I’m debating Bob Murphy on Friday at 6pm. This is a web debate and its pay-per-view. Which means, of course, that both Bob and I will be in the Octagon, battling to submission.
This is the econ web cage match of DEATH.
So what’s the backstory?
Well, the Austrians at Mises.org challenged Paul Krugman to a debate. Krugman demurred. Seeing no champion to oppose them the Austrians declared victory and a pall was cast over the land.
Wickedness rose up and all that was just and right was driven into the shadows. Flowers wilted. Virgins cried. Cats couldn’t find a comfortable sleeping position. It was a time of unimaginable peril.
But just as things seemed their darkest, a new hope emerged. A hero came forth who could save what was good and decent about the world. A man who could give the people a reason to believe. I speak, of course, of myself.
Now on Friday that hero – me – will vanquish the great evil and send the demon Austrians back into the hellfire from whence they came.
What I humbly offer you, dear reader, is to be a part of this great event. To be present at the Quickening. To see light triumph over dark. To see good banish evil. To see a final resolution to the Manichean struggle that has gripped mankind since time before time.
Is this not worth but a small fee (that you could probably charge as a business expense, we are using cisco “web-conference” software) to witness a turning point in human history.
Tales of this event shall the good man teach his son. Yearly on the anniversary they will feast this day. Then will he pull forth his credit card receipt and say . . . this charge I made on that day.
Old men forget, yet all should be forgotten but he’ll remember with advantages what arguments we made that day.
Hayekian Triangles, Keynesian Crosses and fiscal multipliers shall be in their cups freshly remembered. And, economics debates shall ne’er go by from this day ‘til the ending of the world, but Bob and I will be remembered.
Will you join us dear reader? Will you be a part of this day?
If so, register now at: http://academy.mises.org/courses/murphy-smith/
76 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Wonks Anonymous
People these days often abuse the word “epic“. When that occurs, such people should be directed to this.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Chris
It seems impossible that the audience of a site dedicated to your opponent’s ideology — an audience that in fact pays money to have that ideology drummed into their heads — will heed anything you say, no matter how cogent, reasonable, and correct. The only way you will sway any of them would be to pull off an 8 Mile-style beat-down in which you make your points and leave your opponent utterly speechless for 12 minutes.
I would gladly pay $20 to see this if the money went to a worthy cause. Even if you somehow silence your opponent, Mises.org wins. Your worthy arguments will be twisted or forgotten, and the ticket price will fund more indoctrination in your opponent’s view.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
RG
Apropos you chose a movie about a white guy dominating black cultural identity to make your point.
Keynesianism = slavery
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Gene Callahan
Good illustration of Chris’s point!
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
RG
I don’t see how slavery can be twisted. Either you have property rights or you don’t. You’ve made it obvious, Gene, that you prefer the latter.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Blackadder
Some people are incapable of being parodied.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:32 am
Michael
Chris,
Your comments are off base. There is no ideology being promoted from the Austrian Perspective/School, as it is called (note how it is not called the Austrian Ideology? and yes there is a reason for that), and thus no indoctrination or the like from mises.org . I imagine that you do not believe this, as it seems that in today’s world everything has some sort of ideology behind it, plus the general conception erroneously perceives Austrians to be what they are not in many ways, so instead I invite you to research praxeology, and read some of Mises’ writtings on praxeology, equality, and ideologies (all of which can be found within the first book of Human Action – available for free download). If you should choose to do this, you will discover that Mises and the Austrians, have as the cornerstone of their modern theory, the truth: that all humans are equal, in that they have the ability to rationalize and choose what they believe is the best course of action for their lives. From this truth (which I would be surprised to find anyone disagree with as it is within the scientific definition of a homo sapien) it can be logically realized that ideologies are in a stark contradiction of this truth, in that all ideologies are built on and promote the notion that “we think like this” and many but not all imply the other notion of “they think like that”, where in reality we all think in the same manner, utilizing the laws of logic, and rather it is the organization and identification of premises that creates differences of opinion. I respect that you may have a different perspective on economic theory from the Austrians, but I would think that someone who respects truths, facts and logic, would not want to misrepresent another with untruths, misinformation, and faulty logic – which is why I wanted to bring the faults of your comments to your attention, and invite you to investigate them and my comments further.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
bdbd
Be sure to bring some glass jars of banknotes to fend off golden spears.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Uh Oh, I’d Better Go to Bed Early on Thursday
[...] I knew this guy was no punk, but I didn’t realize he had this in him: I’m debating Bob Murphy on Friday at 6pm. This is a web debate and its pay-per-view. [...]
