submitted by nytimeskrugman to IAmA
I’m Paul Krugman. I've been a columnist for The Times on the Op-Ed page since 1999, and I’m also a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. I’ve written extensively on international trade and finance and was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science in 2008 for my research on global trade patterns.
My latest book, ‘‘End This Depression Now!,’’ will be published later this month. In it I look at how we got stuck in the recession of the past four years and offer ideas for how we can free ourselves from its grip. An adaptation from the book, questioning some of the decisions made by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, was published in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday.
Here are links to my blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and tweet verification that I am, in fact, Paul Krugman.
Update, 6:04 p.m.: Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful questions. I'm off now for a short break and then on to Rachel Maddow's show tonight.
Hello Dr. Krugman, I'm submitting a question on behalf of Dr. Robert Murphy (though I would very much like for you to answer him):
"Dr. Krugman,
There is currently $72,000 pledged that will go to a NYC food bank if you debate me on Austrian vs. Keynesian business cycle theory. Is there a specific dollar amount that would make you agree to debate? If not, why not?
Sincerely,
Robert P. Murphy."*
For those who are unfamiliar with this debate challenge, there's a website, as well as the donation page itself. Here are Dr. Murphy's AMA video. The challenge has been referenced by The Economist, but as of yet there's been no response from Dr. Krugman. We're hoping to remedy that today!
Thanks so much for your time, and welcome to Reddit!
There's an old saying about arguing with fools. In this specific instance it's especially valid. If you have two people in a debate, and one of them is an unparalleled expert in the subject being debated, and the other is an unparalleled expert in debating, the latter almost always leaves the audience thinking he won. Even if his entire worldview is essentially based on a religion... in Murphy's case, capitalism-as-god.
This sort of dynamic is especially noticeable in global warming deniers trying to debate scientists.
If Robert Murphy actually wants to give money to a food bank (hint: he doesn't) he is welcome to do so.
The money isn't coming from Robert Murphy, it is coming from people who want to pay to see this debate happen and so they are willing to donate in the name of charity in a manner that is essentially the best way to get this debate to happen.
Furthermore, Krugman JUST debated Ron Paul and the challenge has been around from Murphy a lot longer than anything from Ron Paul's campaign. If he wants to have a substantive debate why doesn't he actually debate an economist instead of a doctor/politician?
Capitalism is a system with laws against rent, wages, profits, interest, etc., so capitalism is really the lack of a religion. And to call Murphy a fool is ridiculous, he has a Ph.D. from NYU.
So you are basically agreeing with the implicit "Krugman is scared", but somehow, painting that as a good thing.
I was hoping for "Krugman missed the emails" or "Krugman has been very busy." But if even his supporters are going to admit that he's just scared...
What are you, twelve? 'KRUGMAN IS A COWARD! HA HA HA!'
Being able to put on a good show for the uninformed public, such as yourself, is an entirely different skill from, you know, understanding economics. If you can't understand not wanting to be dragged through the mud by P.T. Barnam, then that's your own failing.
They are both Capitalism worshipers, the difference being Krugman supports the capitalists who are actively engaged in our exploitation, where Murphy finds them to be unethical.
If I can be sadly more specific, we live in an exploitive system with distorted economics in which -being pragmatic- krugman has immense knowledge; Austrian economics is great for analyzing the many competing incentives in an ideal system with valid emphasis on philosophy that I'm sure krugman is knowledgeable on, but puts aside.
That's the problem. Laissez-faire is not comparable to a religion, it's comparable to atheism. It's the null hypothesis. Even relatively left-wing economists like Paul Krugman generally support the market (e.g. his views on sweatshop labor and free trade) unless they believe that it can be demonstrably indicated that a market failure exists that government could realistically solve (and I say "realistically" due to political concerns).
The burden of proof lies on those who want State intervention in some area. They must validate their ideas, and Murphy is deciding to challenge Keynesian capital theory as it applies to business cycles. Obviously Krugman cannot debate anyone who wanted to debate him, but to basically just say that "we don't have to care about Austrian economics" is arguably being unreasonably close-minded, given that it puts forth real criticisms of Keynesianism.
that's so cute
~$1 trillion annual spending to fuel our "defense" sector (read: half of the economy) and we're talking about "State intervention"
- like the kind that gave us computers, aerospace, lasers, the internet, most modern medical research and biotechnology
Dear, wake up and smell the flowers. There's no such thing as capitalism without state -- unless you're unfortunate enough to live in one of the shitholes we're ruthlessly exploiting.
You have perfectly validated my statement.
Which is to say, laissez-faire capitalism is my axiom. You don't have to prove it's good. It just is. Anything that isn't laissez-faire capitalism must be justified, but capitalism need never be justified because it is the perfect ideal.
That's more or less the definition of a religion.
I'm getting really sick of this bullshit. What could possibly make you call Austrian economics a religion? Libertarianism is one thing, but we're talking about an economic theory. There are books constantly being written on the topic and in the days of the theory being formed, Austrians were often checking and correcting flaws in each other's theories.
Here is a guy who is literally SEEKING OUT a debate over his theory. That sounds like religion to you?
I'm willing to donate $50 to this charity to say that he doesn't even address this question.
Great, now get $71,950 more and it'll be even.
Economists debate all the time. There's nothing disrespectful or bizarre about Dr. Murphy asking Dr. Krugman for a debate. The fact that $72,000 is on the line (of which $10 is my own) just gives Dr. Krugman an incentive to accept the proposal.
For what it's worth, I contributed my $10 when the reward was at $40,000. I can't even remember how long ago that was now.
Wow, so you might say you donated to this cause before it was cool??? Man, you're my freaking idol!!
(spelling)
There's also nothing wrong with Krugman not wanting to debate him, since it's basically a publicity stunt for Murphy. Speaking as a university debater, "winning" a debate has very little to do with being right or even being very knowledgeable about the topic.
Maybe we should start a pledge drive to donate money if Ron Paul gets an article published in a peer-reviewed economics journal.
It's not so much a publicity stunt for Murphy as it is the (probably) greatest Austrian economist alive wanting to challenge the theories promoted by a popular NYT columnist in an adversarial manner.
I gotta love how people are attempting to discount or disqualify Bob's question by surreptitiously suggesting that there are nebulous "hidden motives" behind it, or that Bob has some sort of special exceptional interest that somehow doesn't apply to others.
It's the good old "I don't believe you because you are the enemy, and the enemy is made of bads" excuse.
