Way back when I said it wouldn't be a very worthwhile debate. There was a lot of really bad Austrian commentary on Keynesianism at the time, I wasn't familiar with Bob, and I hadn't had the chance of stumbling on any discussion of Bob's that made me think it would be an interesting debate.
My view on that has changed over the almost two years since I wrote that post. Bob is a sharp guy and a fair guy, and this would be a debate worth seeing. To press the issue, up-vote this comment on reddit, and share the link.
In a lot of ways Bob will have a big advantage - I think he's probably more familiar with Krugman's position than vice versa (something I am not willing to concede for a lot of major Austrians or Austrian-fellow-travelers that have made a big splash in various social media).
I think Krugman is right on almost all points, obviously. And the guy is not some pundit or partisan as many suggest. He's a brilliant economist with a real talent for communicating what he knows.
So I'll be rooting for Krugman - but this will be a good debate to see nonetheless.
UPDATE: There's not a shortage of good questions/comments for Krugman. Could you imagine Friedman alive and maintaining a blog through this crisis? How amazing would that be?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Really?
ReplyDeleteAn oral debate is very much about rhetoric and quick-wittedness, not so much about actual arguments. One might be in a situation, where one doesn't think about a valide argument, when one would clearly provide it, given that one had the time to think about it. Also, one might seem short of a (counter-)argument simply because one isn't quick enough to grasp what the other one was meaning - that, too, might change, if one had the time to think about it. In short: if one is really interested in an exchange of actual arguments and ideas, rather than in a public display of communication skills, one should do it in a written-down form.
Then, there is this "challenge". Sorry, if I misunderstand that, but can you tell me how this "debate or the food bank won't see a dime" lure is anything other than the attempt of a moral extortion, if tongue-in-cheek? Any thoughts?
And finally, it's at least a confession that Krugman is completely uninterested in debating somebody who is a bit obsessed by this very idea. If he wants Krugman to debate, perhaps he should try to provide an argument interesting enough for Krugman to respond. Making somebody answer by being annoying is sort of trolling...
"I think Krugman is right on almost all points, obviously. And the guy is not some pundit or partisan as many suggest. He's a brilliant economist with a real talent for communicating what he knows."
ReplyDeleteNow that's funny. Every single sentence made me laugh.
1. Yes, writing opposing views down has a lot of advantages that public debating doesn't. No one is advocating refraining from writing critiques down in order to have this debate. You're setting up a false choice here.
ReplyDelete2. No, it's not moral extortion. It's a great way to coordinate giving and achieve ends. Why do you think it's moral extortion? You wouldn't call it moral extortion if this never happened and $72,000 were never pledged, would you? So now that $72,000 is pledged it's extortion? Be serious. If it doesn't get donated because Krugman debates that's not Krugman's fault either - it's the fault of the person who decide to make a conditional pledge rather than an unconditional pledge. And you know what? That decision is their business. And from where I sit a conditional pledge is better than no pledge.
3. I do think Bob can overdo the Krugman stuff. He knows I think most of his Krugman Kontradictions leave a lot to be desired. There is still a lot of this "clash of the titans" mentality about this whole thing that I don't think is really the right way to look at it. But the Austrian school is growing in significance and there are gems in that perspective, and if anyone is going to represent it intelligently it's going to be Bob.
4. Re: "If he wants Krugman to debate, perhaps he should try to provide an argument interesting enough for Krugman to respond." This I do agree with completely. Heterodoxies often overestimate their value, and Krugman has faced down a lot of critics in his time. The Austrian critics have piqued my interest for various reasons, but if they don't pique his perhaps there's a good reason for that.
5. Re: "Making somebody answer by being annoying is sort of trolling..." Welcome to the internet.
Daniel, thanks a lot for this post. I am impressed that you said this, knowing that a lot of "your allies" are not my biggest fans at the moment. I am being serious, this was a brave post, as far as bravery and the blogosphere go. When the libertarians take over, and are going to string you up, I will plea for leniency.
ReplyDeleteHey everybody: Just to clarify the genesis of the food bank campaign: A girl had emailed me and told me that she went to a Krugman book signing in a Barnes & Noble or some such place. In the Q&A, she raised her hand and said, "Dr. Krugman, why don't you debate an Austrian economist?" (Maybe she was more specific about business cycle theory; I don't remember.) She said that his public response was something like, "Well, I realize I will sound like an elitist for saying this, but the profession doesn't take Austrian economic seriously. It was useful in its day, but that was before the Depression. There would be no point in me debating something that only non-professionals believe in."
So he *publicly declared* that he wouldn't debate an Austrian. Hence, I needed to come up with some angle. Thus the Food Bank campaign was borne...
Up till now, Krugman could have played the high-principle card, saying, "I'm not going to waste my time debating this punk Murphy, because to do so would lend legitimacy to his gold-bug views." But oops, now he can't say that, since he just admitted he debated Ron Paul to sell books.
Really, doesn't this cause even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance among Krugman's fans? If Krugman wanted to have fun with it, and to make sure he wasn't open to every Tom Dick and Harry, he could come out and say, "I'll do it if Murphy's fans donate $150,000 to the food bank, and another $150,000 to the Center for American Progress." That would turn things around and he could say he wasn't opposed to the debate in principle, but that his time was valuable blah blah blah.
