You pick, we debate. You get to be Pro.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept. We will be debating the following:
Resolved: The Federal Open Market Committee should not raise short-term interest rates in June 2015
I'll give some basic definitions and clarifications in this round, per CON's request, though he hasn't asked me to go first, so I'll save my case for the following round. Some basic background information can be found here: http://www.reuters.com...
Federal Open Market Committee: "The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members--the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee's assessment of the economy and policy options. The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth." [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]
In other words, the FOMC is composed of 7 members of the Board of Governors, appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, an 12 regional bank presidents. As for the "voting" FOMC, or the members who are able to actively vote on and impact the policy process, we have the 7 board members, the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and 4 of the remaining 11 regional bank presidents who rotate on and off the voting FOMC. They meet regularly in order to consider the economic outlook and craft monetary policy, primarily through setting a target range for the federal funds rate.
Federal Funds Rate: "The interest rate at which a depository institution lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution overnight. The federal funds rate is generally only applicable to the most creditworthy institutions when they borrow and lend overnight funds to each other. The federal funds rate is one of the most influential interest rates in the U.S. economy, since it affects monetary and financial conditions, which in turn have a bearing on key aspects of the broad economy including employment, growth and inflation." [http://www.investopedia.com...]
The federal funds rate, or FFR, is the rate at which banks lend reserves to each other in the overnight market. It's a benchmark short-term interest rate that influences a number of other interest rates in the economy, so the Fed buys and sells securities, conventionally, in order to set a target range for the federal funds rate with the intention of influencing business and household activity. When times are bad, the Fed usually cuts the federal funds rate to stimulate borrowing, lending, and consumption. When times are good, and the Fed is worried about inflation, they'll tend to raise the target range for the federal funds rate in order to reduce investment and consumption and prevent the economy from overheating. Since December 2008, the Fed has kept the federal funds rate at its zero lower bound of 0 to 1/4 percent [http://www.economist.com...]. As a result, it wasn't able to cut the federal funds rate any further, so it began easing with unconventional measuring, known as quantitative easing (purchasing large quantities of assets to impact long-term interest rates) and forward guidance (promising to maintain the federal funds rate at low levels for an extended period of time).
The resolution is normative in nature, with both CON and I attempting to take the side of a contentious monetary-policy debate. Therefore, the burden of proof will be equally shared. CON must argue that the Fed should increase the federal funds rate, and thus short-term rates, at its June policy meeting while I will argue that it should not, though this does not require me to specify a specific date. For the purposes of fairness, I would not be advocating the Fed raise rates either earlier or in September.
This should be enough clarification as to what we are debating. If CON would like anything further, I'd be happy to provide it in the comments section or by PM.
Best of luck, and I await an interesting discussion.
Alex_Stowe forfeited this round.
CON's forfeit is disappointing. This is a topic I'm extremely interested in, but it's extremely complex and it would take time to compile a case. I'm not going to do that at this juncture if my adversary is going to simply forfeit every round.
At this point, I'm doing to extend the favor to him in the hope that he replies in the next round. If not, you're obviously voting PRO by default.
I'm sorry, but I got really bored trying to figure out what we were attempting to debate that I completely forgot about this debate.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I don't really care about politics, it just seems like two parties arguing over which side is better instead of how to deal with pressing issues.
Please forgive my not caring towards politics.
CON falsely interprets this as a debate over politics and politcal parties, but it is not. In fact, the Federal Reserve is independent of politics precisely because political pressures could lead to suboptimal policy.
Whether or not CON was interested in this topic is, frankly, beside the point, because by forfeiting, he's wasted my time and our judge's time, and he has yet to proivde an argument. We should take this as a concession, and as a result, vote PRO.
Do you really think that I purposely forfeited a round. Honestly I think your debate topic should have been did Con forfeit round two on purpose, in which I would have won because I am the only one in this argument who knows the exact reason that I wasn't able to complete round 2. And by this point I don't think anyone is going to vote either side because neither of us has made a reasonable argument.
"Do you really think that I purposely forfeited a round"
I haven't the slightest idea, nor do I care, nor are you justifying in forfeiting even if it was accidental, especially because you were willing and able to partake in other debates, as you have done.
" Honestly I think your debate topic should have been did Con forfeit round two on purpose, in which I would have won because I am the only one in this argument who knows the exact reason that I wasn't able to complete round 2"
This is a truly irrelevant statement, as this was not our resolution, nor do I care why CON forfeited, nor did I even postulate as to why he had forfeited. It doesn't matter, and his reasoning, or lack thereof, for doing so have no bearing on this debate save for the fact that he ought to be lose merely for the fact that he forfeited *and* failed to post a case after three consecutive rounds--which is something he *is* able to control.
"And by this point I don't think anyone is going to vote either side because neither of us has made a reasonable argument."
This is positively absurd because you, not I, forfeited--so it is you who is responsible for wasting my time, and thus who will lose conduct. Second, I can post a single argument now which will go unrefuted and establish my side of the resolution.
Contention 1: Inflation is too low
Headline PCE, year over year, is running far below target, and on average has been below 2 percent for over 6 years [http://blogs.wsj.com...]. In January, it was only 2 tenths of 1 percent. There is no inflationary threat, and thus no reason to raise short-term interest rates.
Contention 2: Labor Market Slack Persists
We don't know where the natural rate of unemployment is. It could be below 5 percent or even below 4 percent, as it was in the 1990s. Broader measures of unemployment are well over 11 percent, the number of people who are involuntarily part-time employed or marginally attached and discouraged remains elevated, and wages have been stagnant. Therefore, further accommodation is needed.
I no longer care about this argument or the comments posted below.
I also don't care who wins.
Oh, and thanks for the nice comments everyone made below.
I alone have standing arguments.
Therefore, vote PRO.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the debate, and gave his reason as "not caring about the topic"... which is ironic since Con gave Pro the choice. Due to Con's lack of participation, which I summed up as a concession, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, actually making arguments
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: "You get to choose the debate, but there are rules. You don't have to inform me about the topic before we debate, but it must be clear in your first article. You have 10,000 characters, and judging is not to be on grammar, spelling, or valid sources. Good luck." In the opening argument it specifically stated that pro could pick any topic and pro did. Pro provided arguments while con forfeited and failed to rebutt pro's argument. Thus, pro wins.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.