The Instigator
murdokahn
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Subutai
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

National debt: We should not start paying it off right now

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,398 times Debate No: 35605
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

murdokahn

Pro

I am making the argument that we should not begin to pay off our 16.7 trillion dollar national debt right now, but rather to start making extra payments on it during good economic times.
Subutai

Con

I'm going to assume that since my opponent has not made any arguments and that this is a three-round debate that the first round is for acceptance. To clarify my position, I will be arguing that it is necessary to start attempting to pay it off now, whether we are in good economic times or bad. I will do my best to forgo any arguments on Government economic stimulus, but it may be necessary, depending on what my opponent's arguments are.
Debate Round No. 1
murdokahn

Pro

Thank you for your acceptance, Con.

I will try to avoid a long-winded debate, since it's detracts from the focus necessary on key concepts.

1. The international currency is in U.S. dollars. The debt is in our own currency, and unlike other countries, we own the printing press. No other country in the world is like this.

Picture hosted by Pixentral

2. The debt causes a problem when it has a "crowding out" effect on the private market. Meaning that when the government borrows too much money, interest rates rise making it harder for private business to remain profitable and inflation will be out of control. The government has been borrowing like crazy but interest rates remain low and inflation remains low. How can this be? Because our economy is not at full potential. Our unemployment rate remains so high, that if money is not spent to stimulate our economy, we would not be consuming and producing anywhere near our potential - all without the negative side effects. If government quit spending, it would make getting out of the recession even harder.

Picture hosted by Pixentral
We are at point "D" if we reduce government spending, because if we are in a recession that means our economy is not operating at full potential. With government spending, which adds to the national debt, we will be on the production possibilities line - operating our economy at full potential and reducing unemployment. The reason this happens, is because money stimulates demand in an economy. Once the economy picks up, and interest rates rise and unemployment falls, then we need to allocate more funds to pay off the national debt.

3. The important thing regarding the debt is not the total amount, but the amount in proportion to our GDP. It is important to look at the GDP/debt ratio and compare that to other nations (we are not at the top). To put it in perspective: If a business is borrowing 2 million dollars, that is a lot of debt. But if the business is producing 3 million dollars worth of product, it still makes a profit and the 2 million dollar debt is not as bad in comparison.

Our GDP/DEBT ratio:
Picture hosted by Pixentral

Japan's GDP/DEBT ratio: (Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world [1]).
Picture hosted by Pixentral

4. It is important to keep debt in check, but it is not bad, and is actually a good thing to help stimulate the economy especially when it is not being used to its full potential. The way to help alleviate the debt is to start paying it off once our economy starts picking back up again, not while it is in a recession.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [1]
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank murdokahn for presenting his arguments. I see he has decided to base most of his arguments off of the economic problem of reduced government spending in a depression. As such, I will refute his arguments in round 3, as well as offer some concluding statements on my arguments.

Intro. The Debt Is Skyrocketing

This isn't so much an actual argument as it is a prelude to my arguments. Anyway, it is clear that the US debt is skyrocketing, as shown here:



[1]

Even worse, the debt-to-GDP ratio has also been skyrocketing, and has just crossed 100% (meaning if the amount of American GDP in one year was taken to pay off the debt, we'd still be in debt):



[2]

It is clear that something needs to be done about the skyrocketing debt. The only question that remains is whether or not we should start paying it off now, or wait for more generous economic times. I will be arguing that the former is necessary.

