Ron (Austrian) Paul vs Paul (Keynesian) Krugman

04/30/2012
Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul and Economist Paul Krugman talk about inflation, monetary policy and the role of the Federal Reserve on Bloomberg's Street Smart.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian...
vs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesia...
ronpaul2012.com/
LeakSource.wordpress.com

[@MisterCharlton]

lol Krugman isn't an "economic liberal". He's a Keynesian.

[@RR-ij6mu]

Americans have a pretty weird notion of what is a liberal

[@leonardoc6504]

The term liberal was prostituted several times. I think that now liberals are in the U.S. are what in the rest of the world is called social progressives. But the real classical liberals to not bring more confusion to the matter, now they simply call themselves Libertarians.

[@MrBeen992]

yeah, but in America is all "newspeak", liberal is not what everywhereelse it is. Conservatism neither.

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

same SHIT

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@RR-ij6mu that's because most Liberals left classic liberalism longtime ago. In other countries there are liberals who actually follow liberalism

[@samknobeloch503]

Ron Paul: Competing currencies, take taxes off of gold an silver, allow people to use it as money, etc. Krugman: "I don't understand what that's about"

[@rishishard4742]

That's an awful idea if you want an expanding economy. The problem with basing currency off of gold is that it limits economic expansion to the point where it ALSO BECOME DILUTED. The role of money isn't to be hoarded but to be exchanged, thus it should lose some value so people have an incentive to exchange money for products

[@stevennielsen6962]

@@rishishard4742therefore the state has the right to steal from people not only by taxing but also by debasing?

[@rishishard4742]

@stevennielsen6962 it's not stealing. If you want any sort of state that makes capitalism flourish you need a state that can make some internal improvements, build some goddamn infrastructure. Private capital is not going to do that as there is no profit in doing so, and having a lack of infrastructure means goods cannot circulate properly. Thus workers will see that their being dominated by their bosses IF there aren't any goods to consume as that is capitalisms value add to the bottom. So ultimately, if you want a stable capitalist system build some infrastructure and expand the money supply

[@davidm1926]

@@stevennielsen6962 "the state has the right to steal from people [...] by debasing?" Wouldn't the remedy for a goldbug be to convert income to gold, and liquidate as needed to spend money? You have the right to do that. And it's not stealing. I think it's a legitimate policy question how much the central bank should devalue the money you hold, but you don't have a right to a fixed value to anything that you own. We own property, not value.

[@ericmuma3247]

​@@rishishard4742 what a total load of nonsense.

[@vcalv9354]

Listening to paul krugman trying to explain what money is was excruciating.

[@jordancotter5885]

He admitted that he doesn't even know or "not quite sure" 2:30

[@connoisseurofcookies2047]

'What is money?' is the Austrian version of 'what is a woman?' lol. It stuffs the Keynesians every time.

[@TheWorldBelow360]

Ryt? It’s actually unbelievable who “ascends” into such prestigious positions! Like it actually sorta matters. It’s amazing the lack of insight despite being stuck in his own ass end.

[@robdenini6972]

"If you don't use the dollar you'll go to jail!" "Well you can do barter with all kinds of stuff" really dude...?

[@Rebbyrag]

What's funny is Ron Paul called him out on that NOT being legal. If I trade you 1000 oranges for 1000 apples (too lazy to lookup USD valuations for a YT comment), that is a TAXABLE EVENT, and if you don't pay taxes on your barter, you ARE going to jail. So in that sense, NO barter is NOT legal. That's what Ron Paul was trying to say. Ron was saying we should allow competition, allow barter, which would let people choose to use USD or (implied, gold, maybe bitcoin, maybe apples), without having to have the tax burden on barters. This will never be supported by big government because this means less tax revenue, bigger deficits, which makes the dollar go down in value even more in the long run (until people don't use it at all). And this is even ignoring the idea of the Fed secretly printing unaccounted dollars and handing them to their friends/ family/ shareholders. Stock valuations (in most currencies with a central bank) honestly mostly only increase because their respective money supplies go up. Stock/ Real Estate valuation SHOULD be accounted for in inflation numbers as well as goods and services.

[@josephthomas9197]

"Going into debt hasn't hurt us yet, so why stop?"

[@actfree6897]

joseph thomas Yes, and as Krugman demonstrated, countries like the U.K. and Japan have had their GDP to debt ratio far worse than ours, and have still functioned just fine.

[@hyperupcall]

Japan's economy is stagnating

[@josemaria809]

Act Free yeah you haven't been to the U.K have you?

[@actfree6897]

I don't need to physically be in a country to see its economic condition.

[@stasyszy]

Losing all your assets, is why you stop. Good luck to the "service" country

[@piyushbanerjee2808]

Even the federal reserve accepted Friedman's theory that The Great Depression was its fault.lol

[@thomasrosati5939]

Yeah, imagine if Friedman debated Krugman. Krugman would have gotten destroyed

[@thomasrosati5939]

@@averageblonde5496 True tho

[@tommyrosati9326]

AverageBlonde I would prefer Hayek though

[@tommyrosati9326]

@@averageblonde5496 'Yes, austrian economics gets a lot of critique from strawmans, so watch out. People call Austrians, empirical evidence haters. Even though a lot of empirical evidence supports austrian theory. Once you learn it, search up, empirical evidence austrian theory. I personally found 12 studies, and 11 of them supported the Austrian hypothesis. Btw, if you're tryna learn econ, I would reccomend marginal revolution university. Learn micro first, this is if you don't know it already.

