah, I’m thinking of his disgusting comments at the top about Ron Paul.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      I probably would ignore Ron Paul more (he’s not actually going to End the Fed or anything like that) if it weren’t for the fact the libertarians often go back on so many of their own alleged values when it comes to politicians if the politician is Ron Paul.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        It’s like me as a Lakers fan saying I dislike the Heat, and then, when my favorite Lakers player goes to the Heat, I say I still dislike the Heat, but I still say I like my favorite player.

        We can do that.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          And you’re going back on your professed values when you support government printing and spending money in unconstitutional, non-small government ways.

    • Ken B says:

      DK: “Ron Paul is a congressman”

      This really is harsh, and if it were not true it would surely be actionable, but ‘disgusting’? It’s not like he called him a senator.

  13. Kaj Grüssner says:

    Daniel Kuehn,

    I just have to say that claiming Paul Krugman is right on just about everything he says is completely incomprehensible to me.

    This is the guy who in all seriousness said that if we could get the world’s scientist to band together and convince everyone that we were facing an alien invation, it would enable the governments to spend endless amounts of money on military build-up. This unlimited spending would get us out of the present slump within 18 months.

    He actually said this. On national TV. And he wasn’t kidding. Massive amounts of spending on military build-up to thwart a non-existant alien invasion threat would get us out of the recession in 18 months. Paul Krugman may actually be the worst economist ever, even worse than Keynes himself.

    Of course, he faces stiff competetion from other Keynesians. It is no small feat to top Paul Samuelson’s claim that the USSR would overtake the US by 1990, 2015 at the latest. A claim he stuck to from the early 1970s up until 1989. If there ever was such a thing as “epic fail”, this is surely it.

    These are not isolated incidents. Who was that Keynesian who was abhorred at the thought of cutting military spending (i.e. stop building battleships, bombs and tanks) just because the WWII had ended? And that other guy who in the late1960s declared that Keynsian economic policy had vanquished the business cycle forever?

    The real kicker is that all these fantastic errors make perfect sense from a Keynesian perspective and using Keynesian methodology. Samuelson wasn’t merely guessing about the USSR, he applied Keynesian theory and methodology and that lead him to his insane conclusion, one he never waivered from. So did the other guys. They weren’t spitballing, they presented their view based on Keynesian theory using Keynesian methodology. As did Krugman with his alien invasion theory, an obvious analogy to Keynes idea about putting FED-notes in glass jars and burying them in abandoned mines so that people could dig them up.

    It is amazing to me how anyone still can claim Keynesian theory makes sense and that Krugman is right on just about everything he says, considering the mindblowing epic failures that so many prominent Keynesians have fallen prey to. Even Keynes own Bretton Woods system was colossal disaster.

    You obviously believe that Keynesianism works, so I won’t call you dishonest. But I have to say, holding that belief requires an admirable strength of denial.

    • MamMoTh says:

      I just have to say that claiming Paul Krugman is right on just about everything he says is completely incomprehensible to me.

      Who cares?

      • Major_Freedom says:

        I care.

        dry and unfunny rebuttal in 3, 2, 1…

    • MamMoTh says:

      See? No one cares.

  14. Ken B says:

    RPM tries a little sleight of hand:

    Ken B. wrote:

    Let me note parenthetically that this is one of the ways I seem to differ from libertarians: I support liberations.

    Oh, don’t stop there. Be like a standard Democratic liberal. He supports education, vaccinations, safe drinking water, good roads, and health care for old people. That’s why he differs from libertarians.

    (In case it’s not obvious, his stating such a conclusion is identical to you doing so.)

    Here let me fix that for you Bob.
    “He supports GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED education, GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED vaccinations, GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED safe drinking water, GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED good roads, and GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED health care for old people. That’s why he differs from libertarians.”
    Now it’s accurate.
    But that’s a pretty big difference.
    I support some GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED liberations. Which is usually the only kind available.
    In every other case you make a strong argument that involving the government hinders the goal.
    Not so easy with military interventions to overthrow dictatorships.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Oh my gosh. Ken just say, “I know you are but what am I?” It will make this easier. I understand full well your position. Guess what? I think you are wrong. You are not convincing me, by repeatedly stating your position. I get what you think, and (I hope) you get what I think. You think government is sometimes necessary to deliver freedom to a group of foreign people. I don’t. Great. Please don’t tell me, “No, Bob, I’m saying that sometimes government is necessary to liberate people.” I know.

