The Instigator
ThomasCK
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Stimulus Spending

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 3 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,805 times Debate No: 26101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

ThomasCK

Con

Stimulus Spending damages the economy. The government is not in a position to spend money on failing companies. A "good investment" gets more money back than was spent in the beginning, but if you spend in a lost cause, all you do is lose money. This is the very definition of a BAD investment, and therefore stimulus is a BAD policy. The only reasonable vote is Con.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

"Stimulus Spending Improves the Economy."

Note:
I don't personally hold to Keynesianism, MMT, or New Keynesianism.

Stimulus Spending:
Attempts by governments or government agencies to financially stimulate an economy (myriad monetary or fiscal policies).

1. SS acts as a fiscal multiplier, which enables national income to increase in a significant proportion.
a During a recession, there are dormant resources and labor
b Spending puts them to use
c Benefit exceeds cost

500 characters
Debate Round No. 1
ThomasCK

Con

ThomasCK forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Rebuttal by sentence.

1. SS can damage an economy if it is not applied during a period of economic contraction. However, during such period, if used in conjunction with low interest rates and tax cuts, SS is effective at reviving aggregate demand.
2. A bailout is not SS, it's a government loan.
3. SS puts millions of people and resources back to work that would otherwise lay dormant.
4. The Fed, nor Treasury, hopes to profit off this policy. It's done for macro reasons, not micro.
5. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ThomasCK

Con

ThomasCK forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Arguments
I presented arguments and rebutted Con.
The denial that stimulus spending can have a positive effect on an economy is mainly comprised of zero lower bound (ZLB) denial and demand denial. When we see that there is inadequate demand up against the ZLB, SS can effectively stimulate the economy and put idle resources and labor back to work.

Conduct
Con forfeited two rounds, implied I unreasonable.

Sources
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Thanks :D
Debate Round No. 3
ThomasCK

Con

ThomasCK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ThomasCK

Con

ThomasCK forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

It is quite clear. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Reasonable_Sanity 4 years ago
Reasonable_Sanity
Con is far too busy pleading a case for which no substantiation has been provided. Simply proffering claims of SS being "bad" investment provide only opinion and platitude; sloganeering if you will; yet nothing even remotely resembling a hint of evidence. "Stimulus Bad!" (ala Frankenstein's Monster) seems to be the siren song of Con, but has yet to provide a lucid, substantial argument for why it's bad, supported by irrefutable evidence.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Edit the debate to 3 rounds and I will accept.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Edit the debate to include three rounds, and I will accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
ThomasCKWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
ThomasCKWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
ThomasCKWallstreetatheistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF