Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy
First round is for acceptance. Shared burden of proof.
By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would.
"Keynesian economics” was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved – and economic slumps prevented – by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government. Keynesian economics is considered to be a “demand-side” theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run.
"Austrian economics" Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations. Libertarian school of thought where the economy should be left alone without any intervention.
Just to clarify, I will be arguing for Austrian economics over Keynesian economics in this debate. I will define Austrian economics more extensively in the next round, as it will be relevant to my argument.
Thank you to my formidable opponent for your acceptance.
I would like to thank benshapiro for presenting his arguments.
My arguments this round are going to be rather short. I will give a more in-depth definition of Austrian economics, and then go on to explain why the Austrian model of the business cycle is superior. I will have much more to say in the next round when I argue against Keynesian economics.
"The Austrian school is set apart by its belief that the workings of the broad economy are the sum of smaller individual decisions and actions..." In other words, it doesn't concentrate on aggregates like most other economics theories (including Keynesianism) do. Austrian economics is a more microeconomical system, concentrating on the individual economic interactions instead of large governmental interactions.
The Austrian model of the business cycle can be presented as follows: "In contrast to Keynesianism, the Austrian School of thought holds that the business cycle is driven by the supply side if the economy, not demand. If interest rates are too low, we will have over-investment. This may lead to over-production, which may trigger a crisis. During the crisis, supply declines until it is once again equal to overall demand. Then a new cycle starts." In other words, instead of concentrating on the cycle of booms-and-busts and GDP, Austrian economics focuses on interest rates in explaining such, and preventing them in the future.
"Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the fact that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior." Austrian economics is based on praxeology, as opposed to Keynesian economics. It essentially argues that economic interactions can't be simplified into a mathematical model.
Jean-Baptiste Say had this to say about it: "...have not been able to enunciate these questions into analytical language, without divesting them of their natural complication, by means of simplifications, and arbitrary suppressions, of which the consequences, not properly estimated, always essentially change the condition of the problem, and pervert all its results." Indeed, as John Wild said, "It is impossible to reduce experience to a set of isolated impressions and atomic units. Relational structure is also given with equal evidence and certainty. The immediate data are full of determinate structure, which is easily abstracted by the mind and grasped as universal essences or possibilities."
Further, praxeology conforms to Popper's social science theories well. "The second way that Popper supported the Austrians was in his advocacy of situational analysis and the rationality principle for the explanation of events in the social sciences. This is practically identical to the Austrian approach, by way of praxeology, the logic of human action, with the basic principle that human beings act purposefully. Popper followed the Austrians in other ways, in methodological individualism, in the theory that most institutions arise as the unintended consequences of actions, in the uncertainty of knowledge."
In other words, economics can't be abstracted into a simple deterministic model. Keynesian economics relies on studies and data to draw it's conclusions. However, this isn't how the study of economics should be conducted. Because of it's very nature, it needs to be more individualistic and less mathematical for the analyzing to make any sense.
The whole point behind Keynesian economics is to stimulate booms. Unfortunately, these tend to end up as busts. The government starts by lowering interest rates, which encourages lending. Because the Federal Reserve determines where this new money goes, it generally puts it in a market that it wants to see boom (housing, for example). This market experiences and obvious boom, due to the overabundance of money. Meanwhile, other industries suffer because of this boom. This leads to a declining economy, as the once-peddled increasing economy was based on the lie that the economic really was expanding.
Friedrich Hayek said, "To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is an attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production." In addition, "The only wise policy for government is to leave money and the banking system to the competitive forces of a free market to eliminate the inflationary booms and recessionary busts of the business cycle, so markets can effectively keep people’s saving and investing decisions in balance for well-coordinated economic stability and growth."
At its heart, a recession results from a loss in total capital. Since capital is the accumulated wealth that is owned by business enterprises or individuals and that is used for the purpose of earning profit or interest, a decrease in capital means a decrease in economic activity, which is the very definition of a recession. Accumulating capital itself is known as saving, which is essentially spending not used for personal consumption. Saving is essential for the production of consumer goods, and with it, everything that goes on before retailing a product.
