The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

The government created the great depression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 13 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,461 times Debate No: 22468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (157)
Votes (13)

 

16kadams

Pro

This is for an economics tournament, and I am certain no trolling will occur, but if it does its an automatic FF.

1st round acceptance
2nd arguments
3rd rebuttals
4th rebuttals

---> No trolling
---> No semantics
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will argue that the government did not create the great depression. They may have made it much worse but they did not create it,

Other than that

Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I hope for a fun debate :) [note imabench says I am allowed to post sources in comments]

I will segment into 2 portions, monetary policy (federal reserve), and the fiscal policy (it was bad, and is commonly talked about so why not).

Monetary

It is almost a clear cut fact the government has terrible monetary policies from 1929-1937. [1] Now people may think I will argue they did to much, but on the contrary they did to little (well I am just arguing this way, I would always argue differently, but lets take they did to little), they did not prevent or help the bank failures. Also one of the reasons they did nothing was due to the gold standard they held in place from 1929-1933. The monetary policy in this time was atrocious and was a huge cause in other areas of failure.

The government created a boom in the stock market, people went to banks, borrowed money, people getting rich. But this created an inevitable bubble that would ruin the economy and create the thing we know as the great depression. [2] A strong US dollar and a weak pound caused US inflation rates to skyrocket and deflation in the UK markets, which helped create the rise in stock prices and real estate. [3]

Now, how did the boom the government help create bust, and was it the governments fault? It was, in fact the governments fault. The reason we had such a big bust was not because of free market on the craz, but rather the boom which was artificially pushed by the government. The boom was artificially being fueled longer then it should have been by inflationary credit. [4]

Once the depression was in full swing, the reserve decided to take the money reserve and shrink it. This government policy helped create, and possibly was the creator, of the bank scare, the thing many say created the great depression. [5]

So now as I have proven the federal reserve was a real problem in creating and prolonging the problem, but did they help create the great depression in other ways? Yes.

Fiscal policy

This is always an issue within current politics and in the ones that created the GD (my new abbreviation).

I will start with the hoover administration, a man credited to the downfall of the economy. He did in fact have many detrimental policies in this area. He created a very poor atmosphere for imports, and contributed to a 66% decline in them! [1] He also raised taxes which did not help the problem. [5] And then he had a poor wage policy, which was to raise the wages while he fought the unions. This wage policies had notable effects, and notable in a bad way. [6] Well technically he created stable wages but the federal reserve policies actually made it so the stable wage was not stable, and it actually increased wages a large amount. [6] These wages imposed by hoover actually lowered factory productivity and the hours of those people working, that decreased by about 40%, and industry productivity fell about 35%. [6] These GOVERNMENT policies created the wage hikes which hurt the economy.

Furthermore he had a very pro union policy, forcing many workers to work at union wages in the early 1930s. [7] This increased the costs of labor significantly. Another law gave unions more power, mandating all to work at union wages, and non union contracts where null and void in federal courts. This forced higher wages which decreased productivity and raised unemployment.

The artificial [high] wages and the tariffs imposed by hoover helped destroy the economy, the GD. By the government. No surprise at all.

___

[1] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...
[2] http://mises.org...
[3] Ibid
[4] http://mises.org...
[5] http://www.econlib.org...
[6] http://ic.ucsc.edu...
[7] http://www.cato.org...

___

Government started the great depression.

imabench

Con

2nd round is arguments only, so ill present my arguments and then in my next round try to defend my arguments and critique my opponents arguments.

There are many contributions that caused the Great Depression, some of them involved the government, others didnt. All in all the Great Depression was caused or exacerbated by the following factors,

- Deflation of commodity prices leading to a massive surplus of goods combined with overproduction of the same goods at the same time
- Dramatic drops in demand and credit of both people, lenders, and banks
- A disruption of trade between the states and overseas
- Over investment by people in the rather new Stock Market
- Rampant short selling by investors creating a volatile market
- WWI debt reparations fell through
- Widespread bank failures
- Fear in the middle class leading to a breakdown in consumption
- And most noticeably, the stock market crash of 1929

http://americanhistory.about.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.slideshare.net...

