354 votes

Video Update: Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman on Bloomberg TV

Updated HD video thanks to YouTuber LibertySource & DPer AnCapMercenary:


Kudos to jahall3824 for the first video find

More at Bloomberg:


Paul Krugman will guest host two hours of @BloombergTV from 3-5pm ET. He'll speak to Ron Paul at 4pm - don't miss Paul vs. Paul.
— Jake Beckman (@jakebeckman) April 30, 2012

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/get-ready-for-a-crazy-confrontation-on-bloomberg-tv-later-2012-4#ixzz1tYFURnjM

Free, official stream link: http://www.bloomberg.com/tv/
UPDATE: The Hill: Ron Paul, Paul Krugman face off in economic debate

Mises.org: Check out Ron Paul’s great comeback at 4:04 ... (in Human Action Mises argued that such debasement led to the fall of the Roman Empire.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"And they will still have a

"And they will still have a monopoly when those other currencies (gold or silver) are legalized because there's no way that amount of gold or silver currency is going to flood into the currency market fast enough to threaten their monopoly… and they"

when people can choose what they can pay with versus being forced, they will no longer have a monopoly. Gold and silver would not have to be the only thing that floods the market. Ron Paul opens bank with RON DOLLARS backed by corn commodities for instance. people will gravitate to the most talked currency that is actually backed by something real. struggling to keep up, the fiat dollar would implode.

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O

“when people can choose ...

“when people can choose what they can pay with versus being forced, they will no longer have a monopoly.”

People are not just going to “choose” to exchange their FRNs for gold or silver currency just because they deregulate the currency market. Most people may not even hear about the currency market being deregulated and if they did 99% of them wouldn’t care.

“Ron Paul opens bank with RON DOLLARS backed by corn commodities for instance. ….people will gravitate to the most talked currency that is actually backed by something”

Do you know how weird and completely theoretical and baseless that sounds? Totally baseless to assume that people will hear about a “corn backed Ron Paul dollar”…. Many haven’t even heard about Ron Paul how are they going to hear about a “Ron Paul Corn Backed dollar” … And if they did hear about it, seeing that 99% of the population don’t have a clue about the principles of money, they would think it’s some kind of joke… And those who really know about the principles of money will stay clear of it.

These monetary theories are not only baseless and have no historical evidence of working especially in a modern industrial economy… they’re actually silly… no wonder the owners of the mainstream media don’t mind this kind of stuff on the airways. That’s why I believe this whole thing including this thread is just theater… Ron Paul should stick to foreign policy… stopping the murder and mayhem around the world is a hell of a lot more important than a “Ron Paul corn backed dollar.”

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix

well Ron Paul was once a joke

well Ron Paul was once a joke starting 30 years and now the tide is turning Sound money may sound like a joke to many now, the tide will turn. revolutions don't happen overnight including a true free market with sound money. that does not mean we should give up on it. I can tell your on the verge.

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O

This is just a ruse

to keep the control of money in private hands... I've completely destroyed the "soundness" of competing currencies. All this talk about "individual liberty" and "sound money" is complete hogwash if the money stays in control of private hands so they can continue fractional reserve lending to the government and to the public driving the people into further bondage... all this commentary about "freedom" and "liberty" .... this broadcast, this mises crap is meaningless and nothing but an orchestrated deception by the Fed and their agents to keep the American people perpetually in debt servitude and eventually merged into a global financial system via some form of altered currency controlled by the same private owners of the Fed.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix

Krug, man...

"I believe in freedom and markets..." (just not sound money)

Jefferson's picture


wouldn't have lasted 3 minutes in this environment. He'd just start sounding like a broken record talking about how he "saved the Olympics."

Paul has been on the financial channels more than ALL of the other previous candidates combined TIMES TEN.

It's infuriating to hear people talk about wanting someone who understands the economy, but are so quick to discount RP. If there's not a miracle in Tampa, I'm afraid we're toast.

One World Currency

Paul says we need competing currencies and Krugman says that is part of the problem. he's advocating here for a One World digital currency, IMHO.

aside from the horrifying Apocalyptic under(over) tone of this idea, it's just plain nuts.

this is a key Key KEY concept of Liberty. K.E.Y.

that is whenever you consolidate power for efficiency's sake, you increase its potential for evil as well as good. efficiency has not moral bias.

this is the whole point of Plato's Republic. we ALL want an all good all noble philosopher king to rule us because he's efficiently good. however, when he's replaced by a less than noble king, less than wise, we get an efficient tyrant.

Plato offers the Republic, the least efficient form, as the best form of government because when it goes awry we get Democracy which is inefficiently evil.

when we consolidate anything, like currencies, we give too much power to too few people and the temptation, the temptation of the Ring, converts all but Hobbits to tyranny.

