The Instigator
bhlizzard
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
markuswashere
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Coming Collapse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
markuswashere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 82453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

bhlizzard

Pro

The next stage of the business cycle is upon us, but not only in an economic sense. Feel free to say whatever you want. I find the fact that the "silent majority" are the only ones who constantly blab online (vs the indians), that state militias are about to activate anytime now with who has been running things for a good seven years, and the fact that the average American finds politics to be of little to no value completely hilarious. But not only that. I think the crash followed by the collapse will come before the voting period ends, starting a new period of globalization where literally every country has the same potential to compete for the third of the world gdp that the United States currently consumes. And keep it.
markuswashere

Con

I accept this debate and I thank my opponent for opening.

My opponent makes a number of assertions:
1) An economic recession is "upon us".
2) State militias are "about to activate" because of President Obama.
3) There will be a financial crash before November 2016.
4) A "new period of globalisation".
5) Every other country will be able to take the United States' GDP.

Firstly, the suggestion that an economic recession or a financial crash happening imminently is a very significant prediction to make, and requires very significant evidence. I think the suggestion that paramilitary forces opposed to the federal executive government becoming operational are very extraordinary, and also require evidence well beyond speculation.

Now there may very well be a new period of globalisation in the near future, or there may not be. The main event that can be said about that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaties that the United States is attempting to get ratified to ensure American corporate hegemony throughout the world and as a counterbalance to growing Chinese influence. The outcomes of these treaties will greatly underpin the future of the world economy. [1]

[1] https://ustr.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
bhlizzard

Pro

I'm asserting that the "silent majority" is somehow under the impression they will "rise up" when they are the least fit to do so in the entire world. I believe Obama's forces lie dormant as far as activity goes.
1. One can only forecast economic events by careful inspection of economic trends.
2. The United States free market capitalist system is the most prosperous, efficient system of gratifying economic means in history. Under normal circumstances and according to many models, the US economy could deal with catastrophic losses, many times the capital that has been gained over the last couple decades and even with destruction of infrastructure. The only reason I'm able to forecast such an abrupt change in the status quo is by keeping in mind the capitalist underpinnings of the system, and how the government is manipulating everything.
3. Everything from the value of the US dollar to, I'm sure, debate.org is kept in check by the government. However, despite the effect of mass quantitative easing that bankrupts our foreign allies and disrupted commodities when the US and the aforementioned printed mass amounts in tandem, as well as other factors such as market rigging, interest rate manipulation, and over the table securities that caused the last recession and now total several times more than they did then, the United States economy a) Allows for the free buying and selling of goods and b) allows businesses to operate freely and withdraw cash at will.
markuswashere

Con

>> I'm asserting that the "silent majority" is somehow under the impression they will "rise up"

My opponent asserts that a majority of people believe they will rise up, ostensibly with force, against the United States government. This would require me to amend 2) from Round 1, where a majority of Americans are in favour of such action. I find this very hard to believe, and requires extraordinary evidence to prove.

>> One can only forecast economic events by careful inspection of economic trends.

We can also use the broad study of economics to predict the outcomes of economic decisions on certain markets and economies, which is what I intend to do when debating particular economic issues.

>> The United States free market capitalist system is the most prosperous, efficient system of gratifying economic means in history.

I would have to disagree with this blanket statement, because it omits the many downfalls to the American economic system. It may very well be extremely prosperous for a small minority of people, and for shareholders of among the world's most profitable companies, but the current free market system has not been prosperous for at least decades. Real wages for most people have remained stagnant or have fallen, even while production, productivity, economic growth and inflation have all increased. This is not only a bad outcome for the people of the United States, it's a bad outcome for the future economic potential of the United States.

>> Under normal circumstances and according to many models, the US economy could deal with catastrophic losses, many times the capital that has been gained over the last couple decades and even with destruction of infrastructure.

I really do not think that the United States could simply "deal" with as catastrophic losses as losing the economy that has been gained over the last couple of decades.

In 1980, the gross domestic product of the United States was approximately 2.9 trillion dollars worth. In 2014, the gross domestic product was approximately 17.4 trillion dollars worth. If the United States was to lose all of this economy grown since 1980, only 25 years ago, this would reduce the United States' current GDP per capita by more than 80%, and reduce it from $55,000 per person to $6,000 per person, a drop from 5th place to 82nd place. [1] [2] [3]

>> The only reason I'm able to forecast such an abrupt change in the status quo is by keeping in mind the capitalist underpinnings of the system, and how the government is manipulating everything.