[@tommyrosati9326]

@@averageblonde5496 Here is the source, it seems like a lot, but it's not that hard, you probably don't even need to take notes. mru.org/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/introduction-microeconomics

[@bernardmailman8018]

Paul Krugman. I don't like the internet. I prefer the fax machine.

[@necroyoli08]

... mainly because only monster size state loving friends have my fax number and we can have a one side debate party for life.

[@KibyNykraft]

Basic income is not keynesian and big government, but rather austrian school and stable money

[@KibyNykraft]

Both of this guys have no clue

[@necroyoli08]

@@KibyNykraft Stable money isn't even a thing, but if by that you mean stable money supply, as in the gold standard, it has nothing to do with basic income. And yes, it is the keynesian, not the austrian school which believes in big government. As far as Ron Paul being an austrian economist we can agree he isn't, but he has a way better sense of economic behavior than what Krugman speaks outloud.

[@JanSanono]

bernardmailman strawman fallacy

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

9:00 OMG, don't take any financial advice from this guy. If they find out the IRS will go after you if you avoid paying taxes in any way, including barter.

[@SwipeSide19]

Does he not realize it's illegal to use gold or anything else as currency?

[@austinbyrd4164]

Exactly. You can't settle debts or form any monetary based contractual agreements under gold. That combined with tax laws, stating you must pay dollars to the US if you barter in anything else, & of course they hold a monopoly.

[@internalrefraction]

"The world still trusts our dollar" that is the backbone to the confidence Krugman has for unlimited deficits

[@dogperson432]

He's right

[@duffdingelmeyer7101]

It's true though. It's the global reserve

[@corbielentertainment]

Not for much longer. I bet you .1 ounces of gold that the end of the USD as the reserve currency will come in the next 25 years.

[@kevina5337]

Damn this is actually pretty good... I don't think Krugman was expecting this level of debate from an almost 80-yo guy who doesn't even have a formal econ degree... he definitely underestimated him

[@Santiagola24]

Please Ron Paul come to Argentina. We are sick of keynesianism.

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

amen hermano

[@ericmuma3247]

Things are looking up there now.

[@TayDays1128]

You got your wish. Looks like Austrian economics isnt working over there.

[@Pan_Z]

This is what politicians should be like in every democracy. Even if you don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, he's intelligent, well read, passionate, and able to communicate these beliefs to a wide audience.

[@brunopbch]

"Inflation is theft. You're stealing value from people who save money..." This conversation was over right there. Dr. Paul, you legend!

[@patrickmccarthy5617]

Deflation is worse.

[@ChannelMath]

that's not an argument, that's nothing more than adding to the definition of "theft". If goldbugs don't like inflation of the dollar, you are free to save in gold and use dollars to buy things. This may have been a pain in the past, but not really anymore

[@SultanBrokenClock]

@@ChannelMath 🥱 the whole point of a currency is to hold value. Value can change but the fact that the value changed at a consistent downward trend enough that all jobs give everyone a small “raise”just to adjust for inflation… if that doesn’t make a currency pointless then what else is there to say. You have people who make entire empires from the printed money. Before the inflated paper even dries its dye it’s already in the hands of a banker and his cronies.

[@ransonhall4834]

100% correct

[@seanjohnson7708]

@@SultanBrokenClockright but how do you create growth and innovation?

[@realdemocracy11]

Thank you! This kind of a debate forum is what we need now. Too many people are being polarized into economic religious camps.

[@dogperson432]

You may be disappointed to learn that this happened like 10 years ago then

[@user-ez9is7lb9p]

“The Byzantine empire had a gold standard and didn’t go to war”, Where did this come from?

[@absorbeverything5914]

Yeah I mostly agree with him but they definitely went to war.

[@IvyTeaRN]

Even comparing the two is a demonstrations of generational mental gymnastics

[@ZARK0_]

yea they didn't go to war as often as the Roman Empire, which I think was his point, but they went to war

[@anthonyyawtwumasimensah197]

​@@ZARK0_Exactly, they didn't go to war AS MUCH is the phrase he should've used.

[@TayDays1128]

Ron brought up some ancient garbage as a (false) example when he & everyone else knows Krugman was talking about 1940s-1960s american economy.

[@maxcohen13]

I think Paul won. (The smart one).

[@javierborda8684]

the one on the side of the truth, yes

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

ron obviously

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

@Normal Person hahhahhahahhaahha

[@ahpacific]

Wow Paul Krugman really is misleading people on what Milton Friedman actually meant when he said they did too little ("they" being the Fed). Up until this point I just thought Paul Krugman is simply mistaken and makes errors in logic and reasoning but now I'm convinced he is deceitful as he is knowingly misrepresenting the economic philosophy of Milton Friedman.

[@tedphillips3119]

left wing economist are all Marxist who decided to study economics

[@wowsopikachu]

What did he mean?

[@akasteve03]

Painkiller milton says they suck and did the opposite of what they where supposed to do cheap money for to long creates bubble

[@UtkuTefek]

He also said wrong monetary policy caused 1/3 of the total money in the US to go out, prolonging the depression. The depression would be a lot less symptomatic if there hadn't been the reserve system.

[@angusmacgyver4894]

lol, bro, you are talking about something that is VERY well known to anyone who is familiar with macroeconomics. milton friedman and tightening the money supply during the great depression. how are so many people agreeing with you? this is factual not opinion.

[@andrewb9708]

That's right, Krugman. Our best option for fiscal control is to allow unaccountable, self-interested bankers (the Fed) in cahoots with Wall Street and the government take the helm.

[@kpjlflsknflksnflknsa]

The fed is essentially a function of the market. So how does a freer market help the situation?