It's not a "hidden motive." Obviously Murphy thinks that if he can get someone as famous as Krugman to debate him, it will bring him a lot of attention. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's not like Krugman has a moral obligation to give him that platform just because some money will go to charity.
And once again, I repeat my challenge to Ron Paul. Get a publication accepted to a legitimate journal like the American Economic Review, and I will donate $50 to Amnesty International. Why are you pro-torture, Dr. Paul?
Caution. This is the ever-present word that substitutes prejudice for actually having to prove your claims.
But having to prove my claims is haaaaaard!
Excellent.
Nobody has said that Krugman has any moral obligation. The point has nothing to do with morals -- is to discover whether Krugman can really defend his beliefs, and to give him the best possible case to debate, with a huge incentive.
This is an irrelevant criticism, as nobody involved in the charity drive, or with Bob himself, has suggested that Krugman is "pro-poverty" on account of his cowardice (that is solely my conclusion).
Just imagine he left this comment: "I'm super smart, look at my Nobel Prize. Why should I waste time debating someone? I can't possibly be wrong. Just listen to what I tell you. Always obey authority."
Regardless if it's for charity or not there's an economic debate that needs to be addressed for the purpose of truth and entertainment. I'm willing to pay to see this debate.
EDIT: grammar error
But are you willing to type in bold to see this debate?
Yes ;)
Obviously you need to offer a screening of Rampart to sweeten the deal.
Ah, the old debate with me or I'll make you look like a dick for not donating to a food bank trick. He's here to answer questions, not compete in some kind of pissing match.
It's a really dick thing to do, because if he chooses to refuse, he'll look bad, and the Paulites will accuse him of not caring about charity.
I guess I missed the point of Ask me Anything.
If I asked, why don't you stop being a moron projekt84? Would you really think that's even a question, or just a disguised insult?
Yeah you really did. The point is to ask questions that can be answered in a reddit thread, not challenge people to debates or ask them to do things outside of reddit.
Hey, Just downvoting because using r/libertarian or r/ronpaul to launch a propaganda campaign and karma heist is wrong. By the by, Austrian economics is a fringe theory for a reason.
Yeah, the competing ideas of the Austrian school are fringe because you can afford to buy anything (like the whole economics industry and academics and public relations and government) when you can create money from nothing.
Priceless: How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics Profession http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
Yeah, the fact of the matter is that the majority of Economists reject the theory, with good reason. (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm) The fact of the matter is that the Austrian school of economics, and the rest of the libertarian fringe regularly advocates insane things. This is a nice copy from r/politics way back.
Karma heist? We're just voting for something we want to see answered. That's what AMA votes are for.
Matticus_Rex, you don't understand: If you are libertarian your questions aren't valid.
He only believes in voting when the vote goes his way.
Wow, what an awful top post. How about asking this world-renowned economist an insightful question, instead of raising stupid "debate challenges"?
Edit: Also, this top post absolutely rocketed up. It was at the top with no comments on it at all. Upvote bot?
Debates aren't stupid, stupid.
It's the economy, stupid.
They are when they're solely done for gaining notoriety.
There are plenty of other individuals that Murphy could debate, but he's going after Krugman because of his popularity. This isn't a new or rare tactic; fans of PZ Myers and his blog can tell you that he usually gets e-mails from creationists on a weekly basis challenging him to debates for charity. Given that Myers (and Krugman) both have full-time (and then some) jobs, they just don't have the time to respond to all of these inquiries.
If Murphy is genuinely interested in debating someone and donating that money to charity then he should find another pro-Keynesian economist to debate.
He debated Karl Smith (and Karl says he was fairly treated!)
Wow, choosing to debate a prominent advocate of a position and whom people listen to rather than a random advocate is so slimy! How can we trust him now???
He has time to do book tours across the country. Considering that Murphy's last debate was done over Skype. I don't see how time can't be made for it.
http://i.imgur.com/ZKfIg.png
"just don't have the time to respond to all of these inquiries."
How horrid to not put a couple hours towards a debate that would result in tens of thousands of dollars for a charity!
Smells more like fear than a full schedule to me.
snicker What are you, twelve?
'Bawk bawk bawk BACAW! What are you, Krugman... CHICKEN?'
http://i.imgur.com/ZKfIg.png
He HAS debated other Keynsians (Matticus_Rex noted his debate with Karl Smith). Murphy is going after Krugman because Krugman is one of the most popular and influential Keynsians of the day while Murphy is a fairly high-profile "Austrian". It is normal for high-profile members of different schools of thought to debate each other. Additionally, Krugman makes snide remarks about "Austrian" economics which seem to indicate he doesn't understand it. It would be nice to see a formal debate that might clear up a lot of points and which would be very educational for the general populace.
Also, the $72,000 isn't Murphy's personal finances. It is donated by a large number of people for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of seeing a debate between Krugman and Murphy. It's not a matter of "well you should just donate that money to charity regardless" because it's not anyone's decision other than the people who donated the money. They obviously want to see Krugman debate Murphy and are willing to pay for it. Murphy has managed to tap into a market of people who wouldn't normally donate to a Food Bank and figured out a way to get them to do just that.
Exactly. Criticizing those people for pledging money to a charity if Bob and Paul debate as "ungenerous", "insincere" or "extortionists", is quite like saying the same thing about moviegoers who pay money to see a movie in the theater.
One suspect that Krugman simply knows his folk wisdom, to wit: Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
Well thought out reply. Addressed my arguments via ad hominem on Murphy. Good thing you can cite pithy folk-sayings that have absolutely no bearing on the conversation--it's a valuable skill.
Ah, I see! This is funny because you called Bob "a pig"! That totally demolishes all of the rational arguments he could present, right?
Yeah, because it is evil and stupid when certain people gain notoriety, right?
You have basically suggested that nobody can ever debate without the debate itself being stupid, because all debaters always gain notoriety after a debate.
Your comment is the stupidest of all comments in this subthread.
[deleted]
While I agree that there isn't much to be had from TV debates. Proper academic debates are often very informative and illuminating.
If I had the opportunity to do something stupid for one hour and suddenly transfer $72,000 to a food bank, I'd take it.
He won't take that opportunity because, well, frankly, giving money to a food bank is utterly stupid. But giving out bailout money certainly isn't stupid, and killing millions in war to break a few windows and "improve the economy" isn't stupid either.
