Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy

Introductory PointsI understand what my BoP is. My opponent not only misunderstands my argument, he doesn't understand what my BoP is. The "short term" benefit of a Keynesian cycle is an artificial boom that leads to a crash later. In a sense, Keynesian economics is myopic. Just because Keynesian economics appears to make the economy look better in the short term (which it really doesn't because the boom is artificial), Austrian economics is better because it eliminates those busts, and the long-term increase in the economy doesn't have an artificial foundation. Also, my BoP is to show that Austrian economics is better for the US economy than Keynesian economics. I think that if I show the long-term benefits of Austrian economics outweigh the long-term benefits of Keynesian economics, I will win this debate. I haven't dropped anything. I responded to the inflation argument by showing that the measure of inflation used was inaccurate, and then showing how inflation has actually increased. I've argued that the US dollar argument is based on the continuation of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency; however, in the long run, this certainly won't hold true, and we'll just have a pile of debt - at some point, the debt we have will become unsustainable. Interest rates have been held down by the US government, so my opponent's point here can't be analyzed - this is simple Keynesian economics. Finally, government spending only takes away from consumption, and there's no multiplier, so at best, GDP will remain the same. I've already argued this. My opponent is making baseless assertions that I have dropped and agreed to his arguments when that isn't the case. [1]I should also note that my opponent dropped everything from my round two argument. He never responded to my praxeology argument, nor did he respond directly to my recession point. This is the heighy of hypocrisy on his part. Broken Window FallacyThe broken window situation is analogous to the economic situation because the same idea applies - money is spent and money is taken away. Government spending takes money from taxpayers and spends it somewhere else. This cannot make any net profit because the money is the same. "The starting point for the government and its dependents is an act of consumption, which means a using up, a loss of previously existing wealth in the form of capital. .. any fresh production and employment that results [from government stimulus] is incapable by itself of replacing the capital that was consumed in starting the process. " I've shown how getting out of a recession requires saving, and I've shown how the multiplier can only be one or less, so the broken window situation applies here. [2]Also, the broken window fallacy was first articulated by the French economist Frederic Bastiat. Hazlitt simply stated it in his popular book. [3]Like I've said before, the dollar will not be the world's reserve currency forever. There's going to come a point when countries will want they're money back, and we won't have the money to give them. "The dollar is very susceptible to losing its vaunted reserve currency position by the first major trading country that stops inflating its currency. " There will come a point, maybe in the near future, that this will no longer hold, and the US needs to get ready for it, or stop what it's doing to the currency, either of which involves a switch from Keynesian economics. [4]Taxes have to increase for government spending to increase. Where else is the money going to come from? I've negated the multiplier effect (which my opponent never responded to). If taxes don't increase, the government is going to have to incur debt. As for debt, while debt is also bad in the long term, debt is also bad in the short term when in comes to economic recovery: "Recent research confirms the dangers posed by high levels of government debt. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff examined over 110 years of economic data to conclude that advanced economies whose debt levels reach 90 percent of GDP face much slower economic growth. In 2009, Carmen Reinhart and Rogoff wrote This Time Is Different, a book The Economist called “a magisterial work on the causes and consequences of crises stretching back 800 years. Their conclusions were based on a vast new accumulation of cross-country data, covering 66 countries across all regions of the world and spanning eight centuries. This dataset made it possible to study country debt episodes and crises much more comprehensively. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff’s recent work on the impact of high public debt on growth and interest rates is based on this groundbreaking dataset. "[5][6][7]Also, I should note that under the Keynesian system, the debt is supposed to be paid off during boom periods, but the US hasn't done that. There isn't supposed to be any long-term debt. InflationI never admitted anything. There may be something in the economy that's overriding the effect of the government spending (there are many variables that affect inflation). Also, the numbers are there. Surely the recession, for example, would have inflated other industries as well. The government does have a large stake in those industries, and inflation increases as a result of it. My opponent seems to think that someone promoting their side is always wrong. My opponent's sources have mostly been Keynesian (when explicitly agreeing with him), so I might say the same of his argument. My opponent makes no attempt to refute my argument, only hiding behind the fact that it was made by someone who supports Austrian economics. All he does here is argue that fear affects people, which it does. A lack of capital (and saving) is the root of recession, while fear just makes recessions worse. Fear doesn't cause recessions (excpet in exceptional cases). Mises is a repsectable economist. My opponent's entire refutation rests on ideas that I already cautioned against in my opening round. To sum it up, saving helps restore the line of credit, the loss of which was the cause of the recession to begin with. It's not like money that is saved is not used in the economy: "It is simply channeled elsewhere than into consumer goods. Financial institutions that accept such deposits lend them to customers who invest in their businesses. This is the process of creating the capital that is the sine qua non of sustainable, long-term economic growth. "[8]ConclusionI have argued how praxeology is the best way for examing economic situations, and how recessions are the result of a lack of capital, arising from problems in saving. Recovering from recessions also has its root in saving. My opponent's arguments about government spending and the multiplier effect are invalid because they commit the broken window fallacy, and are based on a misunderstanding of how economics works. The US cannot be the reserve currency forever, debt is bad (especially long-term debt), and the Keynesian economic model doesn't even call for long-term debt. Overall, Austrian economics is better for the US economy than Keynesian economics. Sources[1]: . http://www.wsj.com...[2]: . http://mises.org...[3]: . http://www.investopedia.com...[4]: . http://mises.org...[5]: . http://www.heritage.org...[6]: . http://online.wsj.com...[7]: . http://www.economist.com...[8]: . http://www.fee.org...;