[@actfree6897]

Andrew B If your problem is that they are unaccountable, how do you feel about the people who caused the 2008 crash who were completely unaccounted for? And if you concern is unaccountability, shouldn't we just make them accountable?

[@doesntmatter4136]

Act Free Yeah, make them accountable by taking the government out of the economy considering that's exactly what allowed their reckless behavior. The Fed is far from a function of the free market, that's an inane statement that I don't even want to begin addressing because of how ignorant it sounds. I'll reply if you try to buttress it.

[@thegoldenarm6422]

READ AND THEN DELETE ME Wrong. It's a puesdo-private bank that's an operating partner of the state.

[@thegoldenarm6422]

Act Free "Make them accountable" Son, don't you think that would've already happened 100 years ago? That's not going to work at all.

[@bagamias-hula]

Not even close Krugman got his butt handed to him

[@hoorano]

The gold price in 1933, the year the gold standard was removed, was $32 an oz. Gold price today is $1200. Imagine how powerful the US dollar would be if we were to stay on the gold standard. Pres. Nixon was a RINO when it came to economic policies with the removal of the gold standard.

[@Halo-lg7rq]

Keep saying Gold Standard is good and you’re gonna get jumped by the farmers

[@dannyarcher6370]

Nixon had no choice from a political standpoint. Nothing to do with which side he was on.

[@wayneshamba6961]

The USA doesn't have enough gold to sustain that kind of growth - economically at least. Where would the gold come from and at what cost?

[@hoorano]

@@wayneshamba6961 Lesser the amount of gold = higher worth of the US dollar if the gold standards were to be kept. Thus, any country which bases its currency on gold will be competitive in world trade. It would be a problem if a whole lot of people trade in their dollars for gold. Selling off the USD for gold would result in higher gold prices. Those who can afford the gold will be able to acquire it. However, if the gold prices are going up, why would anyone trade in dollars for gold? Think about it.

[@mark9099]

@@hoorano a stronger currency is worse if you want to be competitive on the global market

[@reecealeck8314]

I think she secretly likes Ron Paul 🤭🤫

[@willmickel71]

Actually, the Smoot-hawley tariffs and the Fed reducing the money supply by 1/3 in the economy led to massive unemployment. The government did cause the Great Depression.

[@parkerbarnes7726]

the Fed (the central banking system itself) is outside of the "government". So saying "the government caused the Great Depression" isn't the whole story.

[@laurin5659]

yes it is. Who grants the fed its monopoly on money? governement. who resticts free entry into the business of issuing currencies? government. Who allowed the fed to rob people via inflation and fractional reserve banking? i think you get it. If you give the bankers the opportunity to rob people without having to fear any repercussions, they are surely going to take it. They of course are compicit in this fraud, but the government, and they government only took this right from the free people of the US, and gave it to a small group of people. So... quod erad demonstrandum

[@willmickel71]

Laurin Haase The people who run the Fed are also appointed by the government.

[@UtkuTefek]

Jcream101 1. Because they fail to take the correct course of action. 2. It is not ethical to artificially increase the money supply, borrow that printed money to some banks while reducing the value of savings for citizens.

[@IanBorgessen]

Reason 2 is the most accurate one.

[@adentessman1989]

Crazy sitting here in 2024 watching the dollar lose its reserve status. Ron Paul was right yet again.

[@maxminkin6227]

Paul DESTROYS Paul with FACTS and LOGIC?

[@leonardoc6504]

The sad thing about all this that Austrian economic thought won the whole debate, but they didn't find out, because when they read the general theory of Keynes, they took it as a pamphlet addressed to Messianic politicians, they downplayed it, underestimated it and then they took refuge in their ivory tower. (the academy)

[@michellima5280]

I remembered the Hayek vs Keynes raps.

[@TayDays1128]

austrian economics is just corporatism wrapped in a cute "free markets" bow. It always leads to corporatism, social inequality, & economic inequality, which completely destroys freedom

[@askformoreinfowhichyouwont7510]

no debt, no inflation, low or no taxes WHO WOULDNT LOVE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL. WHAT IS GOING ON?

[@josedtorresmontalvo4670]

Lazy people

[@kristiblack4789]

Idiots for ongoing criminal insanity!

[@ten_tego_teges]

Considering Krugman holds a Nobel Prize in the field and Ron Paul is just a politician, I'd trust the former.

[@spiker1501]

@@ten_tego_teges there is no nobel prize for economics its just an award given by an organization and there are economists who disagree with him

[@ten_tego_teges]

@@spiker1501 What do you mean there is no Nobel Prize in economics? Virtually every award is given by an "organisation" or a "group of people", how is that even an argument? If you have any meaningful criticism of the Nobel Prize in economics then we can discuss it, but playing the cynic is a really dumb way of arguing.

[@bloodaxe5028]

Only Ron is being interrupted

[@FibrenewNWAtlanta]

Intellectuals love Keynesian because they love "intent". Hell is paved with good intention.

[@willmickel71]

Fibrenew Marietta Keynesian economics also creates the rationale for massive government control over society.

[@laurin5659]

Thats why our politicians loved the shit out of this disgrace named "lord". If I got to become Emperor of the european union I would -out of my own pocket- subsidize anyone who want to, to go to Keynes grave and spit on it once a year

[@brad5696]

None of you actually know how Keynesian Economics works do you?

[@bruno.6610]

Brad Please explain how it works?

[@brad5696]

Eugene's Backpack read the general theory of employment, interest and money for starters.

[@joshuavogann9369]

Lolz....this is eleven years old?!.....it aged well. Ron Paul stands on the right side of history.

[@Pop-zb3wr]

Ron Paul is underrated.

