This needed it’s own thread. Of course the video will get posted once it’s available. But this is a pretty big deal.
4pm ET…in a few minutes:
:EDIT:
Figured I might as well also add this (previously mentioned here):
Jeremy Hammond’s new book, Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis…
Omg! RP just referrenced the Byzantine empire. He wins just on that.
I’m afraid it’s just going to be an ambush
Anyone get to see it? The video wouldn’t load for me. Maybe high traffic? Judging from the comments there wasn’t much of a debate. And they ambushed Ron Paul with the Dallas Fed chairman.
Yup, if what people on zero hedge and dailypaul are saying is true then this “debate” was a farce
I really wish Ron Paul was a better speaker. It’s truly frustrating
My opinion. I haven’t seen the segment yet but I’m betting RP isn’t going to come out looking good.
Clayton -
Agreed, Clayton.
Bob Murphy, of course, couldn’t get the call. They get an old man that they know can’t respond in the necessary language. Murphy isn;t a figurehead like Paul is either. F the MSM. F Krugman.
This was rather painful to watch. Ron Paul was owned.
If it’s any consolation, the girl was made of plastic and Krugman is a toadface moron who happens to be on the right side.
FTFY - now I know why Ron Paul agreed to go up against Krugman and I feel silly for doubting his judgment. I also know why Krugman won’t accept Bob Murphy’s challenge… he couldn’t hold a candle to Bob Murphy. Ron Paul’s not any kind of economist and he cleaned Krugman’s clock on every point.
Clayton -
The sad part is the average person watching it, who hasn’t done much research on economics, will probably think, “Oh, Krugman is an NOBEL PRIZE winning economist? He’s probably right then. I’ll leave the economy to the experts.”
I am not an economic scholar. I am familar with the Austrian talking points which Paul seemed to cover. But, it was a lot of my word against his arguments. More government is better vs less government is better. FED prolonged the great depression vs. FED the savior.
I came out of it feeling like Krugman came out in a better light.
I hate it when Paul uses absolutes like no wars in the Byzantine empire. I am not sure if that is true, but it seems like it is a very far-fetched statement that ends up casting doubt on the viewer, it can even be true, but even I do not believe Paul until I look it up.
I dont know why people are saying that RP did a bad job. This is the first time in a while that I saw be as unforgiving to his opponent in a long time. He did way better than in the debates against the GOP.
Krugman really didn’t let Paul make any rebuttals and also got that sneaky “last word” in.
Seemed more like drama than anything because instead of Krugman responding to Paul with questions for the subjects he’s not familiar with such as "Exactly what do you mean when by competing currencies?", you know something that would bring about an actual conversation- he rather just dismiss it as beneath something for him to address and it just becomes a “I’m more right than you are” argument. Dissapointing but expected.
Ron Paul swept the floor with him. I completely surprised, to tell you the thuth. The man still has it, after all.
If you have any doubt Ron Paul owned, you need to watch the video again and listen to both their points carefully. Ron made great arguments, and the Roman/Byzantine Empire references were great. I think that’s a great rhetorical point; having the market manage currency is a modern idea, and having the state do it is actually the outdated idea. Just great.
Meh RP didn’t do that bad. He has a tendency to babble but he did control the debate so that’s good.
I agree that Ron Paul did a very good job, but the one thing that really gets me about his debating style is that he rarely goes for the jugular. Krugman left himself open on several points and Ron Paul just didn’t go for the attack. What I have in mind here is about the competing currencies part of the debate. I would really love to see someone like Murphy take on Krugman. You are totally right. After seeing how well Ron Paul did against him, Murphy would obliterate Krugman.
Krugman’s obvious disadvantage is that he doesn’t seem to understand the Austrian argument.
He seems to think he can dismiss things out of hand. Perhaps he’s counting on the audience to do the same.
He did seem rather timid there as well. Perhaps there are viewers who will enjoy Krugman’s mannerisms but I personally found him to be like a little mouse there.
That being said I didn’t like how Paul also seemed a little disorganized. I agree with gotlucky, he needs to know when to go for the kill.
Ron Paul isn’t a good debater. This isn’t a shot at him - I think he makes good points, but he has a tendancy to lose focus and speak of issues in a cosmic context. It just goes to show that debating is an entirely different skill than being well-versed in theory, which Ron Paul is. Krugman is not a good debater either - probably even worse, especially for an “accmoplished” economist. I’m pretty sure that if joe-6-pack was watching this interview/debate then he would label it a draw.
I think Peter Schiff would be the best Austrian representative in a <30 min. debate. It’s not that I agree with all of his positions, but his impomptu speaking ability is above average, which is the best skill to have in a debate. Schiff would have completely wrecked Krugman in a media interview like this (though he would have interrupted him after every sentence and the viewer could see that as a negative). Now a formal debate is a different story. Any Austrian that could prepare his case would absolutely level Krugman. Krugman has a distorted view of Austrian theory and would be flumoxxed at the sophisication of ABCT if an Austrian scholar could explain it in a non-soundbite context.
It’s too bad that this will never happen. There’s nothing to gain from Krugman’s perspective if he debated an academic Austrian in a professional setting.