I don't believe Krugman is necessarily an evil man. perhaps he's just doing his job as efficiently as possible, but that's the problem. government should be slow. slow, small, and local.

we should have as many currencies as the market will bare. with modern technology, this is very possible.

when someone speaks of a One World anything, they are correct in that it provides efficiency. however, unless under the direct rulership of Jesus Christ incarnate, the Eternal Philosopher King, it WILL become tyrannical.

consolidation is ALWAYS bad — eventually.

for you Christian Libertarians, i believe it is in the best interest of all Christians to have a secular Libertarian government. 'we' can not establish a Christian nation, only Christ can. we can prepare the way by bringing freedom to all people to choose their own path free from force. when a person's heart is free from external compulsion, it is most open to the still soft voice of the Holy Spirit. when we force people to live a certain way, the Spirit's voice is drowned out by our forceful voice. persuasion, prayer, love, and charity given and received in freedom are the most effective forms of social change. they honor the Divine Spark gifted to each person in the same manner that God does.

the lack of understanding this, the initial grace of God to each person, is why i believe so many of my Christian brothers and sisters are unable to understand the marvelous message of Liberty that Ron Paul and the rest of us bring. we were not born with electrodes attached to our brain shocking us for every wrong thought or deed. we were born with as much freedom as possible —even to reject the very grace that we were born with. who are you or i to take that away? Liberty is at the heart of the God-Anthropos relationship — from the very beginning in Garden to the crucifixion. To violate that in anyone is to blaspheme God — not even putting ourselves on the very same level as God, but above!

I want to commend you.

This post--is without a doubt--one of the best and most captivating points of view, that I have ever read. I am a contributor to a small political-talk radio show called, The 503 Report (sierra daily news.com). I hope to utilize your lesson on air if given a chance. You know your stuff, thanks.

Anyone else notice that as

Anyone else notice that as more BS comes out of Krugman's mouth(or when he gets cornered), his eyes start to dart around. It's quite creepy. I'm surprised that someone 'real' like him can match a psycho-villian from a fiction so much. It's eerie really...


Yup, I noticed it too. Very weird...

Sweet Liberty

LoL! Great comeback by RP!

Krugman tries to make Paul's ideas look archaic by saying that Paul wants to go back 100 years.

Paul says Krugman wants to go pack 1,000 - 2,000 years.

That's what I call putting things in context.

~ 2,000 years ago, money-changers were cast out of the temple.

~ 2,000 years ago, money-changers were cast out of the temple. People were taught to be wary of money-changers.

~ 1,000 years ago the "Dark Age" was eclipsed by the "Renaissance."
People were taught to be wary of things foreign.

The term Dark Ages originally refers to the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance (approximately 500AD-1000AD), during which intellectual and cultural pursuits stagnated. It used to refer to the entire Middle Ages, though scholars in the 19th century began to recognize separate periods of growth within the medieval period. The Dark Ages were officially ushered in with the collapse of the Roman Empire, which was due to assault by barbarian tribes and a weak government. The Dark Ages is most widely recognized for the period of feudalism in Europe. Land was divided and partitioned to the serf population by a Lord. Serfs tilled the land and harvested crops, but gave most of their harvest to the Lord. In return, they were offered protection from the Lord. Knights were well above serfs in social and economic status. Viking raids were also characteristic of the Dark Ages. They ravaged the coastline of Europe, pillaging any nearby towns. They would often do this and leave before an adequate force could be mobilized to stop them. During the Dark ages, all scientific and empirical pursuits ceased and the Church had an enormous magnitude of power, even over kings.

~ Tomorrow? Is there something about money-changers disappearing from temples each 1,000 years or so? Where do they go?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Never seen her before. I

Never seen her before. I rather think she's kind of hot.

Paul needs to stress

It only takes $2.50 of national debt to create $1.00 worth of GDP now...

Dive Dive Dive, your sunk econ man.

Free Market Fail

The banking system is part of the "Free Market". Its like the quote, "Give me control of a nation wealth and I care not who makes its laws."

We talk about Government debt, the government isn't a bank so they can't make money out of thin air. Now the "Free Market" banking system can and they do.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

"The banking system is part of the "Free Market"."

That's right... we currently have a “free market” banking system managed by a private central bank (the Fed). The government is NOT managing the economy.... the government does not own the money... the fed owns the money which is why they are called Federal Reserve Notes... It's private money not regulated at all by the government but by private individuals in the "free market.”

Now if you curtail the Fed and allow other forms of currency to compete in the market (you can’t really get rid of the Fed because all the FRNs in circulation are their private property and you have to apply free market principles and allow them to freely circulate and compete in the currency market). Because the Fed is a private corporation they can always set up shop some place else under a different name in the free market and continue to print and circulate their FRNs and distribute them through all their banking houses they have been giving all their FRNs to in the past, they are free to buy out any competing currencies (gold coin or otherwise) that come on the “free market” because those are free market principles and you must allow for competition... and you’re right back to where everything started…. Courtesy of the "free market."