- Deflation of goods due to overproduction along with under-consumption due to poor wages and fear
The 1920's saw a revolutionary change in manufacturing as the process of Mass Production became widespread and factories began to exploit electricity. The Model T ford was the dream child of mass production, but throughout America in the 1920's all industries began to churn out more goods in the same amount of time than ever before, leading to a massive decrease in commodity prices. The only problem was that due to mass production a tremendous amount of wealth was unleashed, but not enough of it went into workers salaries so the workers still could not buy most of the goods being mass produced.

"Between 1929 and 1932 the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%, from $2,300 to $1,500
http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu...

Following the stock market crash there was an over abundance of goods but wages and earnings in the middle class was too low to have access to those goods. Salaries were low so families were very careful in where they spent money, so as consumption dropped to a new low goods that were being made were not being bought. This breakdown in consumption put a pause on capitalism itself, only worsening the economic effects and extending the longevity of the Great Depression as people resorted to hoarding what little money they had left.

Meanwhile out in the Midwestern states where agriculture was how most people made their salary, Mass Production took its roots there too. New technologies allowed farmers to produce more goods than ever before on the same amount of land they had before. However more goods were produced they werent consumed any faster, sending prices falling. Production went up but prices sank too fast for any profit to be reaped by the farmers, meaning that farmers now were faced with two options to still maintain their salaries. They could continue to increase production at a massive rate or go broke. Many of them did both when the dust bowl started and farms that were profitable were literally turned into dust.

The breakdown in agriculture severely worsened unemployment because now across the Midwest farmers were defaulting on home payments and any banks that were out there went belly-up when the bank runs were at their zenith and al credit was lost.
http://www.thegreatdepressioncauses.com...

- Bank Failures
In the 1920's Banks were hell-bent on trying to make as much money as possible, like most banks today do. However back then banks did this through a combination of giving out tons of loans to new businesses and also by investing the money of their own clients into the stock market. When the Stock market crashed though billions that banks had secretly invested into it were lost, and the extensive loans given out started failing left and right. In the immediate aftermath of the crash though all was normal, but then in the 1930's it was learned that the banks lost a lot of people's money, and this caused panic and nationwide bank runs by people trying to find out if their banks still had their money, if any was left at all.

Bad news was that often thee banks didnt have everyone's money, and as people came to get would they could banks began failing since they had no money to invest or loan out.... So unethical spending and investing of banks was a very large cause of the Great Depression as they lost close to $140 BILLION of people's money who on average only made $1,500 a year....
http://www.thegreatdepressioncauses.com...

- Bad investments into the stock market by individuals
The biggest blow to individual finances that were not caused by bank failures was losing it all in real estate investments or more commonly when the stock market crashed in 1929. When the stock market was first unleashed, people didnt use it to invest in the long term future for financial stability, instead people used it as a massive get-rich-quick tool where they would buy low and sell high, abusing short selling of stocks, margin buying, and investing on stocks that were doctored or fraudulent, etc.

For a while though, people did get rich off of such risky investments, but when you make money off of something fast, you dont take the profit and run, you keep trying to profit over and over doing the same thing that worked before. Bad investing started a massive cycle that over time would build until it would burst, and in 1929 it did burst while everyone's money was still in the stock market, costing millions of people billions of dollars.
http://www.angelfire.com...

- WWI debts
Following WWI European countries were in shambles, and their economies werent much better off. The US then in an act of good faith began to give loans to these countries to help them rebuild and it was assumed that over time these investments would be paid back. When these debts though werent paid back they coincided with the onslaught of the Great Depression because this caused a breakdown in trade because American banks no longer had the means to invest overseas like they did before while overseas banks no longer could repay what was owed. The Great Depression caused a breakdown in investing back into war-torn Europe which then caused a breakdown in international trade which thus made the effects of the Great Depression worse.
http://www.angelfire.com...