With that, "...economic recovery requires that the economic system rebuild its stock of capital and that to be able to do so, it needs to engage in greater saving relative to consumption. This is what will help to restore the supply of credit and thus help put an end to financial failures based on a lack of credit. Recovery also requires the freedom of wage rates and prices to fall, so that the presently reduced supply of capital and credit becomes capable of supporting a larger volume of employment and production. Recovery will be achieved by the combination of more saving, capital, and credit along with lower wage rates, costs, and prices. In addition, recovery requires the rapid liquidation of unsound investments."
Resolution: "Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy"
"Better" (per opening round): "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."
Important stipulation: For the US economy.
Shared Burden of proof.
The reason why Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy is because deficit spending produces more economic output than a balanced budget would. Keynesians believe that deficit spending (government spending beyond what they can collect in tax revenue) produces more good than harm (if it doesn't result in increased interest rates) while Austrians believe that deficit spending inherently produces more harm than good.
"Austrian school economists (advocates of free market capitalism) are consistent in opposing government debt."
Here is the formula for GDP (Gross Domestic Product): GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)
GDP is the value of all goods and services produced domestically in one year. It is a measure of overall economic output.
G = government spending. So just by increasing government spending (+ G) we can deduce that an increase in GDP will result.
The question becomes: has the national debt shown to have any adverse effects so far? Have the substantial increases in the national debt in the last half of the decade resulted in increased inflation or decreased confidence in the US dollar? We'll find out.
First, let's see why every dollar of government spending produces a benefit greater than initial amount spent. I'll cover the money multiplier effect:
Consumption spending accounts for 70% of GDP (consumption spending is simply what people spend money on). If the government spends borrowed money in the form of government wage increases or job opportunities through public project funding, people will have more money to spend. People will tend to spend more on goods and services the more money they have . So once government spending increases the amount of money people have in their pockets, the more those people will spend. The more people spend, the more demand there is for goods and services. In order to keep up with demand, businesses will need to employ more people. By employing more people, those employees now have more money to spend on other businesses. Okun's law shows that when unemployment falls by 1% GNP (Gross national product) rises by 3%. The result of this spending is a compounded increase in GDP so the result of this is net positive and I'll why why this is the case. This is all due to the multiplier effect. This is the formula for the money multiplier:
Money multiplier formula:
Y = income
G = government spending
K = money multiplier
MPC = marginal propensity to consume (how many cents per every dollar that is spent with an additional increase in income)
Assuming a modest marginal propensity to consume at 0.80c per every $1.00 in additional income (MPC = 0.8) the formula is as follows:
This means for every $1 in government spending, $5 of additional income will result. This supports my point that government spending will have a compounding effect and will result in a net positive from the initial loan.
So now that I've shown that government spending has net positive effects on GDP, how has our substantial deficit spending harmed us by lost faith in the US dollar or through inflation?
INFLATION as a result of increasing national debt?
Here is inflation over the past decade:
In september 2004 our national debt was $7.3 trillion and in september 2014 it was $17.8 trillion. Our national debt has more than doubled in the last decade, but inflation is decreasing! The current trend from 2009-2014 is averaging about 2%. Having 2% inflation is actually ideal according to Federal reserve. The Federal reserve sets monetary policy for the US.
"The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's mandate for price stability and maximum employment."
So the possible argument that the national debt increases inflation can't be observed. If my opponent claims that the national debt is bad because it increases inflation will have to face the hard data.
LOST VALUE or LOST CONFIDENCE in the US dollar as a result of national debt?
For this contention lets look at demand for the US dollar. What does the data show about the US dollar? Has demand for the dollar lost value over the last decade? For this we'll have to see what it means to be the world's reserve currency.
Reserve currency explanation: "A foreign currency held by central banks and other major financial institutions as a means to pay off international debt obligations, or to influence their domestic exchange rate. A large percentage of commodities, such as gold and oil, are usually priced in the reserve currency, causing other countries to hold this currency to pay for these goods. Holding currency reserves, therefore, minimizes exchange rate risk, as the purchasing nation will not have to exchange their currency for the current reserve currency in order to make the purchase. "
So what does the demand for US currency look like despite increases in the national debt?
So as we can see, the US dollar is just as strong, if not stronger than ever as the world's reserve currency. This means that foreigners have the highest demand for the US dollar by a large margin. This trend continues despite the national debt increases.