I. Interest on Debt Is Large

As with any loan, country-to-country loans have interest involved, albeit they tend to be smaller than regular loans. In short, debt not only means that a country has to pay the amount it owes, but also the amount of interest that collects. Although not an issue for short-term, small amount loans, with the size of the US's debt and its stubbornness to not pay it back, interest on the debt is becoming a real problem and is taking a large chunk of your tax dollars. About 6% of the entire federal budget is devoted to paying interest payments. Here is an informative chart showing how much interest rates take of the federal budget:


[3]

But the story does not end there. Currently, because of the global economic downturn, interest rates are low. Whereas the normal interest rate on debt payments is around 5.7 percent, we are currently paying 2.5 percent interest. Whenever the global economy recovers, interest rates will more than double, resulting in $4 trillion in interest payments over just 10 years.[4]

Even worse, with the federal budget projected to skyrocket over the next 30 years, interest payments will only get higher and higher. This graph shows historical interest payments, and projected interest payments over the next 20 years:



[3]

With an ever increasing budget, interest payments will get higher and higher, as this study concludes:
  • A one percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio would be expected to raise long-term interest rates by between 24 and 40 basis points; and
  • A one percentage point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio would be expected to raise future interest rates by about four or five basis points.[5][6][9]
Overall, interest on debt will continue to rise as long as we do not make any serious attempts to pay it off. This will create the need for more taxation, and, as a result, eventual economic sluggishness.

II. Economic Consequences of Debt

One may wonder how debt can be bad for an economy. I mean, it provides a boost to the economy (I'll get to refuting that in the next round). However, even if that were true, there's still the underlying principle that debt is determinal to overall economic growth.

A study conducted by Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo found that high-debt advanced economies grew an average 1.3 percentage points slower than low-debt countries (below 30 percent of GDP). Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff discovered that the average growth rate in countries experiencing public debt overhang is 1.2 percentage points lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent of GDP.[7][8][9][10]

How is this seemingly incorrect idea possible? As J. D. Foster explains, "The facts are that the U.S. government debt ratio has risen dramatically in recent years, is projected to remain highly elevated in the near term, and is then projected to grow rapidly beginning late in the decade. Simple reason suggests why this increase in debt would constrain policymakers’ choices in terms of allocating future resources, and theory suggests why it would be expected to increase interest rates substantially and why this increase in interest rates would likely put a severe damper on prospects for economic growth. The empirical evidence strongly supports these latter conjectures."[9]

To conclude this point, here is a chart showing projected US GDP with a public debt overhang, and without. A clearly noticeable difference can be seen:



[10]

II.A. Higher Inflation

The primary way to reduce the inherent value of debt a country owes to to increase the supply of money in the economy, which means that more money is chasing the same nuber of goods, which leads to inflation. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would devalue the principal of the remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy, increase uncertainty, increase real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly.[10]

II.B. The Crowding Out of Private Investment

Because of the increased government spending, private investment is, more or less, "crowded out", resulting in reduced amounts of private saving, which decreases the amount of capital available for private investment, which, ultimately, slows economic growth and reduces productivity. These two things are definately bad for an economy, as standards of living increases slow and businesses are no longer able to grow because of the decreased productivity. The economy enters, basically, a period of stagnation.

II.C. Conclusion on Economic Problems

"In the end, all of [the] corrections and critiques show that countries with debt above 90 percent of GDP grow on average 2.0 percent less per year than low-debt countries and 1.0 percent less per year than countries with debt levels between 60 percent and 90 percent of GDP."[9][11]

III. Security Issues

Due to space issues, I will keep this argument short, although it is self-explanatory. In a nutshell, here is the problem with debt from the foreign policy perspective: "If the debt continues to grow unbridled, the U.S. government will be constrained in its ability to pay for what it wants to do militarily and diplomatically. And it could limit the country's leverage with foreign powers."[12]

Admiral Michael Mullen has this to say about the issue: "A nation with our current levels of unsustainable debt ... cannot hope to sustain for very long its superiority from a military perspective, or its influence in world affairs." He conitues on to say, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt."[12][13]

Basically, countries that we owe money to could make decisions for us without our willing on threat of a request for immediate payment, or, more seriously, the threat of withholding additional borrowing. It is easy to see how this would be a major security issue.

