Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Any T-Party/Ron Paul/Austrians wanna debate?

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 7:34:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello,

I am hoping to to a debate in economics and would like to debate someone who in general has Ron Paul/Tea Party/Austrian kind of views. I want to debate in favor of a Keynesian viewpoint.

I would debate for a fiat currency against a gold standard. I would debate for monetary policy to control business cycles. I would debate in general most Keynesian viewpoints. Let me know if interested.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm more of an evolutionist, but my views are pretty close to Austrian economics when it comes to things like inflation and monetary vs resource based economic models. Feel free to try to rebut the claims of this video if you want to start from there: https://www.youtube.com...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:26:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:10:48 PM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
I'm more of an evolutionist, but my views are pretty close to Austrian economics when it comes to things like inflation and monetary vs resource based economic models. Feel free to try to rebut the claims of this video if you want to start from there: https://www.youtube.com...

im not gonna watch the 30min video. but if you wanna type what u think and argue yourself i might debate u.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 11:27:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 10:58:40 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
anyone...anyone?

I'm more of a forum warrrior, but I could try a formal debate.
Anthing in particular?
Not much of an economist, though.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 11:51:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 11:27:05 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 10:58:40 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
anyone...anyone?

I'm more of a forum warrrior, but I could try a formal debate.
Anthing in particular?
Not much of an economist, though.

we can make it short word count so it is more similar to a forum debate...I want the debate to be fun and easy to read.

I would debate against the gold standard

I would debate for the federal reserve and and monetary policy to control the economy

I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions

Something along these lines..I am open to suggestions.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 12:05:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 11:51:16 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/21/2014 11:27:05 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 10:58:40 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
anyone...anyone?

I'm more of a forum warrrior, but I could try a formal debate.
Anthing in particular?
Not much of an economist, though.

we can make it short word count so it is more similar to a forum debate...I want the debate to be fun and easy to read.
No need to handicap yourself, by any means.
Just set it up as you would any debate.

I would debate against the gold standard
economics...blech, but I think I agree

I would debate for the federal reserve and and monetary policy to control the economy
economics...belch

I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions
hmmm, maybe the type of expenditures or a madatory payback...

Something along these lines..I am open to suggestions.
I do like taxes (debating them), if that interests you any.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 12:11:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 12:05:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 11:51:16 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/21/2014 11:27:05 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 10:58:40 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
anyone...anyone?

I'm more of a forum warrrior, but I could try a formal debate.
Anthing in particular?
Not much of an economist, though.

we can make it short word count so it is more similar to a forum debate...I want the debate to be fun and easy to read.
No need to handicap yourself, by any means.
Just set it up as you would any debate.

I would debate against the gold standard
economics...blech, but I think I agree

I would debate for the federal reserve and and monetary policy to control the economy
economics...belch

I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions
hmmm, maybe the type of expenditures or a madatory payback...

Something along these lines..I am open to suggestions.
I do like taxes (debating them), if that interests you any.

I would debate that government expenditure is a more effective stimulus for a depressed economy than tax cuts?

Anything specific about taxes you would like to debate?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 12:17:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 12:11:06 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I would debate that government expenditure is a more effective stimulus for a depressed economy than tax cuts?
I kinda agree with this, so no.

Anything specific about taxes you would like to debate?
We could play a game where I defend loopholes.
We could debate negative tax liabilities should be abolished.
Or itemized deductions should not be limited.
Or there should be no floor for medical expense deduction (or that 10% is too high).
We could argue that tax loopholes for businesses actually help citizens.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 12:22:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 12:17:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 12:11:06 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I would debate that government expenditure is a more effective stimulus for a depressed economy than tax cuts?
I kinda agree with this, so no.

Anything specific about taxes you would like to debate?
We could play a game where I defend loopholes.
We could debate negative tax liabilities should be abolished.
Or itemized deductions should not be limited.
Or there should be no floor for medical expense deduction (or that 10% is too high).
We could argue that tax loopholes for businesses actually help citizens.

Sorry...I'm don't think I want to debate this. I am kind of apathetic towards tax loopholes deductions ect.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 12:25:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 12:22:37 PM, twocupcakes wrote:


Sorry...I'm don't think I want to debate this. I am kind of apathetic towards tax loopholes deductions ect.

Good luck in your search, then :)
As I said, I don't like economics so much as law.
My work here is, finally, done.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 11:16:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 6:14:17 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/23/2014 10:27:17 AM, AbbadonBerg wrote:
Sure.

Make your argument.

what do u want to debate?

Wow. So you can't respond yo my arguments because they're too much, and you can't post something you believe in with an argument for your belief? You seem like such an interesting opponent. :P
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 4:54:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 11:16:18 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
At 6/23/2014 6:14:17 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/23/2014 10:27:17 AM, AbbadonBerg wrote:
Sure.

Make your argument.

what do u want to debate?

Wow. So you can't respond yo my arguments because they're too much, and you can't post something you believe in with an argument for your belief? You seem like such an interesting opponent. :P

Above I mentioned some things I would debate. Here it is again...

I would debate against the gold standard

I would debate for the federal reserve and and monetary policy to control the economy

I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions

Something along these lines..I am open to suggestions.


Did you make any arguments haha?
Mercury3
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:57:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions

Are you still interested in a debate on this point?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 8:05:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:57:28 PM, Mercury3 wrote:
I would debate also for government expenditure in recessions

Are you still interested in a debate on this point?

yes...are you interested
Mercury3
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 8:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something along these lines -

Keynesian economics: Should governments go into deficit in times of recession?
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:01:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't vote because I haven't done any actual debates off the forums, but here's my comment.