So now that we've established that the demand for the US dollar is stronger than ever, has the US dollar lost value? Let's take a look at the exchange rate of the US dollar compared with other leading world economies:
The US dollar has been extremely consistent in exchange rate value with other world economies. So the notion that the US dollar is weakened by national debt would be false also.
I have shown how Keynesian economics is better than Austrian for the US economy. Better was defined in round one: "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."
Keynesians believe that deficit spending is beneficial as long as interest rates don't increase (they haven't) but Austrians believe that deficit spending is inherently undesirable.
Here's proof just for those curious showing that interest rates haven't increased with all the government borrowing:
I have shown that GDP unquestionably increases with government spending and have provided economic rationale as to why this is the case. I've also shown that government spending has a money multiplier effect so the economic benefit exceeds the initial cost of the loan. I've addressed concerns over the negative effects that government spending might have on the economy with hard data to back it up.
Considering all of this, Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy due to increased economic output resulting from deficit spending according to the GDP formula (+G) and the money multiplier effect. Austrians believe that deficit spending is inherently undesirable.
Thanks and over to my opponent!
I would like to thank Benshapiro for presenting his arguments.
The Broken Window Fallacy
Economics, because of its nature to work with institutions that yield significant amounts of power, is a discipline that has a number of fallacies. One of them is the broken window fallacy, or the tendency for economic policies to be judged only on their short-term and immediately foreseeable consequences. As Henry Hazlitt puts it, however, "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." Government stimulus is one of the prime examples of how this fallacy is rampant in economic policy.
My opponent commits this fallacy often, and so does Keynesian economics. Government spending has to come from somewhere. Increased government spending requires that taxes be increased, which means that consumption has to decrease. Keynesians came up with the multiplier to show that government spending would increase the GDP more than consumption. However, "The theory (a simple Keynesian macroeconomic model) implicitly assumes that the government is better than the private market at marshaling idle resources to produce useful stuff." This makes little sense. The government, divorced from the everyday economic interactions people have, should not be better at distributing resources than those taking part in the interactions themselves. At best, government spending is the same as consumption, but in the real world, it's probably worse. Government spending only drags down GDP.
Government stimulus also leaves long-term costs that that outweigh the short-term "benefits": "Finally, any attempt at “stimulus” leaves a long-term cost after any short-term benefits have long dissipated... fiscal deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become negative. Thus, constantly increasing deficits result in persistently low economic growth and an exploding ratio of public debt to GDP." The reserve currency argument relies on the short-term situation being a guide to the long-term. The massive debts the US are incurring are not sustainable, even if the US dollar does remain the world's currency (which isn't plausible). In fact, Paul Krugman himself has criticized the argument that the US can run persistent trade deficits simply because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. This is no way to continue.
There are two responses to the inflation argument. One, there may be something else more important than government spending controlling inflation (like the current state of the economy). And two, inflation is underestimated because it leaves out various things. Take a look at this chart here:
Energy and college tuition are left out of the CPI. Even more tellingly, the three industries with the three biggest increases in the CPI are energy, medical care, and college tuition, all of which the government has had a big stake in in recent years. When things like apparel and recreation are considered (that have little subsidy from the government), inflation is much lower. Heavily government-sponsored industries incur much higher rates of inflation than less government-sponsored industries.
The Government cannot create capital or wealth - all that government does in enacting a stimulus bill is divert capital from more efficient enterprises to less efficient enterprises under the guise of "increased spending", when the real importance is in increased capital. Further, it follows that for every job the government "creates", another job is lost. Overall, at best, stimulus can only achieve the same level of output as if private industry had been allowed to work; and most likely, the government's stimulus will be less efficient, meaning that the recession will be worsened instead of improved.
I mentioned in my first argument that recessions are the result of a loss of capital in an economy, and that saving is the way to re-establish capital in an economy. "Recovery will be achieved by the combination of more saving, capital, and credit along with lower wage rates, costs, and prices. In addition, recovery requires the rapid liquidation of unsound investments."
