354 votes

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

Updated HD video thanks to YouTuber LibertySource & DPer AnCapMercenary:

http://youtu.be/BcuAOdXD0Go

Kudos to jahall3824 for the first video find

More at Bloomberg:
www.bloomberg.com/video/9...

http://www.businessinside...

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.

Lemonaide vending

Activists proved this is not the case last year when they sold lemonade for a dime and were shut down by authorities for doing "commerce without a license". Some of them were even arrested!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7wlx95Ztsw

Technically, you can be prosecuted for barter too. Garage sells are illegal. The US government wants a piece of every exchange of value humans within their tax farm make.

And Krugman's irresponsibly naive comment about people being arrested for using competing currencies... "that's not how I understand it". Every heard of the Liberty Dollar. That man in Florida is in Prison today for using silver to back his currency as an alternative to government issued fiat currency.

.

.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

I am surprised Krugman didn't

I am surprised Krugman didn't counter the currency competition position with examples of the dangers of private banks holding monopolies on currencies.

I'd also like to dispell this myth that transacting in something other than dollars is against the law. It is not and never has been. It's called barter, and is perfectly legal. The only thing legal tender laws mandate is that when a debt is incurred (as opposed to a point of sale transaction) and the value thereof can be calculated in dollars, the debtor has the option to pay the debt with federal reserve notes.

You might want to carefully note the wording on those notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." It says nothing regarding transactions. If you don't understand the distinction then I'd suggest a course in business law.

Come on...

Usually your posts are somewhat intelligent and make me think a bit. This one is just moronic. You intellectually embarrassed yourself on this one.

"I am surprised Krugman didn't counter the currency competition position with examples of the dangers of private banks holding monopolies on currencies."
Absolute nonsense. Krugman advocates for private banks holding monopolies on our currency. Why would he try to prove himself wrong? That is a logical abyss. Unless you were trying to be funny, which from the rest of your post, is unlikely.

"It's called barter, and is perfectly legal."
Moronic. There's a reason currency was developed and it is all to prevent the problems with a bartering system. We need a medium of exchange. If you don't understand that, I would suggest an economics class. The problem is, as soon as more than a couple people start to "barter" with the same medium they get arrested and have that medium confiscated. This isn't my opinion, go look it up.

So, since we now understand that people need a medium of exchange, we're right back to the real topic at hand which is the merits and pitfalls of our current system and how it is managed. Which, by the way, you didn't comment on in your entire post.

Your third paragraph is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Semantics only matter when you're trying to seem smart on an internet message board, it is the practical application that matters. If you really think you're right on that one, go open up a store and don't accept dollar bills. Let me know how that goes for you.

Less typing... More thinking.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Oh but it does matter! Your

Oh but it does matter! Your candidate is running around making remarks about people going to jail for transacting in gold! He cherry picks his history regarding private currencies! You want to know why he isn't winning, perhaps you should start with the most obvious reasons?

lol trollyollyollio

When you barter, you have to report to the IRS. When calculating the amount they have to be calculated in to DOLLAR amounts and reported as so to the IRS. So the barter system is still tied to the dollar. If you do not report this to the IRS, they sick their goons on you....The IRS shouldn't even be in your business like that....idiot.

But that's got nothing to do

But that's got nothing to do with your medium of exchange, it's got to do with income taxes.

You must be kidding, right? I

You must be kidding, right? I mean US$ is almost 100 years in the monopoly hands of couple of banks, with support from the wild bunch of gvnmt war mongers

can't

believe only 762 people watched this.

Anyway, even though i don't like or agree with Krugman, I like this format. This is the type of conversations and arguments
we need to have on all topics. More in depth of course, but i hate when the "news" puts on a person who calls the other names and promotes their vieews unopposed

"Governments aren’t supposed to be running the economy...

"Governments aren’t supposed to be running the economy people are supposed to be running the economy."

People are running the economy… they always have and they always will. “Governments” are made up of “people” … the US government is made up of “people” who work for the people who own the Fed.