Sources

[1]: http://teststripz.com...
[2]: http://nexvucapital.wordpress.com...
[3]: http://www.heritage.org...
[4]: http://blog.heritage.org...
[5]: Thomas Laubach, “New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt,” Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2003.
[6]: Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023.”
[7]: Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo, “Public Debt and Growth,” IMF Working Paper No. 10/174, July 2010, pp. 1–47.
[8]: Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, “Public Debt Overhangs.”
[9]: http://www.heritage.org...
[10]: http://www.heritage.org...
[11]: Salim Furth, “Debt and Growth in a Time of Controversy,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3926, May 1, 2013.
[12]: http://money.cnn.com...
[13]: http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
murdokahn

Pro

As stated before, I will make my arguments as concise as possible to avoid a long-winded debate without detracting from the truth.

I am not very good with computers so I didn't realize my DEBT/GDP ratio graphs in my previous post did not display large enough. Here is a link to them.

US GDP/DEBT ratio graph: http://www.pixentral.com...
Japan GDP/DEBT ratio graph: http://www.pixentral.com...

The point I am illustrating in showing these graphs is that a GDP/DEBT ratio is not indicative of an unstable economy, Japan is the 3rd largest economy and surpassed the US in GDP/DEBT ratio back in 1997.

OPPONENT SUMMARY
#1. The nominal debt is rising - therefore it is an immediate problem

#2. The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is a problem

#3. Interest on debt is why the national debt it is an immediate problem

#4. Interest rates are low now, but once interest rates will rise once our economy is back on track - becoming a financial problem

#5. The long-run implications of debt with just making the minimum payments will results in more taxation and eventual economic sluggishness.

#6. debt is determinal to economic growth - which is a problem

#7. Our debt is unsustainable, is leading to higher inflation, and causes a "crowding out effect".


My response to my opponents arguments


I will start with point #7 and work my way up to #1 - then present a quick conclusion:


#7.
Our debt is unsustainable, is leading to higher inflation, and causes a "crowding out effect".

Let's take a look at the solid evidence first.
Since Obama took office, the national debt rose by $6 trillion dollars [1].

Surely this $6 trillion in spending would lead to out of control inflation and skyrocketing interest rates, then lead to a crowding out effect on the private market right? Not the case. Let's take a look at the facts on inflation first.

Here is inflation over the last decade:
Picture hosted by Pixentral
Link to this picture: http://s14.postimg.org...

Here is the the shockingly low interest rate:
Picture hosted by Pixentral
Link to this picture: http://s10.postimg.org...

As you can see: Interest rates are lower than ever, and inflation - despite huge government spending - is not any higher or lower than at was with less government spending. The reason? Let's take a look back at the production possibilities curve:
Picture hosted by Pixentral
We are still at point "D" on the production possibilites curve. Our economy is still not at full potential. Huge government spending has had no effect on inflation or led to higher interest rates for this reason. Once our economy is back at full potential, that is the time to begin paying back the debt.

# 6. Debt is determinal to economic growth - therefore it is a problem

There are a few reasons why this is not a problem. 1) we own debt in our own currency, our currency is the international currency, and we can print as much money as we like 2) the same way a business uses credit to buy its products is akin to the way we use expansionary government spending to lift the economy during bad times without negative consequences of inflation or rising interest rates - no crowding out effect. The solution is to pay back the debt during good economic times, the same way a that a business that begins to make large profit will start paying more back on its debt.

#5. The long-run implications of debt with just making the minimum payments will results in more taxation and eventual economic sluggishness.

The key word here is [u]long-run[/u]. In the short run, during an economic recession, it is necessary to use expansionary government spending to lift the economy out of crisis for the reasons I listed above. In the long-run, once our economy is lifted out of a recession, then it is necessary to begin paying more on our national debt. The same way a struggling business wouldn't begin to pay large amounts of its debt back until the business was more profitable.

#4. Interest rates are low now, but once interest rates will rise once our economy is back on track - becoming a financial problem

The key word here is "[u]once our economy is back on track[/u]. The road to economic recovery or the process of even reaching "back on track" would much slower and painful if expansionary government spending wasn't helping the economy to reach it's full potential. The logical option is to pay more back on the debt we used to expand the economy during bad times.

