Video: The ultimate Krugman takedown?

posted at 10:04 pm on July 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

Haven’t had a chance to watch the key segment all the way through yet, but if it comes recommended by both Zero Hedge and Ace, it must be quality late-night palate-cleanser material. The key critique starts at 35:00 in. Quote: “Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Krugman debate

Dante on July 11, 2012 at 12:01 AM

All we have done is kicked the can. Such smart people, cough cough, like Brayam cannot even understand the idea. They have screwed our future. Look at what was done with the car companies and in particular GM. Failure was rewarded while those that did the right things were screwed. They should have been able to enjoy the spoils of the free market but no they got screwed too. Those people that invested time , money, hours, and hard work had the rug pulled out from under them…
I smell something….oh yeh unions. So much for fairness.

The real costs are lost on these fools as well as the opportunity costs. We’re a mess.

CW on July 11, 2012 at 12:02 AM

As a educated economist, I will tell you straight that Krugman is a crackpot. And he may be mad.

pat on July 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM

And idiot what you have done is simply pushed the pain of the economic downturn onto MY KIDS. So seriously go eff yourself. Your act is getting tires. Phucks like built roads that did not need built. You paid hundreds of thousands for windmills that don’t even pay for themselves. You gave us C4C that cost us 20 plus grand per car. You’re dumber than phuck…so I don’t buy your crap. You effed us and hard.

CW on July 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM

The geniuses who decided that deficits don’t matter and gutted the Clinton fiscal policies behind our balanced budget might face some of the blame. It’s amazing that some people have so little grasp of economics that the trillion dollar structural deficit came as a surprise. Yes, when the economy nearly collapses and the average family loses 40% of its net worth, tax revenue will be massively depressed.

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I actually have more respect for Krugman as a former Enron adviser, than as a Nobel-laureate. Didn’t that dips#!t currently occupying the White House also get a Nobel?

WarEagle01 on July 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Bayam, need I remind you Bush’s last deficit was $168 billion and we were fighting two wars at the time. Obama has had over a trillion dollars in defecits in every year of his presidency and the democrat senate has yet to produce a budget.

And by the way, tax revenue has nothing to do with net worth so before you ride in here and start talking about grasping basic economics I would suggest you take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if it is really worth looking so foolish.

Ellis on July 11, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Krugman is too dumb to know when he’s been beaten. He just figures if he keeps talking in a mild, measured tone that he will somehow be crowned the victor. There is nothing he says that cannot be refuted in a few short sentences.

“Thinking themselves wise, they became as fools.”

Hannibal on July 11, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Delete Firefox and reload it along with your addons. Flora Duh had the same problem last week…

Hot Air seemed to have a silent redesign on Sunday. Headlines only show with Javascript, and this page auto-reloaded in the middle of the video (losing the place and buffered material). Hot Air should probably link to YouTube videos it embeds, at least until this is worked out.

calbear on July 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM

As a educated economist, I will tell you straight that Krugman is a crackpot. And he may be mad.

pat on July 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM

He is Mephistophelles

Schadenfreude on July 11, 2012 at 12:33 AM

As an uneducated commenter, screw Krugman. What business has he ever ran? Did he ever have to make payroll? Who listens to this payaso anyways? Evidently, the left does. Thank goodness for real people like Rick Santelli.

racquetballer on July 11, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Bayam, need I remind you Bush’s last deficit was $168 billion and we were fighting two wars at the time. Obama has had over a trillion dollars in defecits in every year of his presidency and the democrat senate has yet to produce a budget.

You should realize, for the same reasons that Greenspan and Paul O’Neill in Treasury indicated their opposition to those deep tax cuts, that debt-fueled growth binges hide deep structural problems behind short-term lifts in tax revenue. The outcome was disastrous in the ensuing near economic collapse, and no serious economist would say that the structural deficit was avoidable.

And by the way, tax revenue has nothing to do with net worth so before you ride in here and start talking about grasping basic economics I would suggest you take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if it is really worth looking so foolish.

Sorry to hear that you don’t understand the clear correlation in a balance sheet recession

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM

heh, I’ll sleep better hearing that Krugman needed worry about money…

socalcon on July 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Lemme keep it simple. The best thing the Fed can do is get the hell out of the way and uphold the Constitution. Maybe it’s too simple. You give Washington money, they’re gonna find some way to spend it. Hell, they’re spending money they don’t even have. That’s Washingtonian economics–tax and spend more than you take in.

racquetballer on July 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Heh. @ 41 mins “Krugman’s economic theories = homeopathic remedies of the worst kind…what kind of science is that?

