Paul Krugman vs Milton Friedman - who would win the debate?

Milton Friedman was a brilliant, original scholar, an articulate speaker, and a humble and decent man. Paul Krugman is a foolish, unstable, emotional clown and a partisan hack. Compare anything Friedman ever said publicly with Krugman's recent take on the truly bizarre $1 trillion platinum coin "plan" for dealing with the debt ceiling. This "debate" would be like watching a boxing match between Mike Tyson in his prime and Macaulay Culkin.

My personal opinion is that Milton Friedman's free market ideology is far superior to Krugman's quasi-Keynsian ideology. As for who would win in a theoretical face-to-face debate, Friedman would win hands down. Primarily because as a college professor, Friedman publicly discussed and defended his viewpoint on a daily basis to a broad audience of students, fellow academics, politicians, journalists and business professionals. Conversely, as a journalist, Krugman's daily regimen is far more insular. Writing articles and books and speaking with like minded fellow journalists does not generally expose one to the type of constant intellectual pushback that helps to refine and improve one's argument. And at the end of the day, Milton was a genial, likable grandfather figure while Krugman is a rather prickly type who seems to be easily offended.

Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, He has been an a respected academic (Nobel Prize in Economics, Prince of Asturias Awards, John Bates Clark Medal, H. C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, etc etc) and author prior to his joining the more partisan fray of the last 12-15 years.

As to agreement or disagreement between the two of them – I believe there would be both. Both would be against most government subsidies of business as market distorting – where Krugman would undoubtedly disagree is on the government need to intervene when it is strategic to do so. Both would agree that some government regulation is required – since businesses do not operate without seeking unfair advantage either from the government either in taxes or regulation or in other market distorting requirements (see collusion and natural monopoly). They would diverge on the extent businesses need to be regulated – but no serious (prior to our current ideological purity period) economist believes in no regulation at all.

Modern conservatives would be dismayed to find Freedman was not a social conservative in the modern sense – for example he promoted the idea that free markets should guide personal sins (see illegal drug policy or position for example) so in that way he was more true to his principles than many modern folks who claim him for guidance for conservative policy. On the other hand he had the luxury of never having to be practical or pragmatic in the application of his principles to political realities.

So on to the rest of this argument – Keynesianism, current newstainment, and the debate. Most of the established economic world – academics, researches, published works, believes some Keynesianism (government intervention) is needed in times of severe (and financial rather than business cycle led) financial downturns. This is because they believe that this type of downturn creates a demand void – and when no one in the free market can step into this void to address it the government needs to be the demand of last resort. Many free market journals (see the Economist, etc) believe this. What they are saying is not that free market ideology is bad – they are saying that all systems are imperfect and that pragmatic solutions are needed to keep things afloat.

There are some facts for this – a real world example. US and EU both when into the same type of downturn – US did some stimulus and EU did not – and US economy has performed better. Those are facts – although partisans will find some way to disagree.

Which brings me to the “foolish, unstable, emotional clown and a partisan hack” which basically describes 99% of the analyst and talking heads on TV. All of them on all sides are foolish at times – since current entertainment focused news where we only hear our partisan perspective reality began. Freedman never had to work in this environment – never was a talking head, never was punished for saying something against the orthodoxy of a party even if that party is inconsistent in their analysis from one minute to the next. Yes I would say everyone who steps to the plate as an analyst and opinion leader on today’s TV is all of that statement – including Krugman.

One of the biggest challenges of this era – something Friedman never faced – was our current inability to agree on facts. We can’t agree on simple verifiable things – which makes debate and argument or even intelligent conversation extremely challenging. The debt limit debate is a great point. Most people familiar with the mechanism would acknowledge: (a) it has nothing to do with spending – it is merely setting the government ability to borrow money for what they have already spent; and (b) until 2011 it was never controversial. In short – it is politics and economics – it is talking heads making up unreality about what it means and arguing for the ridiculous – it is politicians grandstanding rather than addressing real pragmatic governing. Given the whole discussion is ridiculous – anyone who talks about it as anything other than what it really is creates more foolishness. Krugman has been silly – even to calling out John Stewart for not supporting him – but that is more visible silly – something everyone has been on this topic.

All of this said – I will agree with all the previous posters on this thread. Friedman was a better debater than Krugman. Krugman doesn’t really think as well on his feet, and doesn’t debate on the same manner. That doesn’t mean he is a buffoon and all of his ideas are ridiculous – it means he is not a skilled debator.

Friedman is no longer around either (deceased November 16, 2006) - so if we are literally assuming you must be present then Krugman wins by default. If you have ever read any of Krugman's books (prior to the year 2000) you will find he writes clearly and understandably about challenging topics - and that he is an original thinker on economics.

If this question is just about debate - who was a better debater - then that is where the Friedman vs. Keynes debate is better than a Friedman vs. Krugman. Just my opinion – but I think Krugman puts is thoughts together better in writing than he does in person. Some people are good debaters – which requires a combination of subject knowledge, the type of mind that processes arguments quickly, and the type of mind that organizes your response so that it is compelling on the fly. There are plenty of brilliant people in the world who are not compelling debaters.

If you are asking whose ideas are better – Friedman or Krugman – I would think that more of a current political partisan debate that doesn’t really belong at Proformative.

Great add to the conversation, Bob. Especially Friedman's weighing of the three evils.

Yes, you are right, three quotes can't possibly cover two such well documented individuals. I appreciate that you added some of your own.

I also enjoyed the link to Friedman's video. Such a gentleman. You can also look at it like Friedman is saying that some, maybe like Krugman, may not have gotten the memo (from Keynes himself) on the limits and applicability of Keynesian economics.

Thanks!

We would all benefit from such a discussion between these two men. All too often we focus on the 'win' and ignore the benefits to our intellect from the sharing of ideas. I would spend less time keeping score and more time focused on how much wiser *I* was afterward.