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Benny Lava
I am going to tell you straight off that Krugman was right to ignore them. The conservative fringe position is always a call for a debate. Why? Because a debate is a way to sway the audience with your rhetorical skills rather than a solid well researched paper. You know, the way science does it. Debates show the skills of the debater moreso than the strength of the argument. Which is why conservatives love them and call for debates on science like evolution and global warming rather than just good scientific papers. The idea that a scientist might have poor rhetorical skills is lost on them. Like they’ve never heard of Stephen Hawkings.
I will bet you a dollar that your opponent resorts to making an argument that appeal to the emotion rather than making empirical observations. Probably something along the lines of rewarding losers and bad money and malinvestments. You know, things that can’t be measured.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Terry Mcintyre
Since Keynesian remedies are doing so well, you shouldn’t need to futz around with false bravado. eh? Unemployment has fallen to normal levels, the value of the dollar is stable, the economy is booming … oh, right. That didn’t happen.
What sort of evidence would convince you to go back to the drawing board, exactly?
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Nav
Terry, Keynesian remedies have not been tried. The depth of the recession was underestimated. The TARP was designed for a much weaker recession than what we had. For a real test of Keynesian policies we would have to implement enough stimulus to deal with the recession we did have not the one the politicians thought we would have. If the stimulus had been enough to satisfy true Keynesian’s and then it failed, people would be returning to the drawing board.
The thing is we didn’t get the stimulus we needed but the Obama administration refuses to admit that the initial stimulus was insufficient so the right can now say that Keynesianism is wrong because they think Keynesian policies have been implemented and have failed. Obama won’t tell them they’re wrong because he has to save face.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
RG
“Tripling the money supply before a multiplier affect is not Keynesian.” ~ the last remaining Keynesian
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 9:39 am
Benny Lava
I am not a Keynsian so I’d say that this response perfectly illustrates my point!
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
John Connolly
I love the idea that Keynes followers think the government has not printed enough money. Now that the money in the banks are starting to leak out…we are about to see double digit inflation. They will say…we didn’t print and spend enough. Right. We need triple digit or quadruple digit inflation before they start to think..hmmm…John (keynes) are we doing something wrong here with your concepts. To which John probably would say…”you passed the point of no return at QE1. If you listened to my I would never have advocated a complete destruction of the value of the Dollar.”
The problem with Keynesians is that they are not actually Keynesians. It’s like Christians or Muslims that don’t really adhere to the spirit of their own teachings. They like one part but not the other…so they make a new religion but don’t change the name. I personally don’t like Keynesian theology and I really don’t like Neo-Keynesian hyper theology.
Who cannot grasp the difference between the number of dollars and the value of each? This is the crew who will continue to follow this obviously flawed concept.
To Bob: I hope you hold NOTHING back and speak with all the authority that the natural laws that back Austrian economics affords you. May your human action obtain virtuous victory. Even if the deception or ignorance rises to the level of drama in this original post, it will remain less than laughable if it were not so demonstrably erroneous.
Thursday ~ September 1st, 2011 at 9:33 am
Nav
To John Connolly, and when that predicted double digit inflation doesn’t come will you change your mind John? Why hasn’t the double digit inflation already started as predicted?
If your predicted double digit inflation does appear I’d change my mind.
“Who cannot grasp the difference between the number of dollars and the value of each? This is the crew who will continue to follow this obviously flawed concept.”
Of course printing more money will cause inflation, but we’re still bordering on deflation. Who cannot grasp that if money gains value people won’t spend or invest their money? We want some inflation.
Sunday ~ September 4th, 2011 at 3:07 am
Angel Voluntaryist Robinson
Nav, yours is a convenient position to take as it lacks falsifiability. No matter what, Keynesians can always just claim that we simply did not do enough.
http://andrewrushford.com/2011/enough-is-enough/
Weak.
Sunday ~ September 4th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Nav
Angel, the way that blogger has characterized the Keynesian position seems to make it look unfalsifiable. He’s built himself a very nice straw man and set him on fire. I think the blogger is mistaken in thinking that people on my side of the issue would never change their mind even if more fiscal stimulus wasn’t doing anything. The thing about TARP is it was designed for a much smaller recession than what we had. The people who designed TARP have said that. If a round of fiscal stimulus took place, that was designed to end the liquidity trap, and it didn’t improve the economy and did only cause more inflation, well I think that would falsify the Keynesians position and I at least would have to change my mind.
The sides have made predictions about what will happen to the economy in our current situation. What I’ve heard from the Austrians/conservatives is that we will be having (or should already have had) hyperinflation and soaring interest rates on government bonds because we are expanding the money supply too fast. The Keynesians have said this will not happen because we are in a liquidity trap and it will take a large fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus to get the economy going in the near term and until we get out of the trap inflation will not rise and unemployment won’t go down. The Keynesians seem to have the better model to predict what’s going to happen in the real world so we should probably base real world policy off of their system.