(For the record: these are all publicly stated positions of Paul Krugman.)
Of course, the official excuse will be "I was too busy to attend the debate".
Good catch, I was about to vote you down.
Some citation would be nice though.
He won't bother, because while I recognize one of them, it's along the same lines as taking the quote 'that's as ridiculous as saying that we shouldn't feed the hungry because they'll just need more food tomorrow' and parsing out 'we shouldn't feed the hungry'. I'm fairly sure the other two are similarly... useful.
It'd be nice but I'm at work.
So would I, but I'm not a public figure.
Nice. So he's willing to go on TV and debate with an amateur economist in sound bytes where you can't actually present a position backed by facts and data and theory (because there isn't enough time), but he won't spring for a several hour academic debate with a real economist even when it means tens of thousands of dollars go to charity?
I can't seem to find this Conscience of a Liberal.
Trying to force someone into a debate by having adherents to your philosophy raise money for a good cause and then holding that money hostage is unethical and arrogant. I hope Dr. Krugman doesn't do this debate, or at the very least only does it because he really sees a value to having the debate, separate and apart from donations to NYC's food banks.
It's not force, it's persuasion.
It's a debate challenge, it's not a grand larceny challenge.
The fact that so many people who support Krugman do not want this debate to happen, tells me that Krugman's supporters are terrified of something...
These guys only know how to throw money around.
Euro, I would consider $72,000 for a food bank a noble cause
No love for the NYC Food Bank? I think this should be something that everyone, both Austrians and mainstreamers, can get behind. If you're mainstream, you'd love to see Krugman beat down on an Austrian. If you're Austrian, you'd love to see Murphy take on Krugman. If you're human, you like it when people donate to charity. Everyone wins.
Actually, that's kind of what irks me most; the donation is being held on condition of a debate...it's almost like taking a charity hostage. "Debate me or the charity loses it's funding!" If they want to donate to charity, then DO IT, instead of using the donation as a lever. It just feels dirty. Maybe if they held the debate as a fundraiser, and charged admission fees that went to the Food Bank.
Ugh...I hate this logic.
People want these two men to debate, right? (right)
People are willing to pay to have these two men debate, right? (right)
Krugman doesn't need the money from any revenue obtained through the debate, right? (most likely)
So if the people who are willing to pay to see this debate occur can't get it to happen by giving Krugman money for it then how can they show that he is dodging the challenge? By offering to give the money they are willing to pay to a charity.
Yeah, I understand your point. That's why I suggested organizing it as a pay-to-view fundraiser instead. The way it's currently set up, it looks like they already have the money and are just sitting on it, holding it against Krugman's acquiescence. If the intent is to help charity, they should do that. As it stands, it's using a general good (donation to charity) as a lever to motivate a desired behavior, with the implication being that the general good will suffer if Krugman doesn't do what they want. Can you really not see how that could be perceived as unethical? I'm trying to explain why it strikes me that way, so let me know if there's something I can make clearer about my position.
Again, I think the way to avoid any appearance of impropriety would be to invite him to take part in a fundraiser, in the form of a debate. I wonder what happens to the money when Krugman refuses?
Do you think he would do it then? If it was used to raise money for charity at the event?
How is that different when you get down to it except that you can potentially raise more money this way?
I could donate $50 to have this pot grow but I couldn't pay that little to attend the debate.
Honestly, I doubt he'd do it either way.
Well, let me ask, what happens to the money this way? Does he keep it? Give it back to everyone who donated? Right now, the "donation" is pretty opaque, which makes me nervous. The other way, I'm guaranteed my money goes to the Food Bank. I'm not sure I buy that you can raise more money this way, there's really no way to check so it's impossible to say with any certainty.
You'd be surprised how cheap some fundraising tickets can be; people can always pay extra (and many choose to do just that for a good cause). If the issue is transport, you could either buy a dvd of it, which proceeds going to the Food Bank, or donate for a PodCast. Work arounds are possible, is the point.
Okay, so if they changed it to a situation where the debate was framed from that perspective would you feel he didn't have any moral pressure being hoisted upon him?
People are willing to pay this money to see this debate happen. So if he was instead presented with a fundraiser would you find that less blackmail-ish?
How about looking at it like this:
We have something person A wants to do, which involves person B. Person B does not want to do it.
Person A doesn't have anything that person B wants. So what he does is, he arranges a situation in which he can paint person B as morally reprehensible if he doesn't act according to person A's wishes.
And you think that's some kind of positive thing?
More to the point: if I said I'd donate a million dollars to charity if you would spend the next week eating only dog feces, would you do it? And if not, WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?
We want an answer as to why Krugman won't debate.
He won't respond. He should debate for two fantastic reasons: 1) To further intellectual discourse in a proper and respectful manner. 2) To allow this money to be given to the poor.
If he rejects and provides a good reason that's fine. It's okay. I think he could even demand a payment for it himself and people would do it.
But he's ignoring the issue.
The difference being that I can tell you exactly why I don't want to eat dog feces. I think it would make me sick, I'm not attracted to the prospect at all and currently the marginal cost of doing it is greater than that which is gained by knowing that the money is going to charity.
See...I just explained why I won't do that. Krugman won't address the question.
The debate was first framed as a straight forward challenge. But Krugman sidestepped that too...why?
Lots of people have pledged this money on the condition that these two debate. This is no different to many thousands of charity drives a year that happen on the condition that an extraordinary event take place. And you are calling the donators kidnappers.
Your comment is utterly perverted and malevolent.
Fuck you.
Donating on a condition is not really donating. If i donated 10 grand on the condition that I get a brand new Lamborghini and that the money goes to charity, I'm not really donating I'm paying for something and my money is going to charity after I get it.
I donate anyway, but I'll eat more Ramen and donate more if I can see this happen. The point is to create an incentive - it wouldn't be an incentive if the money went to charity either way (though, again, I'll be donating).
Making consensual love is almost like rape, right? Robbery is almost like borrowing, right?
Right?
I think that's a rather inaccurate picture you paint there. As far as I know, the utmost majority of economists view "Austrians" like real MDs view homeopaths. So it's not surprising that Krugman doesn't want to give an Austrian free publicity and credibility. Additionally debates are a horrible tool to find any truth, understanding or compromise. Who "wins" a debate is much more dependent on the skill of the debater and the pre existing opinion of the specific viewer, and very little on the actual content. Debates like this rarely change minds, they only polarize more.
