The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
JohnDWigingham
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Our economy is carp thanks to the fed

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 1 vote the winner is...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 85104
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

On a debate, I said that the Fed destroyed our economy, my opponent said that "our GDP is better than ever, if that is economic hardship, we should have more of it", I'm sorry to tell you this, but I don't measure how good an economy by how high it's GDP is, I judge it by the following factors:
Education:
we are 36th in the world, our spending per student is 7,500$, in Finland it is 5,500$, and yet Finland has better grades, the problem isn't money.
National debt:
18,000,000,000,000$
Wealth distribution, based on money in currency:
The common man earns 1,600$ per month, accounting for upper middle class people, let's say that the average dude gets 2,000$ per month, this is 600,000,000,000$, this is a
3 1/3% wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution, based on GDP:
600,000,000,000$ is 4 3/10% wealth distribution,
Overall wealth distribution:
3 3/10 average with 4 3/10%, is 3.8%, our wealth distribution is a pathetic 3.8%,

Let's consider wealth distribution in 1968, the population is 200 million, wages are the same for inflation (actually it is higher than the federal minimum wage today, but the same as the state minimum wage today), that is 400 billion distributed amongst the common man, the GDP is 950 billion, our GDP in 42%.

This doesn't sound like we should have any of what the Fed calls "economic progress".
JohnDWigingham

Con

No, our economy is not a fish.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

I know its not a fish, but it is worse than ever.
JohnDWigingham

Con

It's not a gerbil either...
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

yeah I know
JohnDWigingham

Con

Vote trump for 2016!
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

I vote Carson.
JohnDWigingham

Con

If trump wins we will be rich.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

If Trump wins America will be a Trump Dump!
JohnDWigingham

Con

JohnDWigingham forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
To anyone here reading the cancer that is this opening argument:

Go here: http://www.debate.org...

Read it, learn it, ask questions if you'd prefer.

This is especially directed at harrytruman.
Posted by JohnDWigingham 1 year ago
JohnDWigingham
Pros argument is our economy is carp. Our economy is not a fish.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
What's a fish have to do with the Federal reserve and the economy??? Maybe this was an attempt at equivocation and a bad one to me.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 1 year ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Oh, there you are, RI. I was about to link this to your profile.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
V wow lol great answer. Helps a lot for a guy like me who has never been in eco yet.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Also, the national debt likewise has nothing to do with the Fed, because the Fed doesn't draw from the Treasury: the Fed actually *remits* all of the operating profits from its portfolio back to the Treasury at the end of each year. Recently, remittances to the Treasury reached a record level of about $97.7 billion. If anything, Fed policy *reduces* the accumulation of future debt--and by that I mean reduces the deficit, all else equal (especially because much of the deficit is non-cyclically adjusted, and the Fed has a maximum-employment goal), that represents the annual rate of increase in the the national debt.

People regularly conflate the two, and it's unbelievably agonizing to have to explain the difference between flow and stock variables.

Another argument is that we can borrow short-term at negative real interest rates, which in at least some sense is a function of easier monetary policy. Of course, that would give the Fed too much credit, and wrongly stipulate that interest are low *because of the Fed* as opposed to because of the still-weak economy.

So, harrytruman is just wrong on absolutely everything and has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Lmfao.

Even if I bought your metric--and I don't, because I've taken Econ 101 (and much more)--here's the problem: the Fed has nothing to do with either education or the wealth distribution. The Fed cannot impact real variables--e.g., real incomes--in the longer run, has no impact on distribution over longer periods of time, and can't in any way impact education. All of those are normative questions of what to do with a rising tide. All the Fed can do is keep demand stable so that we have money with which to invest in meaningful things, like education.

So, NGDP is literally THE metric to evaluate the Fed's performance.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
V LOL for real fix that resolution though.
Posted by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
Vox_Veritas
Our economy has become a type of fish?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
harrytrumanJohnDWiginghamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con drops all of Pro's arguments and makes none of his own. Thus Pro's arguments outweigh Con's and Pro wins. Con ff so conduct to pro..