Oh...Look at him trying to appeal to the viewers saying that for him that drop in a bucket is important, because, unlike you, you heartless free market radical, he cares about those families...Nice job Prof. Mulligan, nice job!!! I have to say that your bipartisanship is working well. I feel like they might throw Goolsbee at you sometime in the future. That would be nice to see.
Excellent job. Better than the first time because you were more focused and your points were graphic and punchy. The other guy was getting visibly agitated as could be seen by his trying to ascribe to you the positions of others.
Excellent job. Better than the first time because you were more focused and your points were graphic and punchy. The other guy was getting visibly agitated as could be seen by his trying to ascribe to you the positions of others.
Your counterpart was engaging, but not an economist and that made for a mismatch. Who made the decision at CNBC to pair the two of you up? I also saw on the Freakonomics blog that Justin Wolfers was paired with Reihan Salaam (the latter is not an economist) to debate the stimulus.
The basic tools of supply and demand -- presented and extended in Chicago Price Theory -- help immensely to understand and predict everyday events in our world. These events relate to, among other things, macroeconomics, fiscal policy, health and labor markets, and industrial organization.
6 comments:
Oh...Look at him trying to appeal to the viewers saying that for him that drop in a bucket is important, because, unlike you, you heartless free market radical, he cares about those families...Nice job Prof. Mulligan, nice job!!! I have to say that your bipartisanship is working well. I feel like they might throw Goolsbee at you sometime in the future. That would be nice to see.
Excellent job. Better than the first time because you were more focused and your points were graphic and punchy. The other guy was getting visibly agitated as could be seen by his trying to ascribe to you the positions of others.
Excellent job. Better than the first time because you were more focused and your points were graphic and punchy. The other guy was getting visibly agitated as could be seen by his trying to ascribe to you the positions of others.
Dear Prof. Mulligan, I really enjoyed the debate.
It's a shame that it was so short. The other guy was skilful in what most Keynesians are best - in sophistry and it takes time to expose it.
I compared your evidence based position with Goodfriend's on my blog
http://daniilgor.blogspot.com/2009/08/its-evidence-stupid.html
I would be grateful if you addressed at more length the fallacies of the multiplier logic.
Sincerely,
Daniil
I particularly enjoyed that administration hack's notion that posing counterfactual conjectures constitutes an appeal to "the facts."
Despite its Latin root, I believe that the proper spelling of the word of the day is "stimuless."
Your counterpart was engaging, but not an economist and that made for a mismatch. Who made the decision at CNBC to pair the two of you up? I also saw on the Freakonomics blog that Justin Wolfers was paired with Reihan Salaam (the latter is not an economist) to debate the stimulus.
Post a Comment