These "debate-challenges" (which happen way too often) are a really cheap way to try and discredit someone without actually challenging him on an intellectual level. The challengers are almost always aware of the many reasons the debate will never happen and the single goal is to feed their own feeling of superiority. In the very rare case that the goal is an actual debate the challenger is usually painfully aware that he's on the weaker side and wants to use his possibly superior public speaking skills to give the impression of an actual intellectual dispute. To abuse a charity cause, like in this case, just strikes me as extraordinarily pathetic.
If you want intellectual exchange and debate publish well written arguments instead of resorting to the on-the-spot simplifications that debates are. If you want to be philanthropic just donate the money. If you want to be entertained go watch TV, or rather don't.
These kind of idiocies only paint Austrian economics in an even more fringe light which really serves no one.
Idk...kinda makes me feel iffy about it. He isn't donating to charity..he's "offering" to donate to charity. I view this like he's holding food over poor people, and saying something like, "Yeah..debate with me or they don't get it!"...Why not donate $72,000 and say you did it in the hopes that he'd debate?
He collected conditional pledges from people which sum to that amount. See the links.
It's not him donating - it's people who want to see the debate (including me).
You should probably look up the conditions of the debate so you don't come across as uninformed. It isn't $72,000 of Murphy's own money, nor does he have the ability to decide where it goes. It's a campaign hosted on The Point where people who want to see the debate commit to donating a certain amount to be billed to their credit cards after the debate happens. If the debate doesn't happen they don't get billed.
Murphy is not holding money over poor people's heads. He's finding creative ways to get more people to donate to charity by offering them something of entertainment they are willing to pay for.
http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/campaign-0-1240
That's why the debate "challenge" sucks. The charitable donation proposed is basically pressuring him into debating, and when or if he refuses, his opponents will say "so you don't care about charity?!"
So why doesn't Krugman debate? He debated Ron Paul and Bob Murphy is a much more well versed economist.
More like no love for douchbags. If you want to donate money to a foodbank, then donate money to a foodbank. If you want to debate economics, the internet is wide open!
Don't pretend that not debating him is somehow robbing money from a foodbank.
Krugman debating Murphy would, without a doubt, be the highlight of Murphy's career, and is just a ploy to to try and sell his books.
Yeah, good point, no one should do anything for charity if they get any personal benefit out of it.
Nobody gave anything to charity.
You have proof that Bob is not a principled man?
Could I not just say that Krugman's refusal is just a ploy to keep the unquestioned narrative unquestioned and is just a ploy to keep his banker friends rich?
Both are stupid assertions and have no backing.
He is currently trying to blackmail Krugman into helping him sell his books.
You can say that, but it would be indicative of a mental illness.
Yeah, what a waste of a question it is to ask an established economist to debate austrian vs. keynesian business cylce theory, you know, economist stuff. What a waste indeed.
Only a fan of forced charity, I see.
"HEY, I WANT THIS GUY TO DO SOMETHING HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO! SO WHAT I'LL DO IS, I'LL ARRANGE THINGS SO THAT IF HE DOESN'T DO IT, I CAN PAINT HIM AS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE!"
Tell you what, if you'll subsist entirely on a diet of your own feces for the next week, I'll give $100k to a medical organization that attempts to screen genetic damage like yours out of the gene pool.
Debates are fantastic and it would give 72k to charity, why not do it?
Terror of having his ass handed in an Austrian platter.
Besides, Krugman just discussed Austrian economics with Ron Paul yesterday, on Bloomberg TV. If people google it they will found a lot of videos and articles about the event.
Also, Austrians don't really need Krugman to discuss them. Almost all economists, no matter what side they are on, agree at least in that the gold standard (which is the key issue that Austrians seem to care about) is a bad idea. It's not like Krugman/keynesians/liberalpoliticians distinguish themselves from others in that question. There are plenty of "conservative economists" (if you want to use that label) who think the same, they are just very quiet about it to avoid media problems.
It wasn't even a real debate.
This is why we need the debate to happen: "All economists think the gold standard is a bad idea."
The debate has already happened, many people are just missing it. Different schools of economic thought have reached to the same conclusion using different ways. From the (few) economic things I read, my impression is that some people is discussing about how Central Banks should work, what priorities they should have and how much they should be involved in the regulation of banks, prevention of financial crisis and future bank bailouts. Returning to a gold standard isn't a priority or even a solution for anyone, other than austrians.
The recent pro-austrian noise found the internet and the tea party are a social phenomenons which, in my opinion, are not very different to the marxist surge which you can find in the extreme-left political parties in europe. These kind of "subcultures" always surge during economic crisis.
So you have read a few economic things and figured it all out, have you?
Please explain to me the difference between Keynsian, neo-classical, neo-Keynsian, Austrian, and Chicago schools of economic thought. What do they agree on? What do they disagree on? What about MMTers?
Because Krugman needs to stop being such a pansy and go out and debate in person instead of in those godawful columns he writes.
The NYT only publishes what he writes, for the same reason Jerry Springer makes TV; It's controversial, and stupid people love it.
Wow. Haven't quite gotten past 11 years old, huh?
Calling someone a homosexual, as a synonym for coward, simply because he's too smart to let themselves be dragged down into the mud by the vacuous free-market-worshipper you so adore? You're so classy.
Because when a person cites price-fixing of babysitters' wages among a group of D.C. lawyers as an example of how Keynesian economics can work rather than the lawyers' failure to understand seasonal demand, the term "world-renowned economist" is up for debate.
Edit: Also, this top post absolutely rocketed up. It was at the top with no comments on it at all. Upvote bot?
Libertarians are rigging the votes:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/t1ygb/iama_nobel_prizewinning_economist_and_new_york/c4ivy3h
Many, many libertarians and people from other movements want to see this debate happens. We're talking at least tens of thousands of people. This piece of news is spreading like wildfire, going viral, and being reposted everywhere.
But when "they" (the "nasty libertarians") call attention to a fact that they have an incredible personal interest, suddenly this event magically turns into "rigging the vote"?
Fuck that shit. Fuck it in the ass.
"When my team wins, it's democracy. When the other team wins, it's rigging the vote."
If libertarian vote rigging bullshit meant something, then ron paul would be president right now, considering he wins so many internet polls that you guys rig (sometimes with bots even).
Ok you are concerned about this power...
If it doesn't mean anything, they why did you fucking post your first comment?
Face palm.