The government did play a hand in making the Depression worse, such as high tariffs which only hastened the breakdown in overseas trade, there were probably a few New Deal programs that didnt work as well as they should have, there were policies that also played a factor in how bad the Depression was too. The Great Depression though was caused by a combination of overproduction of goods, poor wages, bad investing by people and banks, the Dust bowl, and the Stock Market Crash in 1929
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

My opponent lists many reasons, I will refute them.

1. Deflation

My opponents first argument is under consumption and fear, which was caused by the bubble. Now, the argumet only works IF we know what created this bubble, was it like the recent bubble, government policies sped it up? Or was it some free market failure. During the time right before the great depression, there was a huge increase in the federal governments size and power. [1] This bubble was created by the speculative spending bubble, the bubble popped as we can see today. This may have been made by the federal reserve raising the discount rates. Another the bubble came about was because of the banking failures, which where made inefficient by government regulations. The depositors lost faith in the banks, due to the fact the banks where made weak by regulations. This was a "bank run", where we all try to get to the bank first to take the money before the banks collapse. This too lead to the bubble. [2] And, we link this all to government regulations.

2. Bank failures

Hey, I luckily summed up my refutation above. We can link this to government regulations and the government created bubble. I recommend the last refutation for info.

3. Bad investments

Before we can assume this is the persons fault, we must ask why where people doing this. Is it linked to anything else? Or just people with money signs in their eyes. Now, we must assume this was the bubble, as we can assume with the current gold, soon to be diamond [see commercials] and possibly silver. The current bubble with gold is prices are rising, buy it then sell it for more. Call gold line today. :P But this is a poor choice, as it is an obvious bubble created by a rise in prices. So it is likely the people where looking into these mal-invesements was because of some type of bubble, a boom in he stock market. We must now ask who/what created the bubble? This was caused by a bubble, my opponent surely agrees, now: what made it? It was artifical. The government turned a slow incline to a boom. [3]

"The spectacular crash of 1929 followed five years of reckless credit expansion by the Federal Reserve System under the Coolidge administration. In 1924, after a sharp decline in business, the Reserve banks suddenly created some $500 million in new credit, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. While the immediate effects of this new powerful expansion of the nation's money and credit were seemingly beneficial, initiating a new economic boom and effacing the 1924 decline" [3]

Essentially the fed created the boom and the crash, hence this argument proves nothing.

4. WWI debts

This is actually a government problem too. The government was a reason we entered the war anyway. My opponent also forgets what else we did, but I will talk about that later. My opponent says we gave loans to them. But these loans came from the US government, so if the debts where the problem we can link this to US government policies after WW1. And as stated last round the US inflated currency as the UK deflated it, causing monetary problems. [4]

CONCLUSION:

The arguments presented by my opponent are poor, as they only work assuming the boom was market created. The boom caused this... these... problems, which then in turn hurt the economy. As I have stated, the boom was actually not much of a boom, until the government gave it a small push then kept it on speed [lol] to keep it artificially continuing, which lead to a bust, as we know as the great depression. It is assumed by all the boom lead to the economic bust, but where we differ is on how it happened. I believe in this debate I have proven the boom, which lead to the bust [great depression], was government created. It is basic logic. My argument is the simple:

Monetary failures
Fiscal failures
=
the "boom"
=
Bust
=
great depression.

The government, no matter the angle you look at it, created the great depression. All of the things my opponent cited, from investments to banks, are linked to regulations or the government made boom. Vote PRO, as everything my opponent argued can be linked to the boom and bust, and the infamous government.



__________

[1] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[2] Ibid
[3] http://mises.org...
[4] mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
imabench

Con

Round two was designated for arguments, I will try to now question the Pro's round 1 and round 2 responses while still trying to defend my own arguments.