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

ron paul is a legend

[@junktex]

The current crisis proves Ron Paul is absolutely correct.

[@TuongNguyen-te8zy]

u r funny

[@Davo198]

How on earth does it prove that?

[@danielzalevsky3414]

Dave Hall the fed printed 9 trillion dollars. Surely that proves him right

[@jetterofletcher5682]

Ironic that all the problems Dr. Ron Paul illustrates here have only gotten worse.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

END THE FED

[@UltraRik]

make debates sound like this again

[@ponraul1221]

Ron Paul wins

[@luisfelipemerida6267]

obviously

[@lumanate1493]

$20 Trillion in debt and a keynesian's thought is to spend more...

[@actfree6897]

LUMA NATE What pathetically lazy rhetoric. How many times does it have to be demonstrated to you that debt, at our levels, isn't an extreme problem?

[@lumanate1493]

Act Free Tell that to the millions unemployed. Eventually the government will keep needing money which will mean higher taxes meaning small businesses will fail more so than they already are , value of everything is in decline and the middle class is disappearing as we speak. Look at the unemployment rates from the years 2004 to now. Not to mention the whole scope for investors is now too risky as we don't know when the next bailout is coming which almost always results in startup companies going under. If you don't think debt is a big deal then you were dropped as a baby and need to read what happened to the USSR a government that spent themselves out of existence (without any production to back it up), or spain in the 1500s, ottoman empire, holy roman empire, even as far back as Rome, Egypt and the Macedonian Empire. All these nations collapsed because the government debt strangled the economy and people got poorer and poorer

[@doesntmatter4136]

Not to mention 100 additional trillions in unfunded liabilities. When, exactly, has it been demonstrated that "debt at our level" isn't an extreme problem, and what would you even define as an "extreme problem"?

[@comrade_dave8942]

Defecit spending during recessionary periods and spending cuts during inflationary periods. That's the keynesian method, not constant spending.

[@pedroguedes278]

LUMA NATE yep, open yours eyes, the keynesians will still kill the world

[@internalrefraction]

"Replace Fed with the computer" (they hadn't heard of Bitcoin yet)

[@microesfera100]

Bitcoin is not a currency, Bitcoin is like shipping money

[@aguy1883]

@@microesfera100 Were you eating paste when you wrote that?

[@IvyTeaRN]

@@microesfera100 this is quite literally what a currency is

[@microesfera100]

@@IvyTeaRN is not what a currency is mises.org/library/mystery-banking is not stable is not very acceptable way of interchange and do not have many properties of the money

[@GrizzlyGamerUSA]

@@microesfera100 put down the Crack pipe

[@rantim1680]

Krugman doesn’t even understand the difference between money and currency. This country is in so much trouble. It frightens me.

[@johnomara849]

You mean wealth and currency

[@Mankiuss]

I'd like to have that kind of level in the debates in my country... Dreamer

[@jennymisteqq695]

Which country? And why no debate? Because government suppresses citizens’ speech or because all citizens think alike and don’t tolerate dissent (Like Sweden?). ?

[@Mankiuss]

jenny misteqq I'm from Spain. We have debates but it's very difficult to see that level in the both speakers. I mean, we have very good economists. What it's difficult to find are technical and specific economic debates in tv bcause we don't have a tv channel just for economics, and if we have it's very very very slanted (I'm not sure if it's the correct form to say it) if you watch a debate in channel X, and this channel is, for example, liberty lover, you won't see somebody as good as krugman defending the other vision. You'll see a person who swears that he/she ls economist but knows about economics the same as my 3years old little cousin. And viceversa

[@IvyTeaRN]

@@jennymisteqq695 Sweden. does not. do that

[@danieltaylor885]

man its almost like paul krugman was saying nothing, he literally said nothing, he could just not have said anything and achieved the same goal.

[@nyahhbinghi]

When Ben Bernanke was talking about the helicopter...he was having premonitions of Pinochet.

[@globaleconomiccollapse5212]

Ron Paul is a true warrior.

[@chumdog6060]

He's bae

[@cpuwrite]

He's a libertaritard, and Crox News coddles him.

[@thomasjefferson9292]

Jeff Mullen bring a argument

[@cpuwrite]

To what? Libertarian principles? I can do that. One common Libertarian lie is that all legislation is enabled by force. Absolute blather. Pell Grants are not given out at gunpoint. The actual flaw in the Libertarian argument goes much deeper, though. It starts out at their basic tenet that all principles can be decided by means of force or lack of force. There is a lie of omission here. The implication--what they proceed from--is that by "force" one means "punishment." They totally ignore the possibility of reward. Thus, there are two ways that you can advance a principle without the use of force: you can convince the subject of your argument, or you can reward/bribe him. You'd never find this out if you asked Libertarians though. This is the problem with Libertarians: the basic tenets of their neurotic religion are based on lies of omission. They leave things out, just as Anmol Sharma has left out the "n" in "an argument" (it is traditional to use "an" rather than "a" as an article in front of words that begin with vowels). I can bring other arguments, too.

[@thegreataustrian4410]

I know this comment was a month ago but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. You say that Pell Grants are not enabled by force so I will make my argument based on this statement. You're right, Pell grants aren't given out by force, but they are in fact funded by money that was taken by force. Yes, you would be excited to get a Pell grant if you were a student but it was not funded voluntarily by generous donors. So, I kind of fail to see how this would rebuke libertarian ideology. I would like to hear your other arguments though.

[@julesnzietchueng6671]

So the moral of the story is when shit hits the fan, everybody is Keynesian

[@lextrader7916]

Ron Paul absolutely pipes Krugman. How does Krugman even have a friggan job? What a mess that guy is.