GTFO and go complain to the Lizard Men with your conspiracy theories.
Your posts would be more convincing if your username wasn't 'throwaway-o'
And your face wouldn't be as ugly if you hadn't had the misfortune of being born from your parents.
See? I, too, can reply with "style over substance" complaints that are completely irrelevant to the point.
The "if you don't debate me, these people will starve" is kind of pathetic.
You're failing to recognize that, depending on who's right in this debate, the starvation of a lot more people is potentially at stake. There's no defense for Krugman failing to debate Murphy and failing to acknowledge that is simply hubris.
Pointing out "that which is not seen" like a good Austrian.
No, r/libertarian absolutely love Murphy and have organized for weeks to slam Krugman. They were waiting for this thread to open so they could pounce on it and get this stuff to the top.
Ask Me Anything. Except things we don't want asked.
And when people get vocal and organized to ask it anyway.....
Madness. This is insanity.
AMA
Debate
You're an idiot.
Splitting hairs?
There was an downvoting bot sold on /r/Libertarian not long ago, which was promptly used to downvote critics of Ron Paul in /r/politics, /r/EPS, and others.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/sxe7y/so_i_was_stupid_enough_to_criticize_a_certain/
http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/suk97/watch_the_liberty_downvote_botnet_that_ron_paul/
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/stsj9/reddit_libertarians_distribute_and_apparently_now/
On top of that, members of /r/Libertarian were planning on organising a "downvote brigade" for this AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/sswej/hey_that_krugman_guy_is_doing_an_ama_monday/c4gpvks
The post may have been upvoted by the bot, but most likely it's just the /r/Libertarian "downvote brigade" joining the AMA as planned. EDIT: on top of Reddit users who genuinely want to see Krugman debate Murphy, of course!
Wasn't that proven to not be a bot?
This is something that interests many different libertarian minded subreddits, why would they not go in and upvote? I sure did.
Can you prove this allegation is true?
By the same token I could say that all the upvotes Krugman is receiving and all the downvotes this question is receiving are done by bots.
No, it's definitely a bot. One of the admins Alienth left a message in the AskReddit thread responding to the OP, but later in EPS he made it clear he was just addressing the OP of the thread, and not other members who were targeted by the bot. http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/sxuiz/no_worries_everything_is_under_control_and_these/c4hw19t?context=3
No. It's just speculation.
So what good does it do to even mention it? Is the question bad should it not receive more upvotes?
He asked if it was an upvote bot, and I think there's a strong possibility it was - I never claimed it was certain, I just presented my opinion.
Well let's look at this...It's a respectful question, it is phrased properly, it gives all of the relevant interests and it is for a good cause.
...and it's being downvoted.
So we can reach two conclusions:
1) People don't want Krugman to debate anyone who has a solid background in economic thought.
2) People are just blind in their own prejudices and are going to downvote even respectful things they disagree with.
3) It is run by a vote bot.
Or option 4:
4) People think an AMA hosted by a Nobel Prize winning economist is best spent asking insightful questions, and not "reminding" him of debate challenges.
This debate would address SO many things. It would put two excellent minds from differing perspective against each other. Austrian vs Keynesian would be addressed in a respectful manner. In an hour of debate we could get more information brought out than a one-sided AMA.
Sabotage? Asking Krugman to read a few paragraphs and answer?
Oh no! The libtards are gaming AMA so they can destroy it!
Really?
Yeah, sabotage was definitely the wrong word to use. :D
Dr Murphy who is giving out this challenge is a firm believer in the Austrian theory - guess who else is on that whackjob cruise?
Ron Paul.
Ah, I get it, guilt by association, Bob Murphy must be as evil as Ron Paul because they share a particular set of economic ideas, so that must mean that Bob Murphy disbelieves evolution and is anti-abortion, right? Totally makes sense to roll two entirely different individuals in the same ball of spit and stereotypes.
Edit: here's the thread encouraging others in r/libertarian to rig this comment up to the top, the guy who submitted the r/libertarian thread is the same guy who made this post.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t0mfd/upvote_drive_for_murphykrugman_debate_please_read/
This post really isn't directed at Dr. Krugman, but to the reddit libertarians that have (or are inevitably) going to post here. It's unfortunate that the libertarians on reddit have decided to organize a vote rigging campaign against Dr. Krugman's AMA. I think it's unethical to do this because you are artificially pumping up your own posts and as a result, other people's posts get drowned out. Evidence here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/swxky/krugman_is_doing_a_ama_may_1st_lets_make_sure_he/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t1zw4/the_thread_is_up_go_go_go_krugmans_iama/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t0mfd/upvote_drive_for_murphykrugman_debate_please_read/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/sswej/hey_that_krugman_guy_is_doing_an_ama_monday/c4gpvks
The other thing is, i find it ironic that libertarians here trash Dr. Krugman all the time, yet somehow they hold him to different standards to someone like Peter Schiff, an Austrian "Economist" (emphasis on quotes) that they worship, yet has a much worse track record than Dr. Krugman, who has largely been right about the economic collapse while Austrian doomsayers like Schiff were largely wrong post collapse (on glenn beck's show, he predicted 20-30% hyperinflation in 2-3 years, back in 2008). I think if you were a little more open minded, you would see Krugman has largely been right (for example: he correctly pointed out that we wouldn't see that 'hyperinflation' because we're in a liquidity trap).
Examples of Schiff's predictions that have fallen flat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5qdkPlwvrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oJCOlwZUic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufa9uOOg1zA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfrfKa7tibI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv4-o2b10_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdBcHX4ipYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufa9uOOg1zA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfrfKa7tibI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv4-o2b10_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cnr8dVSx44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdBcHX4ipYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6I8oloCYJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvz26kyhaCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6glN2gP8Q4
I do not worship Peter Schiff. He's not a well respected Austrian Economist, he's just someone who subscribes to the idea of the Austrian business cycle.
Thank you for pointing this out. They're not only trying to run the thread with upvotes, but actively running a butthurt downvote brigade on anyone who points out their silliness. Yay!
Phokus - Haha, who are you? I'm not here to "trash" Professor Krugman. I respect him very much. I speak for myself, not "reddit libertarians" Just because I posted links for people to help me upvote my own post doesn't mean I want him trashed. There's an Economic debate going on in this country and I'm here to seek truth. Professor Murphy has a far different perspective than Professor Krugman. I'd like to explore all perspectives and the only way I can do so is to make Professor Krugman aware of my post and Professor Murphy's challenge.