Yet thus far he has just ignored it, when there is $72,000 already on the line. And that number would probably quadruple very quickly, if people actually thought it was going to happen. (I.e. a lot of people aren't pledging their full reservation amounts, because they don't think he would ever actually debate me.)
So again I ask: Doesn't this cause just the slightest bit of weirdness among Krugman's supporters? He should be able to destroy me, right? So why not do that, and pluck hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the hands of right-wing gold bug nutjobs? Krugman has a popular blog, and goes on TV to debate George Will and Ron Paul. It's not like he's "above" debating people he thinks are morons, right?
Thanks for the very detailed answer.
ReplyDeleteWell, for the debate: my point was rather that I do not think that public debates have much of a value. I do not say that anybody is refraining from doing written critiques, but that anybody who seriously wants to engange in an exchange of arguments doesn't aspire to do an oral debate in the first place. But thinking about it, oral debates also reach an audience that perhaps wouldn't read anything with regard to the topic..
For the extortion part: I don't know why you say it wouldn't be Krugman's "fault" if the money wasn't donated. Of course it wouldn't. Isn't it the nature of an exortion that objectively, if the implied threat gets realized, it's the extortionist's fault and not the fault of the extorted - but that the extortionist still aims at the subjective sense of guilt from the part of the extorted? How does this contradict me? Let's say I threaten to do something bad unless you give me a million dollars: exactly following your reasoning that would be no extortion because it would be my fault if I eventually did it, if you don't pay. I see that the the Krugman challenge is quite different because nobody is harmed. But then, that was not what you said and I don't get how your reasoning applies. What I mean is the impression the whole thing creates, the "do this or else" condition. "Push this law or we'll make you lose the election", "get better marks or you won't get a puppy"...I would call these ones extortions in the same sense - and yes, would "push this law" and "get better marks" be unconditional (but rather accompanied by convincing arguments), I wouldn't. Yes, OK, extortion is a pretty strong word, probably I shoudln't have used it. I understand that the notion doesn't make a difference between this challenge and the activity e.g. of terrorist - so I'm sorry if I worded that poorly: I never wanted to imply any such comparison. But what I see is the attempt to build up some kind of moral pressure by making Krugman the grinch who spoiled the party by staying at home and prevented the puppies from being feeded, which would have been done if only he had come...
To point 5: I'm well aware that I'm in the internet. But knowing that there is a lot of crap out there doesn't mean that one approve of it, does it?
Martin -
DeleteAccusations are flying in both directions about who is being a meanie to the food bank.
I'm simply saying the no one is being a meanie to the food bank. Leave it to the internet to turn a $72K conditional donation into a bad thing, and then proceed to fight about who's to blame for the said bad thing.
It's a conditional donation. At best it's a great thing. At worst it's a non-event. It's never a "bad thing". I always thought of it as something to add an interesting twist and some pizzazz to the challenge, to get Krugman's attention. I think it's stupid that either side is using it as a guilt trip.
I wasn't aware of any discussion on the topic...
DeleteAnyway, I might have fallen in the trap of inventing an overblown narrative around my personal impression. I guess I simply do not like the idea of this food bank condition, really. But it would have been enough to say so, or even to shut up... well... nobody said trolls are self-aware...
@Daniel_Kuehn: No, it's not moral extortion. It's a great way to coordinate giving and achieve ends. Why do you think it's moral extortion? You wouldn't call it moral extortion if this never happened and $72,000 were never pledged, would you? So now that $72,000 is pledged it's extortion? Be serious. If it doesn't get donated because Krugman debates that's not Krugman's fault either - it's the fault of the person who decide to make a conditional pledge rather than an unconditional pledge. And you know what? That decision is their business. And from where I sit a conditional pledge is better than no pledge.
DeletePLEASE, oh PLEASE bring this up with the hundreds of reddit commenters that have independently discovered and advanced this "moral extortion" argument. It's ridiculous, and I seriously doubt that they would use it if the tables were turned (say, if someone tried to get GWB or Dick Cheney to publicly debate foreign policy with Dennis Kucinich through the same means).
Have you been chiding the pro-Murphy crowd that's been bashing the pro-Krugman over the head with this?
DeleteI'm happy to share my thoughts with anyone that will listen, but I'm not the reddit-police :)
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Martin and with Krugman. A public debate would amount to ideological fan service to the audience and not a lot of value would be gained from it for reasons that Martin and Krugman already addressed. Academics should use books, papers, and the blogosphere to get their ideas across and save the public debates to the politicians who specialize in political posturing.
I'm not even sure that a public debate can't be useful at all. But the staged and hyped backdrop here creates an environment that spells everthing but seriousness. Whenever this kind of gladiator-style discussion is set up it reminds me of those nefarious debates surrounding the Keynes vs Hayek rap battles.
