Paul Krugman’s Life About to Get Difficult

Some of you know about Bob Murphy’s debate challenge. If you don’t — and heck, even if you do — visit KrugmanDebate.com. Make sure you understand the specifics before saying, “Krugman will never do it.” Murphy has made it hard for Krugman to say no, given the money that would go to charity if it occurred.

I talked to Gary North, a marketing genius, about this over the weekend. He already knew about the debate challenge, but as we were talking he came up with a great idea. I am not sure Bob will do it. I hope he does. It would inflict pain on Krugman, week after week. It would do so humorously. It may inflict so much pain as to force Krugman to debate. As a pleasant side effect, it would put Bob on the map in a way far beyond what he has already achieved, which is itself considerable.

Here’s an excerpt from North’s members-only article today:

The trick for Murphy is to smoke Krugman out. He must inflict so much humiliation on Krugman for not debating him that Krugman will be forced to take him on.

I have a plan. It is risk-free for Murphy and could be permanently disastrous for Krugman. It involves the use of YouTube. It involves the strategic use of ridicule. But the form of ridicule will leave Murphy untouchable. That’s because it will involve humor.

I will not spell it out here. I will say only this. First, Murphy can pull it off, cheap. All it will take is time. Second, it will inflict more pain on Krugman than he can possibly imagine. Third, the pain will escalate weekly. There will be only one way to stop the pain from increasing: hold the debate.

If Murphy then beats him, the pain will then remain on a permanent basis, visible to all. If Krugman beats him, or gets a draw, Murphy loses. But how much does Murphy have to lose?

That’s the price of being a nationally known columnist. Little people, risking nothing, can call your bluff at any time. The preferred defensive strategy — silence — does not work if the challenger is media-savvy. Murphy works with people in a professional comedy troupe who are media-savvy. They can help him produce the kind of videos I suggest.

Murphy is a good debater. Krugman is not an effective performer on camera. He is easily flustered.

Murphy really will clean his clock. But given the Chinese water torture method I have devised, I hope Krugman adopts the old standby: “Murphy? Who’s Murphy?” The pain will escalate weekly.

Anonymous

The Ron Paul / Paul Krugman thing a few weeks ago demonstrated beautifully exactly why Krugman won’t get into a formal debate.

Krugman: “I’m not promoting the policies of Dioclecian.”

Paul: “Yes, you are.”

And with a look at the actual _policies_ of Dioclecian, one discovers that Krugman is wrong. Krugman being shown openly to be wrong makes him more than “flustered”, it causes him to start making ad-homonym attacks to try to distract from his own failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA
AD

Why is this is a top-secret strategy? Let’s hear it.
http://www.facebook.com/jmart24 Jeremiah Martin

So… what is the idea?
http://www.facebook.com/James2039 James Moore

Krugman really needs this. I just doubt it will happen after Dr. Paul so nicely cleaned his clock before. Krugman’s nobel prize makes about as much sense as Obama’s nobel prize.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jay-Quick/1813833761 Jay Quick

Krugman loves to hide behind his column where no one can challenge him. He doesn’t want to debate Bob Murphy because he knows that Murphy would eat his lunch. Hell, I would probably eat his lunch, and I’m only an undergrad…
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

What sense would it make to eliminate the element of surprise? Bob will be ready to do it soonish. In the meantime, the point is that something is brewing.
http://traditionalliberalism.blogspot.com/ classicalliberal

I am waiting on the edge of my seat to see what will come of this if Murphy proceeds with the advice.
http://www.facebook.com/tanner.cartwright.9 Tanner Cartwright

This is even better at demonstrating why he won’t debate Murphy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LmE5cfQKA

I almost wish Krugman were a better debater because then he would be more likely to do it.
John

It made be the nerdiest thing I can think to suggest, but I would love to see Bob bring up Krugman’s reference to Asimov’s Foundation series. Krugman thinks his great social scientists “save the day” when in fact they fail big time due to a chain of interventions, all with unintended consequences. The group that does “save the day” turns out to be an anarchic, voluntarist society.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Zebram-Zee/100002539017006 Zebram Zee

This sounds really cool. Will the plan be designed to appeal to the broader American conservative movement? I know they don’t agree with us on many key issues, but I think we need a lot more publicity and money and we may have to appeal to them to get this debate to actually happen.
http://twitter.com/MooseOfReason Jeff

I can’t wait.
gcallah

“Second, it will inflict more pain on Krugman than he can possibly imagine. Third, the pain will escalate weekly.”

