Note to Self: Bring Up These Posts When Krugman’s Fans (or the Man Himself) Explain the Refusal to Debate
If you are bored, go read Krugman’s fans’ complaints about the unethical libertarians, who had the audacity to tell their friends to vote for a question they wanted him to answer. I mean, it’s kind of like those dirty Ron Paul fans, who will vote in online polls and honestly report who their favorite candidate is. The nerve.
Anyway, this is mostly a note to myself for future reference: I imagine at some point I will find it very useful that Paul Krugman in two separate posts (here and here) admitted that he agreed to debate Ron Paul in order to sell books. He has totally painted himself into a corner.
(I imagine some readers are thinking, “Yeah sure Bob, like Krugman will ever ‘rue the day’ on this one. Get over yourself.” Good. I’m glad you think that. It will make it that much easier for me to take the world by storm.)
This is a slippery slope. Let people vote for what questions they want answered, next they will want to vote for their leaders. What would you even call such a system.
“I imagine at some point I will find it very useful that Paul Krugman in two separate posts (here and here) admitted that he agreed to debate Ron Paul in order to sell books. He has totally painted himself into a corner.”
I’m not sure how this could be. Debating you would not sell as many books as debating Ron Paul (I don’t think it will hurt your feelings for me to say that — debating me would sell even fewer!), so how can you “corner” him on this?
“debating me would sell even fewer”
I didn’t know that he even knew who you are.
😉
You and Krugman should play chess, Gene. It would be bizarre but probably interesting.
There are lots of reasons he could give, Gene, as to why he wouldn’t debate me. E.g. “I wouldn’t want to give a platform to that guy’s crankish monetary views.” But now he can’t, unless he admits that selling books is worth the legitimacy he bestowed on Paul’s goldbugism, while donating money to a food bank is not.
So donating money to a food bank is only worth it if Krugman agrees to debate you, yet he’s the only slimy one here?
We could both be slimy. I’m not ruling that out.
There you go taking the high road when I’m trying to emphasize the “jerk” in my pseudonym.
Anyway, this is mostly a note to myself for future reference: I imagine at some point I will find it very useful that Paul Krugman in two separate posts (here and here) admitted that he agreed to debate Ron Paul in order to sell books
Maybe, but, he didn’t stoop to asking his supporters to donate to a food bank in order to encourage Ron Paul to debate him.
Now THAT is LOW.
Maybe Krugman just isn’t good at debating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs
Hopefully he doesn’t figure that one out for awhile because I don’t catch as much TV, including my beloved comedy, since I began my economic study. After discovering Mises, Rothbard and consequently seeing, and more importantly understanding even basically, such displays from Krugman have only restored in themselves that lost comedy to television… Now my two favorite things have become welded into one. Krugman is a laugh… Oh that blank face of thought with eyebrows raised mouth all gaped open…
My favorite part of Paul vs. Paul was where he said he was a believer in capitalism and markets… So long as the government has a heavy hand in their direction. Self defeating.
Krugman makes a lot of money with all the talks he gives. He said his standard fee was $20,000 for a one-hour speech before he was a regular New York Times columnist and a Nobel prize winner. I imagine his fee is significantly higher now. And since Krugman probably doesn’t know much about you, he’ll need to spend hours and hours of his time researching your position. The question one has to ask is: “What’s the opportunity cost of debating Murphy?” Can Krugman pick up any other speaking gig and make more money than the money that would be donated by debating Murphy? I think it’s very likely. But it’s for charity you say! If Krugman feels like donating to charity, he could pick up whatever other speaking gig and donate the proceeds to a charity of his choice himself.
20K is definitely a lot, but preparing for such a debate and spending hours, days or even weeks with AE cannot be counted entirely as lost time. This would add to his general knowledge of economics, which from my point of view he should have done in the first place already anyway. It would increase his value especially since he could counter much more effectively this spreading of “cranky monetary views” by Ron Paul and others which also is quite important for him, isn’t it? (You for sure cannot call R. Paul’s increasing support a lunatic fringe anymore). As well as an easy going defeat of a high ranked Austrian Economist would also add to his legacy, popularity, book sales and value.
In any way this is not an easy calculation of lost X USD times Y hours for preparation and debate vs how many other speeches and therefore money he could do during this time which also might affect his popularity, value etc..
DJ, Peter Schiff apparently has a standing offer to Krugman to pay (double?) his standard speaking fee to debate him, Schiff, on these matters. This at least is what Schiff told me when I was on his show; I presume he wasn’t making it up, since Schiff is not exactly shy about public debates.
I didn’t frame the $$ as going to Krugman for two reasons:
(1) It would be easier for him to turn it down on principled grounds. (“I won’t give a platform to these medieval economists just for some filthy lucre.”)
(2) My fans would be less eager to donate the money.
Peter Schiff debating Paul Krugman in the name of Austrian Economics would be the worst thing that could happen to it at this time. Schiff used to be a humble and nice guy who won debates because his convincing and calm speaking style and because his predictions turned out right. But ever since his Senate campaign he turned into a bigheaded politician who repeats 5-6 slogans over and over again, aggressively interrupts everyone else and looses every debate just because of his rudeness let alone his increasing number of spectacular but wrong predictions…
We should all be very thankful that Krugman so far refuses to destroy Schiff.
I wrong something similar yesterday on reddit.
“He obviously doesn’t care about charity. He has much more important things to take care of, like pimping out his new book which is the only reason why he even agreed to have a “debate” with Ron Paul recently. Robert Murphy is an economist with a shiny Ph.D. and everything. If Krugman cared about charity, he would take the debate challenge like a man and presumably wipe the floor with Murphy based on the fact that he has a Nobel Prize in economics. What is he so afraid of? That a fellow economist might actually pose a real challenge and by sacrificing a day or so to prepare for it he could help a food pantry and homeless people with 70+ thousand dollars in charitable donations? Oh the horror! If Murphy isn’t up to Krugman’s standards, then perhaps he can agree to debate someone like Hoppe or Block.”