AH_C on July 11, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Krugman has failed to realize that no economic plan can be implemented that will fix an unsustainable debt problem.

Of course, Krugman also LIED about what Obama has done. In fact, Krugman pretended that the Obama stimulus did NOT expand the baseline budget. Which was a fact described on day one by every Republican in both the house and the senate as well as Obama who stated that he would be running trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Krugman is an ignoramous that should be mocked every day until he finally just goes away. I wonder if Carter can get him some usefull work using a hammer for habitat for humanity?

Freddy on July 11, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Bayam, need I remind you Bush’s last deficit was $168 billion and we were fighting two wars at the time. Obama has had over a trillion dollars in defecits in every year of his presidency and the democrat senate has yet to produce a budget.

Ellis on July 11, 2012 at 12:26 AM

You have a great point about the Democrat controlled Senate (and I don’t use controlled lightly, here) passing a budget. In fact, while Krugman moans about infrastructure programs being cut, it’s not so much a matter of Republicans and Democrats joining hands and refusing to spend money, but more Democrats simply refusing to pass a budget of any sort.

Now, as for the Bush and his wars talking point, I’ve never really gotten this. It seems like the argument is that being fiscally responsible as long as there’s a war. Let’s not forget that Paul Krugman now believes that what we need is a huge war to get us out of this war.

MeatHeadinCA on July 11, 2012 at 1:30 AM

He sounds a lot like Thomas Sowell.

jhffmn on July 11, 2012 at 1:38 AM

He sounds a lot like Thomas Sowell.

jhffmn on July 11, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Who?

Bmore on July 11, 2012 at 1:39 AM

For what my opinion is worth. Krugman is a strange little man. His eyes tell the whole story. Funny though!

Bmore on July 11, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Hot Air seemed to have a silent redesign on Sunday. Headlines only show with Javascript, and this page auto-reloaded in the middle of the video (losing the place and buffered material). Hot Air should probably link to YouTube videos it embeds, at least until this is worked out.

calbear on July 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM

About the auto-reload, go to ‘Tools > options > advanced’ and make sure that “warn me when websites try to reload or redirect me” is checked.

It’s a bit of a nuclear flyswatter but very useful IMO.

Fizzmaister on July 11, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Umm, I don’t speak the language. What?

WitchDoctor on July 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Inflationary policy caused the problems, so Krugman describes more inflationary policy — this is liberal logic at its finest. They want to take it at both ends, first in taxes and second by inflation which reduces the value of the money they, out of their largess have decided to let us keep.

Please get government and government unions out of our pockets.

ClanDerson on July 11, 2012 at 2:08 AM

eminent depression in 2008.
bayam on July 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM
And idiot what you have done is simply pushed the pain of the economic downturn onto MY KIDS. So seriously go eff yourself. Your act is getting tires. Phucks like built roads that did not need built. You paid hundreds of thousands for windmills that don’t even pay for themselves. You gave us C4C that cost us 20 plus grand per car. You’re dumber than phuck…so I don’t buy your crap. You effed us and hard.
CW on July 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM

What he said, bayam.

Cleombrotus on July 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM

eminent depression in 2008.
bayam on July 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM
And idiot what you have done is simply pushed the pain of the economic downturn onto MY KIDS. So seriously go eff yourself. Your act is getting tires. Phucks like built roads that did not need built. You paid hundreds of thousands for windmills that don’t even pay for themselves. You gave us C4C that cost us 20 plus grand per car. You’re dumber than phuck…so I don’t buy your crap. You effed us and hard.
CW on July 10, 2012 at 11:39 PM

What he said, bayam.

(iPhone seems to have acquired a mind of its own)

Cleombrotus on July 11, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Don’t be fooled by Krugmans phoney concern over the economy. He’s hoping just as hard as the commie in chief that America crashes and burns.

If it does, it’ll be people like him that will adorn the top of the pyre, but not before they suffer, and suffer long.

