An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Charles Hayden has informed me that both parties have accepted the invitation to debate, since it appears that Paul Krugman has decided not to accept Robert Murphy's challenge.
Details to be announced when the venue is settled. Stay tuned. It's on.
Will be interesting. Warren is on the record as saying he see's no conflict between MMT and Austrian economics. What I think he meant by that is that Austrian economics is a totally different monetary system ( non-fiat) with different assumptions etc. Who is Robert Murphy anyway?
Robert Murphy is just going to parrot the same talking points that Peter Schiff has been using for years. He wants to cut federal spending by a trillion dollars the first year. Warren is wasting his time debating this guy.
The reason I proposed this debate to Warren, and he green lit my efforts to contact Murphy, was due to the victory parade I saw going on in the Austrian camp over Krugman's refusal to debate Murphy. Given the spread of Austrian economics on American college campuses, the level of "rampant, virulent ignorance"(Mike Norman quote) that goes unchallenged, and the degree of 'bubble talk' in America today, I believe this debate will provide an opportunity to promote more debate over deficit hawk and dove assumptions. While Murphy is a self-described "Anarcho-Capitalist," and a fringe character, he does manage a more civil and polite tone than the vulgar Austrian supporters that troll the internet. Warren is a humble guy and sets the bar for polite public discourse, and while I think it may be beneath his stature to debate someone like this, the fact of the matter is that these people are standing in the way of progress, and some level of engagement is necessary to expose their own to the fallacies that dominate their views. If ignoring them worked, they wouldn't have got this far in the spread of their dangerous ideas.
While I think that debating the non-economist Warren Mosler is beneath the intellectual level and time of Dr. Murphy, I am nevertheless convinced that due to most MMTers being rather rude, obnoxious pundits who don't understand economics, it is probably a good idea to expose the fallacies and errors of one of MMT's intellectual figureheads. They've been refuted countless times already, but with this platform, the average person who otherwise would be misled by the dangerous and destructive MMT claims, will see just how flawed it is.
Did you see how Lord Keynes has completely destroyed the Austrians by PROVING with facts and arguments that “neoclassical economics” suffers from the dimwitted delusion that macroeconomic processes must just be explained in terms of microeconomics, and indeed that microeconomics is the proper foundation for all macroeconomic phenomena. That’s like saying that people are responsible for all “macroeconomic” phenomena. How dumb is that?
13 comments:
Fantastic!
should be fun.
Will be interesting. Warren is on the record as saying he see's no conflict between MMT and Austrian economics. What I think he meant by that is that Austrian economics is a totally different monetary system ( non-fiat) with different assumptions etc. Who is Robert Murphy anyway?
Robert Murphy is just going to parrot the same talking points that Peter Schiff has been using for years. He wants to cut federal spending by a trillion dollars the first year. Warren is wasting his time debating this guy.
The reason I proposed this debate to Warren, and he green lit my efforts to contact Murphy, was due to the victory parade I saw going on in the Austrian camp over Krugman's refusal to debate Murphy. Given the spread of Austrian economics on American college campuses, the level of "rampant, virulent ignorance"(Mike Norman quote) that goes unchallenged, and the degree of 'bubble talk' in America today, I believe this debate will provide an opportunity to promote more debate over deficit hawk and dove assumptions. While Murphy is a self-described "Anarcho-Capitalist," and a fringe character, he does manage a more civil and polite tone than the vulgar Austrian supporters that troll the internet. Warren is a humble guy and sets the bar for polite public discourse, and while I think it may be beneath his stature to debate someone like this, the fact of the matter is that these people are standing in the way of progress, and some level of engagement is necessary to expose their own to the fallacies that dominate their views. If ignoring them worked, they wouldn't have got this far in the spread of their dangerous ideas.
Robert P Murphy criticizes Mosler's 7DIF:
http://radiofreemarket.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/andy-katherman-and-robert-murphy.mp3
Mosler and Murphy should have their debate at the Mises Institute.
Bob Murphy wrote this:
http://mises.org/daily/5260/The-UpsideDown-World-of-MMT
Sounds like an interesting debate.
Some advice for Warren Mosler:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/warren-mosler-to-debate-robert-murphy.html
Maybe Krugman saw this video and couldn't take Murphy seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2xXOQY-NY
I saw that video after I proposed the debate to Murphy. I might not have had I saw that video beforehand.
While I think that debating the non-economist Warren Mosler is beneath the intellectual level and time of Dr. Murphy, I am nevertheless convinced that due to most MMTers being rather rude, obnoxious pundits who don't understand economics, it is probably a good idea to expose the fallacies and errors of one of MMT's intellectual figureheads. They've been refuted countless times already, but with this platform, the average person who otherwise would be misled by the dangerous and destructive MMT claims, will see just how flawed it is.
Looking forward to it.
Hey Pete:
Did you see how Lord Keynes has completely destroyed the Austrians by PROVING with facts and arguments that “neoclassical economics” suffers from the dimwitted delusion that macroeconomic processes must just be explained in terms of microeconomics, and indeed that microeconomics is the proper foundation for all macroeconomic phenomena. That’s like saying that people are responsible for all “macroeconomic” phenomena. How dumb is that?
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/04/greedy-reductionism-science-and.html
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/04/king-on-post-keynesian-approaches-to.html
Actually, there are no facts. And no arguments. I know. Picky picky picky.
Post a Comment