Mind you, people who donate are only charged if the debate actually takes place.
I really like this idea, it is a knife that cuts on both sides. We either witness a debate between these two on BCT, of we’ll see how Krugman is going to explain why one hour of his time is not worth 100k for poor New Yorkers
Krugman is a very intelligent person who is certainly not stupid enough to do this unless the payoff will be so large that he can not ignore it. And he is also a wealthy person as well. So I doubt that you can get the donations to do this.
It isn’t as much of a long shot as you think. Imagine people showing up on his blog saying “how come he would rather deprive the hungry of $10,000 instead of talking about business cycles for an hour?”.
Yet, if he does it maybe that means $100,000,000 less money for other poor people due to a result in policy. On the other hand, If he does it it is guaranteed that he will intentionally sabotage the quality of the debate just to screw the donors out of their money. In which case he wins.
Perhaps he implied that Krugman could come up with an excuse not to take part in the debate and then match that donation of a hundred grand, so he doesn’t look bad.
In this case it wont cost the donors anything, while the poor people in Ney York benefit. Moreover, Krugman will need to engage in solidarity by ‘force’, something a statist like him wont mind doing, im sure.