DeleteAnd Daniel, I'm sorry to be a nuisance on this, but re-reading your second response yesterday you say:"Accusations are flying in both directions about who is being a meanie to the food bank." Tell me, how is it fair in any sense that even the slightest accusation is flying in the direction of Krugman who has nothing - nothing - to do with the whole thing? What does the symmetry prove here?
Right, except this time we would have Krugman putting the words in Keynes's mouth and Murphy putting the words in Hayek's mouth.
DeleteI think both of those are a better option than Russ Roberts and John Papola putting words in Keynes and Hayek's mouths.
re: "Tell me, how is it fair in any sense that even the slightest accusation is flying in the direction of Krugman who has nothing - nothing - to do with the whole thing?"
Ummm... it's not fair. Didn't you read what I wrote about this? I don't think it's fair at all that even the slightest accusation is flying in the direction of Krugman. Are you confused about my position on this?
Perhaps I am confused about your position on this. My point was that one side is trying to build up moral pressure on the other with this food bank stuff (yes, I called it "extortion", sorry again). I thought it's fair to point this out, and you told me to "be serious", ciritisizing not my choice of words but my allegedly flawed reasoning, thereby delivering a non sequitur yourself. Now you tell me I'm "confused" about your position, implying hat I didn't read your comment - in a comment in which you also insinuate that I'd written about the Keynes vs Hayek rap battle itself when what I'd actually written was "those nefarious debates surrounding the Keynes vs Hayek rap battles." For sure, that allowed for a very cheap shot - as if I had compared Krugman and Murphy to Papola and Roberts, rather than to Phelps and Galbraith (hey, perhaps you can get another cheap shot out of the order in which I put these names?).
ReplyDeleteIn replacing careful reasoning by inflammatory wording I've started the whole thing in the wrong way - this was indefensible. I apologzied, and I'm serious about it. But really, you don't even pretend to try to understand what I am talking about. Yes, it probably because I'm confused and not serious, what else could be the reason... Thanks a lot.
You asked me how it was fair that they were doing this to Krugman. I said that it's not fair. That's always been my position.
DeleteWhat I didn't think was serious was the claim that the $72,000 pledge was pressure or extortion (forget the "inflammatory" nature of the word "extortion"... that's not important).
I thought I've been pretty clear on both of those points. Am I missing something???
I just have to say that claiming Paul Krugman is right on just about everything he says is completely incomprehensible to me.
ReplyDeleteThis is the guy who in all seriousness said that if we could get the world’s scientist to band together and convince everyone that we were facing an alien invation, it would enable the governments to spend endless amounts of money on military build-up. This unlimited spending would get us out of the present slump within 18 months.
He actually said this. On national TV. And he wasn’t kidding. Massive amounts of spending on military build-up to thwart a non-existant alien invasion threat would get us out of the recession in 18 months. Paul Krugman may actually be the worst economist ever, even worse than Keynes himself.
Of course, he faces stiff competetion from other Keynesians. It is no small feat to top Paul Samuelson’s claim that the USSR would overtake the US by 1990, 2015 at the latest. A claim he stuck to from the early 1970s up until 1989. If there ever was such a thing as “epic fail”, this is surely it.
These are not isolated incidents. Who was that Keynesian who was abhorred at the thought of cutting military spending (i.e. stop building battleships, bombs and tanks) just because the WWII had ended? And that other guy who in the late1960s declared that Keynsian economic policy had vanquished the business cycle forever?
The real kicker is that all these fantastic errors make perfect sense from a Keynesian perspective and using Keynesian methodology. Samuelson wasn’t merely guessing about the USSR, he applied Keynesian theory and methodology and that lead him to his insane conclusion, one he never waivered from. So did the other guys. They weren’t spitballing, they presented their view based on Keynesian theory using Keynesian methodology. As did Krugman with his alien invasion theory, an obvious analogy to Keynes idea about putting FED-notes in glass jars and burying them in abandoned mines so that people could dig them up.
It is amazing to me how anyone still can claim Keynesian theory makes sense and that Krugman is right on just about everything he says, considering the mindblowing epic failures that so many prominent Keynesians have fallen prey to. Even Keynes own Bretton Woods system was colossal disaster.
You obviously believe that Keynesianism works, so I won’t call you dishonest. But I have to say, holding that belief requires an admirable strength of denial.
Comments like Kaj's are exactly why Krugman *shouldn't* agree to such a debate. The problem is twofold. First, that Krugman's side of the argument is I think correct, but highly counterintuitive due to the fact our personal experiences are micro, not macro. Whereas Murphy's side of the argument *feels* correct - how can you possibly fix debt with more debt etc - but on critical examination falls apart. Live debates are charged, emotional events that play primarily to what we intuit to be true, hence odds are Krugman will persuade few and likely take a beating as academic and out of touch with common sense. For example, if you had a public debate between Einstein and Newton today, Newton would probably win the popular vote because his billiard-ball world view is closer to our intuitive sense of how things work than Einstein's is. Yet Newton's theory is false.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Kaj's comment is a compendium of simple errors - starting with the claim Krugman was serious about his alien invasion quip - that could be corrected simply by reading the passages in question. If this is too much for Krugman's/Keynes' haterz, how is a public debate going to help?