1) Monetary Policy
"The government created a boom in the stock market....."
The boom being referred to is the period of rampant economic growth seen in the US in the 1920's, aka the roaring 20's. But the government didnt create the economic boom in the 1920's prior to the Great depression, the boom in the 1920's was caused by
- 1 - US industries boosted during WWI being put back into civilian use
- 2 - laissez faire policies where the government did NOT intervene in business almost at all
- 3 - Tariffs on foreign goods
- 4 - Mass production of goods
- 5 - Ability to buy on credit.
- 6 - New industries being created

http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk...
http://socyberty.com...
http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com...

So the government only played a very very minor role in creating the boom in the first place, and they had only a minor role in the bust too.
"The reason we had such a big bust was not because of free market on the craz, but rather the boom which was artificially pushed by the government."
The Pro then uses some 350 page PDF file from the internet to somehow explain why government policies caused the Great Depression to start even though both the Pro and I agree that the government was as little as interventionist as possible in the 1920's.
" people may think I will argue they did to much, but on the contrary they did to little"
So the government doing too little caused the great depression but at the same time it was the government intervening too much that caused the bust to happen?

The boom in the 1920's was caused by a multitude of factors that ranges from a government hands OFF policy and more productivity of businesses. The bust was then caused by the failure of banking institutions, a crash of the stock market, low wages, over production, and a few other things.

2) Fiscal Policy
The Pro uses some other hundred page PDF's which somewhere argue that Hoover's policies stifled productivity and hurt businesses which caused the Great Depression. Now the reason that Hoover created such policies to sustain wages of workers was to try to fight the effects of deflation that were seen prior to the Great Depression, but the effect they had did harm the economy but it was only one of MANY causes of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused partially by government policies but primarily by economic forces beyond the control of the government.

"The artificial [high] wages and the tariffs imposed by hoover helped destroy the economy"
high wages and tariffs may have harmed businesses, but it did not destroy them because businesses to this day still survive and make huge profits despite laws such as the minimum wage, laws about overtime, laws about requiring safe working conditions, laws about 40 hour work weeks, etc. My point is that even though these kind of policies do take a bite out of the profits of corporations, they are certainly not enough to destroy them.
http://www.presidentprofiles.com...

3) Deflation
"My opponents first argument is under consumption and fear, which was caused by the bubble."
Deflation is caused by more than alleged bubbles, deflation is caused by a multitude of things.
1- Increased productivity (which in the 1930's was in abundance due to the spread of Mass Production),
2- Decreased demand (which was observed when the stock market crashed in 1929)
3- Decrease in the money supply (which was caused by the crash when millions of people lost billions of dollars when annual salaries were under $3,000 a year)

So the things that cause deflation are caused by a sudden absence of money to be had and increased productivity of goods. In the 1920's there was already an absence of money since wages were low, there was decreased demand following the stock market crashed which contributed to the onset of the Great Depression, and there was increased productivity which was caused by new technologies, not a government bubble....
http://www.economywatch.com...
http://www.moneycrashers.com...

3+4) Bank Failures and Risky investment into the stock market
Pro also tries to pin bank failures and bad investments onto an artificially created bubble of some sort. However the Pro does not address the argument that people were taking advantage of a new way to allegedly try to get rich quick. Buying on margin was a risky way for people to buy and sell stocks at a rapid pace to try to make money fast, and the reason people were doing this was because they believed it was a way to get rich and wealthy, not because some bubble convinced them too. It was quite literally people with money signs in their eyes who poured their savings into the stock market to try to get rich quick off of economic forces that nobody understood.

The bank failures on the other hand was due to overzealous loaning to people with bad credit, lack of regulation or restrictions on how much of people's money the banks can take and do whatever they want with it, and also because banks themselves had money signs in their eyes. Banks were just like people who poured tons of money into a system that they did not fully understand how it worked nor knew how risky it was. When the stock market crashed suddenly banks and people lost their money, and when others who did keep their money in banks tried to withdraw money, the banks didnt have it and thus began closing.