#3. Interest on debt is why the national debt it is an immediate problem.

We own the debt in our own currency. We print more money - but no inflation follows. Then we pay the printed money as interest to other countries we owe it to. Effectively we are cancel out the interest problem when noticing this simple truth.

#2. The current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is a problem

Japan currently holds over 200% of a DEBT/GDP ratio and is the worlds third largest economy. They surpassed us in 1997 in GDP/DEBT ratio.

#1. The nominal debt is rising - therefore it is an immediate problem

The key words here are "immediate" and seeing an inherent danger in nominal debt rising. I am [u]not[/u] arguing that we do not pay back our debt at all - but rather when our economy is experiencing low unemployment and get out of recessionary times. We own debt in our own currency - the international currency of the world, we own the printing press, inflation is constant, and interest rates are at an all-time low. The unemployment rate is falling steadily as well, we are getting back on track. I don't see the immediate problem, and even more curious, is to take a look at what happens when we [u]don't[/] use expansionary spending. The worst economic crisis in American history comes to mind - The Great Depression.

As a conclusion, I will offer you words from arguably, one of the greatest economists of our generation: Paul Krugman. He completely agrees we me that we should not make extra payments on national debt right now. He has some excellent videos on YouTube for the same reaons. Here he is:

Here is a great article also by Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com...

Paul Krugman's credentials : Nobel prize-winning professor of economics at Princeton University, specializing in international and Macroeconomics [2].

[u]SOURCES[/u]

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank murdokahn for this debate. I will begin by refuting my opponent's notion of stimulus spending in a recession - basically the bulwork of Keynesian Economics, as my opponent's arguments have concluded. I will conclude with defending my original arguments.

R. Stimulus Spending Is Bad for an Economy

To begin with, I will show how stimulus spending does not accomplish the goals it's set out to. I'm talking specifically about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. "...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."[1][2]

Here is a graph showing how the ARRA failed in its objective:


[1]

There's also a lot of evidence that stimulus spending actually hurts an economy. As Frank Shostak explains: "
The government as such doesn't create any real wealth, so how can an increase in government outlays revive the economy?Various individuals who will be employed by the government will expect compensation for their work. The only way it can pay these individuals is by taxing others who are still generating real wealth. By doing this, the government weakens the wealth-generating process and undermines prospects for economic recovery."[3]

To present more evidence of this situation: "First, the relationship between government debt and real GDP growth is weak for debt/GDP ratios below a threshold of 90 percent of GDP. Above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by one percent, and average growth falls considerably more. We find that the threshold for public debt is similar in advanced and emerging economies."[4] This analysis comes from data collected over 200 years in 44 countries covering a wide range of circumstances.

Overall, the notion that paying off the national debt during a recession will harm the economy because it takes away from potential government stimulus is false, because government stimulus is harmful to the economy. If anything, paying off the debt boosts the economy two-fold.

As this graph shows, government stimulus is bad:




[5]

DC1. The "Crowding Out" Effect

My opponent isn't using corrected data. The only reason that interest rates are low in America now is because of the Fed's massive quantitive easing plans. According to Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, in 11 of the 26 cases where public debt was above 90 percent of GDP, real interest rates were either lower, or about the same, as during years of lower debt ratios. To think of it another way, 15 of the 26 cases had circumstances where the interest rates rose, which is more than half. Regardless, however, Soaring debt matters for economic growth even when market actors are willing to absorb it at low interest.[6][7]

As for inflation, my opponent uses faulty data. Using the Everyday Price Index (EPI - a measure of the value of everyday goods), a rate of 8.1% is determined. In addition, if one uses ShadowStats, one gets an inflation rate of of around 9%. Even so, this can also be blamed on the Fed's quantitive easing.[8][9]

This graph shows the ShadowStats statistics:



[9]

DC2. Economic Growth

"...we can print as much money as we like" I will restrain my laughter at this comment and go straight for the refutation - you're devaluing the currency, making people's savings have less value, which will force them to buy fewer things, which will decrease overall output. Also, it would be very hard the next time the US would want to borrow money from another country as the country would be being paid in worthless currency. It would solve the debt problem, but you'd have economic chaos afterwards.

