I don't like to watch TV debates, as people tend to talk past each other, but nonetheless, I would say that the Paul v. Paul (Krugman) debate probably was interesting. I've not watched it, but those who would like to see it can click on this link.
Here is a link to an abbreviated transcript.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In short:
Paul smacked down Krugman's claim about Ron Paul wanting to go back 150 years, by retorting that Krugman wants to go back to the ancient Romans of 300 AD, since the emperor debased the Roman currency which led to inflation.
Krugman also tried to take credit for the growth after World War 2. The problem was that many Keynesians said that the end of the war was going to trigger a second depression due to the loss of government spending. You can;t have it both ways Krugman.
He also claimed to be a fan of markets. LOL. He made a lot of claims Prof Anderson. You should really watch the show just for the claims.
Those who read Krugman should first listen to an interview of his, from then on you can hear the arrogant, sarcastic, condescending and clueless tone in every word he writes.
He cannot even comprehend the criticisms of Keynesian economics and simply dismisses them with...
'well that's not how I understand the law...[snort]...history shows...blah blah'
This 'debate' was more proof that he is a close minded 'True Believer' - especially when he tried to spin the post WWII economy as some kind of Keynesian success.
And here is the IAMA on Reddit going on right now!
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/t1ygb/iama_nobel_prizewinning_economist_and_new_york/
I tried to listen to Krugman and really wanted to believe he has a clue. I tried real hard tell myself Krugman is not a blistering idiot. Reality, however, was stronger than my will. The guy is really telling me that inflation is what will get US out of the troubles it's stuck into.
Post a Comment