Keynesian economics is valid

Final Rebuttal:To #1There have been many dark ages, even in the post-industrial revolution west. I cite the civil war in America, the Potato famine in Ireland, the 1930s (US and Europe) and the 1970s (US and Europe, primarily Britain). To #2Stimulus is not purely a simulation of growth. It is crutch for the private sector, not a wheelchair. Of course a purely stimulus run economy would be a disaster, but so would an economy where depression ravaged the country unchallenged. There is significant economic data to prove that sufficient and properly designed stimulus can assist an economy: even a cursory glance at historical examples or non-partisan (i.e. CBO) econometric models reveals that. Meaningful industrial spending alongside private sector growth can help an economy out of a recession. But in a recession, the private sector weakens. It is necessary for government to pick up the slack, so to speak, of a lagging private sector. You misunderstand my arguments. I have never said that government stimulus can cure all economic ills, but rather that it is an acceptable emergency measure.To #3I highly doubt that the age of growth is done, and that the free market is obsolete. This is unsubstantiated. Most of the "joblessness" is attributable to other factors, such as insufficient labor participation. Free market systems were (and I maintain, still are) the primary engines of growth for the 20th century. Please defend this baseless criticism of capitalism.To #4I did say that growth can happen without natural resource consumption. The digital economy is growing at 17% annually, and its only primary resources are capital and human capital, which are absolutely renewable. In other words, an economy can grow as long as it continuously creates value. A market system encourages companies to compete to bring greater value to the consumer. This doesn't necessarily mean building more houses; it could mean higher wages or new industries that grow off of renewable resources.To #5I don't see how I missed the point. Industrial spending coupled with a market system has been incredibly productive over the past century.To #6And as for your straw man assertion, you did not really bother to articulate your argument. Honestly, do some spell and grammar checking. If you devise an argument that can't be understood, than you should expect that it won't be understood in the way you would like it to be. But if you examine the actual content of what you said, it is ridiculous. I challenge you to find an economy with a GDP greater than $1 trillion that does not use fiat money. Everyone in the economy, except for libertarians, unfailingly uses fiat money. Even according to Milton Friedman, the Federal Reserve should control the money supply, and with non-fiat money (i.e. gold standard), the Fed has no power. Honestly, the Fed does not cause inflation. Inflation is a naturally occurring (and in moderation, a healthy) phenomenon. For the last time, let me reiterate the most basic points of my argument, which have passed over your head:1. Government intervention has created the Internet, highways, and NASA, all of which have served the American people tremendously.2. Industrial stimulus has been definitively shown (yes, the WWII argument again) to boost economic growth. Thus, it is reasonable that a well designed industrial stimulus has the potential to boost economic growth. That is a profoundly good thing.3. The US economy can easily handle the debt from more spending. First off, 2.7 trillion dollars of our government's debt is actually borrowed from social security, so in effect, debt is 2.7 trillion dollars lower than the oft-cited 17 trillion dollar figure. Also, Japan is handling a 215% debt/GDP ratio.4. Keynesian economics is essentially a consensus among most mainstream economists, both liberal and conservative. Again, this is not ad populum, because, clearly, economists are experts in the field of economics.And one last time, I am not suggesting that the US economy should be run off of solely government stimulus, merely that stimulus can help support a troubled economy. Why is this so unreasonable?Since this is my last argument in this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for a stimulating (pun intended) exploration of Keynesian economics. This personally strengthened my belief in Keynes, and I have learned a significant amount from this. Thank you.