Now if you dismantle the Fed will the people who own the Fed and the people who work for them suddenly disappear by coming under the powers of the markets? Do the markets inherently possess the judicial powers of God to justly reward those who deserve to be rewarded and punish those who deserve to be punished? The markets have never ruled and punished the “people” who own the Fed…. the people who own the Fed have always ruled the markets… either by consolidating the control of money through a central bank, or as they did when they were goldsmiths, consolidating the supply of commodity backed money through fractional reserve lending. The markets do not have the judicial powers of God because they can be ruled by a few unscrupulous men.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

Markets can't be ruled by

Markets can't be ruled by anyone, that's why they need the state. The purpose of the natural monopoly argument is to trick people into thinking they need a fascist state to protect them from the robber barons, but the state is required for the robber barons to operate.

In his book on the history of pre progressive era economic history where firm after firm attempted, and failed DISASTROUSLY to corner markets without state coercion, Dr. A. S. Dewing concludes:

"I have been impressed throughout by the powerlessness of mere aggregations of capital to hold monopoly. I have been impressed, too, by the tremendous importance of individual, innate ability, or it's lack in determining the success or failure of any enterprise"

It was the abject failure of monopoly and rent seeking in a United States with a (mostly) free market that prompted the progressive (ie fascist) movement.

For more an easy and eye opening introduction to US economic history is recorded in 1986 at NYU.

Markets can't be ruled by anyone that's why they need the state"

The “state” is "anyone". These are all just meaningless distinctions… “anyone” is “everyone”: The “state” can be the “robber barons”, the “robber barons” can be the “state”… and they all come from the same source: “anyone” and “everyone”.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

The state is the people with

The state is the people with and willing to systematically use guns to predate on their fellow humans. That is not a meaningless distinction.

You are speaking from a profound lack of historical or economic knowledge.

The robber barons needed a state unmoored from it's constitutional limitations to operate. That's why they convinced the rubes that such a state was needed to protect the people from the predators. The truth is that the predators needed the state to be successful predators.

The occupy rubes whining about Citizen's United are a perfect example. If the state obeyed it's Constitution, as it did for the most part before the progressive era, there would be nothing for the '1%' to buy.

So long as we accept 'democracy', capital will control the state, and will do it in direct proportion to the amount of power they can trick the people into giving to the state.

Socialism, Communism, left Anarchy, they are all a myth. There is only fascism, progressivism, feudalism, mercantilism. Socialism, et al, would be worse, to be sure, but they only exist in the wet dreams of collectivist rubes. What they really are, are tricks to get people to embrace collectivism and cede their power to the state. Then they get the real form, or pure collectivism. Pure predator and prey classes. Fascism. Predator and prey for the pure sake of predator and prey.

A state with a muzzle (Constitution) is no use to capital. That's why they need you to believe the state needs more teeth.

“The state is the people ...

“The state is the people with and willing to systematically use guns to predate on their fellow humans. That is not a meaningless distinction.”

No… that’s just a collection of bad people. You can have a “state” that is “the people...willing to [NOT] systematically use guns to predate on their fellow humans.” A collection of good people can be called a “state” too.

“The truth is that the predators needed the state to be successful predators.”

The truth is that “the predators needed [bad people] to be successful predators.” As I said… “The ‘state’ is ‘anyone’” Making a distinction between the two is meaningless.

“So long as we accept 'democracy', capital will control the state, “

Capital of and by itself is just a lifeless asset.. It does nothing by itself.. it can be used by bad people to control and to oppress for the benefit of the few or it can be used by good people to invest and to prosper for the benefit of the many.

Centralized planning does not have to be about controlling and sucking off the good people for the benefit of a few bad people… it can also be about controlling the few bad people for the benefit of the many good people… but the key to its success is that the centralized planners must be incorruptible.

But people belittle and laugh at the idea of an incorruptible government… like it’s something that is an impossibility....therefore they guarantee for themselves a corrupt government...And to consider that many of those same people who laugh at the idea of incorruptible government pray for the coming of the Kingdom of God... an incorruptible Divine Monarchy consisting of themselves and their King.