If we just sat back like you and never challenged anything, then what good would we be? I don't want to take one side of the argument if there's another side to it.
lol, and he acts like Peter Schiff speaks for all libertarians. I'd recommend ignoring Phokus most of the time, as he's a pugnacious blowhard who rarely contributes anything substantive to the discussion, but this time, he needs to be called out on his bullshit. Thanks for helping.
What a disgrace (the coordinate upvoting part). (Also the other parts are disgraceful too.)
I can see /r/911truth is missing a truther. Tin foil hats be damned.
Are you some sort of spam bot? I mean really, quit it with this repetitive post already. It's just getting annoying.
If you guys want to give $72,000 to charity why don't you just do so?
Honestly, I find this ridiculous. Let me demonstrate how ridiculous it is. I hereby announce that, if that $72,000 is not given to charity, I will murder 72,000 kittens. What's more important to you folks? Having Krugman debate Murphy or saving the lives of 72,000 kittens?
Edit: Alternatively, you know what I love would love to see? People donate another $72,000 on the condition that it be given only if Krugman does not debate and if those donating the original $72,000 donate the money anyway. Ha! Who's heartless now!?!
I think the idea is to give Krugman an incentive to debate him...
Jesus,you'd think people in an AMA for a nobel prize winning economist would know at least a LITTLE something about providing incentive.
But NOPE! It's all hurt feelings! "How dare you not just give the money to charity!"
That doesn't explain the rhetoric of "you're a heartless SOB if you don't do the debate." These people could donate the money regardless of what Krugman does. It's an artificial choice and it seems fairly petty.
Again, Krugman has not been willing to debate Murphy. He continually sidesteps the challenge when it's presented as a simple debate between the two views so people want to answer his question. He recently said how he doesn't want to debate (after the debate with Ron Paul) because nothing is accomplished. Well, people have decided that they really want to pay to see this debate go down and rather than compensate the two people they will pay the charity so that these men debate.
You're an ass. Nobody in the group of people organizing the debate or the charity drive, has even suggested that.
That' what you would call a perverse incentive.
Nice try Lord Keynes.
The amount of logical fallacies...
That's how Kickstarter works....you set a goal and if it's reached the funding goes through.
Coercion versus incentive. Which does really boil down the economic philosophies well, doesn't it? Keynesians support coercion; Austrians support incentives.
The edit says
There you go.
It's like a charitable version of Save Toby. I like it.
Hahaha. . .slaughtering kittens is equivalent to not giving money to a charity?
You're not understanding that the people who have pledged to donate money to the FoodBank did so because they wanted to see a debate. They may already be donating to charities. We don't know. What we do know is they are willing to pay to see an academic debate between two well-known economists. Murphy's set it up so that the money they are willing to pay will go to charity instead of to the economists or someone else. Why is that a bad thing?
By all means you should start a drive to raise money for your purpose. Do it. I'd rather see you organize for a possible good cause than whine about things you don't understand.
The money should go there whether he debates him or not... But Austrian style economics? I think I'm gonna have to Google this one... Sounds interesting, a debate would be enlightening especially if It's recorded!
People have donated under the stipulation that their credit cards will not be charged unless Krugman debates Murphy.
How does that make any sense at all? "If Dr. Krugman will debate Dr. Murphy, this money will go to the NYC food bank. If he will not, this money will also go to the NYC food bank."
Of course people can and should give to charity of their own accord. But they already do. The purpose of raising this money was to give Dr. Krugman an incentive to debate Dr. Murphy.
Plus, there's a contract. Thousands of people have already put their money on the line on specific conditions. You can't retroactively change the terms of the agreement. That's fraud.
Yeah, I guess I let the liberal knee jerk reaction come out on that. Sorry about that, seems the economics of debating about economics is more complicated than I thought.
"Jeffrey Sachs observes that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."[115] Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy countered by arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.[116]"
Is all that need be known. The Austrian school dismisses mans ability to care, or be fair, or kind to itself. It pits everyone against everyone else in an all out anarchistic war.
Austrian economics places capital, private ownership, and the lie of the essential 'industrialist' at its core. America isn't even an extreme example, and it has pretty horrific stratification, a massive underclass of the imprisoned, uneducated, and unhealthy. And its in massive debt.
'd rather live in Norway; probably one of the most socialist countries in the world. I suppose its just coincidence it beats America by a long shot on health, education, welfare, equality, wages, and quality of life.
Do it! Austrian economists look at long term side effects of economic policy, INCLUDING delving into possible unintended consequences. Its a very logical, rational study of economics (and the complete opposite of today's economic policy makers).
Austrian economists are not on the logical, rational side of economics. It's built on a complete rejection of empiricism, statistics and any notion of scientific rigor. It's more the astrology-equivalent to modern economics' astronomy.
It's a castle built on sand.
I'd like to see him debate Peter Schiff
Honestly, even as an Austrian, I think Krugman would wipe the floor with Schiff. Schiff is an investor, not an economist.
Yup. Though I think Bob Murphy could destroy Krugman, and Krugman is probably well aware of that.
he did very poorly on that recent one with Ron Paul imo, and I feel like Schiff is more coherent than Paul.
*Schiff is an idiot, not an economist.
Thank you for saying this. Schiff also doesn't really speak for the entire Austrian School with his predictions. I'd much rather see Bob Murphy debate him, or maybe have Krugman debate one of the less anti-establishment Austrians (e.g., Russ Roberts, Steve Horwitz, or Donald Boudreaux).
Schiff can hold his own, watch his debates on youtube.
Schiff is the idiot who, instead of explaining the 1% in terms of libertarian class theory to Occupy Wall Street, showed up saying "I am the 1%!" and trying to pick a fight. He's okay on some econ theory but contaminated with conservative, anti-libertarian sentiments.
Schiff gets very nervous and his pitch of voice rises uncomfortably. He needs to master better control of his emotions if he is to project the confidence necessary to "win" these debates, regardless of how many times he has been right (and I commend him for that).
He also talks over people.
Yeah, but it definitely doesn't help that he gets talked over a lot, and that's because he does not project the aura of confidence and control of the conversation he really needs to start projecting.
Schiff also has diarrhea of the mouth, and makes silly predictions.
I guess I don't understand what is so terrible about wanting an answer as to why we can't even get a response. So what if you think it's petty, it ends well no matter how it ends.