Ah, what a Christian aim: to inflict ever-escalating pain on someone else.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

As usual, Gene pretends to misunderstand something in order to cast someone in a negative light. Should I offer a $1000 reward if anyone can find a pleasant blog comment, on any blog, by Gene?
Brian

Yes, you should.

Now that we’ve resolved that it’s ethically required for you to do so, I can relay the following information: Gene and I had a pleasant chat on facebook. I made a screenshot of it because chatting with any Austrian economist is pretty cool. Shall I send it to you?

P.S. I tend to agree with Gene on this one; the constant mention of inflicting “pain” in the OP is pretty vicious. I mean, it is Krugman (and he has been dodging this), but I… don’t know how to put this… the NAP is kind of a big deal. People know it. The NAP is very important. It has many leather-bound books and it’s apartment smells of rich mahogany.
Brian

(This may be a double post. I have not yet seen the original one.)

Yes, you should.
Now that we’ve resolved that it’s ethically required for you to do so, I can relay the following information: Gene and I had a pleasant chat on facebook. I made a screenshot of it because chatting with any Austrian economist is pretty cool. Shall I send it to you?
P.S. I tend to agree with Gene on this one; the constant mention of inflicting “pain” in the OP is pretty vicious. I mean, it is Krugman (and he has been dodging this), but I… don’t know how to put this… the NAP is kind of a big deal. People know it. The NAP is very important. It has many leather-bound books and it’s apartment smells of rich mahogany.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Brian, the “pain” is not in the form of physical aggression.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=147500531 Charles Pearson

Although we haven’t heard the plan yet, I’m quite certain it’s not going to involve Murphy throwing molotov cocktails onto Krugman’s lawn or anything like that. I don’t know how the NAP applies here.
Joseph

Actually Krugman’s prize makes more cents as it allows the international financial system to pillage everyone, whereas Obama’s prize makes cents for America’s military industrial complex only at the cost of Americans and select “hostile” nations.
http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.r.hammond Jeremy R. Hammond

I threw this one together to promote my short book “Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924tOs-FStU
The book:
http://www.amazon.com/Ron-Paul-vs-Krugman-Keynesian/dp/1470070723
Anonymous

Actually, the Krugman prize makes more ¢ents
http://www.facebook.com/ken.pruitt.50 Ken Pruitt

Krugman has gotten crushed by two Austrian economists already, one in Spain, and Ron Paul on Bloomberg. I seriously doubt the debate between Krugman and Murphy will ever happen, but I do hope that it does. Seriously. I’m so sick of seeing Krugman get prestige that he doesn’t deserve.

Hey, Tom, if the debate DOES happen, make sure to remind Murphy to punch holes in the idea that you can mathematically plan/predict the economy, and also the IS-LM model, because more than anything, this is the single biggest problem in the econ profession. Hell, even the would-be free-market people believe this nonsense.
http://profiles.google.com/xanas3712 Matthew Swaringen

Are you really this dumb to bring up the NAP in this context? Does my calling you dumb count as “aggression” to you?
http://www.facebook.com/jaffijoe Joseph Fetz

Plus, Bob is an ardent pacifist.

I swear, sometimes you really have to spell some stuff out to people. It’s a joke. When he says, “inflict…pain”, it is obvious that he’s doing so in a joking manner. Sure, PK may endure some hard decisions, but “pain” is used here as a metaphor, or more accurately, it’s hyperbole.

*facepalm*
http://www.facebook.com/jaffijoe Joseph Fetz

Unless it is a comment of Gene verbally massaging Oakeshott’s balls, probably not.
Evan Falkenstine

Non aggression does not apply. This is intellectual self defense. Krugmann is the aggressor spewing his untruths about in newspapers, radio interviews and TV spots. I have been assaulted by his nonsense for too long. Bob Murphy is a man of the people, rising up to defend them against Keynesian aggressors who would not just take their money via inflation, but also their sanity via a flurry of nonsensical slogans. I know if someone tells me one more time about how if we just had bigger wars we’d all be rich I am gonna lose it.
Brian

@facebook-1341317439:disqus I swear, sometimes you really have to spell some stuff out to people. It’s a joke! When I say “;)” after quoting Ron Burgundy verbatim, it is obvious that my comment is made in jest. Sure, PK may have to endure some tough criticism, but I suggested that Tom’s post was treading close to violating “NAP” tongue-in-cheek, or more accurately, it’s hyperbole.

