Tuesday, May 1, 2012

More Evidence Krugman Knows He Lost the Debate Against Ron Paul

Now he is posting that face-to-face debates are useless and takes a cheap shot at the debate winner, Ron Paul:
On the Uselessness of Debates 
A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates. 
Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ. 
Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.
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.


  1. Nothing is a better sign of someone losing, whether it is a fist fight or a debate, than going on and on after the fact about how that particular act doesn't change anything or matter. The bitter pot shots and tone say it all.


    Paul via First Round TKO over Krugman 2 minutes into the first round

  2. What's really great is reading the comments section and even on the NY Times how many people are saying Krugman lost the debate. That has to really be a pain. I also enjoyed seeing someone point out that he did not win a nobel prize in anything close to resembling monetary econ, which he doesn't exactly go out of his way to point out.

  3. Funny I just emailed my debating buddy an hour ago and said (in context) that it wasn't that I DISLIKE Krugman, but that I didn't AGREE with him.

    Well after this: “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!”, I DO dislike him. To show such disrespect to a wise old gentleman like Dr. Paul shows a distinct lack of class and yes, the defensiveness of a LOSER!

  4. It's pretty easy to show "growth" no matter how oppressive your financial system when all the "competitors" have been bombed into submission and the entire market relies on your sole industrial capacity.

    The Keynesian/Left argument for higher taxes not inhibiting growth post WW2 always lack context. Simpleton's making a simpleton argument.

  5. "in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?"

    Krugman's ignorance of history astounds me. he can't discuss the adjustment after WW2 without checking his "notes"? We aren't talking about Byzantine history here. It was a major event in America 60 some years ago. A Keynesian nightmare/watershed. Krugman seems to be incapable of intelligent discourse.

  6. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  7. Ron Paul said , "I want to legalize competition. There’s legal competition on currencies around the world, so why can’t we allow ourselves here the legal competition over gold or silver standard? "

    Paul Krugman replied, "That’s not my understanding of the law. But do you really think people use dollar bills because the federal government isn’t allowing them to use other stuff?"

    Imagine you put in your checking account $1000 in a non-interest bearing account. It loses buying power every year due to inflation - as mandated by the Fed. After 10 years you can use it to pay your Federal income taxes, with no further value lost in the tax payment transaction.

    Now imagine you instead buy the equivalent of $1000 of gold. After 10 years it will not have lost buying power due to inflation and so has increased in nominal value relative to the US Dollar. For the sake of argument, lets say it is worth $1200.

    Under current laws you may have had to pay state sales tax to buy the gold initially, and when you sell it at a profit to pay your taxes you will pay Federal capital gains taxes on your (nominal) profit of $200.

    The IRS also considers gold a "collectible" and will tax your $200 capital gains at a 28% rate. This designation includes all forms of gold (other than jewelry). That includes coins and any "paper gold" or gold certificates.

    Does Paul Krugman really not understand how capital gains laws work? Or is he afraid to endorse the idea of competitive currencies?

    1. Krugman knows well enough. He is not by any means ignorant of many of the things he pretends to "never have heard about". He is just a lying scumbag shill.

    2. Krugman doesn't understand that currencies compete internationally?

  8. Here is my prediction. Now that Krugman has been downed by Paul in debate, he will do a 'Ron Paul newsletters' revenge piece in the NYT.

    Put it down in the book!


    1. And then we can highlight what his own editor at the NY Times had to say about how he intentionally misleads people with his columns. I bet there are a lot of people who have not been exposed to that exchange.

  9. Krugman posts: "Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?)."

    SO, why not use the opportunity to present his data with the blog post?

  10. Economics could never be technical enough for Krugman.

    I especially disliked when he accused either Paul, or others with views on monetary policy he disagreed with, as not having really read Friedman. He's forgetting that he's debating a man who has significantly outwritten him, unless you include baloney academic econometric papers that are only read in government subsidized university econ departments.

    His "goo goo gah gah" response is bottom of the barrel. It mirrors his manner during their conversation; shifting eyes, smirks, and asides contrasted strongly with Paul's earnest style.

  11. Let's sum up Mr. Krugman's career in a sentence, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

    Clearly Mr. Krugman is a living example of how far the Noble has fallen from its pinnacle of recognizing the best in human endeavor. The recent awards to Messrs Gore and Obama underline the fact that the Nobel is now available for political gain, to buy influence, or to the highest bidder, and reinforces the widespread and growing lack of confidence the world's people have in anything coming from their governments, media, and institutions.

    The PTB seem to have missed the fact that the "big lie" theory only works until the people being lied to awaken to the deception - then it becomes self defeating to continue. Yet continue they must, for if they stop, the responsibility for this global disaster falls clearly at their doorstep. You can sense the panic.

    Mr. Krugman derides Dr. Paul because he knows not what else to do. He has no facts to support his position other than he says it is so. His career is a house of cards built on a foundation of quicksand. This is not a stupid man. He sees the writing on the wall and knows that he is becoming a joke - people are openly laughing at him. The emperor has no clothes. His responses are exactly what you would expect of a man watching his world go up in smoke.

    I, am Spartacus

  12. Once and ENRON economist, always an ENRON economist.

  13. This is the prestigious "nobel prize winning economist" at the NY Times writing just like how you would expect a 13 year old teenage girl to respond to an argument?

    Yup. Pretty clear who won that debate!

  14. I just wanted to let everyone know that Paul Krugman will be at Politics and Prose at 7pm today. Krugman recently debated Ron Paul on Bloomberg link here: http://youtu.be/BcuAOdXD0Go

    5015 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington DC

    I believe this will be televised or recorded, so it would be nice if we can get someone to get up there and ask a question challenging him and his flawed policies. Maybe even get in a plug for Ron Paul.
    Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (libertarian-364@meetup.com)