Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14335/murphy-v-krugman-campaign/
Murphy v. Krugman Campaign
Previous post: Can you tell me how to get to Mises Street?
Next post: Fannie & Freddie Bailouts
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 25 comments }
Let’s see if we can make Krugman acknowledge either the campaign or Robert Murphy; once he acknowledges its existence, then this has the potential to explode.
Just emailed Krugman notifying him in a respectable way about this.
Here’s his emailed if anyone else wants to do the same: [email protected]
I made sure to put in the subject line: Debate with Robert P. Murphy on Business Cycle Theory
I initially thought that the money was being collected to pay Krugman to show up. It appears this is not the case. How do you plan to get Krugman to show?
The guilt of depriving the New York food bank of tens of thousands of dollars.
I think Krugman is probably a pretty busy guy, so I’m pretty skeptical about this working. Speaking fees for Nobel winners frequently reach six figures. You’ve got to do something to compensate him for his time. If you really want this debate to happen, get some money together for his speaker’s fee and host it somewhere thats not rural and far from the airport.
I’m not for that at all. I’d never be willing to pay this guy. That’s certainly not something I’d pledge money towards. He’s not a worthy cause.
This is like trying to get Mark Bunker to debate David Miscavige at the Church of Scientology HQ. I wouldn’t blame Krugman if he didn’t show up to at this particular location to debate Murphy.
Delete if you must, but reality doesn’t tow the party line.
Daniel Kuehn writes:
“In this challenge, Murphy notes that Krugman will eventually feel pressured into debating if they keep the requests up. Really? At the Mises Institute of all places? He would feel compelled to debate there? They savage him every other day on there. He’s been called a liar and lacking a conscience, blatantly dishonest, and a political operative. Keynesians are said to want “perpetual war for perpetual prosperity” and are “essentially Marxian”. Liberals are accused of hating private charity, being fascists. All of these came up with a quick search, and all of this is in the text of the Mises post itself. There’s even worse vitriol in the comment section, and obviously if I invested time in more searching I could find more (“Krugman” turns up over 27,000 hits on the Mises blog, after all – almost ten time the number of hits you get on the New York Times website, where Krugman writes a column!). Why would anyone in their right mind want to speak at such a hostile, unprofessional venue? There are a few good guys at the Mises Institute, but aside from them it’s mostly absurdities – and very nasty absurdities at that.”
That’s exactly right. Were I Paul Krugman, I wouldn’t come near the Mises Institute either, no matter how confident I felt in my ideas.
Why not? If he is truly confident in his ideas and in his critique of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, why not show up and refute the Austrian’s once and for all on their turf? If he ‘won’ the debate this would set the Austrian School on its heels for some time.
If he loses or draws, he can say the Austrian School had the advantage as the debate happened on ‘their’ turf.
If he does decide to take the challenge, I think debating at the Mises Institute would actually be safer for him. If he loses or draws on ‘neutral’ ground, he can’t blame it on the venue.
I believe Daniel Kuehn is off base here.
AFAIK, this debate is NOT being done at the Mises Institute, but I think in NY. I believe it was stated early on.
“And is this the same Daniel who wishes to re-read “General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” in order to fix current crises ?
http://guardingtherubicon.blogspot.com/2008/11/ghosts-of-keynes-and-fdr.html”
Does this somehow invalidate his argument, or are am I to come to the conclusion that a good portion of Mises Blog commentators are shrill ad hominem slingers like their LRC cousins?
As if editorials and commenters over at NY Times always have nice things to say about those disagreeing with their world view. It’s a universal thing.
Editors at the New York Times are often unfair, this is true.
You show me the last time they called a libertarian a liar, a fascist, or accused them of wanting perpetual war.
They can’t!
Well our case is precisely that that is what their policies are used for, that their economic policy is fascist, and that it has the same moral and social defects. If anyone challenged a libertarian to disprove that we stand for such things, we would have no problem either in accepting the challenge, or disproving the charge.
Why shouldn’t Krugman?
And listen – I don’t care if ya’ll like to play rough. I come here mostly for the literature that the Institute provides, not for the discussion for the most part. Just don’t be surprised when the people who you’re talking about like that don’t want to have anything to do with you.
That was very early on in my blogging career – I can’t necessarily vouch now for anything I said on that blog, although I hope I should be able to vouch for most of it
I certainly think the General Theory is a good place to start!
Regardless of your opinion of the Mises Institute, it is true that Krugman would never agree to go there, and Murphy is giving him an easy out.
I agree. The debate should be on Krugman’s home turf to take away that excuse. (But I still don’t think he’d do it. He has nothing to gain, and he wouldn’t care about the charitable donation; I’m sure he thinks he already does enough good for the world.)
Is Daniel’s problem all about location? Surely Krugman doesn’t need to fly over from NY to Auburn for that.
Isn’t Krugman a political operative living off the state and propagating it? Did he not say a war would get us out of recession? If we only had a war big enough now…
And is this the same Daniel who wishes to re-read “General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” in order to fix current crises ?
http://guardingtherubicon.blogspot.com/2008/11/ghosts-of-keynes-and-fdr.html
Murphy v. Krugman: The Blind Debating the Blind
http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/
I’ve pledged my bit, but I think a verbal debate for one hour would be a waste of time.
It should be done by blog with explicit rules against ad hominem, appeal to absent authority, and assuming what is in issue.
This is Krugman you’re talking about. Isn’t that $100,000 a bit small?
Shouldn’t it be a trillion dollars? Or more…
Just promise him there will be a multiplier effect.
Comments on this entry are closed.