He'll debate Stockman b/c he knows that he can manuever around Stockman. Murphy knows every Keynesian mathematical model Krugman has ever masturbated to and can deconstruct them all. Hence he avoids him completely.
The other day on ABC, Krugman told Greta Van Susteren that regulations have absolutely zero impact on unemployment and businesses hiring people. I really don't see how this guy has any credibility left after making such an asinine statement.
This man doesn't even understand that government regulations ban dozensif not hundreds of industries in America! Great example would be hemp farming, importing pharmaceuticals, marijuana cultivation.
Stockman is self contradicted in that he believes in a "restrained" Central Bank (he calls it a "banker's bank") and is against interfering with the market. The mere existence of a central bank is "deforming". Krugman can exploit this contradiction indirectly and "win" the debate if he is sly and deflects away from his own numerous contradictions. So it will be a debate of attacking the other guy's principles while hiding your own principles. Could be fun. Adam Smith was a Loyalist who believed in the "invisible hand". We all have our contradictions.
I like the fact that Stockman uses the Ron Paul/Jim Rogers line that "these guys have been wrong 100% of the time" and hope he repeats it every chance he gets citing their innumerable erroneous forecasts specifically. I hope he slams all Krugman's stats and charts as "economic weather reports" that cannot make central banking legitimate because it fails to address the moral question. In other words, I want David to hammer away on the moral aspect of central interest rate control, Fed counterfeiting and to dismiss wholesale any pragmatic arguments or arguments based upon the results thereof.
When I argue against gov't schools, I start off by saying that I don't care if the gov't was able to educate every last child to be smarter than Einstein, give them the moral character of Mother Teresa, and to do so one a budget of one penny a decade, it still isn't the province of the gov't to educate children. God gave them parents for that. And any failure of parents to do an adequate job does not justify the gov't filling the void any more than I am allowed to spank my neighbor's unruly child who receives no discipline at home.
I said all that because I want David to stay focused and argue from principle, not pragmatism. The common man "heard Jesus gladly" because He kept everything simple and distilled to its easily understood essence. I want David to ask the very simple "Hoppe Question" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QJwmMu15Exc
Beyond that I want him to get Krugman to explain how the fed is any different than any other counterfeiter. Defend morally debasement. Defend how buying with "money" that you just printed is not stealing from those who have to buy from money they earned honestly. Make Krugman name who (Bankers) is getting to accumulate wealth/assets/property and make him name who (the common man) is getting systematically plundered in the deal.
Hold his feet to the fire and keep focusing on that question. Keep coming back to it. Restate the question fifty different ways. Don't let Krugman deflect. Dismiss categorically all his charts and graphs as "beguiling sophistry". Tell Ktugman to his face that he has been wrong so consistently that you would be tempted to doubt him if he told you that the sun rises in the east.
FWIW, I must confess an appreciation of the pejorative 'voodoo economics' but don't use it because of its associated connotations affirming GHWB.
I, too, would love to hear Hoppes question addressed but, alas, it will not be. Adherents of Keynesianism are intellectually bankrupt but, they are not stupid. They dare not answer because they can't without their bankruptcy and being exposed for what it is, so they choose to live with their smug sense of morality.
I really hope Stockman brinks up Robert Murphy and how much money will go to charity if Krugman debates him. You know Schiff, right Bob? I know I have seen pics of Schiff with Stockman. Maybe a couple of phone calls can be made to get him to bring up the Murphy debate challenge in front of the CNN audience. He could challenge Krugman to debate Murphy live on air and see whether he can turn it down then.
I'll take the under on the amount of time Krugman will take after the debate to complain about how unfair the debate was.
ReplyDeleteKrugman is a pussy.
ReplyDeleteHe'll debate Stockman b/c he knows that he can manuever around Stockman. Murphy knows every Keynesian mathematical model Krugman has ever masturbated to and can deconstruct them all. Hence he avoids him completely.
Spot on!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOr the odds that Krugman will respond after getting his ass kicked with that hand wave of the arguments that destroyed his points.
ReplyDeleteLike when he says, "Besides devastating points, X, Y, Z, etc.... he had nothing"
The other day on ABC, Krugman told Greta Van Susteren that regulations have absolutely zero impact on unemployment and businesses hiring people. I really don't see how this guy has any credibility left after making such an asinine statement.
ReplyDeleteThis man doesn't even understand that government regulations ban dozensif not hundreds of industries in America! Great example would be hemp farming, importing pharmaceuticals, marijuana cultivation.
DeleteStockman is self contradicted in that he believes in a "restrained" Central Bank (he calls it a "banker's bank") and is against interfering with the market. The mere existence of a central bank is "deforming". Krugman can exploit this contradiction indirectly and "win" the debate if he is sly and deflects away from his own numerous contradictions. So it will be a debate of attacking the other guy's principles while hiding your own principles. Could be fun. Adam Smith was a Loyalist who believed in the "invisible hand". We all have our contradictions.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that Stockman uses the Ron Paul/Jim Rogers line that "these guys have been wrong 100% of the time" and hope he repeats it every chance he gets citing their innumerable erroneous forecasts specifically. I hope he slams all Krugman's stats and charts as "economic weather reports" that cannot make central banking legitimate because it fails to address the moral question. In other words, I want David to hammer away on the moral aspect of central interest rate control, Fed counterfeiting and to dismiss wholesale any pragmatic arguments or arguments based upon the results thereof.
When I argue against gov't schools, I start off by saying that I don't care if the gov't was able to educate every last child to be smarter than Einstein, give them the moral character of Mother Teresa, and to do so one a budget of one penny a decade, it still isn't the province of the gov't to educate children. God gave them parents for that. And any failure of parents to do an adequate job does not justify the gov't filling the void any more than I am allowed to spank my neighbor's unruly child who receives no discipline at home.
I said all that because I want David to stay focused and argue from principle, not pragmatism. The common man "heard Jesus gladly" because He kept everything simple and distilled to its easily understood essence. I want David to ask the very simple "Hoppe Question" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QJwmMu15Exc
Beyond that I want him to get Krugman to explain how the fed is any different than any other counterfeiter. Defend morally debasement. Defend how buying with "money" that you just printed is not stealing from those who have to buy from money they earned honestly. Make Krugman name who (Bankers) is getting to accumulate wealth/assets/property and make him name who (the common man) is getting systematically plundered in the deal.
Hold his feet to the fire and keep focusing on that question. Keep coming back to it. Restate the question fifty different ways. Don't let Krugman deflect. Dismiss categorically all his charts and graphs as "beguiling sophistry". Tell Ktugman to his face that he has been wrong so consistently that you would be tempted to doubt him if he told you that the sun rises in the east.
FWIW, I must confess an appreciation of the pejorative 'voodoo economics' but don't use it because of its associated connotations affirming GHWB.
Go get 'em Dave!
gc,
DeleteI, too, would love to hear Hoppes question addressed but, alas, it will not be. Adherents of Keynesianism are intellectually bankrupt but, they are not stupid. They dare not answer because they can't without their bankruptcy and being exposed for what it is, so they choose to live with their smug sense of morality.
I really wish Krugman would debate Schiff.
ReplyDeleteGood warmup debate here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/paul-krugman-david-stockman_n_3033003.html
ReplyDeleteI really hope Stockman brinks up Robert Murphy and how much money will go to charity if Krugman debates him. You know Schiff, right Bob? I know I have seen pics of Schiff with Stockman. Maybe a couple of phone calls can be made to get him to bring up the Murphy debate challenge in front of the CNN audience. He could challenge Krugman to debate Murphy live on air and see whether he can turn it down then.
ReplyDelete