[@ticktricknik]

Bro… kaynes is so much smarter than austrian school. You really think corona would have handled itself better than with helicoptermoney?

[@fijnevent3565]

In a free world Krugman would not have a job . Not the one he has now.

[@VaShthestampede2]

I can't believe I used to believe that Paul Krugman was an economics genius. It's so painful to hear him talk now; so saccharine and devoid of any meaning.

[@adamsmith3413]

To be fair they should have brought in an actual economist like Walter Block or Walter Williams to debate Krugman. I doubt Krugman would have much to say on medicine or politics. Dr. Paul more than holds his own because the ideas are so profound.

[@Earej]

Hurts to listen to a Keynesian.

[@hithereman4198]

Earej Logic always hurts.

[@alfonsoirazabal]

+Earej True, It gives me ears cancer!

[@Rensune]

Hithere Man How would a Keynesian know?

[@franktrost4094]

It's music to my ears!

[@spec24]

+Hithere Man Logic? Keynesians? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! I mean, Jesus Christ.. the first few words out of the man's mouth were illogical. What the fuck?!

[@kurtjk01]

One question for Paul Krugman; the first in any debate with "Mr. Trillion Dollar Coin Minted Yet Not Distributed In Order to Solve The U.S. Federal Debt With No Consideration of Hyperinflation": How would you explain why the Great Depression of 1920 (*not* 1929, for those who do not read numbers well) -- which was as bad, percentage-wise, as the one which followed 9 years later -- was over within 18 months when the Federal Reserve and the Congress/Executive did nothing at all and let the free market solve things, which it did in spectacular fashion; as compared to Hoover's attempts to engineer the 1929 depression which -- ironically -- lead to the even more heavily managed economy of FDR which did nothing to alleviate or ameliorate the massive crash until almost the end of WWII? (Hint: he can't; but his gobbledygook and evasions would make him a fine politician).

[@gorkyd7912]

luke skywalker, He asked why was the 1920 depression so much milder than the 1929 depression? You say his statement is simply false because it was milder. Did you not read it was a question and not a statement? OK less banks failed, why? There was a 36.8% price drop in 1920. There was a 33% price drop in 1929. So why did the 1920 economy bounce back immediately while the 1929 economy entered the worst depression in history that lasted a decade even though it experienced less actual deflation?

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

Krugman has a nobel prize in economics let that sink in for a moment

[@thebluesquid8471]

Milton Friedman did not ever state the federal reserve didn’t do enough as this guy claims. I’ve read most of his books and watched all his public debates and Milton was adamant about the depression being caused by too much government interference on behalf of the reserve

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

Are you sure you're not confusing Milton Friedman with Murray Rothbard? Friedman has said there were too few dollars printed. Rothbard lays blame on government intervention and the Fed.

[@thebluesquid8471]

@@Jekyll_Island_Creatures im 100% sure

[@RafaelCDet]

@@Jekyll_Island_Creatures friedman's argument is that the fed reduced the money supply too much and caused a credit crunch, leading to a crash and widespread deflation

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

@@RafaelCDet I know. That's Friedman's view in a nutshell. He thinks the Fed should've intervened more and has a misguided fear of deflation.

[@TherealJesseLivermore]

@@Jekyll_Island_CreaturesYes this is correct ^ Also great name amazing book

[@Monopolist91]

how is keynesian economics even slightly credible at this point?

[@andygardner3300]

Bruce Ahlheim because it was the accepted economic policy during the most prosperous era of American history, and is based on empirical data. Other economic policies are based on theory, and fail to produce good results for more than a few years at a time, before causing a crash.

[@bradchristy8429]

Andy Gardner I bet you said “most prosperous time in American history” with a straight face. You just keep thinking that. It’s only true if you don’t look at any time previous or since, other than the obvious periods of recessions/depressions.

[@andygardner3300]

CalThresh 40s, 50s, and 60s were a keynesian era, deregulation and laissez fair policies before and after that time proceed major recessions and depressions.

[@andygardner3300]

Brad Christy and the depressions and receccions happen after your pre-depression economic theories are implemented.

[@bradchristy8429]

Andy Gardner I’m just pointing out that the 40s, 50s and 60s (which I knew what you were referring to) was far from the most prosperous times in American history. There were far more prosperous times, before and after, and without the need of a nationwide war/recovery effort to act as a sole driver. Not to mention the “misery index” of the 70s that was a direct result of Keynesian policy.

[@RefleksPavlova]

This debate is aging pretty well😀Sane voices like Ron Paul's are so scarce, that we are tasting failures of stomping freedom right now

[@coletrain2357]

Some would say Austrians are looking for overly simplistic solutions. I say it's more like the high road vs the low road.

[@dannyarcher6370]

e=mc² is pretty simplistic.

[@austinmorris3422]

I love you keynesians. Y'all are very intelligent, but quite unwise.

[@abhimanyukarnawat7441]

Austin Morris lol

[@reecealeck8314]

❗️Milton Friedman was a Chicago economist,. Ron Paul follows Austrian economics . Krugman is a Keynesian. Milton Friedman shouldn’t have even been brought up in this debate !!! ❗️

[@ettavictor4804]

The Chicago school is far more similar to the Austrian school than to Keynesian thought

[@bakerelkins469]

Etta victor not when it comes to monetary policy.

[@austinbyrd4164]

Friedman also said, verbatim, *the fed should be abolished.* He didn't support monetary expansion. He only supported preventing a monetary contraction. Something many in the austrian school disagree with him over. He changed his mind later on in life.

