I know that with the Ron Paul presidential campaign people will be digging deep to support his efforts, but here’s another worthy cause.
I don’t see why Paul Krugman wouldn’t want to debate Robert Murphy; after all, think of the stimulating effects of $60,000 entering the economy.
I think as dumb as he sounds based on his columns, I think he’s actually smart enough to know he has absolutely nothing to gain by doing it and (at least so far) nothing to lose by not doing it. His “kontradictions” have been so well documented by Murphy and Anderson and others that I think he realizes he doesn’t stand much of a chance at coming out looking good at all. (Not to mention I’ve heard the rumor that it’s his wife that writes most of the columns that are published with his name on them…so I’m not quite sure if even a pushover like Krugman is interested in facing the music for his old lady’s bullshit.)
At this point, it seems like there’s enough money. The only thing now that could force his hand is popular pressure. We need to publicize the good this money would do and all that Krugman needs to do. At that point he would be shamed into doing this debate.
This logic never made any sense to me. Why should Krugman be embarrassed by other people’s refusals to donate to charity?
Which will happen first, Murphy vs. Krugman or Pacquiao vs. Mayweather?
Huh? People do stuff for charity all the time. Donald Trump said that was a major reason he agreed to be Roasted (the Friars and the network donated a lot of money to charity)…which I believe…as there’s plenty of other opportunities for the guy to get publicity without being made fun of. I seriously doubt Trump would have agreed to go through with that if that money weren’t there. And it’s the same thing for celebrity editions of all sorts of gameshows.
And the same goes for this. People want to see the debate and they are willing to pay for it. And it’s not going in some fatcat’s pocket, it’s going to a foodbank in NYC. Krugman is not supposed to be “embarrassed”, he’s supposed to be shamed or enticed or however you’d like to look at it into having a simple debate on a subject he’s supposed to be a Nobel-worthy expert on, so that all that money will go to the charity.
Seriously if you’ve got tens of thousands of dollars just sitting there, waiting to be turned over to a charity, and it’s all resting on one guy to have it be donated, and all that guy has to do is participate in a debate about his area of expertise…when that guy is asked “All that money is just sitting there. Why don’t you just debate?” Do you really expect the guy to respond: “You expect me to feel bad these cheapskates need a reason to donate to charity? If they really cared they’d donate anyway. I’m not gonna waste my time with that.”
That’s actually a really good question. I’d actually love to see a spread on that. I honestly don’t know. Mayweather is so scared. He knows Pacquiao can break that record that lets Floyd walk around like this:
Ron Paul can raise $1 million in one day, but the entire Austrian economics community worldwide can’t raise $100,000 in the 7 months since Murphy announced his debate intentions? 