You will never have a prosperous economy with a corrupt government and to expect the markets to contain corrupt governments is purely a religious cult of market worship... idolatry.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

The state attracts bad

The state attracts bad people, so you are being redundant when you say "no, that is bad people". Of course it is bad people, who else thinks they need a monopoly on violence?

The stronger the state, the more bad people. Good people cannot compete in a system rigged by the state, so good people are compromised and corrupted.

"Centralized planning does not have to be about controlling and sucking off the good people for the benefit of a few bad people"

Yes, it does. The framers of our Constitution (well the good ones like Jefferson), and philosophers from Aristotle to Hayek wrote extensively on this very point. There is nothing that can be done to stop it, except limit the ability to plan for others. IE a Constitution. Lord Acton put it simply, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The solution is obvious.

Government is always corrupt, the magnitude of the corruption is dictated by the power it has. The bad people, as you put it, of course know their ambitions are limited by limited government.

You are missing the point, you need markets to maximize prosperity. The more power the state has the more human effort is diverted towards securing existing resources. The smaller the state the more human energy is left in the market to create new resources.

The more planing is centralized, the less efficiently resources are used. The less wealth is created. Academically the calculation problem, and the motivation problem devastated central planning theorists. Historically the USSR for socialism, and now the US for progressivism/fascism, is accomplishing the same purpose. Actually the entire world is now proving central planning is a tragic failure.

"The state attracts bad people"

Bad people are everywhere and are drawn to all power sources not just the “state.” You say there’s nothing that can be done to stop these bad people “except limit the ability to plan for others. IE a Constitution.”. A constitution has never stopped corruption… has never stopped bad people from being bad… Recently one of those bad people turned around and called it a ______ piece of paper.

So a piece of paper is certainly not going to limit bad peoples’ ability to plan for others… just have to look around and see the evidence of that.

“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I aint buyin that. I know loved ones who have extraordinary power and they are not corrupted by it. Sort of the same assumptions those make who support gun control …. people can’t be trusted to hold in their hands the power of life and death.

The whole purpose of life can only be fulfilled if we are tested by power. The restraints we put in place to use it judiciously must come from within resulting from the fear of a Living God. When the majority of the people have been debased to the point where almost none have these internal restraints… then you have the times we live in today.

“You are missing the point, you need markets to maximize prosperity.”

I’m not saying you don’t need markets… and I’m not saying you need a powerful state to manage them…. All you need is a public central bank owned by the people on behalf of the people and administered by a few incorruptible men and women.

“the circulation of credit purchasing power constitutes the very foundation of an enlightened nation’s economic stability. As a sacred trust and over-riding responsibility, its administration by government stands first in all the duties that responsible government must assume. It is second to none—not even to the administration of justice and the maintenance of order.”

Gerald Grattan McGeer

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

What power is there to fear

What power is there to fear compared to the state?

Without the state to grant monopoly to force you to buy a product, regulate, tax, license, or tariff to give one enterprise an uncompetitive advantage, what exact source of power is it that the bad people could obtain?

They can make a product that pleases me more or for less? They can hire me away from someone else? What is this mysterious source of power outside of the state that I should fear, and fear more than the state?

Re Lord Acton: "I aint buyin that. I know loved ones who have extraordinary power and they are not corrupted by it"

Well I suspect your perceptions are colored by your relationship. I know plenty of 'beloved' people, to whom monuments were erected even (a good sign of an evil man imo), who were evil and corrupt as hell. People love evil people. Every mass murderer in history had a devoted following. Everyone I personally have known in politics has left a slime trail.

But let's assume your loved one is the rare paragon of virtue. That doesn't change anything. The reason he is rare is because he is there for noble reasons and had to fight everyone else who is there for prurient and pecuniary reason. Good politicians are squeezed out, because they won't accept money that would allow them to compete. Good businessmen are squeezed out because they won't buy legislation that would squeeze out their competition. The system is designed to destroy virtue. It's not an accident that politics is full of slimeballs and it's not an accident that CEO's of the cartellized megacorps are slimeballs. The system filters for slimeballs. Power mandates evil. The framers knew this. The enlightenment philosophers that the framers based the Republic on knew this. History is nothing if not endless affirmation of that fact.

