really, the list of topics should be pretty simply. krugman has only offered one critique of abct which was composed of 3 simple points (replicated and color coded below form his 1998 slate article). murphy’s goal should be to answer each of these points as simply as possible (avoiding diversions to pet austrian topics like methodology).
Here’s the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn’t that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?
Most modern hangover theorists probably don’t even realize this is a problem for their story. Nor did those supposedly deep Austrian theorists answer the riddle. The best that von Hayek or Schumpeter could come up with was the vague suggestion that unemployment was a frictional problem created as the economy transferred workers from a bloated investment goods sector back to the production of consumer goods. (Hence their opposition to any attempt to increase demand: This would leave “part of the work of depression undone,” since mass unemployment was part of the process of “adapting the structure of production.”) But in that case, why doesn’t the investment boom—which presumably requires a transfer of workers in the opposite direction—also generate mass unemployment?And anyway, this story bears little resemblance to what actually happens in a recession, when every industry—not just the investment sector—normally contracts.
It would show the public how commited these guys are to being ivory tower intellectuals.
you say that like it’s a bad thing.
but when it comes to engaging the public on economic issues, i don’t think there is anyone more active than paul krugman (certainly not at his level of exposure). so i don’t think anyone is going to accuse him of hiding in an ivory tower.
really, the only way this would be considered a huge win is if academic economists (and possibly the popular media) consider murphy a genuine “contender” and not just some crank trying to get media attn.
this is why i really wish that someone with a university position was chosen to debate krugman instead of murphy. not to put murphy down. it’s just that i think the debate would be taken as more of a serious challenge. for better or wose, those are just the break. garrison probably should have been the man to do it. but i don’t know how he would do in front of a crowd.
really, economics isn’t properly discussed in front of a live audience anyways. the best result would have been krugman and garrison doing a 4-piece debate in a popular (and less rigorous) econ journal like the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
When Krugman doesn’t debate - and he won’t - almost nobody is going to hold it against him. Anyone with a clue already knows the guy is a hack, this isn’t going to convinence much of anyone that isn’t already.
I know Krugman’s a professional idiot, but his criticisms in the Slate article are so simplistic and easily defeated that I feel like there’s some technical detail I’m missing that makes them not so trivial. Am I being too hopeful here or can someone point out what I’m missing?
I’m certainly loving the idea of some form of Austrian contact with the mainstream profession, but I don’t think this will happen, nor do I think this is the best way for Austrians to go about this. Firstly, being right doesn’t make you the best debater. At all. I don’t know of Murphy’s oratory skills other then his lecturers (which are great as well as comical), nor do I know of Krugmans, but having the best ideas does gurantee a win (usually its a loss, just look at any political debate ,its always about who can promise the biggest free lunch). Krugman also has a huuuuuuuuge advantage in this debate because he has the mainstream lingo/theories/history on his side. Its up to Murphy to explain the Austrian ideas, the technical problems with Keynesian economics, and do pratically an entire revision of economic history when Krugman wants him to.
Also, whatever the outcomes of this, it won’t be an earth shattering event. First of all guys, its an economics debate. Throngs of people aren’t going to be watching this thing, and I’d be suprised if it gets any real news attention. The amount of people watching this will be very small, and the vast majority of that small population will already be deeply entrenched in their philosophy that the outcome won’t change it.
While I think this new video is funny, I don’t think it helps the Austrian school’s credibility or for Murphy to be taken seriously. The animated videos were a good intro, but this seems like a bit much (also some things I didn’t want to see haha).
I think Dr. Murphy is fine. His doctoral’s dissertation revolves around capital theory. He’s taught classes on business cycle theory and likely has a better grasp on the topic than anyone here.
The other point is no other Austrian has stepped up to the plate. Dr. Murphy has. It’s unlikely that we could just nominate our favorite Austrian here, and push them into a debate with someone else. In this case Murphy has stepped forward and volunteered himself. We’re better off having someone who’s willing to do the job.
And don’t kid yourselves, these types of debates aren’t academic. The best debators are those who can popularize the topic, because it is only through popularization that what you say actually makes sense to the majority of people who are listening to you.
It won’t be a big deal for Krugman to debate Murphy. Just about the only people who will realize Krugman is a loser are the same people who already know it.
He has nothing to loose and everything to gain. His supporters are all economic buffoons. They will declare victory on the basis of his mere participation. They will go on to say: What, Austrian business cycle theory? Krugman refuted that already.
Just like Oscar Lange refuted Mises on the Calculation debate.
The missing detail is that he does not know the theory. He just pretends to by reading one paragraph from Wikipedia and writing an article referring to Hayek to make it sound like he does. That is why he calls it “Hangover Theory”.
No. They’ll just laugh at people wasting their money and not think anything of it, because they don’t think that some obscure minority position could possibly have anything worth engaging. Also, Krugman does not know enough about ABCT to debate it anyway. It would amount to Murphy simply giving a seminar with someone possibly interrupting occasionally. But this assumes he would accept the debate. This stunt has nowhere near enough publicity to result in any significant backlash if he ignores it. A few guys on the internet might think he is chicken. Woop-dee-doo. Nothing lost for trying in that case. I would rather Austrians do not waste their money on NYC bums.
It’s good publicity with the LvMI and whoever else would be affiliated. What’s the worst that could happen? What if the news hits that tons of money was donated to the needy at the expense of LvMI readers?
The people donating the money don’t see it that way. If they get some sort of satisfaction out of it, so be it. It’s their subjective value preferences.