Bank failures and Bad investment by people into the stock market was not caused by a bubble. It was caused by a combination of greed; lack of regulation, precaution, or guaranteed protection; lack of understanding of how risky such investments were; and the crash of the stock market which left thousands of banks without any of the money that people had trusted them with.

5) WWI debts
"My opponent says we gave loans to them. But these loans came from the US government"
The last part of the link I posted about this states that

"Banks were forced to close as they had loaned money to European and American businesses and didn't have enough money to honor the deposits."
http://www.angelfire.com...

Money was coming from the US government to give to other European governments to help them rebuild, but at the same time US banks were loaning to overseas businesses to help them rebuild or start up again. When the stock market collapsed it was the banks that lost all of their funds, and the businesses those banks had invested in overseas had failed too. This means that WWI loans given by both the government and the banks were lost, which contributed to the great depression. So to summarize this argument the government did play a role, but they were only half the reason it happened, the other half came from banks.

The government did do a few things to contribute to the severity of the Great Depression, but they most certainly did not single handedly cause the Great Depression on their own. The Great Depression was caused by a variety of things such as greed, risky investments, greed, rampant loaning from banks, the stock market crash, overproduction of goods, deflation, poor wages, and other things not caused by the government.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

1. Monetary policy

My opponents first claim is they did not create the boom, rather other aspects did. One of the reasons was rising price in foreign goods through taxes and tariffs, government policy. [1] Many of my opponents claim too are interesting, and he claims laissez faire policies created the boom. My opponent does not list why there was mass production of goods. Now there was mass production, but as stated this was linked to the government as well as we had to make everything here due to tariffs. Now, he claimed the ability to buy credit. The ability to get mass loans essentially. He forgets the government essentially created this too. The federal reserves policies rose prices on everything and increased credits which did indeed lead to a boom, then a bust. [2] He then stated the government did not intervene in business, but is this actually true? The government actually grew in the 1920s, we can see this through spending:



http://www.debate.org...
http://www.cato.org...; (soruce)

There was significant government growth and snding in the 1920s, hinting they where actually gaining power, which ads to regulaitons.
"Without strong presidential leadership or an aggressive presidential agenda, political initiatives from the Congress became oriented more toward special interest programs that generated economic benefits for clearly identified groups, but such initiatives involved an expansion of governmental scope and power." [3]

This was essentially saying in the 1920s, the boom and bust, was highly pushed by the government.

http://www.debate.org... (picture, my computer has like a 1 picture max, other wise it freaks out)
Same source for other one.

Here we also see massive increases in spendingin almost all areas. with this we can assume the government was growing, and notice some of the spending was economic pushing. See source #3 for info and the picture. With this information we can assume the government had something to do in the situation.

My opponent then claims the vernment was non interventionist, and claims I agree. I do not, and have proven incresing govenment size and spending, through inflaiton and regulaitons and such, created the boom and bust.

My opponents next claim is the government doing to little is caused the boom and bust, not the government itself. I think my opponent has actually forgot that the government actually helped create the boom, and through federal reserve policies made it grow at an even faster rate through inflation and credit. [4] My opponent totally forgot the argument that if the government didn't artificially push the markets the bust would have never occured.

2. Fiscal

My opponents first claim is the high wages may have hurt buisness, but did not destroy them. The thing he forgets is it is estimated these policies lead to a 66% decrease in productivity in the market in which the policies affected. [5]

"By late 1931, real manufacturing average hourly earnings had increased more than 10 percent as a consequence of the Hoover program and deflation, and manufacturing hours had declined more than 40 percent." [6]

Based off of working hours the major decrease lead to a labor deficiency that terribly hurt the economy and helped, and possibly was, the reason we had such a big bust. a 66% decrease in productivity and a 40% decrease in working hours would be detrimental to any economy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Deflation

My opponent actually drops te majority of my analysis in my argument. My opponent claims many things cause deflation, yet forgets productivity actually fell due to governnt wage policies in the late 1920s, at the same time the alleged deflation occured. My opponents second argument is decreased demand caused the inflation, but note he links it to the cash of 1929. Now, is this the real reason to deflate? Even if it is, his argument is false as there was increased inflation by the federal reserve at the time we are debating this. [2] If we had not destroyed our monetary policy through inflation and delation we could have avoided the great depression. [7] My opponent also forgets just because something causes this does not mean we can shift blame, as this is all linked to the fed. So either way the ogvernnt is the cause of this argument. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We can see from this the monetary deflation and inflation from the GOVERNMENT likely had a role in the depression, a large one. Either way this argument proves my point.