      • Ken B says:

        Sure Bob, but that leaves open the question why you think I said the US liberated Europe, when I did not, and why you missed my careful distinction between actions and results.

        Let’s split the difference. You’re a pacifist; I am not. You object when I make tart comments about the downside of pacifism. I find your objections can be born(e).

        • Dan says:

          “Bob, when you make a convincing argument that Europe, or Manchkuo, or Iraq, or several others, could have been liberated (in a reasonable time) without military force I’d like to hear it.”

          It is tough to make sense of this challenge if you did not feel Europe was liberated. If you do not feel Europe was liberated even though military force was used to do just that then why do you believe military force was necessary to liberate them?

          • Ken B says:

            @Dan:
            Several points.

            I said military force. I did not say the US. Think about it: we’re arguing the merits of intervention somewhat abstractly. Why would the argument depend on the USA and only the USA doing it? And as to the facts of the matter, there were others. My country being one of them, thank you.

            I said I wanted an argument about ‘could’, not ‘was’. I could have a 20th wedding anniversary only if I got married. The fact I didn’t make it to 20 years does not disprove the could does it?

            Bob complained that half of Europe was enslaved by Stalin. I never denied that half of Europe was enslaved, and only half was liberated. That half was and only could be liberated forcibly. That partial success was a good thing. Too bad we couldn’t free the rest from Stalin. [Note the could; I am NOT saying too bad we didn’t fight a war with Stalin in 1946. Apparently I need to make such disclaimers here. Do I need to say ‘approximately half’ as well?]

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Ken B. wrote:

          Sure Bob, but that leaves open the question why you think I said the US liberated Europe…

          Ken B., it’s bad enough that you apparently haven’t been understanding *my* position during this debate. Now you apparently don’t understand what you yourself have been arguing.

          I’m going to stop now, since I don’t care enough to figure out how in the world you can possibly be claiming that you weren’t claiming US intervention liberated Europe. I suppose if I were locked in a psych ward, I would love to see you explain it. But until then…

          • Ken B says:

            Read my response to Dan.

            You attribute to me two factual claims: that Europe was fully, completely liberated, and that the US did it solo. I made neither of those claims, and believe neither of those things.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              “You attribute to me two factual claims: that Europe was fully, completely liberated”

              That’s how I know you’re lying, can’t speak for others.

              • Ken B says:

                Bob wrote this:
                Ken B., the US didn’t “liberate Europe.” Half of Europe was dominated by the evil, mass-murdering Stalin …

                that only makes sense as a compound claim that 1) the US did the liberating and 2) it wasn’t leberating Europe because half of it was under Stalin.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I don’t think he’s lying, MF, I think he’s being incredibly anal and playing word games when we were clearly arguing about one thing. It’s like if I say I’m a vegetarian at a dinner party, and so I’ll pass on the cocktail wieners though I can understand why Ken B. thinks they’re delicious, and then he follows me around the party saying, “Bob! I never ever said I condoned cannibalism! I defy you to show me where I condoned eating human flesh!”

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Bob wrote this:

                Ken B., the US didn’t “liberate Europe.” Half of Europe was dominated by the evil, mass-murdering Stalin …

                that only makes sense as a compound claim that 1) the US did the liberating and 2) it wasn’t leberating Europe because half of it was under Stalin.

                No, it doesn’t show that at all. The US and Russia were allies. They then agreed with each other to split Europe up, where the East would go under Stalin with the US’s consent, and the West would be reformed under US supervision in the Marshall Plan, along with Germany and France.

                You don’t know your history.

                You said that Europe could not have been liberated without a military. In the English language that means you believe Europe was in fact liberated.

                The main point you are failing to grasp is that liberations do not necessarily require a military. The Soviet Union fell and the people were liberated from communism without a single foreign nation sending in troops.