This whole interview is really about keeping the control of money exactly where it is... in private hands with fractional reserve lending at the mercy of the “free market”.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix

Resource Based Economy

Monetary based system does not accurately represent our full capacity to produce goods an services. All it does is perpetuate the myth that humans are only motivated by greed.

Resource based economy, only way to go.


"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Sorry Ser

not into the Venus Project stuff but you hit it right on with the free market banking system.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix


Can you think of any other way of distributing goods and services equally? Because if you don't want equality, there is no point in changing the system we have now. Being wealthier then, or having more then another person only creates jealousy, which leads to violence.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

"having more then another person only creates jealousy"

Sorry Ser... I have no fondness for the Venus Project nor the Zeitgeist economic theories... we'll have to agree to disagree on this. But I appreciate your views and especially the contribution you made regarding the current banking system being in the "free market".

The term “free market” is a rather dubious invention… like the term “free trade”… these terms were definitely not created by your average hard working joe out in the real world but the same must endure their consequences.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix


Your agreeing to disagree against the very thing you are trying to fight against. If we are not striving for Equality, then nothing will truly change.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Monetary system

Who does a Bank owe money to if they over spends? No one....

Monetary system is a big fail, it doesn't matter if you have a big bank or lots of small banks they will all use the fractional reserve banking method at some point, otherwise why would they hold peoples money if they aren't gonna make a profit.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

I would just

Love to see what someone with as vast an amount of knowledge of history as Tom Woods to go with his knowledge of economics would do to Krugman. The poor professor got his butt kicked by a 76 year old man, who is smart(the smartest person in congress) in his own right, yet not a great debater.

Dr. Paul wins this if you know some Economics

I wish these debates would start on a more fundamental basis, so more Americans can follow it.

US is no longer Capitalism but Creditism. The Govt. is now 40% of our GDP, which they have achieved this through cheap short term money from China, Korea, Japan and THE FED. This cheap money favors the Bankster Buddies and penalizes the average US Citizen. This is the real problem with the FED.

So ultimately this debate is Krugman supports a fiscal policy that favors the Fed, which allows the status quo (government or private banks) access to cheap money to get richer, while the standard of living falls for the rest of us.

Read that Chase/Morgan Stock Buyback. Who gets richer here with cheap Fed money ?

You can listen to Peter Schiff vs. Richard Duncan on this as well....

"This isn't what the govern meant"

"Win the crowd and you will win your freedom"

Splitting hairs.

Capitalism was mostly defined by Karl Marx in the mid-19th Century.

It was based on the history of what the world had practiced: mercantilism, feudalism, state capitalism. Marx was looking for victims and government intervention in the markets provides plenty of bodies.

Capitalism and communism were, as described by Marx, is the story of state interventions in the market.

In Marxism, Marx is lord. In capitalism, capital is lord'

But in a free market, capital is just all the resources needed for production: Property, services and labor.

A government that protects property rights, contracts and individual rights aids and abets a market that is free.

Krugman wants to steer markets, Dr. Paul wants to set markets free.

Free includes debt-free!

Will the real Paul please stand up?

Brilliant debating strategy from Ron Paul. Start off easy and then BAM!! hit them with Byzantium. I just noticed he's actually a pretty mean debater. I bet he's a chessplayer.

Interesting thing to note: "I like the America my parents prospered in." That's very revealing. I think that's what's really going on with most Keynesians, they do all seem to be baby-boomers. Ron Paul's family of course emigrated from Germany to the US during the depression era. So that family history is a bit different to say the least.

And I can think of a lot of factors that contributed to the post-ww2 boom period. The baby-boom, for one, soldiers returning home, reconstruction efforts, lower military spending, industrialisation of western-Europe, opening up of new markets, new products, the rise of mass media, mass production and mass consumption, mass agriculture, the car industry and so on and on.

But some people have decided that it was all down to Keynesian economics, apparently. I say meh.

Unfortunately I read some comments on Krugman's blog

Which was painful, but an incredible and amusing thing happened...

Dozens, I mean dozens of people in Krugman's peanut gallery did some substantial research on Byzantium. Dr. Paul forced all of them to do some homework. They were all of course already convinced that Ron Paul was wrong before they did any reading, so they essentially only "confirmed" their own bias (I quoted because every answer was something weak and irrelevent like "RP got the dates wrong"), but it makes me laugh picturing all of them frantically Googling Byzantine to come to the defense of their head clown.

Well played, Dr. Paul. I think the only way to get the really brainwashed people to understand economics (like college educated liberals) is to trick them into doing research out of their element in order to prove you wrong. He planted countless seeds. Dr. Paul played this hand brilliantly, again.



this comment section is pretty fun too.

It really wasn't fair to put an economist against a politician

Krugpot should really stick to politicizing and leave economics to the professionals like Dr. Paul and Bob Murphy.