I’m still waiting to see that hyperinflation though
.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
RG
Nothing says conservative fringe like the anti-war, drug legalization, abolitionists over at mises.org.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
JT
it’s not that Keynesian economics doesn’t work..it’s just that we haven’t done enough of it! wonderful logic as we continue to slide to ruin, let’s have at it again! and we can’t prove a negative
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 10:33 am
Benny Lava
Nothing says conservative like blaming our nation’s ills on lazy poor people like they do at mises.org
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:02 am
MSC
“Nothing says conservative like blaming our nation’s ills on lazy poor people like they do at mises.org” –Benny Lava
Lazy poor people like, Ben Bernanke, and the people behind the pseudo governmental agency / international banking cartel that is the Federal Reserve, exactly.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Thomas Woods (@ThomasEWoods)
What a shame — the Keynesian debater puts up a funny, clever post urging people to attend the debate, and his commenters, instead of partaking of that spirit, immediately start in on debate opponent Bob Murphy without knowing the first thing about him. “Oh, I’m sure he’ll just appeal to the emotions,” etc. Bob Murphy?? Bob knows Keynesianism inside and out, and his rhetorical style is not given to emotional flourish. He sticks entirely to the facts, and generously acknowledges the strengths of his opponents.
Really, for once, can we treat each other as human beings, instead of saying “Right-wingers are stupid and should be shunned”? Bob is not even a right-winger in the traditional sense.
In any case, three cheers for the spirit in which Professor Smith is approaching this debate.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
RG
Give ‘em a break, Tom. There’s only four of ‘em.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 4:17 am
Tik-Tak Rothbard
I surely hope that it wouldn’t be a debate where Austrian are only attacking Keynes and his policies, but that we will see how professor Smith is arguing against Austrian arguments as well. For example, what about the calculation argument that is totally relevant for ANY government action; what about the Buchanan’s public choice argument, subjective valuation, cardinality, etc.
However, it would be fun to watch.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 9:45 am
Benny Lava
Sorry, but since Austrian economists eschew empirical evidence what else is there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticisms
How else would you describe phrases like malinvestment and bad money but appeals to the emotion. Since, you know, you can’t measure them.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:08 am
MS
Malinvestment can’t be measured? What do you call the housing bubble?
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:25 am
crossofcrimson
“Sorry, but since Austrian economists eschew empirical evidence what else is there?”
They don’t “eschew empirical evidence” generally speaking. They only eschew empirical “evidence” when it doesn’t adequately fit the context of what any given party might be trying to prove. In that sense they generally hold to some form of methodological dualism. This is also why there is a such a focus on the a priori micro-foundations of behavior underlying economics in the Austrian community as well. The things you point out (malinvestment and “bad money”) aren’t appeals to emotion – they are appeals to the folly that results from the over-extension and over-application of empiricism in the realm of the social science of economics; nothing more and nothing less. Say what you will about the Austrians – at least the more knowledgeable ones (like Bob Murphy) take their ideological opponents’ contentions seriously and do not simply dismiss their arguments as appeals to emotion…..I’m sure there’s a field-day to be had with that approach when, arguably, the most famous quote from their opposition’s ideological founder was, “In the long run we are all dead.” Appeals to emotion indeed.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:59 am
Benny Lava
“The things you point out (malinvestment and “bad money”) aren’t appeals to emotion”
I disagree. What makes money “bad”? Isn’t calling something “bad” an appeal to the emotion? We don’t like bad guys in movie or bad money in the economy because they make us feel bad. Boo hoo.
Meanwhile in the real world when economists measure manufacturing output, how much of that is malinvestment and bad money? Austrians can’t answer that question because it is impossible to measure. But when manufacturing contracts calling it “bad” makes a good post hoc rationalization that makes Austrians feel good inside that the “bad” money was punished.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 1:32 pm
crossofcrimson
“I disagree. What makes money “bad”? Isn’t calling something “bad” an appeal to the emotion? We don’t like bad guys in movie or bad money in the economy because they make us feel bad. Boo hoo.
Meanwhile in the real world when economists measure manufacturing output, how much of that is malinvestment and bad money? Austrians can’t answer that question because it is impossible to measure…”
This is an honest question – have you ever bothered to even look at what more pronounced Austrians have written about the nature and origins of money? I put “bad money” in quotes precisely because I haven’t heard that term used by Austrians at an academic level. Usually their criticism (regarding money) revolves around fiat money. Their problem with that kind of monetary system (and their problem, more generally, with any forced monetary system that’s decoupled from more natural monies) is that it allows its administers to artificially adjust pricing signals in various ways. And because such price signals (like interest rates) indicate real things about the utilization of resources in the economy, they believe that artificially altering those signals leads to certain economic activities in the private sector that are naturally unsustainable…malinvestments. It’s part of the cornerstone of their business cycle theory. Pointing to the fact that such malinvestments would be difficult to precisely measure only underscores the general case Austrians bring against proponents of functional empirical macro-economic modeling (in some cases). That’s why Austrians emphasize the behavioral building blocks of human action – so that you can discern when an empirical model stops being illustrative of certain concepts and starts being a functional caricature of reality.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 3:08 pm
John Connolly
Hey now we are exposing one major flaw. You cannot apply empiricism’s processes to Economics the way you do to Chemistry.