Have you read Murphy's work? It kind of sounds like this Murphy guy created the thing in order to bring more attention to his work. The Austrian school doesn't even use empirical methods.
I have, actually.
That's an extreme oversimplification.
If it is an oversimplification then please correct me. I do enjoy learning new things. Below is a more detailed over-simplification from wikipedia. In what ways is it inaccurate?
Methodology is where Austrians differ most significantly from other schools of economic thought. Mainstream schools, such as Keynesians and Monetarists, adopt empirical, mathematical, and statistical methods, and focus on induction to construct and test theories. Austrians reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments, and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, arguing that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of humans are too complex for such a treatment because humans are not passive and non-adaptive subjects. Austrian economist Jeffrey Herbener has argued that "there are no statistical characteristics to human behavior. It is purposeful rather than random, and changeable rather than constant".[27] Austrians argue one should instead isolate the logical processes of human action. Mises called this discipline "praxeology."[28] The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they argue to be undeniable, self-evident axioms or irrefutable facts about human existence.[29]
Here's an answer to that I posted the other day, in the interest of not spending another 10 minutes typing something I've done before this week:
"Wrote this as a response elsewhere, but then got an EPS downvote squad, so no one would ever see it:
Austrians don't ignore observable reality at all; just realize that in a complex system, you can't just take prima facie correlations and turn them into an equation - there are no constants to build from (and yet, mainstream economists continually manufacture imagined constants and build complex, statistically meaningless models from them). The world is not a laboratory setting, and you can't treat it like one. Even if human action is deterministic, we simply don't have the information to treat it as such.
What we do know is that human action, while not objectively logical, is internally rational. That's where laws such as the law of supply and demand originate - from the study of the logic of human action ("praxeology"). It's not scientific to look at a complex system about which we have very little information and draw complex inferences without a logical framework to put them in - the claim the self-proclaimed "empiricists" make. It is scientific to form a logical framework from first principles, and then subordinate the empirical data into that framework. If the logic is wrong, then the data might suggest that, allowing the framework to be corrected, but the data (as it is not from anything approaching a laboratory setting) cannot in itself falsify logic. For the logic to be wrong, there must be something wrong with the premises or the method.
When it comes down to it, the economy has literally billions of moving parts. Austrians understand how the moving parts work, and then extrapolate that (notably making us the only ones to have predicted the Great Depression, and some of the earliest to predict most recessions since - probably the first in this most recent one, as well) to the macroeconomy. Most mainstreamers take empirical data collected from a swirl of incredible complexity and then try to fit it into a relatively simplistic (compared to the economy itself) mathematical model. Then they call us unscientific.
P.S. - In their defense, if they've run into a ton of the jackass kids who call themselves Austrians on the internet and then say that all empirical data is worthless, it's hard to blame them. That's a caricature, though, and it's unfair to dismiss a theory because of its least educated adherents."
As a linguist I know all to well what a field dominated by non-empiricists looks like, hence my concern.
I feel like that same argument that the economy is a complex system could also be made regards to human behavior and emotions and thus one could argue that human action is not internally rational. As George Soros points out, the humanities have demonstrated very few "laws of human action" akin to the physical laws of nature. Indeed, I find it odd that Murphy advocates any sort of "natural law" given its highly problematic basis in the work of thinkers like Hobbes and Locke (certainly not limited to those two) given the fact that what they know of a state of nature was based on fairly uninformed (and one might even argue racist) ideas of how aboriginal people around the world lived .
There is currently a voting campaign to bury this post. Probably orchestrated by Phokus.
This post was at +114 barely 10 minutes ago. Now it's at +83 and falling.
Before that, it was over +200 and was the top comment.
When I upvoted it was in the mid 80's now down to 38.
Krugman on debates for charity drives.
Aaaaand now he's gone. And your comment (formerly top post) got buried in hundreds of downvotes.
He didn't even bother acknowledging your existence. He had time to answer foolish questions and questions in jest... but your comment (again, top post for quite a while) was summarily ignored. His Majesty has refused to grant you an audience.
Goes to show: the best way to address a PR problem, is to ignore it altogether. Please tell Bob that I express my deepest sympathies for him, and that his ideas will continue to spread like wildfire. In the meantime, back to /r/Civcraft!
Matt, your post is being rapidly buried in downvotes (to the tune of 3 a second last check).
The gauntlet has been thrown, Krugman. If you don't respond it shows the world that you have no real faith in your beliefs, and know that you cannot defend them.
Jesus, this is so fucking embarrassing. You guys realise that you're just turning neutral people against you, right?
False Dichotomy.
assuming you're serious
edit Looks at comment history ... my god, he might just be!
Or it shows that he has better things to do than address a professional troll as if said troll raised serious concerns. I mean, I can offer to debate Krugman about whether or not the world is flat for charity. It doesn't mean Krugman should take me up on it.
Hell, Dr. Murphy is a fellow at a think-tank with an academic background. Why doesn't he write a paper explaining why his beliefs are correct? Economics professors like to read papers.
(Hint to Murphy fans: when your champion describes this entire outing repeatedly as a "stunt," it makes him less likely to be taken seriously.)
Like licking the ass of the Federal Reserve?
For Christ's sake, is this the Austrian school's attempt to have the rest of us take them seriously? This has only lowered my estimation of Austrian economics.
Or that he's just bad at debating, which doesn't make him wrong.
Or he thinks Murphy is beneath him, and can't be bothered. Or any one of a number of other reasons.
Wait, so the NYC Food Bank won't get the money unless Krugman agrees to this? Wow. I see that Murphy is the organizer of this proposed debate. If he really cared about the Food Bank, maybe he should simply see that they get the funds, whether he gets his debate or not.
I agree, and i think Murphy should put a deadline on it. That way, if Krugman doesn't respond by say, October, Murphy can donate the money anways and maybe have a talk with the people there about economics and how the government is fucking them over.
He is not holding the money and says on his website that people's credit cards will not be charged unless Krugman agrees to the debate.
Incentives matter - I (and many others who have donated, I'm sure) donate money to good causes anyway, but I'm willing to sacrifice extra (perhaps eat Ramen a bit more often) if it means I can see this happen.
I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm not understanding then. It looks like there's an amount pledged, but only under the condition that Krugman agrees to the debate. If he doesn't, the Food Bank doesn't receive the $72K. Do I have that wrong?