[@ChrisMartin-tk4dh]

how can kurgman possibly say the great depression was the result of free markets and not the government. unemployment was 6% when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was put in place. 6%!!!!!!!!

[@MrJackPeppers]

So x existed when y happened. After y happened x became x+z. So y caused x to become x+z?? How can you say that? Do you have something that supports that?

[@pedrovillanueva6767]

@@MrJackPeppers what he means is that before government intervention, the market was on track of correcting itself

[@teddyj.3198]

pedro villanueva you fundamentally misunderstand economic history to proportions that are inconceivable. Please do basic research and stop listening to Austrian cultists

[@wokeeye6441]

You can nuance about the tariff act all you want but if you want me to believe that measly tariff caused the great depression, you would have better luck selling me the Brooklyn bridge.

[@wokeeye6441]

​@@pedrovillanueva6767And gravity corrects itself to prevent you from dying after falling from a 10 story building.

[@derbidyderks]

"I believe in a free market except for these caveats where things need to be regulated" = "I believe in free speech except for these things that need to be prohibited".

[@sonajero25]

...such as insulting and threatening"

[@derbidyderks]

@@sonajero25 Harassment and credible threats of violent should be prohibited. But now people consider reasonable espousement of opinion to be harassment and words to be violence themselves. so tell me where you would like a line drawn

[@sonajero25]

@@derbidyderks so you agree that a line (regulation) has to be drawn and the discussion has to be focused on where to draw it.

[@derbidyderks]

@@sonajero25 so we can each just say so statements to one another and not have a discussion.

[@derbidyderks]

@@sonajero25 Yes, I agree that a line can reasonably be drawn around concepts like "free speech" and "free markets" (i. e. a market that is consumed by monopoly is no longer free, but that government empowerment to regulate it is doomed to fail). And we end up in "this is no TRUE free speech" arguments. Slander and libel, harassment, credible threats of violence are prohibitive acts but I don't believe they constitute speech, and are outside the bounds of free speech not because some speech is outlawable, but because there are aspects and intents outside of these acts which fall outside speech at all.

[@John-thinks]

Krugman mis-cites Friedman. Friedman wanted the fed GONE and replaced with a simple automatic process. "Friedman, M. (1996). The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory. In Explorations in Economic Liberalism (pp. 3-21). Palgrave Macmillan, London. "It is precisely this leeway, this looseness in the relation, this lack of a mechanical one-to-one correspondence between changes in money and in income that is the primary reason why I have long favored for the USA a quasi-automatic monetary policy under which the quantity of money would grow at a steady rate of 4 or 5 per cent per year, month-in, month-out."

[@michaeluhen1794]

Paul Krugman: ThE fEd DiDn’T cAuSE tHe GrEAT dEpReSiOn Ben Bernanke: “Regarding the Great Depression, … we did it. We’re very sorry. … We won’t do it again.” Ben Bernanke, November 8, 2002

[@skeley1546]

Bernanke wasn't there. That means that he is basing his opinion on the same information that Krugman is basing his opinion on.

[@rahulsampat8698]

@@skeley1546 The worst part is they think they did it by not printing enough..

[@jacobkent2457]

Krugman is absolutely up to date in how to make the economy thrive with the current statue quo. Ron Paul is showing how to increase economic performance and raise the personal capitol of most people.

[@maksekart7162]

Man i just love Paul

[@bloodaxe5028]

I need a 1 hour debate

[@gantchogantchev9385]

surprisingly for a politician but Ron Paul is quite a clever chap

[@bruhmoment8108]

I was expecting Jake vs Logan Paul, wtf

[@akasteve03]

Ron Paul is a dr. not a economist and held his own. friedman or sowell would destroy this fool.

[@johnwalker9709]

I'd prefer Hayek and Hazlitt over Friedman.

[@truthistreason4292]

Steve actually Ron is both.

[@Mantorok]

@@johnwalker9709 Rothbard>Mises>Hayek>Hazlitt>Sowell>Friedman

[@MisterCharlton]

@@johnwalker9709 Friedman > (Hayek = Mill) > von Mises

[@narutopoint]

@@MisterCharlton For sure creating paper will take us out of the recession.

[@chrisg.632]

awesome battle.

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

We're now paying more than $479,000,000,000 on our debt interest every single year. I don't care that the economy hasn't crashed, yet, every penny that goes to debt interest is a penny that doesn't go towards something the government should be spending money on, or better yet, money that the American people get to keep and spend how they want.

[@sharann3482]

turnerr44 most of those payments go back to the government either way. As the government is in debt to the central bank and pays himself the interest rates

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

@@sharann3482 That is a laughable confusion right there if I've ever seen one. Do you know what interest on debt is and how it works?

[@sharann3482]

turnerr44 The Government issues Bonds, wich get sold on the market, on wich you can get interest payments. Now in the US the Social Security Fund And other social welfare funds have tax surpluses wich are used to buy government bonds and is one of the biggest holders of the US debts, the next biggest government debt holder is the FED. Who gets paid interest as high as 1%, now the FED or any other Central Bank dont hold reserves and Profis for themselves and gave it automatically back to the government. The EZB does the same and the Japanese Central does the same, currently holding 33% of Japans state debts. 33% of Japans interest payments go back to the government.

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

@@sharann3482 1. That's not how bonds work. 2. The centralized banks are private and do make a profit. 3. The Fed has the ability to print the currency from the Treasury at about 1% interest and turns around and lends that money at prime rate or higher interest, including to other government institutions which then pays interest at the prime rate. The Treasury received about $400,000,000 in interest last year which leaves them more than $478 billion in the red.

