The Instigator
Oonland
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Bailouts Should be Banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,265 times Debate No: 62496
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

Oonland

Pro

It isn't fair for the government to give money to one company just because it is in trouble. The government should stay out and just let the company die, if that's what'll happen. Another company will take its place.
MonetaryOffset

Con

As expected, Pro has the BOP.

There isn't much space, so I'm not going to say much in this round. The fact is, Pro's proposal is based on nothing more than abstraction and emotion. He boldly proclaims that another company will take the place of one which has failed. This is not only an assumption, but ignores the systemic risk and moral hazard that gave rise to the phrase "too big to fail." Case in point, as Ben Bernanke has stressed, the collapse of a too-big-to-fail bank in Central Europe in 1931 and the resulting spillover is what made the Depression as bad as it was [1]. Moreover, the collapse of Lehman during the recent crisis put a significant strain on an already fragile recovery. It's patently false to say "another company will spring up." He ignores the damage of the initial failure -- unemployment, falling inflation expectations, failing financial sector, uncertainy, etc.




[1] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Oonland

Pro

If a company collapses, then there will be temporarily painful repercussions. But as more companies arise, this will all heal. And trust me: if a product is in demand, there's almost certainly somebody in America who is willing to make it. This will lead to more jobs. Also, giving bailouts encourages political corruption. And what about our government, which is already in debt over its head? Uncle Sam has got to start saying "No!" more often. Bailouts were one thing he should've said no to.
MonetaryOffset

Con

Pro continues to appeal to emotion, and drops my case about systemic risk and the Depression.


He misrepresents the repercussons of a collapse. The Depression lasted until 1942 -- that's over a decade of crippling unemployment, self-reinforcing deflation, and lost dreams. He assumes "companies will rise" and the economy will fix itself: this is ALSO incorrect because he assumes growth will emerge from nowhere. The repercussions from a collapse of this kind are far-reaching, and even if people ARE willing to work, it isn't going to happen if demand is depressed, no one is spending or hiring, businesses are uncertain of the future, and the financial system is unstable.

He discusses political corruption, but ignores (1) the necessity outweighs this (2) preventive measures could be adopted WITHOUT a ban and (3) much of the crisis-era bailouts came from the Fed, which is insulated from the political process. The Fed's participation also refutes Pro's debt point.
Debate Round No. 2
Oonland

Pro

Con says that I am appealing to emotion: I am not appealing to emotion but to fairness, limited government, and free market economy, all of which are imbedded in the Constitution.

Obviously, if there is no demand for a product, then it is probably time for it to stop being made.
MonetaryOffset

Con

To recap:

Pro has the BOP.
Pro dropped systemic risk and the Depression.
Pro dropped the ramifications of a failure.
Pro dropped my responses to corruption.


He is appealing to emotion, but he is simply stating that we ought to care about X, Y, and Z -- doesn't justify them, might I add -- even at the expense of the global economy, which is what we do if we don't have checks for systemic risk. Moreover, he COMPLETELY dropped my point that, if we put in place proper preventice measures, such as macroprudential regulation, we could address too big to fail and the necessity of bailouts would dissipiate.

He then makes a statement about demand which is factually wrong. He assumes people will always spend ther income if there are products they like. No. People hold back when the economy is doing terribly, when they expect deflation, when their job security is poor, and when they aren't confident.

With respect to "debt," note that a global collapse would make it even WORSE.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I am sure that there was some people in congress that wanted to bail oput the buggy whip and saddle companies in their districts.See my point.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The self-correcting mechanism is freedom from government intrusion.Government intrusion is the only thing that will keep any economy down. Or didn't your commie professors teach you that.

The American people do just great when government is silent.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
That's just wrong on so many levels. The "self-correcting" mechanism dissipates during deflationary eras.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If roosevelt had not taken so much from the private sector it would have corrected itself.Maybe huge risk takers would have been burned, but the real American wealth, the folks would not have lost their jobs.And that is what turned a recession into the great depression. You are just parroting some commie professors whose agenda is to make the communist, Roosevelt, look good.The new deal, A progressive policy is what drove the depression for 10 years. And the American people got used to government freeloading and that is what stretched it into a 10 year deal.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
The degree to which you're oversimplifying issues which you are far too dense and misinformed to understanding is baffling. I assure you the cause of the Depression was much greater than "fundamental math." It was terrible monetary policy and poor monitoring of systemic risk.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
That was absolutely the cause of the depression. And it will be the cause of the collapse that is coming.Like I said, you need to take fundamental math.

All recessions and depressions are caused by government intrusion. I am not saying that individual companies cannot fail. If any company violates the laws of prosperity, it can do nothing but fail.And it should.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
That wasn't the cause of the Depression, lol. That's not even CLOSE to the cause of the Depression. I talked about the cause of the Depression in my Round 1 argument. Go educate yourself.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
monetary. I am not at all embaresed.And I do know something about money. I know that it is never right or wise to steal from Peter to pay Paul.And the cause of the great depression is simple. That idiot Roosevelt took money off the producers and gave it to people who did nothing to earn it. That was a good political strategy, it got him elected for 4 terms. But it was one of the main causes for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.

You have to be an idiot to think that taking off a producer of wealth and giving it to a destroyer of wealth, it will not end well.

There is NEVER a necessity to bail out a private company by the government. Let the consumer bail them out.Just make a superior product or lower the price. If by union demands and government intrusion makes that impossible, then leave the country. I predict GM will forever need bailouts. Because all a bailout does is fertilize the leaves. The root of the company is where the problem lies. You really need to go back to school and learn math.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Read my arguments about systemic risk, or better yet, go read a book on the cause of the Depression of the 30s. I'm not endorsing bailouts, you sniveling troll, nor is your attack of me as being "childish' accomplish anything more than falling on deaf ears. Take a nuanced position for once in your life, and acknowledge that the Con position in this debate was *not* defending bailouts, but defending the NECESSITY of bailouts in certain places. If you knew anything about moral hazard or systemic risk, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself right now with such ignorant comments.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Monetary. You seem to be just as childish as Roosevelt was. The only ones who should bail out any company is the consumer by buying their products. If the company cannot charge a price that would make sales, then it has to trim the fat. But if the fat is government taxes and regulations, and unions. Then there is nothing to do but fold up and either move or do something else.GM was paying $2,000,000,000.00 a year just in accountants to figure out the tax code.That would have made 2000 millionaires.And it was wasted on government.

Government should by a moral law and a legal statute stop bailing anyone out. Individuals and companies. Because they are doing it with other peoples money that had nothing to do with the decisions and lifestyles that caused the problem.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
OonlandMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I observed way more assertions than arguments from Pro. The "trust me" was especially off-putting.
Vote Placed by flash7221 2 years ago
flash7221
OonlandMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much of a debate for pro. Arguments were weak and unsupported. Did not manage to refute many, if any, of cons arguments. This should be a one way vote for sure. Con got points for sources, since Pro failed to give any.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
OonlandMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had good conduct throughout this debate. S&G - Tie. Neither side made any major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to respond accordingly to a majority, if not all, of Con's arguments. This left Pro with a complete failure at maintaining the BOP. Appeal to emotion or not, Pro simply failed to respond when he really needed too. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Con did.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
OonlandMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO dropped most of the arguments CON made, was just about to vote and then saw it on the forums...