Battle of the economists: Paul Krugman vs Peter Schiff

[Thunderbird is the word]

Vote!

[Oakvale]

Mods, please ban.

[Thunderbird is the word]

The debates would get pretty wonky.

[King]

Peter Schiff isn't an economist. He's in finance. There's a big difference.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I voted for the economist over the charlatan clown who peddles defective financial products.

[Beet]

Schiff can be a good financial manager. I'll give him that. But the idea that he wasn't selling a prophecy of doom in 2009-12 that never materialized is revisionism at its best.

[RI]

Krugman's not much of an economist anymore, but Schiff has never been one.

[Ebsy]

Krugman isn't even credible in intellectual circles anymore. Schiff isn't an economist by PhD, but he is an economist by training. People in finance can be just as good at econ as econ majors. Peter specializes in Financial Economics. It's foolish to suggest you can't be an "economist" without the degree. Anyways, Schiff>>>>>>>>>>>>>Krugman

How on earth would you know?

[King]

Schiff isn't an economist by PhD, but he is an economist by training. People in finance can be just as good at econ as econ majors.

Macroeconomics is an academic profession. Finance has nothing to do with it. We are all economists in training the same way Peter Schiff is. Schiff only knows economics from his perspective of how to make more money for the financial sector. Schiff is fine with giant market corrections and money contraction because he doesn't feel them. He makes money off of downturns, if he sees it coming. Schiff hates income taxes because he suffers from them and he hates government bailouts because it ruins his ability to accurately pick losers as an investor. It's that simple. His "economics" is an advocacy for his own self interest rather than some knowledge on how to make a wealthier society.

Good economists are neutral observers looking for what is best for the whole rather than one segment of the economy. They are looking to explain why things happen. Krugman has lost that a bit in recent years for political reasons, but he still has it more than Schiff does.

[/]

Krugs

[Ebsy]

Krugman isn't even credible in intellectual circles anymore. Schiff isn't an economist by PhD, but he is an economist by training. People in finance can be just as good at econ as econ majors. Peter specializes in Financial Economics. It's foolish to suggest you can't be an "economist" without the degree. Anyways, Schiff>>>>>>>>>>>>>Krugman

How on earth would you know?

Because there was a report from Princeton condemning him. That's how I know

You mean Harvard, right? Because that is where that crank Ferguson resides, licking his wounds from his bout with Krugman.

[Hydera]

Schiff can be a good financial manager. I'll give him that. But the idea that he wasn't selling a prophecy of doom in 2009-12 that never materialized is revisionism at its best.

Schiff after 2008 keeps predicting an economic collapse around the corner every year since then. He's the prophet of doom in RT.

And he keeps telling people to buy GOLD, SILVER, BITCOIN!!!!!!!!!

Which is ironic not. Because he owns a company that sells gold, silver and useless metals to conspiracynuts.

I'd take krugman anyday over that nutjob, but i lost a lot of faith in krugman also when he had always advocated expansive fiscal policy and wouldn't realize that created greece's mess.