Neither of you debated that well, but I was very disappointed by con's lack of a good response. The current recession has many causes, and the plight that low and middle class people are facing has been building up for decades. We overinvested in housing to the point where we have more empty houses than homeless people in the USA. We've used up all the easiest oil reserves to the point that we're fracking tarsand oil, which takes more energy to extract a single gallon of gas than many forms of biofuel take to make the same amount of energy. The fact that it costs more to make the same amount of energy available to consumers means prices will go up regardless of policy. We have more than doubled the retiree to worker ratio since 1950, meaning each worker has to be significantly more productive for the same amount or take home pay in order to take care of a larger non-working population. We have droughts and loss of topsoil caused by climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices that are hurting farm yields, and sustainable agriculture that avoids those long term problems is much more labor intensive.

The idea that a recession caused by resource scarcity and demographic problems can be fixed by pushing people to consume more through additional spending is ludicrous. If anything, poorly planned stimulus spending that causes increased consumption without dealing with the resource scarcity problems that caused the recession will only cause us to use up our scarce natural resources even faster and make our problems worse. The problem is neither person in this debate understands what our economic problems really are. It's not just a lack of money flowing through the economy - you can increase GDP all you want, but if there's no additional resources available for people to consume, people will still be worse off and you will still have scarcity and poverty. You can increase the number of jobs available, but if they're made up make work jobs that don't actually contribute anything to the wellbeing of other people, you're just wasting people's time. A higher percentage of our 18-65 population worked at every point from 2008 to now than worked at any point from 1950 to 1970, and yet workers today are worse off because they're doing more BS jobs that contribute nothing to the wellbeing of other people or the planet we live on. Economics is not about money. It's not about jobs. Economics is about resources, because resources, not money or jobs, are the things we actually need in order to survive.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:20:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 1:01:43 AM, storytimewithjesus wrote:
I can't vote because I haven't done any actual debates off the forums, but here's my comment.

Neither of you debated that well, but I was very disappointed by con's lack of a good response. The current recession has many causes, and the plight that low and middle class people are facing has been building up for decades. We overinvested in housing to the point where we have more empty houses than homeless people in the USA. We've used up all the easiest oil reserves to the point that we're fracking tarsand oil, which takes more energy to extract a single gallon of gas than many forms of biofuel take to make the same amount of energy. The fact that it costs more to make the same amount of energy available to consumers means prices will go up regardless of policy. We have more than doubled the retiree to worker ratio since 1950, meaning each worker has to be significantly more productive for the same amount or take home pay in order to take care of a larger non-working population. We have droughts and loss of topsoil caused by climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices that are hurting farm yields, and sustainable agriculture that avoids those long term problems is much more labor intensive.

The idea that a recession caused by resource scarcity and demographic problems can be fixed by pushing people to consume more through additional spending is ludicrous. If anything, poorly planned stimulus spending that causes increased consumption without dealing with the resource scarcity problems that caused the recession will only cause us to use up our scarce natural resources even faster and make our problems worse. The problem is neither person in this debate understands what our economic problems really are. It's not just a lack of money flowing through the economy - you can increase GDP all you want, but if there's no additional resources available for people to consume, people will still be worse off and you will still have scarcity and poverty. You can increase the number of jobs available, but if they're made up make work jobs that don't actually contribute anything to the wellbeing of other people, you're just wasting people's time. A higher percentage of our 18-65 population worked at every point from 2008 to now than worked at any point from 1950 to 1970, and yet workers today are worse off because they're doing more BS jobs that contribute nothing to the wellbeing of other people or the planet we live on. Economics is not about money. It's not about jobs. Economics is about resources, because resources, not money or jobs, are the things we actually need in order to survive.

Thanks for the comments...

Producing natural gas is about half the price of oil. And, saying prices are going up does not make any sense because inflation has been extremely low.

Did the USA lose all of their oil and topsoil in 2007 which caused the recession? It was not the mortgage crisis in 2007 that caused the recession, it was running out of oil and top soil? Is this what you think?

The USA has a strong economy filled with innovation, smart people and great companies. In regards to resources, stimulus spending will give unemployed people jobs, which will further their training and lead to better "resources" in better people.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 1:20:45 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Thanks for the comments...

Producing natural gas is about half the price of oil. And, saying prices are going up does not make any sense because inflation has been extremely low.

The inflation figures that have said it's low also ignore things like food, fuel, and health care that are more volatile in the short term but which have been trending upward over the long term. Natural gas also releases methane, which is much worse for atmospheric warming than carbon.

Did the USA lose all of their oil and topsoil in 2007 which caused the recession? It was not the mortgage crisis in 2007 that caused the recession, it was running out of oil and top soil? Is this what you think?

No, but the problems our lower and middle class are facing were building up since long before the recession. Incomes had been stagnant for decades despite huge increases in education level and productivity. When there is less resource availability and incomes are stagnant so people can't afford to save and many are tapped out on debt, one shock can cause a huge recession that wouldn't have been a recession if people had savings to fall back on and resource reserves that could be tapped.

The USA has a strong economy filled with innovation, smart people and great companies. In regards to resources, stimulus spending will give unemployed people jobs, which will further their training and lead to better "resources" in better people.

It's a nice theory, but our most fundamental needs are all physical and resource based. It doesn't matter how much more capable your people are when there aren't enough physical resources for them. The fact that manmade global climate change is a real thing that's actually happening is evidence of Malthusian theory, that we're trying to keep more people alive than our environment can sustain. The fact that we have a rapidly growing prison population (with most of the growth being victimless crimes) and a rapidly growing retired population (two things government spends a lot of money on) only make that problem worse, because you have more people consuming resources (prisoners, police, and retirees) who are not contributing to solving the problems that their need to consume creates.

Also, believing that governments will somehow find good ways to invest our money and resources during a recession where the private sector feels they have run out of good investments requires a certain level of faith.