4. Banks

Once again, my opponent is claiming people are doing this, and that the government had no role. As stated, and essentially ignored by my opponent, the reason everyone was rushing to the banks was the boom, which lead to the bust. People said lets go borrow money and spend it on stocks, the bubble and the boom. With is being said, both of these created by the government, we can assume we can link this to the government. What my opponent also forgets is the banks where highly regulated, I beleive this was stated in round 2. The oppresive regulations also where a huge problem for the banks as well. [8] So my opponent; a) forgets the governments regulatory role with the banks, and b) forgets why the people went to the banks, the boom and bubble, created by the government.

My opponent also concedes the point when he states: "the reason people were doing this was because they believed it was a way to get rich and wealthy", and hten somehow claims this is not a bubble. Now, this time was a time of incertanty, people feared an economic downturn in the 30s, and they knew a boom was lead by a bust, so we needed to hop on the boom before it busted. This is also known as a bubble. [9] As the people where trying to get rich fast due to a boom, and they likely knew to hop on the boom jump off near the bust, this was then fueled by a bubble. It was fueled by a bubble, no matter which way you look at it.

My opponent then claims lack of regulation and credit caused the bank failures, yet as stated there was alreay overbearing regulation. [8] Also we can link the federal rserve through inflation and interest rates to the banks problems. [2] My opponent ignores the governments involvement, no matter how clear it is!!

My oppoennt then claims again the bubble did nothig. I have already proven this in earlier rounds and earlier in this argument.

5. WWI

My opponent admits th emoney was from the government, therefore this argument helps my side. He actually admitts it is essentially the governments lending to other governments, and as it was a government affair and he claims this helped fuel the great depression this means the government was responsible. This argument helps my side.

CONCLUSION:

In any way you look at it, the government played a huge role in the great depression and caused it. A moderate scare was made into a major boom and bust cycle because of the government, hence we can assume I have won this debate. The majority of my opponents arguements are either wrong or prove my point, and are linked to the boom created by the government.

VOTE PRO.


[1] http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk...
[2] http://mises.org...
[3] http://www.cato.org...
[4] http://mises.org...
[5] http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...
[6] ic.ucsc.edu/~fravenna/appliedmacro/lucas_confer_final_berkeley.pdf
[7] http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
[8] www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n2/v25n2-4.pdf
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
imabench

Con

"My opponent does not list why there was mass production of goods"
Cant believe I have to waste character space over this. The reason why there was a mass production of goods in the 1920's leading up to the great depression was because new technology allowed the mass production of goods to happen, namely the creation of the assembly line and profusion of electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.crestcapital.com...
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu...

The reason mass production was possible was due to new techniques of manufacturing and increased productivity due to electricity becoming widespread, the creation of the assembly line, advent of standardized parts, etc. Not a government bubble....



This is the picture the Pro showed to argue that the government must have intervened in business since spending is so high. However if you look at the graph you see spending spike in 1920 (WWI) Then drop all the way back down during the 1920's, and then it only creeps back up until 1932 when FDR started his private works program.



From the years of 1900 to 1950 you see spending by the government only go up in 1918 (which was WWI), then it drops down after the war ends, stays very low from 1920 to 1930 when the roaring 1920's was going on, and then it only creeps up as a result of FDR's New Deal policies in the Mid 1930's once the Depression is in full spin, eventually climaxing when WWII comes around.