This is no different than the fact that you cannot pour water into the ocean and get the new readings levels. If you could…life would be sooo much easier on many levels.
Unfortunately there are too many factors at play.
HOWEVER, you can detect issues. Pollution will tend to surface in the ocean after a certain time and the cause is detectable even if you cannot account for exactly what ounce of pollution killed what specific animal.
Central Banking is like Central Ocean planning. It would be so much better if we just followed the natural laws that support the Ocean and don’t try to control it. The market is an OCEAN of HUMAN ACTION. The sooner we all get this… the better.
Only arrogant human beings think they are big enough and smart enough to control the Ocean that is Economics. Free Ocean flows follow a pattern. Fee markets do too. Let it FLOW.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Benny Lava
Crossofcrimson,
Don’t you find that line of reasoning self-defeating? Malinvestments are bad. It is right there in the name, mal means bad. Bad investments. How do you measure it? Apparently you don’t. And yet this is still an empirical argument?
“Pointing to the fact that such malinvestments would be difficult to precisely measure only underscores the general case Austrians bring against proponents of functional empirical macro-economic modeling (in some cases). That’s why Austrians emphasize the behavioral building blocks of human action – so that you can discern when an empirical model stops being illustrative of certain concepts and starts being a functional caricature of reality”
But you don’t use empirical evidence or make empirical models. Just assume that your theory is true because malinvestments sounds like a bad thing and we don’t want that.
But we are getting off topic aren’t we? A) timed oral debates are still an inferior venue for this topic and B) arguing over the Austrian business cycle isnt an argument over economic data and predictitive models. Rather it is saying the whole system is terrible because malinvestment and fiat currency and these sound like really bad things despite the fact that they were part of the great postwar boom but hey correlation is not causation so you never know.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Benny Lava
John Connolly,
So reasoning by analogy, then an appeal to the emotion. Unless you are going to tell me that arrogance wasn’t used as a pejorative. More evidence for my thesis, thank you.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Gene Callahan
“Really, for once, can we treat each other as human beings, instead of saying “Right-wingers are stupid and should be shunned”?”
Tom, that’s a nice idea, but it is certainly not the style promoted by Rothbard, Rockwell, et al. Their opponents are “evil statists,” not human beings.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
RG
Not all are evil statists, only the ones that use them as shields.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Bob Roddis
And then I show up, ruining the spirit of rapprochement.
Hopefully, Bob Murphy will explain on Friday night that there is no such thing as the “output gap”, that the “trend line” was inherently unsustainable due to prior Keynesian policy, that the idea of homogenous government spending as the equivalent of informed private investment is ludicrous and infantile, that the creation of funny money out of thin air is not only unconstitutional, immoral and illegal but the cause of a fatal distortion in the price, investment and capital structure leading to an unsustainable boom, that the mechanism for any stimulus resulting from funny money creation is nothing but surreptitious theft of purchasing power from those holding the existing money which misdirects the pricing process and that everything bad in the economy is the fault of Keynesians, including war, pestilence and death as the entire Keynesian “school of thought” is based upon the destruction of common law notions of private property, contract and due process of law.
And then everyone can go to karaoke.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
karmaisking
Well said. Evil Keynesians know the truth. They just decide to ignore it.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Ted McFadden
I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I was disappointed that it wash’t Krugman. After reading this, I have to say that I am looking forward to this debate. It will be educational and entertaining. I am partial to the Austrians (in the extreme sense of the word) but good luck to you both.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
RG
Freedom isn’t extreme, it’s logical – as your Austrian avatar would surely advise.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 3:13 pm
John Connolly
If Paul K. took to the electronic podium, I would predict some very confused pauses on his behalf. This is why there is no debate.
You never debate someone you are not sure how to beat. Especially when your whole career could potentially be seen as built on sand.
The risk…is not worth the loss of stature, recognition and more importantly endorsements and paychecks. Unless, of course, you are Mr. Smith.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
freeconcord
I’m glad someone’s stepping up to take the challenge, kudos man.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Bill B
Krugman is an idiot and the debate is better off without him.
