Monday, June 3, 2013

Warren Mosler versus Robert Murphy Debate is Today!

That is, it will be held 6.15 pm (US Eastern Daylight Time), Monday, June 3rd, 2013 at the Jerome Greene Hall, Columbia Law School, New York, NY.

The livestream is supposed to be available here:
Good luck Warren Mosler!

Update: Less than an hour to go!

Update 2: I think this is the correct link for the livestream:
Update 3: I have listened to most of the debate (it is still going as I write this), but I am surprised how there were many weaknesses in Murphy’s arguments that could have been exploited.

At one point, Murphy invokes Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT). But what version of it? Murphy already agrees that a single Wicksellian natural rate does not exist. Most versions of ABCT fall apart when this is admitted. He even says at one point, “assuming my business cycle theory is correct.” Oh, but what version?

An audience member asks why falling prices would not fix things. The answer is: debt deflation.

Another audience member says that Austrian predicted the crisis, but that is grossly exaggerated and Keynesians also predicted the crisis too:
In particular, the Keynesian Dean Baker called the housing bubble and a serious crisis when that asset bubble collapsed in August 2002.



    had to dig around to find the livestream link.

    got my money on mosler, murphy such a lightweight. would've been better with george selgin or pete boetke, larry white, anyone besides murphy. although i suppose murphy is strong in the one place mmt is weak, the complexity of capital and such.

    should be good fun either way...

    thanks for the link i kinda forgot this was happening.

    1. Thanks for the link! Have updated above.

    2. Yeah, I think White would be my choice. He has great knowledge of the history of economic thought (enough to write the "Clash of Economic Ideas"), and he's familiar with Randy Wray's stuff. Plus, he explicitly identifies as Austrian, making him a more appropriate choice here than Selgin (who would've been great, too).

    3. Apologies for the link confusion - I was supposed to update it that morning but had my first day of a new job in CA, so was right in the middle of meetings when it started. Hope it wasn't too much hassle.

  2. Not to be mean or anything, but the debate was just so hard to follow and boring that I tapped out around 2 hours. It was pretty difficult for me to tell who was really making the most cogent arguments. There were ideologues on both sides in the livestream chat room that gave me the impression that both sides thought they won.

    The whole debate should have been done as an email exchange in my humble opinion. It would have given both camps a much better way to use any empirical evidence or charts to back up their conclusions.

    I would have preferred to see a debate between you and someone like Jonathan Catalan or George Selgin (thanks to anon for bringing him up), but I understand the whole idea of posting under a pseudonym and remaining anonymous for many reasons.

    1. "The whole debate should have been done as an email exchange in my humble opinion."

      Cato-unbound is a pretty good format, imo. Maybe 3 essays on each side: intro, rebuttal, closing remarks.

      A tournament of bloggers would be a pretty good publicity generator for the econosphere. Pick an issue, then four econ bloggers out of a hat. Two-round tournament, readers vote on the winners. Do it once a month. Would generate buzz.

    2. I also think printed debates -- without on the internet or on paper -- are actually much better in many ways!

      For one thing, you can properly cite sources and evidence.

    3. Thanks for the suggestion re: paper debates. Definitely something we'd be interested in supporting in the future. Please email the series if you ever find some people you think would be good to do so that are willing.

      We will endeavor to get a transcript up eventually, and will invite Warren and Murphy to supplement it with commentary if they so wish.