So the point is you can clearly see how the US was very UN-involved in business during the 1920's leading up to the Great Depression....

As for the link to your other photos, the link doesnt show any pictures since the link says that these are your private photos so neither the voters nor I can actually see what you are talking about....

"My opponent then claims the vernment was non interventionist, and claims I agree."
- Pro in round 4
But you yourself said that the government was to little involved after already saying that the government artificially pushed the market....
"Now people may think I will argue they did to much, but on the contrary they did to little"
- Pro in round 1

" I think my opponent has actually forgot that the government actually helped create the boom, and through federal reserve policies made it grow at an even faster rate through inflation and credit."
The federal reserve didnt invent electricity that helped factories produce more goods.
The federal reserve didnt give industries the assembly line, mass production, and standardized parts that greatly increased production.
The federal reserve didnt create the stock market where people could buy and sell stocks with so much risk involved. The federal reserve didnt cause the stock market to crash which contributed to the great depression more than anything else
The federal reserve didnt make wages low so that people couldnt consume the products being mass produced
The federal reserve didnt cause European countries to lie in shambles during World War I
The federal reserve didnt cause banks to loan money to people with terrible credit or use peoples money in the stock market

The only thing the federal reserve did was manipulate interest rates in an effort to fight deflation which may have had some negative effects on the entire situation of the Great Depression, but it did not single handedly cause the Great Depression.

"My opponent totally forgot the argument that if the government didn't artificially push the markets the bust would have never occured."
How could the government artificially push the markets if government spending was low, if the government had a hands off policy with all things regarding business, and the government intervention that did take place after the Depression already happened had barely any effect at all? I didnt forget those arguments I showed how the government didnt push the markets at all?

"My opponents first claim is the high wages may have hurt buisness, but did not destroy them. The thing he forgets is it is estimated these policies lead to a 66% decrease in productivity in the market in which the policies affected. [5]"
Its funny that the Pro says that productivity decreased 66% when his own source shows that productivity almost routinely increased every year throughout the 1920's

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...
(See page 36)

So new policies did not destroy businesses sicne business productivity was at an all time high before the great depression struck....

"My opponent actually drops te majority of my analysis in my argument. My opponent claims many things cause deflation, yet forgets productivity actually fell due to governnt wage policies in the late 1920s"
Funny thing is that productivity was at an all time high in the late 1920's

"My opponent also forgets just because something causes this does not mean we can shift blame, as this is all linked to the fed"
I like how the pro says we cannot shift blame for something that can be caused by many things and then in the same sentence shifts the blame to the fed....

"What my opponent also forgets is the banks where highly regulated"
Pro must be hallucinating since bank regulation in the 1920's was non existent...

"Although there were signs that significant problems were developing within the then-existing decentralized and largely unregulated banking industry during the 1920s, these signs were either unappreciated or simply ignored by the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover Administrations."
http://www.helium.com...

"As the people where trying to get rich fast due to a boom, and they likely knew to hop on the boom jump off near the bust"
Thats exactly what didnt happen since millions of people had every penny to their name invested into the stock market before it crashed......
http://www.awesomestories.com...

"My opponent admits th emoney was from the government, therefore this argument helps my side."
Funny how that I said no such thing
"So to summarize this argument the government did play a role, but they were only half the reason it happened, the other half came from banks." - Me in round 3
Way to misquote me and lie about it Pro...

Conclusion: The Great Depression was caused by a multitude of things that a majority of which were not caused by the government or a FED bubble,

1) Overproduction of goods by industries due to new technologies expanding productivity
2) Numerous bank failures due to over-lending to people of bad credit
3) Deflation of prices caused by overproduction of goods
4) Low wages by workers making consumption of goods very low both before and after the stock market crashed
5) Over investment into the very unstable stock market by investors gambling with everything
6) Bank failures also caused by mishandling people's own savings in the stock market which was later lost
7) Breakdown in international trade and foreign investment following World War I
8) Hoarding of wealth by consumers following the crash leading to the Great Depression

I hope I fulfilled my BOP, Thank you for reading :)
Debate Round No. 4
157 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
"Imabench flips sh!t because somebody voted against him and vote bombs my debates."