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
JT
The economy is not a thing…it can’t be planned, managed, allocated or reasoned with…it is nothing more than the accumulation of countless decisions we all make every day on our behalf…to think it can be controlled it is the height of hubris
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
RG
I don’t think it’s hubris for these “people” as much as it is pleasurable. It’s fun using the threat of death and imprisonment!
Tuesday ~ August 30th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Inspector Fu
The only time Keynesianism has worked has been in the myths Keynesian parents tell their Keynesian children. “Yes, sweetheart, war can cure a depression. Destruction can create economic booms, all is well. You can spend your way out of debt, there’s no reason to worry about anything ever again.”
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:13 am
TomA
Truly unfortunate that a fun, funny post degenerated. To Benny Lava: the reason a debate can be more informative than a “research paper” is that it gives “the opposition” the opportunity to call out errors. In a refereed publication there’s no opportunity (generally) other than to craft a separate opposing peer-reviewed paper. Few journals do the old “response” commentary anymore, and when they are done they’re generally only invited articles. If Murphy makes an emotive or fallacious argument then there’s the opportunity to call him on it! What could be better?
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 9:42 am
Benny Lava
Ah yes, because journalism = scientific papers. Of course! See, this is exactly why debates are a joke. Because you can make up whatever facts you want and your opponent doesn’t have time to research it and find out that you were lying.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 10:30 am
Bob Roddis
From my previous encounters with Benny Lava over at the Yglesias blog, I found that he knows so little about Austrian concepts (like nothing) that he is not prepared to discern whether someone is making up facts in support of the Austrian position or not. Somehow, I missed his substantive critique in these comments. Where was it?
Krugman has recently written that the Austrians have lately gained a “real – and really bad” influence upon monetary policy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/mmt-again/
Therefore, shouldn’t Austrian ideas be debated in public, especially since neither BL nor Krugman know the first thing about Austrian ideas? What exactly are they afraid of?
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 11:34 am
TomA
Benny, even in what passes for journalism these days (or perhaps even more so in journalism than in the academic literature) there is NO way to call a columnist or “reporter” on invalid or untrue arguments. Try writing a letter to Krugmann pointing out how absurd one of his columns is. What are the chances he will even acknowledge the challenge, much less admit in print that there are valid criticisms? Try writing a letter to the NYT or Washington Post challenging one of their editorial policies and see how far you get. Send a comment to any “journalist” in the broadcast or cable media pointing out their errors and see if it gets acknowledged. One of the reasons “the left” can’t survive the talk radio format is that they can’t withstand criticism. Same thing with most “journalists”; if you control access to the feedback mechanism you never have to argue with someone.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Benny Lava
TomA,
I don’t know why you keep bringing up journalists. The idea that journalists are somehow equivalent to peer reviewed scientific papers published in academia is laughably absurd, and yet you are still pursuing this line of reasoning. What are you trying to say exactly?
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:15 pm
TomA
Benny – Read your own comments. First you complain that a debate is inferior to “a solid, well-researched paper. You know, the was science does it”. I point out that a debate may be superior to a journal article (you know what a “refereed paper” is, I assume) since there is the oportunity for rebuttal in a debate. You then imply that you weren’t referring to scientific papers, but to journalism! So, in due course I point out that the opportunities for rebuttal are even more limited in popular “journalism” than in the academic literature. I’ve never implied that popular journalism was equivalent to academic research, except that they both share an absence of a working rebuttal mechaism. I’ve wasted too much time on you already. I doubt you’re as obtuse as you appear, so I’ll have to assume you’re just dishonest.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
TomA
And Benny, since I assume you’ll say you never “implied that you weren’t referring to scientific papers, but to journalism”, I’ll have to make clear the basis for the conclusion. I wrote on the weaknesses of the academic literature model. You then replied with “Ah yes, because journalism = scientific papers.”. Since I was clearly referring to the academic literature (which a reasonably intelligent person would equate with scientific papers), your comment can only be interpreted as a statement that you were referring to journalism rather than the academic press I was referring to. As I said, a waste of time.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 10:45 am
NateA
Plus the fact that there are over a hundred journals, publications, and books from the 1930s on, that have placed firm holes like swiss cheese in Keynesian theories. It’s just that the opposing view rarely reads them, including Keynes himself.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 1:47 am
TeeM
C”mon, be nice to Krugman…..since the recession I had to cancel my cable (no more Comedy Central) but our fave Nobel Laureate has stepped up quite nicely to fill the void!
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 2:51 am
Miguel A. Arévalo
From the other side of the debate (and the ocean), thank you for joining in!
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 2:53 am
Some Guy
Mr. Smith, you exhibit the conceit that can only be born of a lifetime wasted in the pursuit of misinformation. I hope for your sake that you learn something from Mr. Murphy, but the smugness you show here indicates that your condition is not mere ignorance, but willful and deliberate stupidity.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 5:51 am
Stuart Knight
Calm down dude, let’s keep this civil, not hateful. The same goes for everyone else. I just want to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides here. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be doing as truth seekers?