Wolfmoon on July 11, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I don’t know how many watched the whole thing but for those who didn’t be sure to hit around the 1:45 mark. The last question from the audience comes from a woman asking Krugman if he feels his prescription of inflation might qualify as theft. Krugman launches into a typical lib response about caring more for the hopelessly unemployed than taking an unknown hit to your bond holdings. Schulz lays Krugman out on that one.

msmveritas on July 11, 2012 at 3:33 AM

Nah, Krugman has it correct.

Pay attention all you rubes.

I’m never short on typing…

Imbeciles live in academia.

Pfft.

mickytx on July 11, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Seven Percent Solution on July 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM

However, 7%, you left out the more formal ‘Hayek’ as the obvious opposing view.
Nicely said.

Steamroll’em. Fail abounds with these ‘folks’.
You are my folks, at least that’s how I think of likemindedness.
Yes, I know that’s an amalgam.

Ever considered how a landslide of ®evolution will be seen as a ‘close’ and ‘uncertain’ outcome?

Is there a lookup for the variations? Boss emeritus (sorry, just chiming in).
Lurch your groin — Gird your loins

Watch. Persuade with mere facts.

Nothing of 6 Nov 2012 is a forgone. Absolutely.

In a good retrospect, I’ll remember this.
‘Give him a chance’. Still haven’t heard back from the person, that
pooh-poohed me.

More work to do.

mickytx on July 11, 2012 at 4:28 AM

The geniuses who decided that deficits don’t matter and gutted the Clinton fiscal policies behind our balanced budget might face some of the blame. It’s amazing that some people have so little grasp of economics that the trillion dollar structural deficit came as a surprise. Yes, when the economy nearly collapses and the average family loses 40% of its net worth, tax revenue will be massively depressed.

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Clinton NEVER balanced the budget and created this entire financial mess by signing off on the repeal of the Glass Steagle act AND the billion dollar lawsuit brought by the then NYS AG against Accubank about loans to underprivileged.

Clinton did manage to pillage Social Security, however. Thanks for reinforcing what we all know about you.

You are clueless.

DevilsPrinciple on July 11, 2012 at 5:07 AM

Here’s the national debt from the Treasury at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:http://www.treasurydirect.gov

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt (trillions)Deficit(billions)
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

Case closed,Sparky.

DevilsPrinciple on July 11, 2012 at 5:23 AM

This is the best thing on TV, folks!

Freaking Economics in One Lesson ….live!!

Krugman comes across like some whiney toad!

Did I say “like,” just now?

Thank you HA for the long breath of non-NPR fresh air!

Sherman1864 on July 11, 2012 at 5:34 AM

You should realize, for the same reasons that Greenspan and Paul O’Neill in Treasury indicated their opposition to those deep tax cuts, that debt-fueled growth binges hide deep structural problems behind short-term lifts in tax revenue. The outcome was disastrous in the ensuing near economic collapse, and no serious economist would say that the structural deficit was avoidable.

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM

You claim that the “Bush tax cuts” were “deep” yet have also repeatedly claimed that if expired they won’t affect the economy negatively. So which is it – are these tax cuts deep or not?

You harp on the “Clinton” (+ Republican House) surpluses and the Clinton tax rate but you completely ignore the level of spending during the Clinton years. A Clinton budget was slightly larger than an Obama deficit. You keep claiming that Bush’s tax cuts somehow baked a depression and massive deficits into the cake but you haven’t been able to prove it – you just keep repeating it. If the Bush tax cuts created a depression then explain that (don’t just repeat it). You ignore the trillion dollar Obama stimulus that got jammed into the budget baseline and the Democrat Senate that has refused to offer a budget keeping spending at their astronomical levels (24% of GDP). Did the Bush tax cuts without a proportional cut in spending cause greater deficits? Yes they did but it’s asinine to claim that the biggest variable in that equation is the tax cut and not the spending. Spending has skyrocketed but you repeatedly ignore this part of the equation.

gwelf on July 11, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Professor Schwartz merely commented on people who win Nobel prizes suddenly deciding to espouse themselves as experts outside of the area of expertise for which the Nobel Prize was awarded.

PolAgnostic on July 10, 2012 at 10:16 PM

That was a nice introduction.

He might as well have said, “Well, just bless his little heart…”

LoganSix on July 11, 2012 at 7:22 AM

True, massive stimulus spending in a mild recession or weak recovery didn’t work out too well in the 2002 – 2003 timeframe. But I’m not so sure that Keynes would have approved of that course of action, under those conditions. After all, Keynes called for establishing a budget surplus when times were good, and only allowing deficits when needed in true recessionary or depressionary conditions.

bayam on July 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Did you watch the video?

