Paul Krugman responds to his debate with Ron Paul: “Debates are useless”

In what apparently seems to be a childish and uninformed “rebuttal” to his own poor showing against Ron Paul, acclaimed propagandist and pseudo economist Paul Krugman “published” one of the most pathetic retorts I’ve ever witnessed from someone allegedly held in such high esteem.  In response to Krugman’s debate with Ron Paul earlier in the week, he actually had the gall to say that debates were “useless” and that face-to-face arguments are fruitless.  Why? Well according to Krugman, in debates you can’t actually put forward real information for people to understand.  That type of thing is reserved for books and technical economic papers…

Oh no?  Well then why did you agree to the debate, Mr. Krugman? According to the man himself – he agreed to debate Ron Paul so that he could publicize his book!

Amazingly, I never thought Krugman would be able to put together something more thoughtless than the time he suggested a fake alien invasion would be good economic growth but wow…I think he  may have done it this time.  Just read this garbage for yourself:

Via New York Times

On the Uselessness of Debates

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

Tales of historical debates in which one side supposedly won big — like the Huxley-Wilberforce debate on evolution — are, in general, after-the-fact storytelling; the reality is that that kind of smackdown, like Perry Mason-type confessions in court, almost never happens.

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts — but those data and facts don’t matter unless I get enough people to read it.