Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Interested in a Keynes debate?

DenyEverything
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:35:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just looking to gauge interest in a debate on Keynesian thought and policies that derive from Keynesian thought. I would be on the Con side, arguing that Keyne's thought and resulting policies are not effective in stimulating growth and returning to a economic boom.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you consider monetary policy to be part of Keynesian economics, or are you mainly concerned with fiscal policy?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 8:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 8:38:07 PM, DenyEverything wrote:
I'm mainly concerned in fiscal policy but I would be willing to debate the Fed's monetary policy as a separate debate.

I will not defend the current administration's policy, but I'm willing to defend fiscal policy on a broader basis.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 8:57:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 8:50:55 PM, DenyEverything wrote:
Sure. Give me an example of your resolution.

Resolved: Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DenyEverything
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 9:27:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 8:57:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/28/2012 8:50:55 PM, DenyEverything wrote:
Sure. Give me an example of your resolution.

Resolved: Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression.

I'm afraid I can't accept this debate right now, I am too busy, but perhaps later we could debate this. Thank you.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 11:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 8:57:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/28/2012 8:50:55 PM, DenyEverything wrote:
Sure. Give me an example of your resolution.

Resolved: Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression.

He denied the debate, because of his username.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 1:43:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would debate pro for Keynsian ideas sometime. Maybe something like "Austerity is a stupid fiscal policy response to the 2008-2009 financial crisis". I also don't have time now but will in about two weeks or so.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 9:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems like there's too many moving parts with this topic: wealth distribution via taxes, money printing/inflation/stealing from the future, and separately, whether the government is capable of engineering economic growth more efficiently than alternatives. What about the time frame? Short term, long term?

As a side note, I recently watched a firing line episode where Hayek claimed he had a conversation with Keynes where Keynes stated that his economic policy was only applicable to the 1930's, in a specific economic situation and also said that if this policy ever starts to become generally accepted, he will have it shut down. Well, then he died.

@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 9:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 9:34:00 PM, ax123man wrote:
It seems like there's too many moving parts with this topic: wealth distribution via taxes, money printing/inflation/stealing from the future, and separately, whether the government is capable of engineering economic growth more efficiently than alternatives. What about the time frame? Short term, long term?

As a side note, I recently watched a firing line episode where Hayek claimed he had a conversation with Keynes where Keynes stated that his economic policy was only applicable to the 1930's, in a specific economic situation and also said that if this policy ever starts to become generally accepted, he will have it shut down. Well, then he died.

@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 11:13:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.

I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with it, so much as I wouldn't take it. Politicians always have to do "something", being what they are, and it seems economic questions often ignore the question "compared to what?". For example, if I'm a doctor and you are dying of cancer AND your also a little thirsty, I can argue that giving you a drink makes you feel better.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 11:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 11:13:49 PM, ax123man wrote:
@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.


I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with it, so much as I wouldn't take it. Politicians always have to do "something", being what they are, and it seems economic questions often ignore the question "compared to what?". For example, if I'm a doctor and you are dying of cancer AND your also a little thirsty, I can argue that giving you a drink makes you feel better.

which is true, so I'm not getting it. Are you trying to state that the government should do other stuff as well. (For example, in your above case, the doctor would try to treat the cancer)? I also agree that that the government should do other stuff to dampen the recession. Injecting liquidity into the market, deregulating.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 11:29:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 11:20:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/30/2012 11:13:49 PM, ax123man wrote:
@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.


I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with it, so much as I wouldn't take it. Politicians always have to do "something", being what they are, and it seems economic questions often ignore the question "compared to what?". For example, if I'm a doctor and you are dying of cancer AND your also a little thirsty, I can argue that giving you a drink makes you feel better.

which is true, so I'm not getting it. Are you trying to state that the government should do other stuff as well. (For example, in your above case, the doctor would try to treat the cancer)? I also agree that that the government should do other stuff to dampen the recession. Injecting liquidity into the market, deregulating.

Right, in this case it's other people money being spent, so it raises the question of whether it could be spent better other ways. For example, lowering taxes is a form of stimulus, although I guess only conservatives would agree. Fiscal and monetary stimulus to me are both forms of taxation. I'd rather debate which of a couple choices is better since it's easy to argue that taking a little money from everyone and spending it on a few stimulates the economy. But I'd argue, so what. That proves nothing really.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 12:06:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 11:29:43 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 11/30/2012 11:20:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/30/2012 11:13:49 PM, ax123man wrote:
@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.


I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with it, so much as I wouldn't take it. Politicians always have to do "something", being what they are, and it seems economic questions often ignore the question "compared to what?". For example, if I'm a doctor and you are dying of cancer AND your also a little thirsty, I can argue that giving you a drink makes you feel better.

which is true, so I'm not getting it. Are you trying to state that the government should do other stuff as well. (For example, in your above case, the doctor would try to treat the cancer)? I also agree that that the government should do other stuff to dampen the recession. Injecting liquidity into the market, deregulating.