The economist who gave Krugman the beatdown covered some of this: the notion that governments are going to run surpluses and save up for a rainy day is ridiculous – they just ratchet up spending.

Keynes is like Marx – his devotees point out where they think it’s worked but when pushed on it they always fall back to the position that it’s never really been tried ignoring that the theory includes aspects that completely ignore human nature and history.

gwelf on July 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Keynes, himself, recommended only a short ans small period of deficit spending to ‘prime the pump’ and that should not be a structural part of government spending. The idea was to get things restarted, STOP THE DEFICIT SPENDING, and then pay the debt completely down during better economic times.

If the ‘Keynesians’ would just do as Keynes said they should then we wouldn’t have this asinine idea that federal programs ‘help’ people and that the role of the government is limited. Instead structurally unsound programs get put in place as ‘entitlements’ that have no long term structural basis to them, debt piles up, the currency gets debased, and our children are given a bill that NO PEOPLE CAN EVER PAY OFF. Or even pay DOWN come to that, since the government ratchet-backers never want to let government get smaller.

The Progressives are a great ill to the Nation in backing ‘entitlements’. Those in the Elite Class who seek power and see that keeping an expansive government in place as the way to GET that power are just as bad if not worse. All of them try to put a thin layer of Keynes on their evil intentions… and do not put down the name of Marx, which is the source of their desire and the one who put the object of the outcomes in place. They will declaim otherwise, every day and every night, but by their actions they are known.

ajacksonian on July 11, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Tee hee, Krugman bemoans austerity programs… Since when is reducing the speed of spending growth ‘austere’?

socalcon on July 11, 2012 at 7:43 AM

This was a ‘take down’ as much as glitter bombing Santorum was a ‘take down’.
Nothing more than noted and clumsy oppostion, with no substance.
Krugman’s response was equally shallow, but deserved in kind.
You guys should really try giving up the bogey man stuff. Most of you think Krugman is wrong about everything for no reason other than you’ve been told to. There was a time conservatism stood in contrast to liberalism in that it was less dogmatic and not as inclined to devolve into scripted theater.
(Watch some Buckley/Chomskey debates on Youtube.)
No case for that here.

verbaluce on July 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM

…it’s never really been tried ignoring that the theory includes aspects that completely ignore human nature and history.

That’s how all the ‘best’ theories work, else half the Nobel Prizes would ne’er be awarded.

socalcon on July 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM

verbaluce on July 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Andrea Mitchell owned Sununu. You could tell by her demeanor and his nervous and embarrassed laughter.

tom daschle concerned on July 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM

now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess

I wouldn’t mind sacrificing a principal or two – Lord knows the public school system can afford to lighten its load – but I don’t think that’s what was in contemplation here.

/nitpick

mrsknightley on July 11, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Krugman’s response was equally shallow..

Heh, ya think? Although his, ‘I wrote a paper on that twenty years ago’ was particularly vapid. His debate style is analogous to how a girl throws a baseball, weak and ineffective.

socalcon on July 11, 2012 at 7:56 AM

That’s how all the ‘best’ theories work, else half the Nobel Prizes would ne’er be awarded.

socalcon on July 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM

That is the Theory and Practice Conundrum:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice there is.

ajacksonian on July 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM

“Nature just gave us a great experiment”

1)No, nature had nothing to do with it. Leftist politicians and economist/propagandists put the world economy in the situation it is in now. Had nothing to do with nature.

2)Keynes was a communist. Card carrying member although he did not wave that card around because it was his vocation/mission to take us in baby steps to the ultimate goal without us knowing. He cloaked his real agenda in proper english respectability and “intellectualism” (which, unfortunately, smart conservatives get seduced by often). Keynesian economics creates the crisis that our current regime dreams of, that will result in the need for the state to take full control of our economy.