You've got that correct. I'm willing to sacrifice extra to see this happen, and if it doesn't happen, then I'll eat a little less MSG. It's not an incentive for him to debate if the Food Bank gets the money either way (though, sure - I'll throw some extra money to the Food Bank anyway to prove good faith).
Ok what funds? The funds only existed after this became a charity debate. Before that no-one had pledged 72,000. The money people sent in was only under the stipulation that there was an actual debate.
How about we get a group of famed economist around to discuss this in a nice polite fashion, I've seen many videos of Friedman having dozens of economist in a relaxed environment for debate.
Evidence that Matticus_Rex is organizing upvote/downvote brigades to unfairly alter the status of comments.
I'm organizing people to vote for a question they want to see answered. That's how AMA's work.
No, Reddit does work by you organizing others to upvote or downvote selected posts.
The top upvoted questions will hopefully be the ones the majority of Reddit wants answered. It shouldn't express the ideas of a single minority faction over a debate that frankly, not very many people care about.
What's more important to you, Dr. Krugman? Your personal reputation or $72,000+ going to some starving people who really need it?
And of course, he's probably just going to ignore this question.
I'm personally going to donate $1000 to charity if Ron Paul comes out he's a blathering fool, then dances like a chicken. Come on, Libertarians. What's more important, your personal reputation, or some money going to a good cause?
I'm utterly serious about this, too.
Liberals tend to not put their money where their mouth is.
"Oh yes! Please raise my taxes. I care so much about the poor! But what was that? Donate it? I would never! It's much more convenient to stand up here on my moral high horse and tell people how much I care about the poor."
If the conservatives actually donated their money they could write it off and not be taxed on it, so unless they're lying and they aren't actually planning on donating as much money as they get taxed or more, then you and they can shut the fuck up.
Liberals, I might remind you, are the ones who approved the public use of internet technology. Conservatives wanted to keep it for military use only. So how's that foot taste? Please let me know via this liberal-designed website on a liberal-funded infrastructure!
[citation needed]
Hope about we don't be a dick and waste Dr. Krugman's time by asking him to debate something ridiculous.
its for a good cause
And two economists debating economics is hardly ridiculous.
So the Libertarian circlejerkers are already here? Damn.
They've been planning and chomping at the bit for days.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/swxky/krugman_is_doing_a_ama_may_1st_lets_make_sure_he/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t0mfd/upvote_drive_for_murphykrugman_debate_please_read/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/sswej/hey_that_krugman_guy_is_doing_an_ama_monday/c4gpvks
Of particular concern is
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t1zw4/the_thread_is_up_go_go_go_krugmans_iama/
The thread is up? GO GO GO? Why can't the free market of ideas decide which post is most worthwhile for Dr. Krugman?
The irony is delicious.
TIL people voluntarily deciding to vote on something due to having good reasons to care about it don't count as a part of the "free market of ideas".
I'm sorry, but libertarianism has nothing to say about upvote brigades. Your analogy doesn't make sense.
ad hominem
? Not really. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a certain viewpoint by attacking negative characteristics of anyone.
But seriously, come on people, do you think he hasn't heard about the challenge?
Did you even look to see how many other times this has been mentioned already? Do you realize what tools you all look like with a coordinated set of posts?
This message is actually from Bob Murphy.
And reposted by a bunch of drones throughout this thread. It's embarrassing and tedious.
The message actually isn't reposted - just people asking about the debate, because people care to see it happen. This one is actually from Bob Murphy.
Edit: here's the thread encouraging others in r/libertarian to rig this comment up to the top, the guy who submitted the r/libertarian thread is the same guy who made this post.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t0mfd/upvote_drive_for_murphykrugman_debate_please_read/
This post really isn't directed at Dr. Krugman, but to the reddit libertarians that have (or are inevitably) going to post here. It's unfortunate that the libertarians on reddit have decided to organize a vote rigging campaign against Dr. Krugman's AMA. I think it's unethical to do this because you are artificially pumping up your own posts and as a result, other people's posts get drowned out. Evidence here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/swxky/krugman_is_doing_a_ama_may_1st_lets_make_sure_he/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t1zw4/the_thread_is_up_go_go_go_krugmans_iama/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/t0mfd/upvote_drive_for_murphykrugman_debate_please_read/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/sswej/hey_that_krugman_guy_is_doing_an_ama_monday/c4gpvks
The other thing is, i find it ironic that libertarians here trash Dr. Krugman all the time, yet somehow they hold him to different standards to someone like Peter Schiff, an Austrian "Economist" (emphasis on quotes) that they worship, yet has a much worse track record than Dr. Krugman, who has largely been right about the economic collapse while Austrian doomsayers like Schiff were largely wrong post collapse (on glenn beck's show, he predicted 20-30% hyperinflation in 2-3 years, back in 2008). I think if you were a little more open minded, you would see Krugman has largely been right (for example: he correctly pointed out that we wouldn't see that 'hyperinflation' because we're in a liquidity trap).
Examples of Schiff's predictions that have fallen flat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5qdkPlwvrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oJCOlwZUic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufa9uOOg1zA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfrfKa7tibI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv4-o2b10_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdBcHX4ipYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufa9uOOg1zA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfrfKa7tibI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv4-o2b10_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cnr8dVSx44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdBcHX4ipYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6I8oloCYJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvz26kyhaCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6glN2gP8Q4
Why do you keep reposting this shite? This is like the 5th one. Give it a rest, nobody's going through that.
LMAO, you are terrible at sock puppet trolling. Here's a hint: create another account, make lots of posts with it, and bring it out when you want to sockpuppet. Using an account with no posts to sockpuppet is the biggest giveaway.
I'm not a sockpuppet, I am a new redditer, who specifically came here to post in the Krugman AMA, because I heard he is doing one. I was originally going to ask a question, but then I saw it was already asked, and that's when I came across your downvoting campaign.
Oh, so that's how YOU sockpuppet. You're telling me your techniques? You fucking hypocrite sockpuppet.
Oh, so that's how YOU sockpuppet. You're telling me your techniques? You fucking hypocrite sockpuppet.
I don't need to sockpuppet. I'm using my account to point out r/libertarian's bullshit without a veil. You OTOH...
No, but you desire one.
What bullshit? All I see is your bullshit downvoting campaign, multiple identical posts, and hypocrisy.
LMAO, now i know you're crazy
LOL, you're a fucking lunatic.
LOL, you're a fucking lunatic.
Says the newbie sockpuppet