Right, in this case it's other people money being spent, so it raises the question of whether it could be spent better other ways. For example, lowering taxes is a form of stimulus, although I guess only conservatives would agree. Fiscal and monetary stimulus to me are both forms of taxation. I'd rather debate which of a couple choices is better since it's easy to argue that taking a little money from everyone and spending it on a few stimulates the economy. But I'd argue, so what. That proves nothing really.

Well lowering taxes is a form of stimulus, but it has a lower multiplier effect. However, government just spends your money inefficiently, so its really a comparison of what one cares about more.

And no, keynesian economics isn't about increasing government spending. Its about increasing deficit spending in times of recessions and running a surplus during economic booms.

Also increasing money supply doesn't necessarily correspond to an increase in inflation. At least not in the short-run.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 8:20:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 11:29:43 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 11/30/2012 11:20:37 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/30/2012 11:13:49 PM, ax123man wrote:
@Darkkermit
I'd have trouble accepting "Fiscal stimulus spending can be used to dampen a recession or depression" , as it ignores "compared to what". I'd rather it be "Fiscal stimulus is the ideal political action available to dampen a recession or depression". Otherwise, why do politicians use it?

Compared to not using a fiscal stimulus....I don't see what's the problem with such a resolution.


I didn't mean to imply there was a problem with it, so much as I wouldn't take it. Politicians always have to do "something", being what they are, and it seems economic questions often ignore the question "compared to what?". For example, if I'm a doctor and you are dying of cancer AND your also a little thirsty, I can argue that giving you a drink makes you feel better.

which is true, so I'm not getting it. Are you trying to state that the government should do other stuff as well. (For example, in your above case, the doctor would try to treat the cancer)? I also agree that that the government should do other stuff to dampen the recession. Injecting liquidity into the market, deregulating.

Right, in this case it's other people money being spent, so it raises the question of whether it could be spent better other ways. For example, lowering taxes is a form of stimulus, although I guess only conservatives would agree. Fiscal and monetary stimulus to me are both forms of taxation. I'd rather debate which of a couple choices is better since it's easy to argue that taking a little money from everyone and spending it on a few stimulates the economy. But I'd argue, so what. That proves nothing really.

Lowering taxes is a Keynesian stimulus policy. So, if you believe in low taxes in a recession, you are Keynesian. However, as Darkhermit said, in general, government spending has a greater stimulus effect than tax cuts. So, if you can only afford one, and want to stimulate the economy the most, spending is the way to go.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 9:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how stimulus money is allocated. If it goes to failing businesses, would it still be more effective than tax-cuts?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 9:33:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 9:20:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how stimulus money is allocated. If it goes to failing businesses, would it still be more effective than tax-cuts?

It depends. There will be some tax cuts that have a greater stimulus than some spending, but in general this is not the case. The theory behind it is that 100% of government expenditure is spent whereas a percentage of tax cuts is saved. Also, as poorer people save less, tax cuts for the poor are more effective in stimulus than for the rich.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:12:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 9:20:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how stimulus money is allocated. If it goes to failing businesses, would it still be more effective than tax-cuts?

probably not. You have to stimulate demand, not supply and subsidizing failing businesses seems like a supply stimulus. Now maybe if the government bought the good and services the business was making, it could be an effective stimulus.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:14:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:12:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/1/2012 9:20:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how stimulus money is allocated. If it goes to failing businesses, would it still be more effective than tax-cuts?

probably not. You have to stimulate demand, not supply and subsidizing failing businesses seems like a supply stimulus. Now maybe if the government bought the good and services the business was making, it could be an effective stimulus.

although that actually is what a subsidize kind of is :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:25:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 9:20:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how stimulus money is allocated. If it goes to failing businesses, would it still be more effective than tax-cuts?

I'm thinking it could, but the unintended consequences it would create, namely corruption and crony capitalism would largely offset the benefits.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Libertymonger
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 10:15:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would also be a Con for Keynesian economics. Austrian theory has been consistantly correct in their predictions of the boom bust cycles due to Fed manipulation of the interest rates and the constant production and injection of new currency causing inflation that will cause inflation that will start the cycle all over again. And because the Fed can literally create money and bank credit out of thin air, all the lending agencies that were backed by the Fed...engaged in sub prime lending, knowing that they wouldn't be caught holding the bag once they securitized, and sold their crappy CMO passing the problem on down the line.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2012 11:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/9/2012 10:15:43 PM, Libertymonger wrote:
I would also be a Con for Keynesian economics. Austrian theory has been consistantly correct in their predictions of the boom bust cycles due to Fed manipulation of the interest rates and the constant production and injection of new currency causing inflation that will cause inflation that will start the cycle all over again. And because the Fed can literally create money and bank credit out of thin air, all the lending agencies that were backed by the Fed...engaged in sub prime lending, knowing that they wouldn't be caught holding the bag once they securitized, and sold their crappy CMO passing the problem on down the line.

I'd be pro keynesian and con austrian.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...