>> as well as other factors such as market rigging, interest rate manipulation, and over the table securities

Government intervention in the economy is absolutely nothing new. There has been central banking as well as stimulus economic policies, undertaken by the Federal Reserve for a century now, Keynesian economics dating back to the Second World War, and Chicago-school monetarist policies from the 70s and 80s.

>> the effect of mass quantitative easing

The nature of quantitative easing is that it is massive, and largely responsible for preventing an undesirable unbalancing of debt obligations and a deflationary cycle. Due to the fiscal policies of the last decade, deflation has been avoided, inflation has been kept low, the national deficit has been decreasing, and a high credit rating has been maintained.

>> bankrupts our foreign allies

Which foreign ally has been bankrupted? Not even Greece is bankrupt, officially.

[1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
[2] http://www.imf.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita
Debate Round No. 2
bhlizzard

Pro

In a recent poll, 60% of voters said they were against the current administration. However, not only that but they are also uninformed. A world-shaking event such as a tidalwave of job losses would cause people to try to have more of an influence over the forces that shape their lives. The silent majority is "silent" because somehow the movements such as march on wall street and minimum wage action, as well as minorities against racist university officials are quelled without any remark by the press. If there was something to report, they would. On the other hand, a basic understanding of economics and an investigation of manipulating factors reveals all necessary strategy for the long term. Though Keynesian economics have been tested by the fed for a long time, it should be noted that the free market fundamentals that were put into operation along with a rote change in the technology curve, a perfect testing environment, have been successfully employed by developing countries in their own environments to make them more successful. Anytime you want the gdp to grow, you employ production growth strategies without worrying about such exogenous variables as employment and interest rates that can clearly be controlled with the right flow of capital. Economists agree that with the right resource base, an almost immediate recovery is possible with the existence of a good amount of fixed capital. In short, lending institutions and "money market banks" would write off the debt they were owed and pay each other bundled up loans that were owed to them by small entities. Bigger organizations would pay what they were able, and if they went in the red, they would become bankrupt. However, some would be able to survive. Corporate obligations to private individuals would
become history, and the gateway would be open for a flood of new growth. Thanks for the debate, i forgot to mention it.
markuswashere

Con

>> In a recent poll, 60% of voters said they were against the current administration. However, not only that but they are also uninformed.

I'm actually surprised that it's only 60% that are dissatisfied, but certainly if you include polling to cover all aspects of government, the dissatisfaction would be higher. This is not a rare occurance though, and high levels of dissatisfaction with government has been recorded many times. The malaise at the worst of the previous president's last term is certainly greater than what it is in 2015. [1]

>> A world-shaking event such as a tidalwave of job losses would cause people to try to have more of an influence over the forces that shape their lives

There has already been a world shaking event, the global financial crisis, which sent unemployment and bankruptcies soaring. We did not see such doomsday even at the worst of the recession, so we certainly aren't going to see such collapse at these relatively better times.

>> Though Keynesian economics have been tested by the fed for a long time, it should be noted that the free market fundamentals that were put into operation along with a rote change in the technology curve, a perfect testing environment, have been successfully employed by developing countries in their own environments to make them more successful.

Keynesian economics, which have been used for almost a century now, are firm views among mainstream economics. They have been successful in ending, shortening and preventing recessions not because the principles are actively against the free market, but because they complement free market capitalism. As far as the Federal Reserve is concerned, we can see that inflation has been kept at target levels, not spiralling into significant inflation and not turning into a deflationary crisis either.

>> Anytime you want the gdp to grow, you employ production growth strategies without worrying about such exogenous variables as employment and interest rates that can clearly be controlled with the right flow of capital.

This is actually a very significant concern to economics. By raising employment for example, with more people having more money to spend on goods, demand increases and sellers of goods raise prices to the equilibrium, thus increasing inflation. This is probably the most famous example of good policies create bad outcomes, measured by the Phillips curve. The challenge for economists is to reach non-accelarating inflation rate of unemployment. [2]