What government stimulus does is further reduce the amount of capital in the economy when the cause of the problem is too little capital to begin with, the result being that the recession is worsened. "The reason that stimulus packages cause a further loss of capital is that their starting point is the consumption of previously produced wealth. That wealth is part of the capital of the business firms that own it. The stimulus programs offer money in exchange for this wealth and capital. But the money they offer does not come from the production of any comparable wealth by the government or those to whom it gives money - wealth which has had to be produced and sold and thus put into the economic system prior to the withdrawal that now takes place. The starting point for the government and its dependents is an act of consumption, which means a using up, a loss of previously existing wealth in the form of capital... any fresh production and employment that results [from government stimulus] is incapable by itself of replacing the capital that was consumed in starting the process."
Going back to the broken window fallacy, government spending doesn't help to restore employment either. The jobs that the government creates can only be created at the expense of already created jobs: "Any jobs supposedly created by the government are actually stolen by the government from someplace else or sometime else. That is, the government can create jobs in an industry through subsidizing it, but jobs will be lost in other industries not receiving such beneficial treatment. Government deficit spending that creates jobs now comes at the expense of fewer jobs during the times when the government runs a surplus. Jobs are shifted through time, but over time there is no net gain."
Finally, when the evidence is looked at, government stimulus doesn't seem to do a good job anyway. Take, for example, the most recent recession. "...The administration’s promise that the [ARRA] would keep unemployment rates from reaching 8.8 percent and would create some 3 million jobs - 90 percent of them in the private sector - did not materialize." Further, "From 2008 to 2009, the ratio of the deficit to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 3.2 percent to 9.9 percent. This 6.7 percent massive dose of fiscal stimulus represented the largest deficit burst since 1942.... If demand-side stimulus worked, the economy’s growth today should be China-esque." But, it hasn't. It has been the slowest recovery in modern (post-WWII) history."
Government stimulus does not work very well at restoring the economy after a recession, as it doesn't allow for the restoration of capital. It also commits the broken window fallacy. Because Keynesian economics relies on this, it only makes sense that Keynesian economics is invalid. Austrian economics gives the economy what it needs.
: Hazlitt, Henry.Economics in One Lesson.
Resolution: "Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy"
"Better" per round 1: "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."
My opponent concedes that Keynesian policies are better in the short run:
"Government stimulus also leaves long-term costs that outweigh the short-term 'benefits': 'Finally, any attempt at 'stimulus' leaves a long-term cost after any short-term benefits have long dissipated... fiscal deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become negative." (underline mine)
Under my opponent's own quoted argument, Keynesian economics is better (leads to more economic output) in the short run.
Since Keynesian economics has already won over Austrian in the short-run, my opponent must successfully argue that Austrian economics is better in the long run to have any chance at making arguments a tie.
I have no way of responding to anything my opponent says in the final round. I expect that no new arguments will be presented. My opponent has dropped numerous arguments from round 3 that will remain dropped for the concluding round because he had a full round to respond and did not.
The data shows that inflation hasn't increased in the last decade despite big increases in the national debt: dropped
The data shows that demand for the US dollar is stronger than ever as the world's reserve currency over the last decade despite increases in government spending: dropped
The data shows that interest rates haven't increased despite increases in government spending over the last decade: dropped
The data shows that the dollar has held a remarkably consistent exchange rate with other leading world economies despite increased spending over the last decade: dropped
Government spending increases GDP according the GDP formula: agree (according to his argument).
Broken Window fallacy
'The broken window fallacy' is where the destruction of a valuable asset (a window) is believed to be good for the economy because money will be spent on fixing the window but fails to account for the lack of disposable income incurred by the person paying to repair the window. This isn't analogous to Keynesian policies because (1) gov. spending doesn't destroy tangible assets of wealth like a window (2) it ignores the multiplier effect (3) asumes that the money would've always been spent rather than saved had the window not been broken otherwise (4) gov. spending doesn't require immediate repayment so compounded economic growth will occur by the multiplier effect.
There hasn't been any short-term immediately forseeable consequences by government deficits as my opponent asserts (if a decade can be considered short term) on inflation, demand for our currency, the interest rate, our exchange rate, among many other variables as the data shows.
My opponent quotes Henry Hazlit, a proponent of Austrian economics, so of course he says gov. spending is an example of the broken window fallacy. The scenario isn't analogous at all and is quoting from a biased source.
