Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Austrian vs. Keynesian Debate

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 7:20:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

I would like your feedback on the debate that I recently completed. What are your thoughts on my arguments and how to improve them the next time I debate this subject?
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 9:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This would be how i argued against your points.

During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II.

I would argue that there were many reasons the Deppresion lasted long, such as lack of bank regulation such as deposit insurance and stupidly contracting money supply. However, the depression ended with the crazy huge government expenditure that went along with WW2

Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant.


I would argue that the stimulus had an effect. However, Japan did not get enough bang for there Yen. Japan is in a liquidity trap and massive spending will would result in a recovery.

In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented.

The 2001 recession was relatively short, and these tax increases lead to a boom that busted in 2008.

In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.

The economy would be worse without the tax decrease. Also, govt expenditure is more effective stimulus than tax decreases.

Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November 2009 it topped 10 percent.

The economy would be a lot worse without the stimulus. The USA should undergo great govt spending to recover from the recession.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 9:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This, in turn, shifts people"s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time."[5]

Keynesian Economics stabilizes the business cycle. Surely investors are more confident with a stable business cycle. Investors are more worried about recessions and business cycle decreases than the worry that they may have to pay more taxes.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 9:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I"ve studied every 3-year peace-time period since the U.S. founding in 1790, and in cases when federal spending declined, real GDP over the same years grew by 11%, on average, not materially different from the average growth rate recorded in periods of rising spending.

Keynesian Economics is a short run theory. According to keynsianism, having constantly high govt expenditure always will not be good. So taking all the data from 1790 is meaningless. What would be meaningful would be looking at recessions with high expenditure

Also, I don't think they had much economic data in 1790. Which leads me to believe this study is not the most legit.

Furthermore, this is your most important statistic and there is no link to it.
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 6:00:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 7:20:46 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I would like your feedback on the debate that I recently completed. What are your thoughts on my arguments and how to improve them the next time I debate this subject?

Well I guess a quote from my (and the president's) favorite TV character of all time, Omar Devone Little, may help you out.

"How you expect to run with the wolves come night when you spend all day sparring with the puppies?"

Obviously in every way your performance was better. In facts and arguments you were better. In writing ability you were far better.

I dont think this gentleman actually knows what Keynesian economics is.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 7:20:46 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

I would like your feedback on the debate that I recently completed. What are your thoughts on my arguments and how to improve them the next time I debate this subject?

1) Make your debate impossible to accept, so guys like RatMan don't fvck it up for you and your audience.

2) I would advocate the Austrian economics perspective, instead of attacking the Keynesian perspective. With the former, only one of your points passing muster would win you the debate, whereas in the latter, if your opponent was able to discredit only one of your points, you would lose the debate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2013 4:18:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, even if you thought Keynesian economics was highly impractical, unless you advocated the Austrian stance, you wouldn't be proffering a viable alternative.

Personally, I would have voted for your opponent under such a circumstance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OhioGary
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 10:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I feel that you debated against someone who isn't a proper standard bearer for all things Keynesian. Or any things Keynesian, for that matter.

I would be interested to see this debate again if additional facts about Keynesian economics were to come to light, as well as a discussion of the limitations of Austrian economics, in particular the problems that austerity measures are currently having in the EU, Ireland, Greece, Spain, and Japan.

While I didn't always agree with your viewpoint, I thought you were very civil and provided explanations for your arguments. Good work!
"There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you & me & we just diasgree."