DC3. Implications of Debt

The Government is not a business - therefore, how a business functions is not how the Government should function. Claiming that they should is fallacious (also applicable to the above point). Further, I already provided empirical evidence that recessionary fiscal policy (under the Keynesian system) only harms an economy. The ARRA certainly didn't work.

DC4. Interest Rates

I'm probably beginning to sound like a broken record now - but then again, so is my opponent. However, I'll now post two informative graphs about what the stimulus did:

To unemployment:



[10]

GDP:



[11]

Now tell me again how the stimulus helped the economy.

DC5. Interest on Debt

I mentioned this in DC2, but printing money to pay off debt is never good for an economy - it's worse than using regular Keynesian economics, and waiting until the economy is back on track. Printing money does two things - makes savings weaker, and discourages any additional loans from other countries. Inflation goes up with pumping money into the economy, too.

DC6. Japan

But their economy isn't rosy. "Contrary to Bernanke and other commentators, the lost decade in Japan occurred on account of the loose monetary stance of the BOJ [Bank of Japan]. The economy fell into a slump on account of a severe destruction of the machinery of wealth generation. Instead of allowing a quick cleansing of the system, the BOJ enforced massive pumping. This has prevented the elimination of the non-productive bubble activities and prolonged the economic agony."[12]

Japan has not yet recovered from its lost decade because of the advice of Keynesians like Krugman. They are projected to go into another lost decade if their fiscal policy and economic plan does not change. That's a strike against high debt-to-GDP ratios.

DC7. Nominal Debt

Most of my opponent's argument I have already refuted above, but one part is worth mentioning - the Great Depression. He curiously attributes the Great Depression to a lack of expansionary fiscal policy. The problem with this is that even the Keynesian model accepts that that wasn't the cause of the Great Depression; only that it made it worse. Even so, it's worth mentioning that both Hoover and Roosevelt pumped massive amounts of stimulus into the economy.

"Our results suggest that New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression... Thus, the model accounts for about half of the continuation of the Great Depression between 1934 and 1939."[13]

DC8. Dropped Arguments

My opponent never really attempts to refute how interest is bad, and never even touches the security issues of national debt. For the former, keep in mind that you never get interest back, regardless of whether the stimulus works. That's an unnecessary opportunity cost,

Conclusion

Basically, my opponent attempts to use Keynesian economics to prove his case, even though I have shown it to be a failure. The debt needs to be paid off now for the American economy to get back on track.

Sources

[1]: http://reason.org...
[2]: http://www.heritage.org...
[3]: http://mises.org...
[4]: http://mises.org...
[5]: http://spectator.org...
[6]: http://www.heritage.org...
[7]: The Reinhart study cited in the last round.
[8]: http://www.nypost.com...
[9]: http://www.shadowstats.com...
[10]: http://www.anchorrising.com...
[11]: http://seekingalpha.com...
[12]: http://mises.org...
[13]: Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis."
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
1Historygenius's vote, while no literary masterpiece, had three complete sentences. His first was clearly a complete sentence (subject + verb + predicate + addendum). His second was also a complete sentence (subject + verb + predicate + prepositional phrases). His third was also a complete sentence (subject 1 + verb 1 + subject 2 + verb 2 + predicate + addendum). I'm not sure why you claim his sentences weren't complete.

Next, I didn't count those national debt graphs in the official source count (your 2 to my 21, or, if you prefer the unbiased count, your 0 to my 14). Also, randomly doesn't mean the first two.

