Robert Murphy, an Austrian economist, recently proposed a challenge for a televised debate with Paul Krugman on the Keynesian vs Austrian business cycle theory. He started a campaign so that people could pledge money to be donated to a local food bank. If Krugman agrees to debate, all of the money will go to the food bank. If he refuses to debate, none of the pledges are required to pay. The website where you can pledge is here: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/campaign-0-1240 Right now, almost $64,000 has been pledged. If Krugman agrees to a debate with Dr. Murphy, all of that money will go to the NYC food bank to help feed hundreds of thousands of hungry people. Krugman, so far, has refused to accept the challenge.
It has already been done by more noteworthy economists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
I think the logical conclusion of Austrian economics is to disallow not only central banking, but fractional reserve banking as well. Such an economy would be completely different from our own and it would be a very difficult transition.
krugman is a fool but that foolishness has led him to be quite wealthy telling people what they want to hear (just like keynes). But he isn't stupid enough to debate the competing economic thought because he knows he would lose.
How could he Krugman lose? He has the bates and nobel prize and is a NYT columnist. Logic does not trump prestige in most situations.
Liberals like Krugman don't debate their silly beliefs. Just look at Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. But then, how could Al Gore debate anyone on the subject of global warming? He doesn't even know the facts.