The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

Okay RebuttalsRound 3 was simply supposed to be a rebuttal period. You were not supposed to defend the case you made in round 2, just refute the arguments of the opponent's case. Round 4's purpose would be entirely defeated, which is simply meant to defend the case of the argument. As evidence that this was what I meant, look at the rules: FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Both sides present arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense of arguments and conclusionsI presented why my opponent was wrong in this debate by showing that he is using old data for a consensus. My opponent then goes on about some banking reform argument that he never mentioned. If you go back to his case, his only argument was this:Both Schools of Thought Concur, that the New Deal was not the Problem but Other Factors Were! Never did he make an argument on the lines of this:Banking Reform ActHe did say this:"Monetarists seem to agree that state intervention in this case to stop Bank runs was justified. They simply would have issues emergency loans on the open market (which would have mean't the fed would intervene). Now, it is important to note, that the Fed does NOT in fact answer to the president, they make their own policies and respond as they see fit."However, this is more to this consensus argument and not an argument only on bank reform. He tried to show that the New Deal worked by showing that monetarists like one aspect of it. This was to prove a consensus argument. He brought no real information as to why the banking reform act worked. Also, my opponent only specifically picked one minor aspect of the New Deal, he did not look at whole thing. What I looked at was the most signifcant programs and features of the New Deal. Small ones had less and little effect in comparison of the more major New Deal programs. Some minor New Deal acts include:Bank reformRepeal of prohibitionTrade liberalizationPuerto Rico Reconstruction AdministrationHousing ActThese parts of the New Deal are not popular parts of it because they were small and did so little when compared to the larger NIRA, AAA, TVA, WPA, and other ones. The important thing is to see the New Deal as a whole and how did it to spark the recovery as a whole. Finally, the banking reform act did not spark a quick recovery. The stock market clearly did not recover. By the way this is quantiative data: As we can see here from a time period of 1920 to 1940, the stock market collapsed and the banking reform act did not bring the stock market back to higher levels, despite the supposed argument that it was good for the financiall well being of the country. The stock market actually did not recover until the mid 1950s.IndustryNo refutations, I win here.AgricultureNo refutations, I win here.Gold Standard My opponent complains that I am going with Austrian economics and that it is reject by most economists. This is an argumentum ad populum and is not professional on a debate stage, thus this refutation is invalid. Using simple fallacies does make my opponent correct. FDR attempted to raise the price of gold in order to help create inflation, but his plan failed because the country saw little inflation increase than another dip into deflation in 1937. Here is some quantitative data that my opponent keeps calling for: WarNow we have war economy. Keep in mind that the only investing that was going on was from the government in order to keep big business afloat. This is pure crony capitalism. The only reason they did well was because of free money from the government which allowed them to produce. It does not show a rebirth in the private economy. FDR's economic policies, in war and peace, did not work at all. The porverty rate skyrocketed during the war because so many people could not afford simple goods. Wars are meant to destroy, not build. That is why the economy was faling under WW2. Once again, the stock market shows how discouraged the economy was: You might think our entry into the war would be the stock market's lowest point. This is incorrect and as we can see the stock market continued at a steady downpace until nearly mid 1942. Even with the US in full war it was still not recovering.Jobs The jobs that were created during the New Deal were jobs that were not needed in order to help the economy. They did not an increase in the quality of the economy. This means that even the jobs made were not meant to make the country better. I wanted to get this point across to prove that government job creation did not work during the New Deal. Creating jobs for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation and satisfying politicians is not helping an economy, It is only used to buy votes. That is the point to get across. [1]Overall, the New Deal was always a problem and just got worse in 1937. Here is how bad unemployment was according to Lebergott:1933: 24.9%1934: 21.7%1935: 20.1%1936: 16.9%1937: 14.3%1938: 19.0%1939: 17.2%1940: 14.6% [2]These numbers are not the sign of a easy and quick recovery. These are the signs of a slow and disastrous recovery that could have been fixed faster had the government done nothing.ConclusionMy opponent basically ignored my points on industry and agriculture. That alone should let me win arguments. He specifically focused on a weakn pro-majority argument. I used both quantitative data through charts and and qualitative data through information. He also used wikipedia quite often while used more respectable sources. I win arguments and sources.Sources1. Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History on the Great Depression 2. Smiley, Gene, "Recent Unemployment Rate Estimates for the 1920s and 1930s", Journal of Economic History, June 1983, 43, 487–93.