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 3:15 am
FT Alphaville » Further reading
[...] – The econ web cage match of death. [...]
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 7:53 am
Stan Kwiatkowski
Kudos for Karl Smith for accepting the challenge
looking forward! that’s why I like the MI stance on drug prohibition – you people need to have a smoke and chill 
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Danny Coleman
“The conservative fringe position is always a call for a debate. Why? Because a debate is a way to sway the audience with your rhetorical skills rather than a solid well researched paper. You know, the way science does it. Debates show the skills of the debater moreso than the strength of the argument. Which is why conservatives love them and call for debates on science like evolution and global warming rather than just good scientific papers. The idea that a scientist might have poor rhetorical skills is lost on them. Like they’ve never heard of Stephen Hawkings.”
Wow. Just wow. I simply could not pass this opportunity. This has to be one of the stupidest and uninformed things I have ever heard in my life.
According to you, the entire discipline of mathematics is just a bunch of savvy lawyer types bedazzling everyone with their “rhetorical skills”. Logic is nothing but a semantic trick and any results derived purely from deductive reasoning (like, I don’t know, that the sum of two odd numbers is always even) haven’t been proven at all. Thanks for informing me, I thought this whole time that two plus two really was four.
Allow me to share a couple more reasons why this is incredibly stupid. You have no idea “the way science does it”. A research paper is an argument explaining why the results of an experiment should be interpreted a certain way. No one cares that a computer displayed a certain number after someone pushed some buttons. What matters is what that number being displayed is supposed to mean, and guess what the scientists do to figure that out? They *argue* about it!! That thing called logic, you know.
A research paper is not you digging up a bunch of resources on the internet and citing them. That’s not original research. Unless you’ve done nothing but regurgitate what has already been claimed, there is no original research and your paper would be a waste of time. The original part would be, you know, an argument.
Finally, your entire post is a big huge self-contradiction, seeing that you are in the middle of arguing why arguments can’t prove anything. What else could a proof possibly be other than an argument. Empirical data doesn’t argue. People have to interpret the data and connect it to theoretical claims for it to be of any relevance.
If you had ever read Stephen Hawking, you would notice that his books are *arguments* about physics.
I tell you there is nothing more entertaining than people who describe themselves as the smartest people around, only to make complete idiots out of themselves. You are apparently so informed about how science proceeds, and yet you apparently have not even heard of logic. You are so confused about what logic is you muddle it with rhetoric and then literally demonstrate you lack of understanding the distinction between the two by employing a bunch of rhetorical tricks yourself.
You are literally embodying what you claim to be rejecting. None of what you said makes any sense, it just sounds informed and intelligent. In other words, you employed a bunch of sophistical rhetoric to try and mislead and confuse people.
The only reason you say this is because you don’t want to discuss anything. The self-described experts (or whoever you claim they are) have already solved all the problems in the world and you can either accept what they have said or not. You want to end arguments and shove research papers in peoples’ faces, and I can only guess this is because you have no capacity to use critical analysis yourself and rely instead on others doing it for you.
Also I look forward to this economics debate!
Finally, I love how you self-described open-minded left-wingers have such a narrow-minded and bigoted view of the world you think anyone who is not a left-winger is part of the “conservative fringe”. It’s like a white person saying everyone who’s not white looks the same to him.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Danny Coleman
“Unless you’ve done nothing but regurgitate what has already been claimed, there is no original research and your paper would be a waste of time. The original part would be, you know, an argument.”
Whoops that should have been “if you’ve done nothing…”
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Benny Lava
Danny Coleman,
I’m sorry that you have so much trouble with reading comprehension. I take it that you are very stupid, so I will try to unpackage your petty argument as much as possible so that, perhaps one day, you will see the error in your reasoning.
Your basic error is that you do not understand the difference between a debate and an argument. I never attacked arguments, but rather debates as the forum for settling arguments. I pointed out that scientific arguments are not settled by debates but rather by papers.
This error is made over and over again: “According to you, the entire discipline of mathematics is just a bunch of savvy lawyer types bedazzling everyone with their “rhetorical skills”.
You’ll notice that I specifically mentioned that scientists publish papers and yet either don’t understand basic English or are specifically misrepresenting my argument out of mendacity.
“Logic is nothing but a semantic trick”. Again wrong. All you needed to do was read what I actually said, which was “rather than a solid well researched paper”. THE WAY SCIENCE DOES IT.
Let me also demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills with this next quote “A research paper is an argument explaining why the results of an experiment should be interpreted a certain way”. You will note that I never NEVER criticized arguments or argumentation. I criticized DEBATES. This is more evidence of your great stupidity.