Unfortunately the left has all but won the battle of the language and we are not able to call the kettle black with being demonized and called crazy. Keynes was a communist, krugman is a communist, the progressives in congress, those who are actually smart enough to formulate or grasp thier own economic philosophy, are communists. It is scarey that more Americans believe in the existance of UFOs and ghosts then in the existance of active, aggressive communists.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Most of you think Krugman is wrong about everything for no reason other than you’ve been told to. There was a time conservatism stood in contrast to liberalism in that it was less dogmatic and not as inclined to devolve into scripted theater.
(Watch some Buckley/Chomskey debates on Youtube.)
No case for that here.

verbaluce on July 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM

that’s too funny. As if liberals have done anything but scream and call names for the last 30 years. Keynesian has been thoroughly discredited multiple times, almost every liberal idea has been discredited in real world practice, yet you have the brass to claim that it’s conservatism that is theater?

You truly are delusional. Liberalism has not dealt in facts, logic or even honesty in at least 20 years, probably much longer. I can’t remember the last honest liberal I encountered who could actually argue something without a) lying, b) changing the subject, c) ad hominem, and d) changing their argument from a position they held 20 minutes ago.

If liberal ideas worked, Greece, Spain, France, California, and many other states and nations would be in wonderful financial and social condition. They are not. Liberalism drags societies down, both in terms of culture and fiscally. It is sad that you cling to such idiotic beliefs.

Monkeytoe on July 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

If liberal ideas worked, Greece, Spain, France, California, and many other states and nations would be in wonderful financial and social condition. They are not. Liberalism drags societies down, both in terms of culture and fiscally. It is sad that you cling to such idiotic beliefs.

Monkeytoe on July 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Oh come on now. We all know that it’s those do-nothing Republicans right-wingers in California holding California back! /sarc

gwelf on July 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Monkey – you forgot the USSR and the eastern block – that didn’t work out so well either. In fact all progressivism (which is what modern day US liberals are) does is bankrupt people and occassionally kill millions of them as well.

Zomcon JEM on July 11, 2012 at 8:50 AM

It’s the job of the Leftist/Commies to introduce lies for every working policy that is truth. Supply side economics work just like capitalism works — Keynesianism and socialism don’t work, there is nothing to debate.

Axion on July 11, 2012 at 9:27 AM

So, even when we include the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which disproportionately hit lower-income workers, the U.S. tax code is already sharply progressive. What liberal/progressivists have yet to tell us is exactly how much more progressive they think it should be.

Well, sort of. We do have an idea of what they think it should be, at least for starters, in the form of Obama’s raise-taxes-on-the-rich proposal. Part of his usual argument for raising taxes on the rich is that we’ve been going down the wrong path for the past three decades — which is shorthand for: since Ronald Reagan was elected and sharply lowered marginal income-tax rates.

Conveniently, the CBO’s report includes data going all the way back to 1979. So, how did things change over the course of 30 years?

One of the ways the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (or OECD, the Paris-based club of industrialized nations) measures tax-code progressivity is by calculating the ratio of the tax burden to income earned for each income group. For example, if one quintile earns 20% of the income and pays 10% of the taxes, its ratio would be 10/20, or 0.50. The higher the ratios for the upper-income groups, and the lower the ratios for the lower-income groups, the more progressive the tax code. By this measure, the OECD has determined the U.S. has the most progressive tax code in the industrialized world.

J_Crater on July 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The outcome was disastrous in the ensuing near economic collapse, and no serious economist would say that the structural deficit was avoidable.

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM

I recall you saying at some point that bubbles happen and you don’t blame Bush for the housing collapse. Is there something I’m missing?

Yes, when the economy nearly collapses and the average family loses 40% of its net worth, tax revenue will be massively depressed.

bayam on July 11, 2012 at 12:14 AM

In Obama’s first budget in 2009, not one annual deficit in the 10 year window would be lower than even the highest annual deficit while Bush and the Republicans were in power. Even after it was assumed the stimulus would have save us, the wars would be finished, prosperity would be back, and the Bush tax rates (at least the top marginal rates) would expire, we would still have deficits larger than any during the Bush-Republican years. Of course, the CBO gave a more realistic prediction of future deficits and even they were off by about $500 billion for 2012. So why exactly does Obama deserve a pass for this? Isn’t it his job to make sure we avoid runaway debt?

NukeRidingCowboy on July 11, 2012 at 9:38 AM

As a educated economist, I will tell you straight that Krugman is a crackpot. And he may be mad.

pat on July 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM

As a layman with no formal training or education in economics, I can tell you the same thing.

UltimateBob on July 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

With regards to the Keynes quip about in the long run we’re all dead, it always stuck me, if you bet on being dead tomorrow, regardless of what actually happens, you still lose.