                Your worldview is fallacious. You believe freedom can only be had through violent conflict of military. You then probably realized that was wrong, so you added the subjective get of jail free card “in a reasonable time”. This enables you to a priori reject all counter-evidence to your claim by you saying it wasn’t fast enough for your tastes.

                How about this:

                The USSR was liberated without a foreign military and took 87 years.

                Sudan has seen war of foreign armies for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, and the people are not liberated.

                Murphy believes that violence can only truly stop by a removal of violence, i.e. peace as a positive force.

                I believe that sometimes peace is necessary, sometimes violence against violent people is necessary.

                You’re saying ONLY violence is necessary. That is wrong.

              • Ken B says:

                Bob: I am objecting to the kind of thing m_f just did, transforming a conditional into a declarative. Is that really anal word games?

                My point is actually pretty simple. Sometimes an oppressed people needs outside militry intervention to liberate them. Many many libertarians oppose such liberations. They may have good reasons, but I for one support many such.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Bob: I am objecting to the kind of thing m_f just did, transforming a conditional into a declarative. Is that really anal word games?

                It’s not a condition to a declarative just because you used the word “could.” Could can be, and in your case it was, used as a declarative.

                Sometimes an oppressed people needs outside militry intervention to liberate them.

                Oh, so now it’s “sometimes”? Before you said you were waiting for Bob to make an argument that military is not needed, because you didn’t think it was possible, and now you’re saying sometimes it can be done?

                Ken B, you’re being disingenuous. You keep changing your story.

          • Ken B says:

            A thought occurs. Is it possible you don’t realize that Stalin used military force against Hitler, and that I phrased my argument specifically to include this? I have been very carefully neutral about which outside country supplies all or part of the postulated military force. Because it does bolster my point that sometimes the victims of the dictatorship cannot do it.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Ken at this point I would support using force against you.

              • Ken B says:

                Yes, well we all have our own kinks; who am I to judge?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Yes, well we all have our own kinks; who am I to judge?

                Says the judge.

              • Ken B says:

                I am still at a loss to understand how a claim that the only way to overthrow some oppresive regimes is via outside military intervention, governments, taking the nazis as one example, can be refuted by Stalin’s occupation of eastern Europe. Or that the claim depends on the US doing it.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I am still at a loss to understand how a claim that the only way to overthrow some oppresive regimes is via outside military intervention, governments, taking the nazis as one example, can be refuted by Stalin’s occupation of eastern Europe. Or that the claim depends on the US doing it.

                You’re at a loss because you’re at a loss of knowing your history.

                The US and Stalin agreed that Stalin would control Eastern Europe. That’s what the US military in part accomplished.

                Unleashing the beast didn’t slay the dragon. It only moved the dragon around, where it eventually died on its own.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              You said:

              “I think in fact Iraq WAS liberated”

              And you also said:

              “Bob, when you make a convincing argument that Europe, or Manchkuo, or Iraq, or several others, could have been liberated (in a reasonable time) without military force I’d like to hear it.”

              When you ask for an argument that shows Europe, Manchku and Iraq “could have been liberated without military force”, that implies Europe, Manchku and Iraq were in fact liberated by military force.

              It’s the “have been liberated” that seals it.

              If you had instead said:

              “Bob, when you make a convincing argument that a non-liberated Europe, or Manchkuo, or Iraq could be liberated (in a reasonable time) without military force I’d like to hear it.”

              That would have kept things in the “abstract” like you claimed they were.

              You can’t fault Bob for reading your words as they are defined in the English dictionary.

              • Ken B says:

                This is too funny. I write a whole comment on could and you transform ‘could have been’ to ‘have been’!

              • Major_Freedom says:

                This is too funny. I write a whole comment on could and you transform ‘could have been’ to ‘have been’!

                No, because that would have completely changed the argument that YOU initially made to Bob.

              • Ken B says:

                Oh for pity’s sakes. M_F’s comments could have been worth reading had he calmed down and thought.

                Please not I asserting his comments have been worht reading. You just can’t dismember conditionals willy nilly.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I get what you’re saying Ken, your usage of words is just awkward.

                You’re speaking of real world events in a weird abstract way that makes it look like you’re implying things that you didn’t intend to imply.