“A research paper is not you digging up a bunch of resources on the internet and citing them.” I never claimed it was. You are LYING. This is what is known as a strawman argument, the sort of thing you often see in DEBATES. Thanks for going out of your way to prove my point.
“Finally, your entire post is a big huge self-contradiction, seeing that you are in the middle of arguing why arguments can’t prove anything.” No I’m not. Learn to read. Stop lying and misrepresenting my point. Stop being so stupid.
“I love how you self-described open-minded left-wingers”
I never described myself in this fashion. This, again, demonstrates your inability to read or insistence on lying.
In summary I can say that Danny Coleman has deliberately misrepresented me and my position. He lied about my argument, misrepresented me and is generally a first class retard and is sub literate. Please remove yourself from the gene pool for the good of humanity.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Bob Roddis
He lied about my argument, misrepresented me and is generally a first class retard and is sub literate. Please remove yourself from the gene pool for the good of humanity.
I guess that satisfies my concerns about whether we were dealing with the authentic Benny Lava.
Friday ~ September 2nd, 2011 at 3:17 am
Danny Coleman
“I’m sorry that you have so much trouble with reading comprehension.”
Ah, so you extrapolate my supposed difficulty in comprehending you with a difficulty to comprehend in general.
“I take it that you are very stupid”
Which you gather from a single internet post. Again, your powers of extrapolation amaze me.
“Your basic error is that you do not understand the difference between a debate and an argument.”
Oh I see. Well guilty as charged, since you seemed to miss my whole point, which is that all arguments are debates. There is no difference. A single scientific paper is a one-sided debate, and a series of scientific papers is a full debate. Your description of “well-researched” is pointless because live debates can be “well-researched” too.
“I never attacked arguments, but rather debates as the forum for settling arguments”
There is no other forum. You are speaking of the distinction between live debates and written debates, and your reasons for criticizing live debates are absurd. As another poster pointed out, when a debate is live emotional, sophistical distractions can be called out as soon as they are made instead of being buried in a paper. I’m not saying papers are a bad way to debate, but this complaint applies more to papers than to live debates.
“I pointed out that scientific arguments are not settled by debates but rather by papers.”
I pointed out that you are wrong. There is an overarching debate between scientific papers, but the bulk of debate happens live among the scientists in preparation for writing the paper. If you think scientists don’t debate with each other directly then you’ve never worked in science.
“You’ll notice that I specifically mentioned that scientists publish papers and yet either don’t understand basic English or are specifically misrepresenting my argument out of mendacity.”
Haha so you obviously miss my point in bringing that up. Do I need to write a “well-researched paper” about why the sum of two odd integers is always even, or can I just present the argument in a live debate? And to bring up something I should have mentioned earlier, how in the world could the way in which an argument is presented affect its validity?
“You will note that I never NEVER criticized arguments or argumentation. I criticized DEBATES.”
My whole argument is that arguments and debates are the same thing.
“I never claimed it was. You are LYING”
I never said you claimed it was. Can I say something without it being an attempt to correct something you said?
“This is what is known as a strawman argument, the sort of thing you often see in DEBATES”
You are in the middle of a straw man thinking that whenever I say something it implies I think you denied what I am saying.
“Thanks for going out of your way to prove my point.”
Here is the best point to present how self-contradicting your entire argument *still* is.
You are not writing a “well-researched paper” on why well-researched papers are the way to go and live debates are not. You are, in fact, participating in a LIVE DEBATE in which you argue that live debates only establish the debating skills of the participants.
According to your own claim, nothing you said here is of any relevance except to your “debating skills” and so you cannot claim to have established anything.
Let me say that one more time: you are debating why debates don’t prove anything beyond “debating skills”.
“No I’m not. Learn to read. Stop lying and misrepresenting my point. Stop being so stupid.”
Haha indeed. Allow me to adjust my diction: your entire post is a big huge self-contradiction, seeing that you are in the middle of *debating* why *debates* can’t prove anything (except that you are a good debater).
“I never described myself in this fashion. This, again, demonstrates your inability to read or insistence on lying.”
No it demonstrates my ability to infer. I constantly hear the people I described talk about “conservative fringes”, and I never hear anyone else talk about it.
“In summary I can say that Danny Coleman has deliberately misrepresented me and my position”
Sure, if you assume your own claim that debates and arguments are different. Disagreeing with you is not misrepresenting you. You never mentioned that you think debates and arguments are different. No, it’s not misrepresenting you to disagree with your unstated assumptions.
Just one more time: Benny Lava is in the middle of a live debate about why live debates are stupid.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Keynsian Karl Smith to debate Austrian Robert Murphy: This is the econ web cage match of DEATH. « Economics Info
[...] Source [...]
