I agree Schiff is definitely among the best at this type of venue, but I don’t think you’re giving Murphy or Woods enough credit. Woods is uncanny. The only reason you don’t see him on the news is because they rarely have occasion to have a historian on the aire. (That, and if they ever did have a reason to have him on, he’d make everyone look bad.) I don’t think he’d be best to go up against someone with Krugman’s credentials, if nothing else than just the appearance of it on paper (and possibly Krugman could pull out some kind of higher level econ that Woods wouldn’t be able handle, but then again, in a news venue that would be unlikely).
But Murphy is incredibly effective in a conversational format (in fact, that’s how his lectures end up sounding anyway). He’s not on the aire a lot, but he’s able to work it. I guarantee he’d wipe the floor with Krugman in either setting. Even for people who couldn’t follow the debate (which shouldn’t be many, since Murphy is so effective at breaking things down), but even for people who weren’t paying much attention, I think Murphy would still come out looking like the victor if for nothing else than his demeanor and his ability to make salient points in a very concise way. And he’d come off as much more friendly, personable, and human than Krugman. Not to mention less creepy.
It would be a massacre even if he were in Ron Paul’s seat in that interview. That’s why Krugman won’t debate him. I think Krugman is actually smart enough to realize he doesn’t have a case. He may have not fully understood Austrian theory before, but I think he’s come quite a way. It’s possible he’s even starting to figure out he needs some Austrian theory to make better forecasts. I think you can only ignore it for so long. If you’re smart enough to understand it at all, I don’t think you can actually be acquinted with it (as opposed to not really know what it is…a place I think Krugman was in for a long time before) and still deny it’s validity or at least it’s success in forecasting (at least, not deny it in your own mind. You might be able to deny it in a New York Times editorial.)
And Murphy may not have the Nobel award, but a PhD in economics from NYU is nothing to shake your nose at, so he even has academic ground to stand on, just on the paper matchup side.
And his comfort and personality just can’t be understanted. He really is Krugman’s kryptonite. I would seriously pay good money to have that debate take place.
I haven’t heard him say much of anything on that end. More often than not I hear him agree with Ron Paul foreign policy.
Yeah we went into this quite a bit here. My assessment is here. The taxation thing I think is just a matter of practicality. He knows zero taxation is a longshot (as, ultimately it would mean no government), so in the mean time, it’s not a waste (let alone hypocritical) to have a debate on the least harmful way for taxation to occur.