Sowell vs. Krugman - the debate of the century

Doc,

I agree that many aspects of a 'real' Economics debate wouldn't make for high-Nielsen-ratings!

But, consider this:

* the programmers could pick topics that grab public interest - e.g. (1) Universal Health Care (2) the Oil/Energy crisis and Global Warming (3) the Economics of Race Discrimination

* it will focus political interest on Economics - rather than social matters. And, contrary to popular opinion, Govt is more about economics than social issues.

* some people will tune out, but will care enough to ask for the 'score', as in "who won?"

* at the end, it would be impossible for a politician to ignore the economic facts. For example, the next politician to pander to a particular constituency would be hit with the facts and conclusions drawn from expert discussion - not based on the general 'feelings' of people, for example, 'shouldn't everyone have medical care when they need it?'

Sure, average people will not remember all the analysis and the mind-numbing details. However, a 50-50 country needs an intellectual (not emotional) basis on which to tip the knife-edge balance.

Should we lurch leftward - or, even accelerate that 'progressive' path? Or, should we step on the brakes and steer to the right?

Inquiring minds SHOULD wanna know ..

A website I look at almost daily for economic thought. It is an anti Krugman website--at least that is how it started. He's been on vacation for a couple of weeks.

.. for visiting, and for your comment. I have checked out the website that you suggested, and will visit it for updates.

Hope that you will continue to visit this blog, and participate in the discussion.

A Socialist Plot
By PAUL KRUGMAN
We offer free education because giving every child a fair chance is the American way. And we should guarantee health care to every child, for the same reason.
================end of excerpt===================
This brings to mind my previous statement that "every entitlement is a stepping stone to another".

It is remarkable that Krugman rationalizes the existence of one FAILED entitlement program (K-12 education) as a justification for adding another entitlement program.

Could it be that he doesn't see public K-12 education in America as a failure?

Is it possible for an intelligent person like Krugman to believe that good intentions are more important than poor results?

I'd pay to see this on pay-per-view.

Any time I have seen Krugman on TV, he has come off far worse than I would have imagined from merely reading his poorly-grounded text. He would shrink down to about 1/8th scale under any determined argument, backed up with stats, that refutes his pie-in-the-sky socialism.

Please, please, please, networks, steal this idea and stage this debate!

Hillary delenda est.

.. for visiting, and for your comments. I too would pay to see this.

In general, we no longer seek an intellectual underpinning to our policies - to our detriment.

That approach is considered 'ideological' - and the label of 'ideologue' has become pejorative in our culture.