"Two pillars of economic thought." Nice.
Funny, I thought Paul dominated Krugman.Krugman tried to claim that Paul's advocacy for currency competition was 150 years old, and yet Krugman's own advocacy for currency debasement is 1800 years old.Wikipedia covers the topic quite well:"The Edict on Maximum Prices (also known as the Edict on Prices or the Edict of Diocletian; in Latin Edictum De Pretiis Rerum Venalium) was issued in 301 by Roman Emperor Diocletian. Diocletian's Edict was his attempt to curb inflation via price controls. It was counterproductive and quickly ignored."Thomas DiLorenzo, in 2005, wrote at Mises.org:"In 284 A.D. the Roman emperor Diocletian created inflation by placing too much money in circulation, and then "fixed the maximum prices at which beef, grain, eggs, clothing and other articles could be sold, and prescribed the penalty of death for anyone who disposed of his wares at a higher figure." The results, as Schuettinger and Butler explain, quoting an ancient historian, were that "the people brought provisions no more to markets, since they could not get a reasonable price for them and this increased the dearth so much, that at last after many had died by it, the law itself was set aside."Congressman Paul owned the NYT pundit, but that's not surprising.
Did you even read the title of this post?
Haha, yes.Did you notice that a mere denial is not the same thing as actuality?Krugman tried to insinuate that Ron Paul's policies are too old, yet Krugman's own policies are even older. Just because he said "I am not a defender", that doesn't mean he actually isn't a defender.Krugman wants the Fed to debase the dollar (inflate).That was the policy of the Roman emperor in 300 AD (inflate).Why is this so hard to understand?
"Did you notice that a mere denial is not the same thing as actuality?"Funny how this never seems to sink in for the Paulites on anything else.Pete, I hope you're not being serious here. That's a pretty superficial spin you've got. Don't you think there are more relevant things to consider than just that inflation was involved in both cases? By this logic you could say that Krugman and Mugabe support the same policies. Stop trying to pass off trolling as economic or historical analysis.
Funny how this never seems to sink in for the Paulites on anything else.No U!Pete, I hope you're not being serious here. That's a pretty superficial spin you've got. Don't you think there are more relevant things to consider than just that inflation was involved in both cases?Oh please. You're just ignoring the facts of the case. The context is money, correct? Gold versus Fiat. Talking about money shouldn't include all the other stuff. If the context is money and only money, then because Krugman referred to Ron Paul's money ideas as "150 years old", then IN THAT CONTEXT, Paul was right to point out that Krugman's money ideas are 1800 years old.It's disingenuous to deny Paul's point about Krugman's point, but accept Krugman's point about Paul's point. They're talking about the same thing.Krugman accuses Paul of wanting a money policy from 150 years ago. Paul replied that Krugman wants a money policy from 1800 years ago.There are no other relevant things to consider for THIS particular hackneyed attempt by Krugman to paint Paul's ideas about money as outdated.By this logic you could say that Krugman and Mugabe support the same policies. Stop trying to pass off trolling as economic or historical analysis.But they do support the same policy....of the context at hand, namely inflation.Just because Mugabe printed more than what Krugman personally wanted (different individuals want different levels of inflation), it doesn't mean they are not calling for the same policy of currency debasement.Stop trying to pass off yellow bellied apologias for economics. It's obvious.
BUT THEY DO!!!! DON'T YOU READ MISES.ORG?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Krugman = Keynes = Mugabe = Hitler = Diocletian = Darth Vader (death star was a waste of tax money!!!!!!!!!!11111) etc.! Why? Because man acts.It's all in Human Action.
I find it troubling that Krugman would contest the existence of a Federal Reserve monopoly on the printing of currency. I think he might have been confusing currency and money. (easy, when your debate partner is using the term money to talk about currency) But still, it's strange.I also find Paul Krugman's answer to the proposal of the Federal Reserve not running the money supply less than convincing. He jumps back and forth between it being horrible (150 years ago) and that anyways, we don't really understand what money is anymore since so much of it is created by the financial sector. A little more clarity would have helped.And then we have Ron Paul talking about inflation which always misses the point. Maybe he understands it, but I'm always annoyed by his habit (a common habit) to refer to inflation as taking money away from savers. Inflation is not an easy concept to wrap your head around. It took me years to get a grip on it and there is still plenty of stuff that eludes me. (Beyond the stuff that eludes everyone) But it's always important to remember the difference between trend inflation and inflation shocks. If inflation is stable, people invest their money at rates of return that account for the inflation. Unexpected inflation shocks (whether above or below trend) is what causes a redistribution to or from savers.Also, Ron Paul is not a pillar of economic thought. I like him a lot better than anyone else running for national, but he's no Friedman, Hayek, Keynes or Marshall.I really wish Krugman had engaged the idea that the Federal Reserve just isn't knowledgeable enough to run the money supply and that central bankers are likely to make terrible mistakes on a regular basis.Also, their discussion of the Great Depression was an epic fail on both sides. Paul Krugman simply says that the GD was caused by the private sector "run amock" without any explanation. Then Ron Paul seems to give the standard Austrian account of the GD. (Disclaimer: It was largely a guess on my part since he didn't explain what he meant) And then Paul Krugman brings up Milton Friedman's explanation of tight money without saying anything about it. And Ron Paul goes on a largely rambling tirade on Milton Friedman which left me completely confused. The result? I don't even know what any of them believe on the causes of the GD. Austrian? "private sector run amock"? (What the heck does that mean anyways?) Tight money? Who knows?Overall, this was really disappointing. Seems to me the program should have picked a much more specific topic so they could both focus their arguments rather than talking about anything remotely macro.
Krugman has to defend the Federal Reserve because it is necessary for persistent government deficits to be financed. Even if the Fed were run by evil people who secretly sent $40 billion to Iraq 2003-3008 to finance the invasion, even if the Fed secretly gives its banking friends and nobody else a cumulative $9 trillion in near zero interest loans, even if the Fed financed the Watergate burglars, we're all supposed to turn a blind eye, because we have to think of the children. Without government deficits, we're doomed.
Then why would he not say that? Krugman isn't exactly posing as a moderate. He's a hard-liner on macroeconomic issues and if he believed the Fed was necessary to finance stimulus spending, I seriously doubt he would hold back from saying it.
PrometheeFeu:The creation ex nihilo of fiat funny-money is always theft of purchasing power by those getting the new money first from those holding the existing money. I don’t think Ron Paul says this enough. There should airplane banners flying over the entire planet saying this all of the time. That is the “operational reality” of the creation of fiat funny-money. The elites get to loot average people this way while the subsequent price inflation tricks them into accepting lower wages and prices than they would otherwise accept if they understood what was hitting them. But don't worry. It's totally cool and moral because the elites are SO MUCH SMARTER AND MORE BENEVOLENT than average people.
Bob Roddis:There is a solution for that: hold your wealth in gold, TIPS, stocks, or whatever security you live best. Surely you can live with the inflation that occurs in the 2-3 days between cashing your paycheck and your purchase of gold."The elites get to loot average people this way while the subsequent price inflation tricks them into accepting lower wages and prices than they would otherwise accept if they understood what was hitting them."If indeed people are so stupid that they accept wages without accounting for the price they pay at the grocery store, maybe the socialists have a good point. Of course, in my experience, people spend quite a lot of time comparing their income to prices. We call that budgeting or shopping.
A very smart dress code. Krugman wants a loose monetary policy, so he wears a loose tie knot. Very consistent.
All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor in the Economics Department at American University. He has a master's degree in public policy from George Washington University.