I love Ron Paul but he is just too nice. I'm afraid Joe Six-pack may call this debate a draw.
This argument is much like anthropogenic global warming. Unless you know enough about the subject at hand, you'll always have difficulty understanding it and making an informed decision. The smart Joe Six-packs find people they know and trust who do have the knowledge. Those knowledgeable and trustworthy people are the ones you have to convince. I think Ron Paul did extremely well.
This can't be real!? :)
I agree. Average viewer will call this a draw. Krugman managed to hold his own against Ron Paul, but the Twitter questions kicked his ass.
I wonder if Krugman would have kept repeating "we're in a depression" if it wasn't for his new book. Technically, we aren't currently in a depression, right? Have the goal posts moved?
Can someone post a link please? I missed it.
For Krugman to claim he does not understand the claim that fiat funny-money creation is theft is preposterous. I just found my old yellowed copy of "Economics in One Lesson" from 1974. There are some short notes in back showing that I understood that simple and undeniable concept the first time I encountered it at age 23. One must purposefully avoid thinking to not understand the concept. Or just be a liar.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/6983691614/in/photostream
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paul-vs-paul-post-mortemI think Ron paul pwned that. Krugman made no sense
Ron P. did well, but I sure wish he would not let Krugman make so many misleading statements. Ron's door to throw Krugman off balance for the rest of the debate was in the very beginning when Krugman stated he wanted to have the same economy his parents had after the war to which he attributed to the high amount of government regulation and taxation in those times (of course this is nonsense on so many levels, but I'll ignore those and instead focus on the opening Krugman created for Paul). All Paul had to do was bring up the fact that the biggest regulator of them all, the gold standard, was also part of that same time period. He should have asked Krugman if the gold standard would be part of his model too, and if not, how he is able to rule it out? For Krugman to rule out the gold standard as beneficial during this period, he would have to also accept that it was not detrimental, since the economy was so robust. That would have been the end of every argument Krugman had against RP's position on money after that point.
Anyone else notice the black and yellow theme they had going on there? I think we may have an AnCap embed working in the Bloomberg editing room.
Is this up on youtube yet? I don't like to give that crook bloomberg any hits for his website. I think Wenzel vs Krugman should be next in the debate format!
That would be good! Another great choice, even though he's not an economist, would be Tom Woods. Tom likes to go for the jugular quick and he's the type that doesn't stop fighting until his opponent is completely destroyed. Tom also thinks on his feet lightening fast.