[@sidneyadnopoz3427]

"the Byzantine empire didn't fight wars" lol what

[@pedroduarte6672]

Ron Paul smashed Paul Krugman. Krugman does not even answer him, he is an ignorant in what concerns economics.

[@jamesdoctor8079]

No, Ron Paul is just a polemic and Krugman can do actual economics. Dumbass

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@jamesdoctor8079 try to argue without insults.

[@mateobartra1502]

They just have REALLY different perspectives lol

[@mateobartra1502]

Both coming from really different philosophical and methodological grouds

[@Me-by8qi]

Imagine a world where Ron became president.

[@ThamizhanDaa1]

Wishful thinking

[@hodlerguy]

this aged so well

[@curiaregis9479]

Krugman is either shilling for the system because he knows that it serves the elite or he is so mired in bias that he reflexively defends bad opinions. He seems too intelligent for the latter, which leaves the former. Hard not to see Krugman as a deceptive worm.

[@Guizambaldi]

He is just someone who studied macro like, 100 times more than the austrian autistic guy.

[@spiritgoldmember7528]

Guilherme Z - Studying retarded economic theory doesn’t make you a more competent economist.

[@powerslave6944]

In my poor understanding of economics I'm inclined to think and guess Ron Paul's view is from a Classical perspective while Krugman is from a Keynesian school of thought, correct me if I'm wrong here?

[@thiruvalluvar3880]

You're right

[@absorbeverything5914]

Ron Paul's perspective is Austrian, rather than Classical.

[@michasosnowski5918]

Krugman - eyes of the madman. Not input, no curiosity, only deceivment.

[@bjbhunih]

bloomberg decided to use ron pauls last name and krugmans' first just so we can have paul vs paul

[@smokybear7511]

Ron Paul is right. Krugman defends a system that is corrupt and has punished the average person. If the current system is so great why are so many suffering. The real problem is that the current system doesn t work and will never work . Academics are usually wrong. Common sense must prevail. Keep up the pressure, Ron.

[@Halo-lg7rq]

Well you can’t blame the system if the politicians in charge are corrupt.

[@metal87power]

Krugman... on what kind of krug he is?

[@tylerandrew5789]

How did we get to a point where we call an increase in government control economic liberalism

[@C_R_O_M________]

What Krugman doesn't seem to count much is that there are huge distortions in place for the markets as a result of hyperactive monetary policies. Friedman's thesis on the FED's role in the Great Depression was essentially a critique on government and an argument against government efficiency and interventions. I am not sure I would categorize Friedman as a monetarist even though Austrian economists seem to think he was one. Krugman's solutions lead to one major thing (that he doesn't seem to be aware of): a constant growth of government as an economic entity and, thus, its role in the market in general. The more you have the monetary AND regulatory monopoly the bigger you'll get. Most capital allocation from governments is horrendous precisely because it's essentially an investment for their own growth and the growth of their role in markets! That's a HUGE distortion that leads to our current state of affairs where, for example, very low or even negative interest rates by central banks create an economic ecosystem where you have (for example in the US) 60+% of the corporate bond market in the speculative-grade level! This means that zombie companies are allowed to walk around when they should have defaulted long ago. The hocus-pocus tricks of "stimulating" growth it's catching up now with the "magicians" - hence the gold bull market.

[@tmlp1118]

Krugman. Absolutely wrong.

[@rameshacharya6941]

But it is Fed that creates Chaos i.e. inflation by printing money as their discretionary right.

[@brad5696]

Ramesh Acharya Inflation exists to avoid economic stagnation through savings. This is basic economics.

[@spiritgoldmember7528]

Brad - Savings is not inimical to economic growth-it is essential. Spending is the fruit of prosperity, not the driver of it.

[@brad5696]

@@spiritgoldmember7528 the salt water schools would absolutely fight you on that.

[@mikedunn9310]

Ha ha! Krugman says not using money isn't illegal because you can barter. If you're business bartering, all trades are treated as cash transactions, therefore it's up to you to claim any trades on your taxes according to your government's laws.The only thing that is not legal is failing to claim bartering on your taxes. And try paying your taxes with anything other than US fiat currency. You will be placed in hand cuffs and taken to prison.

[@77Night77Shade77]

If you're watching this video and you've just scrolled down here to the comments, let me warn you: do yourself a favor and don't even read them, you'll be disappointed, no matter whom you agree with.

[@jennymisteqq695]

People who would do this would be doing themselves a disservice by because it biases their perspective before listening to the argument. Who would do this? What I see is people simultaneously listening to the video while reading the Comments. That inherently distracted way of of taking in information leads to them missing out on the content of both forms of information, the Comments and the video. But what are we going to do about it? My 18 year-old son does that and it really makes me wonder how the next generation will turn out. On the other hand, don’t all generations think that of the upcoming generation? The sad thing is they’re been correct.

[@internalrefraction]

'Japanese Levels of Debt' is stable in as much as King Dollar remains printing money with other CBs following along the way...

[@geovanyjoaquim4967]

Bitcoin proved one of the Pauls was wrong. Which? It really depends on your political views. This whole debate is more political than economic

[@Zowie39]

Well bitcoin is now out it plain sight no question about its now government approved. I'm guessing it's going to be your new cbdc. 🕊

[@thekaiser4928]

I personally am a Keynesian, but I take his actual view, not the bullshit "spending stimulates the economy". I believe, like Keynes, that spending stimulates the economy, and that during a depression, a government should help stimulate the economy by providing jobs. HOWEVER, like Keynes, I do not believe in spending all the time. Keynes never said to spend and inflate the economy artificially all the time. It should only be during a crisis. Other than that, I agree with Hayek, and nearly (not totally) laissez faire economics. I do believe in incentivization/corporatism, and in a degree of protectionism, but used sparingly. This man isn't a Keynesian. He's an idiotic tool who thinks spending and not saving is what we should always do.