Sounds pretty biased and not based on arguments presented to me
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Everybody is biased.

However, I didn't vote on my bias. I voted on the arguments presented.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
wow LK proving you biased was easier than I thougt
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Oh yeah everything he did until the depression ha already began.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
There was no conservative fiscal policy at that time. Hoover was expanding the government with new regulations and interventionism.

It was his fiscal policy coupled with the Fed's monetary policy.

@Imabench: You are a pathetic noob sniper.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
and lord knuckle you called me a pathetic noob sniper dont act like youre somehow innocent here
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Everything Hoover did screams conservative. So if you want to say the government created the great depression you concede that conservative fiscal policy created it.

So which one is it?
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
You showed wrong.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I showed that banks were almost completely unregulated preceding the great depression.....
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
LOL

I posted hate mail on your wall? Dream on, kid.

If you don't like my vote, then suck it up. I told you why I voted against you.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate was really close, and both sides argued amazingly! got to say the resolution made it a little easier on Con since he did not have to outright deny the government had a role, just not a sole contributing role, which I think he did successfully with points about new inventions increasing productivity in the 20's and stuff like that.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
16kadamsimabenchTied
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: I'm going to uncounter Zaradi's sources points. Pro had more sources, but con analysed his sources in much greater detail, used his opponents sources against him more effectively, and generally did better-quality research, leading me to agree most of the sources votes for 16k are probably votebombs. Arguments-pro convinced me that government had a hand in the cause, but con convinced me that individuals bear some responsibility as well. Pro had to prove the govt bears sole responsibility for GD.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully managed to prove that the government created an inflationary monetary policy coupled with atrocious fiscal policy, which were the precursors to the Great Depression. Pro also pointed out, correctly, that most of Con's points were of the government's doing. Win: Pro. Sources: Pro. EDIT: Zaradi did not specify who he was countering and as far as I can see, no counters were needed. I'm adding another 2 points to PRO. PRO NEEDS to GET 4 MORE POINTS BECAUSE OF ZARADI"S VOTE BOMB.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to prove the affirmative. He had more sources. They both had descent conduct. Great Debate.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 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: The debate was close, but 16k posted a lot of sources which were invested in a specific political position, while imabench used independent sources to justify his position effectively, so he gets sources. Sources should promote an argument, not make one. That, and the graphing was dishonest, as pointed out by imabench. Moreover, in the debate CON took on the points by 16k very successfully and formulated a very strong argument himself. Good debate on both sides.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, there's enough evidence for me to counter sources a few times. 16k used as many questionable sources as imabench did. Edit: missed one that hadn't been countered yet. That should make things even source wise.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved the majority of Con's arguments where caused by the bubble, and proved the bubble was caused by the government, therefore the government made the great depression. Also the federal reserves policies where proven disastrous as well as governmental wage policies. Pro proved the government made the great depression. Also sources (less Wikipedia, he used about.com, many questionable sources by con. Pro overall better sources and more too).
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamsimabenchTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: They agreed a bubble made the great depression, and Pro proved goverment policies made the bubble. Also sources (less Wikipedia, he used about.com, many questionable sources by con. Pro overall better sources and more too). Pro spelled several things wrong.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro because I felt con relied too much on wiki. Con had better grammar, as I spotted several spelling errors by pro, including "th" which I assume was "the". always spell check. Arguments were very close, but con had the BOP which I felt was lacking. I don't agree with con's arguments, but that was not taken into consideration when evaluating the strength of the arguments. Con lost conduct for bratty behavior.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
16kadamsimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter votebomb Historygenius. Wikipedia is fine for DDO. Also both opponents have near equal wiki sources (16k- 2 ima -3). HG's vote is clearly dishonest and unfair.