                When you say “Europe could not have been liberated without a foreign military force”, I took that to mean you believe Europe was liberated. So did Murphy. I am sure so did others who read it.

                But you’re speaking of a hypothetical Europe, one where you apply “military and no military” analysis to it, and then say “In this hypothetical Europe, no military could not have liberated it. In this hypothetical Europe, only military could liberate it.”

                But because you’re saying “Europe”, not “Hypothetical Europe”, the fact that you said Europe could not have been liberated without X, makes it look like you’re talking about the real world Europe.

                Suppose I said “You know, North Korea could never have been communized without a domestic military”.

                99.99% of the people who hear me say that, would be taking me to be referring to the North Korea that exists, not some hypothetical Korea where we apply domestic military and no domestic military to it, such that I can then deny myself to have said that I believe it took a domestic military to communize North Korea, and then pull my hair out wondering why people are changing my story.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Oh for pity’s sakes. M_F’s comments could have been worth reading had he calmed down and thought.

                That’s your problem. You argued about a Europe in thought, not a Europe that existed, even though you’re referring to historical Europe.

                Please not I asserting his comments have been worht reading. You just can’t dismember conditionals willy nilly.

                You can’t just butcher the English language willy nilly.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Government supplied liberations is like saying rapist supplied sexual predator liberation.

      • Ken B says:

        And libertarians wonder why they’re marginalized.

        • Richie says:


          And libertarians wonder why they’re marginalized.

          They do? I haven’t read much from them that would show they belly-ache about not being more “mainstream”. Perhaps they do, but I haven’t seen it.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          And statists wonder why libertarians don’t care about being marginalized by statists.

          • Richie says:

            Exactly what I was going to point out. I’m sure most libertarians are not too concerned being “marginalized” by the political establishment. In fact, I see it as a something of which to be highly proud.

    • Nathaniel says:

      There is a long history of people choosing to fight in other people’s wars. Usually they are written off as “mercenaries” by people who summarily reject the possibility that individuals could employ division of labor and cooperate to take out a bad guy.

      We need the State for war like we need the State for the manufacture of sneakers.

  15. Rob says:

    Wonderful ! Its been ages since there was a decent fight on Bob’s site. Absolutely no idea what it is about but I hope this means this site is getting back to business.

    • Dan says:

      Where have you been? I’ve never been to a site with as many long standing arguments. And I don’t mean that as a bad thing. Almost every main philosophy is represented on this site and usually represented well. I, of course, think everyone who disagrees with me is crazy but that’s because I’m right and they’re wrong. Heck, even with people I agree with most of the time, like MF, I want to pull my hair out on some of their views.

      • Rob says:

        I agree. It was just my perception that Bob had been focusing on day job and it had been a bit quiet around here recently.

  16. Who Cares About the Truth? says:

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/krugmans-caught-in-lie-on-housing.html

    What about Krugman’s blatant dishonesty? I guess lying doesn’t do much harm, eh DK?

  17. Who Cares About the Truth? says:

    “You have got to be shitting me. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE RON PAUL MOVEMENT AND A NON-TRIVIAL PORTION OF THE MORE LITERATE TEA PARTIERS ARE ALL ABOUT??????”

    Hilarious! It really is amazing what a complete lack of understanding of Ron Paul’s movement you have.

    Almost as good as claiming Paul’s movement is about getting the chance to force more government coercion is the comparison with Ron and the Tea Partiers! Yeah, the vast majority of Tea Party types who joined Obama/Pelosi/Reid in voting for the NDAA and Patriot Acts, believe the President can start wars on his own — aka all of the things the left and Democrats were against when Bush was in power — along with voting to increase federal spending yet again, have a heck of a lot in common with the movement that disagreed with all of the above. There is a reason most of the “Tea Party” people in the primary have been voting for Newt, or Santorum, or even Romney far more than Ron Paul.

    Attacks on Ron Paul would be a heck of a lot more effective if the people who did them actually had a basic understanding of him and his views first. Seeing such ignorance about Ron Paul and his views would make me throw up in my mouth if I weren’t immune to such nonsense already from seeing it so often.

  18. Tim Miller says:

    test test

Leave a Reply to Daniel Kuehn

Cancel Reply