My opponent says that "Government spending has to come from somewhere"
But the dollar is **fiat** currency! It isn't backed by anything. The only thing that makes the dollar valuable is the belief that it has value. As long as people believe that, no matter how much gov. spending occurs, it will still have value. This is one of many reasons why Keynesian economics is better than Austrian for the US economy because the dollar is the world's reserve currency (fiat + high in demand by other world economies) by a very large margin so gov. spending is highly desirable.
"Increased gov spending requires that taxes be increased"
This is not true. Deficit spending is spending beyond what is collected in tax revenue. Taxes under GW Bush decreased despite massive government spending. The debt "celing" is always increasing as well.
https://www.fas.org...;(see pg 24)
The assertion that gov spending drags GDP down as your source stated was from an opinion article stated as an opinion by the article itself (opinion of a rightwing economist.)
My opponent says that the National debt is not sustainable but offers no explanation why. It's also absurd to believe that the US dollar will lose its world's reserve currency status when looking at the data of held US reserves rather than relying on the opinions of those who disagree with Keynesian policies.
"In fact, Paul Krugman himself has criticized the argument that the US can run persistent trade deficits simply because the dollar is the world's reserve currency."
This is a blatant misrepresentation. Krugman said: "It"s often asserted that it"s only because of the dollar"s special status that America can run persistent trade deficits. But that"s just not true: other countries whose currencies have no special role can do the same, and have."
He is saying that not only America can run trade deficits, but countries like Australia too can continue to run persistent trade deficits. He then showed this graph:
My opponent says that the current state of the economy might be controlling inflation. This is an implicit admission supporting my argument that inflation hasn't increased.
"Inflation is underestimated."
Rising tuition, medical care, energy costs
My opponent says that these costs have been inflated because government has had a big stake in these industries. This a baseless assertion. Considering supply and demand, Obamacare, an influx of people returning to college as a result of the recession, and skyrocketed gas prices due to competition from China are much more likely causes for price increases in these sectors.
"Gov cannot create capital or wealth - only diverts capital from more efficient enterprises."
The government doesn't divert capital if it's borrowed money - it's capital creation with the promise of debt repayment at a future date.
My opponent says that saving (thereby increasing capital to counteract a loss in capital caused by a recession) is the remedy for getting out of a recession but quotes mises.org., a site named after Ludwig Von Mises who is one of the founders of Austrian Economics.
Here is a better source that says the opposite: consumer fear leads to savings and worsens recessions.
This fear causes them to cut back on spending, causing the economy to slow even more."
My opponent sources Krugman (Keynesian economist) for a quote that was never said by him to support his points.
"...Government deficit spending that creates jobs now comes at the expense of fewer jobs during the times when the government runs a surplus. Jobs are shifted through time, but over time there is no net gain. "
Since the reasoning given above was baseless, not what was sourced, and not backed by any external data it shouldn't be accepted.
My opponent says that the ARRA was the cause of additional economic stagnation but this was during the height of the housing bubble. His assertions don't show any causal link whatsoever.
My opponent has dropped numerous arguments and agrees that Keynesian policies are better in the short run. Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy due to increased economic output resulting from deficit spending according to the GDP formula (+G) and the money multiplier effect. I've shown that the data is stable over the last decade (long run) as well.
Thanks for the debate!
Users who should NOT vote on this debate: WilliamOfOckham, Wycek, 1Historygenius, nor any new account.
I would like to thank benshapiro for this debate.
I understand what my BoP is. My opponent not only misunderstands my argument, he doesn't understand what my BoP is. The "short term" benefit of a Keynesian cycle is an artificial boom that leads to a crash later. In a sense, Keynesian economics is myopic. Just because Keynesian economics appears to make the economy look better in the short term (which it really doesn't because the boom is artificial), Austrian economics is better because it eliminates those busts, and the long-term increase in the economy doesn't have an artificial foundation. Also, my BoP is to show that Austrian economics is better for the US economy than Keynesian economics. I think that if I show the long-term benefits of Austrian economics outweigh the long-term benefits of Keynesian economics, I will win this debate.
I haven't dropped anything. I responded to the inflation argument by showing that the measure of inflation used was inaccurate, and then showing how inflation has actually increased. I've argued that the US dollar argument is based on the continuation of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency; however, in the long run, this certainly won't hold true, and we'll just have a pile of debt - at some point, the debt we have will become unsustainable. Interest rates have been held down by the US government, so my opponent's point here can't be analyzed - this is simple Keynesian economics. Finally, government spending only takes away from consumption, and there's no multiplier, so at best, GDP will remain the same. I've already argued this. My opponent is making baseless assertions that I have dropped and agreed to his arguments when that isn't the case.