All you need is a public central bank owned by the people on behalf of the people and administered by a few incorruptible men and women.

Well that is what we were sold, and it's never been administered by corruptible men, assuming such a thing exists. It was designed to be administered by corrupt men. The purpose of a central bank is corruption.

We are seeing the results of the centrally planned, Keynesian, fascist system you still cling to for some reason. It's been thoroughly debunked academically, and we are seeing the historical refutation before our eyes.

You are not ever benefited by someone else stealing your savings. That is inflation. No one is benefited, except the thieves. To believe there could be any macroeconmic benefit you would have to believe the thieves can possibly know better than every individual what the individual wants most, and as well have to believe the thieves would be motivated to accomplish that impossible task.

No matter how much you add together a negative number, you never get a positive. But that is the claim of the Keynesians, vulgar or nuveau.

Thomas Sowell, when asked if we end the Fed what do we replace it with: 'When someone removes a cancer, what do you replace it with?'

'beloved'

I said "loved ones" ... not "beloved" ... and they are not monuments... they are living.

Thank you and I appreciate your well presented views even though I do not share them. Because of the obscure location of my commentary in this thread (my commentary is not for yourself but for others who have not yet joined any economic belief system) it is no longer fruitful to pursue this particular discussion.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

The same it's not for you.

The same it's not for you. Probably not needed in this venue, but I wanted to ensure the plausible sounding Keynesian nonsense didn't accidentally befuddle anyone. Which is of course the whole purpose of it. A lot of people intuit correctly but can be confused by polished bs.

I appreciate the fact that you joined the DP 4 days ago

just to address all your commentary (5 to be exact) exclusively toward me in this unseen, remote location of the forum. Very few DP members can be honored with the accomplishment of causing someone such as you to join Daily Paul forums. You’re welcome to address any other of my views at locations on this forum where there are actually observers needing your protection from befuddlement.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

With great power comes great

With great power comes great responsibility:)

I don't go looking though, or I would have no time for anything else. And I don't typically frequent venues where most people already understand the foundations of freedom, even if they cannot all articulate them well.

You may understand using your time to persuade the unpersuaded, as opposed to basking in echo chambers of similar thought.

I see your snark, and choose not to call or raise. Your ideas and motives are in question, not your person.

You're all just scam artists

all of ya's... agents of the private Fed. The whole RP movement along with all the mises vs Keynesian crap is the same type of scam as the dem vs repub crap.

you are just deceiving a lot of young people in order to trick them into staying in debt to your masters right into their new world money system.

I do not question your ideas because you have none of your own... You have no independent thought... you have no soul of your own... it's been transplanted with the soul of another... so you… are not you... you are someone else... you no longer exist.... you're just doing time while your body and mind are being used by another in exchange for keeping its members greased. I do not question your motives because they are no more sophisticated than that of a root looking for moisture on shallow parched soil...

I've sowed seeds in this den of dying thorns bushes and weeds as a few others have also.... in time they may germinate in the awakening minds of the "befuddled." You on the other hand are a dying weed... useful only for fire.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...

The US government owns the

The US government owns the Federal Reserve, and American citizens own the US government.

Not True

The Fed is a private entity. One day we will see the scl where the used paper money and bought up things of real value. I hope the U.S. gov't confiscates it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

The government, certainly

The government, certainly does NOT own the Fed

From the Federal Reserve's

From the Federal Reserve's website:

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

Actually...

Actually, Goldman Sachs owns the US Government.

Sorry for the correction...it's the other way around my friend..

The Federal Reserve owns the Government! They own us...at least for the time being.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

"They own us...at least for the time being."

And this is the most important message that the people of the US need to be given and it's not being given through this broadcast.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcGSi286a4&feature=plcp&cont...