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
bhlizzard

Pro

Keynesian economics has been purposefully misconstrued into the broad spectrum, leaving most people clueless as to the value of the term versus the implications. The public, though misinformed on a lot of issues, has the correct term for Keynesian economics much like "democratic liberal" is now the opposite of the political science definition of liberal the way people say things. Keynesian economics started as an upstart school of economics for those who didn't agree with classical economics, which was literally the implementation of common sense and using finance records to put together a way to churn out good economic policy. Keynesian economics has traditionally differed from the opposite, Austrian economics, in that it assumes the issues it plays with to be positively influenced by government intervention. There are a lot of things that are different between the two schools, and I'm not saying all of what has become "Keynesian economics" is bad. A lot of people wonder if this point in time we've come to take for granted, one of economic growth globally and prosperity and efficiency in the states will continue or whether society will run into problems. Well, the problems have already begun. I've mentioned over the table derivatives like mortgage-backed securities, but have I mentioned how many? There were 2 quadrillion before the massive write-off that followed the great recession, now there are 4 quadrillion. You must understand that while the immediate implications of economic law don't always apply, common sense always does. If you give people a blank check to borrow as much as they possibly can, then jack up interest rates, what will be the effect? Well, ironically, mortgages are doubly effected by interest rates, and they are the first thing that will be "on the chopping block" (well, who needs a new house anyway) when the fed is forced to raise interest rates. That is the basic effect of the overnight lending rate of the fed. However, that is only the beginning. The entire system is based on consumption. Companies need profits to continue producing. You can think of it as "all being done on the margin". We once had wealth, and still do, in the form of fixed capital. Now we're massively over-borrowing. The same sources that track the real economy, what we get for our taxes as opposed to what our leaders would like to lead us to believe, also say there's a lot of manipulation going on. I will admit that I'm no economic guru, but I've studied economics enough to know these companies that do things "on the margin" have no place guaranteeing that our current consumer credit system won't turn into a death machine churning out zombies.
markuswashere

Con

Whether you like Keynesian economics or not, it's still a part of the mainstream economic consensus. This isn't a political issue or a political debate, it's what has been formulated after centuries of study by economists and will continue to be ever-changing.
As for what you are alluding to about the definition of liberal, what is now known as "modern liberalism" is still very much a part of the liberalism ideology, it simply depends on what a person defines as freedom.

>> Keynesian economics started as an upstart school of economics for those who didn't agree with classical economics

This is not entirely true. The economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes were always created complementary to the economic ideas of the classical economists. This is because classical economics is more of an era than a school of economics. The ideas of the likes of Adam Smith are just as influential to Keynesian economics as they are to Chicago economics, Austrian economics, or even Marxian economics.

>> Austrian economics

Austrian economics is no longer a part of the mainstream economic consensus, and it hasn't been for at least decades. The works of Austrian school economists such as Friedreich Hayek aren't necessarily wrong though, but the parts that have been accepted by economists have been taken from Austrian economics and placed into the new economic mainstream. This is because economics is not a politically ideological position that people who are interested in politics want to believe. It's a much more collaborative and inquisitorial effort than an adversarial one, and fundamentalists of any economic school are not going to get any far.

>> If you give people a blank check to borrow as much as they possibly can, then jack up interest rates

As we're talking about monetary policy by the government, the Federal Reserve has kept the base interest rates at very low levels. More economists are saying the rate is too low than is too high, but the current levels aren't controversial.

>> The entire system is based on consumption.

This is the essential element of Keynesian economics. I'm not arguing for Keynesian economics, and my response for this round seems to be talking more about the basis of economic theory than I would've liked it to be, but it seems you're really just opining against Keynesian economics, when really it's Keynesian economics that ensures gross domestic product is counted particularly as the aggregate demand of the economy, as the stock market, which is not consumption but rather just exchanging the ownership of something, is not counted as aggregate demand.

>>
guaranteeing that our current consumer credit system won't turn into a death machine churning out zombies.

There may very well be unsafe lending and exchanging practices by financial institutions, but to claim that this will destroy us all requires some very extraordinary evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
bhlizzard

Pro

bhlizzard forfeited this round.
markuswashere

Con

markuswashere forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
bhlizzardmarkuswashereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con cited sources.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
bhlizzardmarkuswashereTied
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 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: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct and an even amount of forfeits, thus nullifying these points on either side. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to uphold the burden of proof in this debate. Pro presented several arguments throughout the debate that called for sources or supporting evidence, yet none was ever given. This ranges from claims that a recession is upon us, to militias rising in the first round. Con successfully pointed out that these claims required sources for verification, yet throughout the debate Pro never delivered the supporting evidence. The entire debate went this way, until in the end both forfeited. By Pro forfeiting first however, he left Con's numerous challenges to remain standing. Thus failing to uphold his BOP and losing the argument points. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources whereas Con utilized several which served to both rebuke Pro's claims and strengthen his own. Thus he wins these points.