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Peter S.
I think Mr. Karl Smith is genuinely funny and it will be an excellent debate!
Being an imperfect being I am more in favor of the Austrian side, but am nonetheless interested in a solid critique from a worthy opponent of this school. Let the best man win!
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 6:32 pm
abetadist
Not a huge fan of a timed debate. These formats favor the simpler position and the more eloquent speaker, rather than the position that is correct. For instance, it’s extremely favorable to make arguments that takes 10 seconds to lay out but 1 minute to rebut; creationist debaters have been very successful with such tactics. It’s too easy for one side to fail to answer a question to the best of their ability, then “lose”. I’ve done my share of formal debate in high school, and I’ve won plenty of rounds with the argument that nuclear war is a good thing.
The $20 entry fee just kills any chance of me watching this.
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Benny Lava
I agree 100%!
Wednesday ~ August 31st, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Benny Lava
Also this is what I meant about conservatives favoring this form of debate about evolution etc. Stephen Hawkings says intelligent design is bunk because according to the laws of gravity a creator is unnecessary. The universe created itself. But I bet I could beat him in a debate. After all the man has to select words from a screen using his tongue.
But hey just look at the comments from the trolls and boy howdy do they love them some debates!
Thursday ~ September 1st, 2011 at 12:20 am
Bob Roddis
I’ve been a libertarian and Austrian since 1973. In 38 years, I can never remember a SINGLE time when evolution was a topic of debate among libertarians other than in the context of parents having the right to send their kids to religious schools.
Austrians and libertarians are concerned about war and the police state as exemplified by the very Austrian-based anitwar.com:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08/21/antiwar-com-vs-the-fbi/
You don’t know what you are talking about or even whom you are dealing with.
Thursday ~ September 1st, 2011 at 12:41 am
Senexx
I would if I could but 1. unaffordable 2. not in US time zone so I’ll wait for the transcript if you guys do one. I hope you do.
Thursday ~ September 1st, 2011 at 2:34 am
Senexx
Just so I’m not misconstrued, I mean it is presently unaffordable for my current lot in life. I did not mean to suggest it was “unaffordable” as a whole.
Friday ~ September 2nd, 2011 at 3:38 am
Danny Coleman
From Benny Lava:
“Nothing says conservative like blaming our nation’s ills on lazy poor people like they do at mises.org”
This comes from the person who just accused me of lying and purposefully misrepresenting, and I figured I should point some things out:
mises.org is conservative? Well, that’s a plain lie. They spend just as much time distancing themselves from conservatives as they do from liberals. You are either arguing from utter ignorance or purposefully misrepresenting mises.org, the very two things you accused me of doing.
mises.org blames “our nation’s ills on lazy poor people”? Well, that’s a plain lie. Advocates of a free market, like those at mises.org, blame the people who steal money from productive people and hand it out to poor people. That is not blaming the poor people. No one at mises.org has ever said that lazy poor people are to blame for anything. The most they have said is that those robbing people who *aren’t* lazy and giving it to lazy people are to blame, and that only encourages laziness.
Beyond that, mises.org spends the bulk of its time, like its namesake Ludwig von Mises, blaming the ills of this nation on central banking and government spending (which can only be defended by invoking the broken window fallacy). They criticize welfare programs, minimum wage and other “help the poor” programs principally because they *hurt* the poor people they are supposed to help.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is called a straw man. Libertarians, especially those who study Austrian economics, understand better than anyone else how government regulations hit those on the bottom harder than anyone else, and that the poor suffer from runaway statism far more than anyone else. They have never criticized the poor for “being lazy”, they have only pointed out that subsidizing laziness will inhibit productivity, and this will hurt the poor more than anyone else. Some libertarians have pointed out that people who remain in the lower classes do so because they are relatively present-oriented, which may include laziness, but explaining why poor people remain poor is not “blaming” them for anything.
So for all Mr. Lava has to say about me misrepresenting him, I’m hard-pressed to imagine a bigger misrepresentation of mises.org.
Friday ~ September 2nd, 2011 at 4:57 am
Mg
Well I suppose by definition lazy people couldn’t be bothered to do anything that would cause any of the country’s ills.
Saturday ~ September 3rd, 2011 at 1:29 am
Ted Sonnier
It was a very good debate today. I really enjoyed it. Thank you to Karl Smith for participating in what I hope becomes an event that happens more often in the future.
Tuesday ~ September 13th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Austrian vs. Keynesian: This Friday’s Pay-Per-View Match-Up-Economic Issue | Coffee At Joe's
[...] our own Bob “Karaoke, Zombie, Boxer” Murphy is no shrinking violet. And judging from this hilarious post, neither is economist Karl Smith, Dr. Murphy’s opponent in this Friday’s online debate. [...]