On the "inflationary lag", the expansion of money could not instantly result in the uniform increase in prices even if you neutralized all the factors influencing the demand for money. The reason is that it takes time for new money to circulate throughout the economy. That"s the reason it has redistributive effects. Eventually, however, it will show up.(Bugos)

As for the national security issue, I don't think you get the issue. If you owe a country whose policy intentions are unfavorable, then, if they so desire, they can raise the interest rate on loans, refuse to borrow more, or, worst of all, ask for immediate payment. Any of these situations would be a security risk as the US is forced to either default or do what that country tells them to do - even if it entails a security risk.

Finally, don't be discouraged by one loss. A 8-9 loss is not bad, all things considered. You did a pretty good job. I suggest that you, in the future, use more sources both reliable and relevant to the discussion, and not bring up arguments already refuted (unless, of course, you have new evidence or a different line of reasoning).
Posted by murdokahn 4 years ago
murdokahn
Because history genius gave a poor rationale for voting the way he did - I had to decipher what he was saying because it wasn't even in complete sentences. The other two votes gave a logical explanation for why they voted. I randomly chose two of your sources, both of them ended up being less than half a page long and referenced a the national debt in a graph which had nothing to do with your arguments. Regarding the "inflationary lag" - it won't ever show up as long as our economy is still in a recession. Actually the biggest threat is our national security is if our currency is gets overtaken by the Euro is has an international currency take its place. I don't "know so much" but I'm majoring in economics and can see the flaws in how you think - national debt as leverage for example. I thought that once, too. But debt doesn't have leverage power like that. Anyway, congrats on the win in an ideologically and politically biased environment. I won't be using this website again.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
@murdokahn: I'm curious why you attack the inherent bias of 1Historygenius, but not the other two debaters (both voters' RFDs were, at least, questionable. Anyway, getting more to the point, you're missing the point of 1HG's vote.

For sources, you had 5 versus my 26. Of your sources, 2 were simply statistics that were irrelevant (i.e. pointing out the size of the national debt isn't a real argument, as I pointed out), 1 was just about Krugman's qualifications, and the other 2 were the only valid sources that backed up arguments. Of mine, 2 wre irrelevant statistics (see my R2 intro), and I'll give you a freebie with the 3 I used just for graphs, even though that could be considered an argument. That now leaves your 2 versus my 21.

Next concerns the reliability of the sources themselves. Admittedly, both of our sources had some inherent bias (Krugman is a leading Keynesian). You can't claim that my sources have an inherent bias just because they're Austrian, and then forget that your sources have an inherent bias towards Keynesian economics. Discounting any sources with an inherent bias (I include Heritage and the Mises Foundation), leaves a source count of your 0 to my 14 (you're welcome to question the reliability of any of those 14, though). My point here is that I, obviously, had more reliable, numerous sources than you do. 1HG voted reasonably here. If anything Benshapiro's vote is the questionable one.

Getting to the arguments, you obviously didn't read my R3 too well. The other method to calculate inflation resulted in 8% inflation. Further, it's simple economics that there's a lag between a rise in the money supply and inflation (since you "know" so much). As for the "home currency" argument, that still doesn't mean that you don't own a valued amount to the country in question. If you owe $10=$5 Euros (hypothetically), you still owe that value, whether you pay it with $10 or 5 Euros.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
As for your question about the crowding out effect was covered in my R3 (see DC1). Basically, interest rates rose 15/26ths of the time. The US's case was one of the 11. On a national security issue, if you owe a country a debt, that country has leverage against you. In other words, that country could use that debt against you with the threat of stoppage of lending. Finally, on Japan, you forgot to mention that the Japanese economy has been stagnant for over two decades. Japan grew more when the BOJ reined in spending, and the foundation of the slump rested on the previous monetary stimulus that BOJ sanctioned.

Further, I refuted the argument the stimulus spending helps - and even argued that it hurts - the economy. Even if all of my other arguments were invalid, that refutation made your whole case far apart - if there's no reason for spending the money on something else, then there's no reason to not spend money to pay off the debt.

