This is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "I'm right, I'm right!" If you aren't willing to debate it openly, then you cannot expect anyone to believe anything you say on the topic. Sorry, man.
Just curious, but didn't you always write "coward" on pspr's posts when he referred to you in third party after having you on ignore?
One good thing came out of this thread, I guess, in regards to the ignore aspect. I'm taking Brass/Thunderdog/Gabfly (did I miss any other names) off ignore. I figure, why should everyone else have all the fun? Besides, I can't rightly laugh at Ricter running from a debate if I do the same with you. Prove me wrong, and show you're willing to debate. As for the easy bake oven comment, Gabby, let's throw the gauntlet down. Let us debate any topic of economics - your choice. Let us see who is more up to speed on the topic. We can talk Fed, unemployment, monetary or fiscal policy, etc. I am not going to get into a political discussion with you, since we have opposing views and that is established. But let's discuss something like the topic Ricter is arguing about here. Why not? I mean, you clearly think I am dumber than a rock. Take this opportunity to call me out and show everyone. What say you?
Could be because I went to the gym after my market's RTH. As for debating you, thanks but no thanks. I've seen your "debate" style. You reframe every valid argument to suit your underlying narrative. I don't find that to be particularly honest. I'm not even convinced you could identify Keynesian economics in a lineup, so we wouldn't even have a legitimate starting point. As you may or may not know, I have already said all I have to say about my economic views, and I have no interest in either repeating myself, adding to it or wrestling with an eel. I've done it before with other posters and found that it's just not worth my time. But thanks for asking. Just recognize that your views are considered to be on the fringe by the majority of those who have devoted their professional lives to the subject matter.
Riddler "cuts and runs" after he finishes his usual "answer a question with another question". The guy has been called out umpteen times on this bullshit. Brass, Futurecurrents and Trefoil are run of the mill leftists who love to assume some sort of intellectual highground. The typical "my views are shared by academia" and anyone who opposes my views are redneck, homophobic racists.
Another heaping load of bullshit. There are plenty of "economists" who do not agree with Krugman, nor an acolyte such as yourself.
There you go with your false equivalency. Just like there were "scientists" who disputed the link between smoking and disease, who are now disputing climate change against a large majority of legitimate scientists who know it to be true. Perhaps similarly, there are those who oppose Keynesian economics. However, supply-side has proven itself to be nothing more than an excuse rather than a legitimate economic theory, and it would be pointless to "debate" obvious facts with single-minded ideologues. But thank you for confirming my earlier point.
To imply that there are only "two schools of economic thought", just as there is only a "left vs right" clearly proves that YOU are the single-minded ideologue.
The political Right clearly favors supply side. The political Center and Left recognizes the virtues of Keynesian economics, at least when properly applied on both sides of the equation rather than only the politically expedient portion. Whereas supply side is all about political expediency and nothing but.