Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman

[Showman]

Or "Paul vs Paul" as it's cleverly titled. Interesting debate, I'm sure most people will take out of it what they've already decided upon, but worth a watch anyway.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/30/pa...1BaisLf1xAP4mO

[ChitownHusker]

I haven't read it, but even without doing so I can confidently say that I disagree strongly with both of them.


I will give it a read when I get a chance.

[huskernut]

I can confidently say that I will agree with some of what each of them have to say. And I like that they both have something TO say. It's seems like a promising match up.

And I'll have to read it later too.

[Showman]

It's actually a 'watch,' it's about 12 minutes of them going back and forth on Bloomberg's channel.

[huskernut]

I watched it. I always find Krugman a more articulate advocate of his positions than Ron Paul of his. I think that is because Paul seems to argue as if laissez faire economics and libertarianism should be presumed to be correct unless a good case can be made to the contrary. I always feel like he needs to be more explicit about the foundations of libertarianism. That's where the power of his argument lies.

In fact, in this format, I was kind of frustrated. I think a longer debate with stronger moderation that followed an agenda of sub-topics would force more of a clash of ideas. As it is, they gallop all over the place, rush to make a point here or there, but don't stay put long enough to reveal the fundamental trade-offs between their views. But that's kind of general problem with TV.

[Showman]

I watched it. I always find Krugman a more articulate advocate of his positions than Ron Paul of his. I think that is because Paul seems to argue as if laissez faire economics and libertarianism should be presumed to be correct unless a good case can be made to the contrary. I always feel like he needs to be more explicit about the foundations of libertarianism. That's where the power of his argument lies.

In fact, in this format, I was kind of frustrated. I think a longer debate with stronger moderation that followed an agenda of sub-topics would force more of a clash of ideas. As it is, they gallop all over the place, rush to make a point here or there, but don't stay put long enough to reveal the fundamental trade-offs between their views. But that's kind of general problem with TV.

Well said on all counts.