Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.
Rules: Debater must have typing experience.
Debater must have internet access.
No excuses or forfeitures.
Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
Must insert one witty quote per round.
Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)
"Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair." - Sam Ewing
I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.
With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.
Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.
Let the game begin!
State your case
Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Simply put Ron paul's ceconomic policies: ending the federal reserve system, doing away with fractional banking, removing the hand of goverment from every faucet of business(including regulators and inspectors), and removing regulations(like the minimum wage) are interesting and promomising ideas in the acedemic setting. However, in practice these policies do not lead to the ideal that libertarians hope for. A survey of American history will show how america has 'Ended the Fed'(twice). Before there was a minimum wage and industry regulators, there were the kind of conditions that congressman paul advocates for, and anyone whose read upton sinclairs 'The Jungle',about the meat packing industry in the early 20th century, will know its pretty.
Barrack obama's economic policies have supported the actions the Federal Reserve undertook during the economic crash of 2008.
The white house has helped stave off a depression, the likes of which would have seen 25%-50% unployment(Chairman Burnanke testimony under oath during a House Financial Services Committee meeting)
With that I submit my contentions.
I thank my opponent for accepting. We have only three rounds to debate, so I will ask him to only rebut my main argument, and not my rebuttal to his main argument.
It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul’s economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama’s economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I’ll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School.
Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble’s collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well.
Keynesian School: Interventionist “economics” that stems from John Maynard Keynes’ views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal), economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, “Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine.”
That’s because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is.
Ron Paul thinks the government’s role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth.
Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:
1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It’s much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.
2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.
3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business’ profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.
4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it.
Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences.
Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama’s socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and “stimulus,” Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world.
Conclusion: Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.
Thank you to my opponent, I can not oblige. You've forfeited the first round(twice), which I still can overlook, but I can not give you a rebuttal and hold mine back. It would handicap the con side unnecessarily. We have two arguments each, we'll let the voters decide the rest. (though the pro has forfeited a round, I will ask the voters not to consider that as a voting issue
I will ask the voters to disregard the definition of Keynesian economics, it is so completely judgmental in its definition. It even puts quotation marks around the word 'economics' as if to say the Keynesian method is masquerading as 'economics', when infact its mere religion? pseudo science? I couldn't say. even its most starch opponents are willing to give their opposing ideologies proper definitions.
Before I begin dismantling this fairy tell of the libertarian utopia, I will ask the voters to note that my opponents arguments are plagiarized, in some places word for word, from peter scheiff. (you can see for yourself here http://www.europac.net...)
Reading through these contentions, I can not help but think what a relief from the problems we face in government. Its euphoric. Like a drug. Our economic woes would not be if ONLY politicians would understand these contentions, why does doesn't anybody else take these seriously? They seem like the remedy to all our present day ills. It is for this reason I believe Congressman Paul has such a strong following amongst the youth, it provides the answers to (almost) everything government without having to have any of deep knowledge of it. (A few years back the 'illumanti" was as popular for the same reason, it allowed people to skip all the boring 'learning' and say they knew more)
But I digress. These ideas have already been a part of this nations history. Every single one mentioned. These ideas didn't pan out. That why their no longer with us. We've tried them and didn't like them. Its analogous to communism, though the two couldn't be more different, in that it sounds amazing in theory but troublesome in practice.
1.My opponent would see to to it that we "Establish sound fiscal policy "
how he plans to incur a surplus is not mentioned, just that he would. "cut a trillion dollars"
24% health care
Where I ask.
This government must cut spending, but to cut that much that quickly would mean a change in Political policy. One your holding back, In order for that argument to stand it necessarily follows that you indicate either where your cutting the spending or what the immediate change in policy would be because of it.
An example, This economic plan drastically changes the role and size of our military. The United States military is returned to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century, a small domestic force. essentially a national guard. This is not something that should be glossed over, Your disregarding everything we learned in 20th century! There is a reason this country went from having a national guard to standing army, to whit: Sh%t happens. Your economic plan puts us on the footing of Japan.
In contrast, President Obama has outlined a plan to cut $4 trillion over the next 12 years(1) You'll notice that alot more money than the $1 trillion you proposed, The difference is the time frame. Over 12 years will allow for there to be responsible cuts, slow transitions, and a forecast that business can see coming from a mile away. Business does not operate well in chaotic environments, It thrives in stable ones.
2. Monetary policy: This entire section is filled with baseless claims about the evils of central banks. First, The federal reserve releases minutes of their sessions of every word spoken including financial records. Many of these are available on the website, Federalreserve.gov, I would encourage you to look for yourself. There is one program of that that the federal runs that is not published on the website, that is because the program inherently asks for confidentiality. Its a program in which banks can get an emergency loan from the Fed in confidence. These transactions are not published for the simple reason that if bank of America was seen taking an emergency loan from the fed, other banks would stop lending to Bank of America thinking they were in dire in straits. In turn consumers would lose confidence and there would be a run on the bank. We will see a collapse of Bank of America, and other banks in turn, over a loss of confidence that had no real bearing on the solvency of the bank. Publishing that information would be stupid since it runs counter to its purpose. The Federal Reserve is already audited except for that aspect.
Ending the federal reserve. Well, the united states has already done that. Twice.(First national bank, second national bank)
The gold standard. We've already done that.
If you would like to examine the effects of ending the central bank, just look at the series of panics that occurred after President Jackson allowed the second national bank to expire. Panics are tremendously inefficient. For one, they threaten the collapse of otherwise solvent banks, which in turn threaten to stall all other economic activity until the 'free market' is allowed to burn the entire forest and allow for the grass to grow once again.
The panic of 1907 is a perfect real life example of how simple misunderstandings threaten to launch an entire country into a depression. That year there was no real reason to plunge into a depression: industry was booming, this the heyday of American manufacturing. However,through frivolous investments a single banker he was able to cause a run on the banks and a panic that threaten to collapse the entire house of cards, rendering millions of peoples savings void. Not mention it would have stalled industry for years to come, waiting on American banks to resurrect themselves to be enough to lend out capital. again. Meanwhile American capitalist, entrepreneurs, inventors, captain of industry, would have flocked to more stable environments to conduct business. The impacts of this are self evident.
does America want to return to the chaotic period following the end of the second national; bank? no we do not. It was not profitable.
Furthermore, After the panic bankers got together and asked the government to form a central bank so that panics like these wouldn't threaten the fate of the country again. So you see, the Federal Reserve is a response from the free market. The government did not push this upon the free market, bankers came to the government and asked for it. The Austrian school of economics champions the wisdom of the free market, Well what follows is the federal reserve. It is what the free market has chosen.
The minimum wage, unemployment, regulations: that I say "The Jungle" by upton Sinclair. Or dickens if you prefer.
The libertarians argue that the market will on its own improve conditions. Well, we have seen that it infact doesn't. You have yet to prove one example where this has worked. Singapore? are you kidding, the quality of life there is so atrocious that I can not fathom the thought of Americans living it. I would cite china as an example of a country without a minimum wage and horrible conditions, but I don't have too: America a rich history to draw upon.
Case in point to all three: Triangle waist t-shirt factory. It was the lack of regulations that allowed so many woman be be burned in a fire. It allowed children to work in dangerous factories, for entire families to work through 12hours shifts, endure mutilations of their limbs, and still not have enough to feed themselves.
We are not returning to this.