Also, while this site does have a votebombing problem, it's not that rampant. If you found 1HG's vote questionable, you need to question the other two votes' reliability. Also, I may have used a lot of logic in disprove your case and prove my own, but I cited several studies that provided empirical evidence that both stimulus spending (by debt-to-GDP ratios) was bad and that interest on the debt will skyrocket. Remember, also, that skills can win a debate.
Posted by murdokahn 4 years ago
murdokahn
"Reasons for voting decision: This was a very great debate and one of the most interesting I've ever seen. Con seemed to bring a wall of sources to the debate that clearly tips it in his favor. I feel Con explained his points better on how economic growth if the debt is down and the consequences of it being up as well as the stimulus spending."

This is the vote that decided the debate. Not only have I had a heated debate with history genius, but he is clearly ideologically biased and is clearly evident by his "agree with before and agree with after" vote. The "wall of sources" by no means indicates that the sources subutai used are more reliable, actually most of his sources come from an Austrian Economics website - an alternative economic school of thought. Are two ounces of silver worth more than an ounce of gold? The number of sources used are irrelevant. Actually I took my source on inflation from economagic.com - a data source with no bias whatsoever. Obviously by the grammatical errors and simplistic reasoning shown by his vote shows his confirmation bias and lack of spirit in the debate. As others have stated, Subutai has failed to show how my primary points on inflation, world reserve currency, and the crowding out effect are wrong. The issue of national security - demanding back the debt - could be answered by taking an intermediate course in economics. Nobody can "call back debt". If anything, this website is rearing its ugly head because of ideological and pseudo-political bias. Possibly he won the debate based solely by skill, but not on facts. By the way, the source that mentioned the 90%+ GDP/debt ratio as being a financial threat, was based on a mixture of countries with economics large and small in scale. NOT on an economy that is the worlds largest reserve currency. Not did he address the fact that Japan - as of today - is the worlds third largest economy and surpassed us in 1997 in GDP/debt ratio. I rest my case.
Posted by murdokahn 4 years ago
murdokahn
Gah, my graphs didn't post big enough. I hate being computer illiterate sometimes. My Graph indicates that the GDP/DEBT ratio as of the end of 2012 is slightly over 100%, while Japan has surpassed that in 1997, and sustains over a 200% GDP/DEBT ratio being the worlds 3'rd largest economy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
murdokahnSubutaiTied
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: This was a very great debate and one of the most interesting I've ever seen. Con seemed to bring a wall of sources to the debate that clearly tips it in his favor. I feel Con explained his points better on how economic growth if the debt is down and the consequences of it being up as well as the stimulus spending.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
murdokahnSubutaiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an amazing debate. I enjoyed reading it and both arguments were sound. I think Con had better sentence structure. Since I have to find a way to grade this I am awarding sources to Con, only for the reason that Pro used wiki to support a few of his arguments. While I admit wiki can be a good base to get facts from. I am going strictly off the wording of what they are requesting we vote on. It says "most" reliable. Just by this definition I am awarding this to Con. I am awarding Pro arguments jsut because I do not think con Refuted some or Pros primary points. I would have like to see Cons response to Pros statement about currency and inflation. Since I am pressed and this debate was wonderful, for that reason and that reason only this goes to Pro Wonderful debate and great presentation of facts.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 4 years ago
Benshapiro
murdokahnSubutaiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. I don't think con disproved pro's main arguments, especially the international currency argument and inflation . I have a bit of an economic background myself and I've had to use some of pros sources which are all based on actual gov. statistics. I disagree with pro that the government is like a business... I think this is more of a failed analogy more than an argument though. On cons side I also don't think you can argue gov. Stimulus is always bad because FDR's new deal got the economy of the Great Depression that way. Either way great arguments but I don't think con convinced that national debt needed to be paid off during a recession.