[@Backhand77]

Keynes never said to have indefinite deficit spending....wtf? He said go I to deficit spending only to get out of a recession/depression. 80 years of deficit spending is from spending on the military. Wars ain't cheap. Ask yourself, why did America maintain its ridiculous defense spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why wasn't their a downsizing of the military? Because Mr. Boeing and Mr Lockheed Martin like the money they get from the Us taxpayer. It's free money for them. Instead of universal healthcare or better schools or roads, we have tanks parked in a dessert

[@thekaiser4928]

Us Man Alright as far as economics go, you aren't disagreeing with me. If you are you didn't make it clear. Now as for why did the US keep military spending after the collapse of the soviet union is for multiple reasons. They go far beyond economics. The US does it to keep hegemony, free trade, globalization, and "democracy"/"freedom" around. Without the US military, free trade would collapse. It is only because the US Navy is so dominant, and because the US has bases around the world that no body fucks with the system. You really think the US spends all of that money on military for "defense"? Of course not. It's also not some bullshit conspiracy that "The corporations want more money, because war makes cash." The simple fact is that the US wants to keep its hegemony. It wants to keep the globalized Pax Americana going for as long as possible. Now you also said that we have tanks parked in the desert. The reasoning for this has nothing to do with the US saving "democracy" or giving "freedom". Who gives a fuck about that? I'm dead serious. It's because Saudi Arabia controls the main oil supply of many nations. Any nation in the middle East (which is where most of the oil is) that tries and go rogue, gets fucked with the exception of Iran. We dont invade Iran for reasons I don't have time to explain. But the point is, the US tries to keep its "liberal democracy" and free trade system alive because as soon as people get off of the US reserve currency, and can get away from the post 1945 system, those countries will be able to directly challenge the US. This is why China is trying to build a Navy, establish a gold backed currency, and colonize Africa. Because they want to become a super power in direct competition with the US. So in short, the US spends so much on military because it wants to uphold it's position on the global stage. I would also like to point out the US doesn't actually spend that much on military. It's only 16% of the federal budget whereas healthcare and social security together make up over 55%.

[@Backhand77]

@@thekaiser4928 high five bro 🙂

[@Halo2nothing11111]

*helicopter idles internally*

[@BC-yd6dl]

12 years on we can certainly tell who was absolutely correct (Paul) and who was lying and FOS (Krugman).

[@nickowns55]

I’m going with Paul (senator) the fed is clearly the biggest mistake of all time.

[@vcalv9354]

I didn't know friedman said to replace the fed with the computer...... Bitcoin prediction?

[@zx9mel]

"People are free to barter in whatever they want" - Krugman skip to 2021 - I want to barter my BTC for your ETH "NOOOO, that's not what we meant" - Krugman (probably)

[@dannyarcher6370]

"Aaaaaand now we're going to regulate your crypto" - Comatose Joe.

[@askformoreinfowhichyouwont7510]

Just some simple logic: Nobody has defaulted on being debt free, vs I know many that defaulted because of debt.

[@OfficialHobbitFan]

How do you not believe in monetary policy?

[@xenophonmucciarone7406]

love love love Ron Paul

[@Refresh5406]

Watch a non-economist completely bend an actual economist over the table.

[@askformoreinfowhichyouwont7510]

@4:00 my god, why does this video only have 100k views!

[@comrade_dave8942]

Mind you Milton Friedman championed monetary policy.

[@draculanova6548]

The presenter has no idea what 'economic liberalism' means. It means free markets, the very opposite of Krugman's approach.

[@MisterCharlton]

That bothered me too. Krugman is a Keynesian. That's literally the opposite.

[@thelordphenom9676]

Exactly.

[@justinlundmark7879]

I'm tired of this left wing message which says somehow the government will boost the economy.....

[@jonathanhenly99]

You must be even more tired of the fact that it actually does.

[@7exasNinja]

Did you watch the video!? They literally were talking about just this. It's not a "somehow" they have real things they can do to an economy that will fuck with it. And, that is the whole point of the video. Should we allow anyone, not just the left-wing, to fuck with our economy at those massive levels? Cough cough ****Federal Reserve**** cough

[@iandander2473]

The left puts too much faith in people with college degrees from fancy universities who have no real world experience.

[@zachundisclosed6706]

@@user-ez9is7lb9p the fact that the only source of fiscal growth comes from increased debt is the very problem of Fiat Ponzi scheme currencies made by institutions like the Fed.

[@ryanbeck7166]

Zach Undisclosed Want the federal government to stop increasing the non-government sector's savings? That's fine. Just write your representatives, and tell them to change the law that requires the sale of treasuries, whenever the federal government runs a deficit.

[@tdm-wo7om]

Thank you for clarifying milton friedman. Inflation is important and needed for the economy to run...

[@cosmicbear923]

lmao no its not. inflation is like living in a lie. like a wylie cayote cartoon running off the cliff for so long but like him we will realize there is nothing holding us up. plus the FED is a private organization and charges interest for each dollar printed.

[@petersinclair3997]

Level of Debt? Wrong question. Can we service our debt now and into the probable future? Also, does the Debt created provide an Economic dividend, as an investment? I am writing from Australia, where the Debt to GDP was 41%. (2018) and projected 37% (2020). Net debt is also consideration. July, 2019.