Voyager on July 11, 2012 at 10:07 AM

ad hominem
Monkeytoe on July 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

The irony…

verbaluce on July 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM

bayam on July 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I’m not fringe right, you are. I’m a moderate Gary Johnson supporter.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I’m very stupid compared to you.

bayam on July 25, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I actually have more respect for Krugman as a former Enron adviser, than as a Nobel-laureate. Didn’t that dips#!t currently occupying the White House also get a Nobel?

WarEagle01 on July 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

What Krugman “won” technically is not a Nobel Prize; it’s a “Memorial Award in Economics” that the Nobel folks administer. It was created in the late 1960s, or almost a hundred years after the real Nobel Prizes were endowed.

Del Dolemonte on July 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Andrea Mitchell owned Sununu. You could tell by her demeanor and his nervous and embarrassed laughter.

tom daschle concerned on July 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM

You forgot your sarc tag.

Del Dolemonte on July 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

He sounds a lot like Thomas Sowell.

jhffmn on July 11, 2012 at 1:38 AM

This clip is an elegant and subtle takedown by Chavez. Chavez in this speech spends the bulk of his time praising Krugman as Nobel Prize winner and extremely talented writer. Chavez says he spent a great deal of time reading Krugman’s interesting book which he asserts is remarkably well written. If you listen casually to Chavez’s comments, you might conclude he is Krugman’s biggest fan and disciple.

You have to be paying close attention to notice that tucked inside of all this fulsome praise is a comment from Chavez that he believes Krugman’s main problem is that he’s writing outside of his area of expertise. This is exactly Thomas Sowell’s criticism of liberal intellectuals (like Chomsky, according to Sowell) in his recent book Intellectuals and Society. It’s a devastating criticism, but stated so quietly almost as an aside that most listeners will miss it.

Keynes didn’t miss it, though. He jumps up after Chavez’s speech and goes into paroxysms of anger while Chavez pretends all innocence.

Chavez presents his general argument in plain, persuasive English. One part of his argument is that three nations have attempted Keynesianism: Japan, the U.S., and Spain. They are now all basket cases. He could have mentioned Estonia as a counter example, as well. That would have been funny.

If conservatives don’t start educating themselves more about free market economics, we’ll lose the national debate with weasels like Krugman before we even begin. Putting Chavez’s comments onto conservative blogs is a start in the right direction. Thank you Allah, Ace and Zerohedge.

Burke on July 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM

*Principles, not principals.

bomble on July 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I wouldn’t mind sacrificing a principal or two – Lord knows the public school system can afford to lighten its load – but I don’t think that’s what was in contemplation here.

/nitpick

mrsknightley on July 11, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Like I said.

mrsknightley on July 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

the key portion of the presentation and the response by Krugman, is here:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/paul-krugman-gets-rude-awakening-austrian-professor-economics-pedro-schwartz

PapaG on July 11, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I especially love the beginning of Krugman’s response where he says that he dislikes how people argue that people on his side don’t have the credentials to debate intelectually. Talk about pure projection. Every conversation I’ve ever had about Krugman and his economic views with a liberal friend basically devolves into how I’m wrong because Krugman has a Nobel prize, and that’s the end of it.

Scrappy on July 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So true, Scrappy. That’s what my friends say about Krugman as well. Of course, when Krugman is pushing statistics and graphs at you a mile a minute, what else is there to say? Nobody understands his arcane arguments, and they do make a certain kind of sense, so there’s huge reliance on trusting him because of his Nobel Prize. That’s why Chavez’s takedown of Krugman (“discussing matters outside his real expertise”), along with common sense (“every country that tries Keynesianism fails dismally”) are the most persuasive and relevant arguments to be made. Attacking him point by point will have no real effect.

Burke on July 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

You forgot your sarc tag.

Del Dolemonte on July 11, 2012 at 10:47 AM

It was intentionally left off. I was ridiculing verbulace for his ridiculous spin in Herr Krugman’s favor.

tom daschle concerned on July 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Bush also fell for Keynsian thinking in that he ran deep defecits and believed in “prime pumping” the economy.

Faramir on July 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Bush also fell for Keynsian thinking in that he ran deep defecits and believed in “prime pumping” the economy.

Faramir on July 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Good thing he isn’t on the ballot this year.

tom daschle concerned on July 11, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2