I should also note that my opponent dropped everything from my round two argument. He never responded to my praxeology argument, nor did he respond directly to my recession point. This is the heighy of hypocrisy on his part.
Broken Window Fallacy
The broken window situation is analogous to the economic situation because the same idea applies - money is spent and money is taken away. Government spending takes money from taxpayers and spends it somewhere else. This cannot make any net profit because the money is the same. "The starting point for the government and its dependents is an act of consumption, which means a using up, a loss of previously existing wealth in the form of capital... any fresh production and employment that results [from government stimulus] is incapable by itself of replacing the capital that was consumed in starting the process." I've shown how getting out of a recession requires saving, and I've shown how the multiplier can only be one or less, so the broken window situation applies here.
Also, the broken window fallacy was first articulated by the French economist Frederic Bastiat. Hazlitt simply stated it in his popular book.
Like I've said before, the dollar will not be the world's reserve currency forever. There's going to come a point when countries will want they're money back, and we won't have the money to give them. "The dollar is very susceptible to losing its vaunted reserve currency position by the first major trading country that stops inflating its currency." There will come a point, maybe in the near future, that this will no longer hold, and the US needs to get ready for it, or stop what it's doing to the currency, either of which involves a switch from Keynesian economics.
Taxes have to increase for government spending to increase. Where else is the money going to come from? I've negated the multiplier effect (which my opponent never responded to). If taxes don't increase, the government is going to have to incur debt.
As for debt, while debt is also bad in the long term, debt is also bad in the short term when in comes to economic recovery: "Recent research confirms the dangers posed by high levels of government debt. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff examined over 110 years of economic data to conclude that advanced economies whose debt levels reach 90 percent of GDP face much slower economic growth. In 2009, Carmen Reinhart and Rogoff wrote This Time Is Different, a book The Economist called “a magisterial work on the causes and consequences of crises stretching back 800 years. Their conclusions were based on a vast new accumulation of cross-country data, covering 66 countries across all regions of the world and spanning eight centuries. This dataset made it possible to study country debt episodes and crises much more comprehensively. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff’s recent work on the impact of high public debt on growth and interest rates is based on this groundbreaking dataset."
Also, I should note that under the Keynesian system, the debt is supposed to be paid off during boom periods, but the US hasn't done that. There isn't supposed to be any long-term debt.
I never admitted anything. There may be something in the economy that's overriding the effect of the government spending (there are many variables that affect inflation). Also, the numbers are there. Surely the recession, for example, would have inflated other industries as well. The government does have a large stake in those industries, and inflation increases as a result of it.
My opponent seems to think that someone promoting their side is always wrong. My opponent's sources have mostly been Keynesian (when explicitly agreeing with him), so I might say the same of his argument. My opponent makes no attempt to refute my argument, only hiding behind the fact that it was made by someone who supports Austrian economics. All he does here is argue that fear affects people, which it does. A lack of capital (and saving) is the root of recession, while fear just makes recessions worse. Fear doesn't cause recessions (excpet in exceptional cases). Mises is a repsectable economist.
My opponent's entire refutation rests on ideas that I already cautioned against in my opening round. To sum it up, saving helps restore the line of credit, the loss of which was the cause of the recession to begin with. It's not like money that is saved is not used in the economy: "It is simply channeled elsewhere than into consumer goods. Financial institutions that accept such deposits lend them to customers who invest in their businesses. This is the process of creating the capital that is the sine qua non of sustainable, long-term economic growth."
I have argued how praxeology is the best way for examing economic situations, and how recessions are the result of a lack of capital, arising from problems in saving. Recovering from recessions also has its root in saving. My opponent's arguments about government spending and the multiplier effect are invalid because they commit the broken window fallacy, and are based on a misunderstanding of how economics works. The US cannot be the reserve currency forever, debt is bad (especially long-term debt), and the Keynesian economic model doesn't even call for long-term debt. Overall, Austrian economics is better for the US economy than Keynesian economics.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|