I read Callahan’s _Economics for Real People_ a couple of months ago and had a pleasant conversation with him regarding the book on facebook around that time, which is why I commented on Tom’s wager regarding whether Callahan has ever posted somewhere something that is not mean ($1,000 is good money if I spend it before it’s worthless). I didn’t know that Callahan can be trollish and is regarded by posters here as someone who only “throws shit on the party.” The above two comments are the first I’ve made on this blog and I don’t regularly read the comments so I’m unfamiliar with the “contributions” that Callahan makes.

So if I’ve annoyed or angered anyone- excuse me, but I didn’t know that Tom and Gene weren’t buddies (I thought Tom’s reply to Gene, the one on which I commented, was a joke).

*facepalm*
http://www.facebook.com/jaffijoe Joseph Fetz

No, I don’t think that Tom’s post was getting anywhere near violating the NAP, because the NAP only deals with life and property, not putting somebody on the spot (which is what Tom means when he says “pain”). Certainly, Tom and Bob aren’t going to use physical force, theft, fraud, etc to get PK to debate the Murphinator.

I talk to Dr. Callahan quite a bit, as well as to Dr. Murphy, and I have had limited correspondence with Dr. Woods. I consider Gene a friend (or, at least the online equivalent), and I know that Dr. Murphy considers Gene a friend (not too sure about Tom), so I am speaking with somewhat of a familiarity here. Shoot, I probably comment on Gene’s blog more than anybody else.

Gene used to be a libertarian at one time, but has since become quite an opponent of libertarian thought. So, when I said that he “throws shit” on Tom’s party, I am referring to the fact that Gene will often pop in just to be an antagonist on libertarian forums. He knows that he does this, I know that he does this. So, I don’t imagine that Gene would be too offended with me saying so in the context that I did. Now, he might get a little riled up about that Oakeshott line (above), but I am sure that he knows that I was joking. It’s a reference to the fact that Oakeshott is to Gene what Rothbard is to me (or Tom, or Bob). So, Gene could just as easily turn the tables and say that it is me, Bob, or Tom that is verbally “massaging the balls” of Rothbard.
Brian

@facebook-1341317439:disqus I’m glad I’m understood that my “equating” Tom’s words to aggression wasn’t.

I had read something along the lines that Gene is a “former” Austrian- this amounted to a sentence on a page which I have now forgotten. I wonder what happened. _Economics for Real People_ is a pretty good introductory text for the Austrian School (the subtitle happens to say pretty much this). Now that you mention it, he did reference Oakeshott a few times in that book. I haven’t read him, yet.

Ah well. No hard feelings.
http://www.facebook.com/jaffijoe Joseph Fetz

To be honest, in my correspondences with Gene, a lot of Austrian stuff still comes up, so I don’t think that he’s entirely discounted Austrian econ. However, he has certainly rejected libertarianism, especially that of the Rothbardian tradition. Also, his book is very good, and I still recommend it to those just beginning to delve into economics.

A lot of people give him crap for his move away from libertarianism, but I don’t. I understand that for those of us who are constantly looking for answers to explain the social order, we will not always come into agreement with everybody, and that our opinions will change over time. I cannot hold a grudge against somebody merely because their life’s intellectual journey has moved them further away from that of my own (intellectual journey). All I can do is attempt to convince them otherwise.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509871331 John C. Randolph

Dr. Paul is correct, of course. Krugman advocates Diocletian’s policies every time he opens his stupid mouth and calls for more inflation, more regulation, and more debt.

I’m sure that back in the declining years of the Roman empire, there were dozens of court astrologers just like Krugman fluffing the emperor’s ego, and imploring him to be even more brutal and despotic.

I think it’s high time that we quit letting Krugman even pretend to be an intellectual. With the decades-long record he has of being dead wrong, a genuine intellectual would have noticed that the facts don’t fit his position, and modified his views accordingly (like when Thomas Sowell gave up on Marxism.)

For all the time he’s spent in ivory towers, Krugman is not educated. What he is, is exhaustively malinformed and self-deluded.

-jcr