Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy

Thanks Subutai. Resolution: "Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy""Better" per round 1: "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."Shared BOP.My opponent concedes that Keynesian policies are better in the short run: "Government stimulus also leaves long-term costs that outweigh the short-term 'benefits': 'Finally, any attempt at 'stimulus' leaves a long-term cost after any short-term benefits have long dissipated... fiscal deficits have only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become negative." (underline mine) Under my opponent's own quoted argument, Keynesian economics is better (leads to more economic output) in the short run.Since Keynesian economics has already won over Austrian in the short-run, my opponent must successfully argue that Austrian economics is better in the long run to have any chance at making arguments a tie. I have no way of responding to anything my opponent says in the final round. I expect that no new arguments will be presented. My opponent has dropped numerous arguments from round 3 that will remain dropped for the concluding round because he had a full round to respond and did not. The data shows that inflation hasn't increased in the last decade despite big increases in the national debt: droppedThe data shows that demand for the US dollar is stronger than ever as the world's reserve currency over the last decade despite increases in government spending: droppedThe data shows that interest rates haven't increased despite increases in government spending over the last decade: droppedThe data shows that the dollar has held a remarkably consistent exchange rate with other leading world economies despite increased spending over the last decade: droppedGovernment spending increases GDP according the GDP formula: agree (according to his argument).Broken Window fallacy'The broken window fallacy' is where the destruction of a valuable asset (a window) is believed to be good for the economy because money will be spent on fixing the window but fails to account for the lack of disposable income incurred by the person paying to repair the window. This isn't analogous to Keynesian policies because (1) gov. spending doesn't destroy tangible assets of wealth like a window (2) it ignores the multiplier effect (3) asumes that the money would've always been spent rather than saved had the window not been broken otherwise (4) gov. spending doesn't require immediate repayment so compounded economic growth will occur by the multiplier effect.There hasn't been any short-term immediately forseeable consequences by government deficits as my opponent asserts (if a decade can be considered short term) on inflation, demand for our currency, the interest rate, our exchange rate, among many other variables as the data shows.My opponent quotes Henry Hazlit, a proponent of Austrian economics, so of course he says gov. spending is an example of the broken window fallacy. The scenario isn't analogous at all and is quoting from a biased source.http://www.hazlitt.org...My opponent says that "Government spending has to come from somewhere" But the dollar is **fiat** currency! It isn't backed by anything. The only thing that makes the dollar valuable is the belief that it has value. As long as people believe that, no matter how much gov. spending occurs, it will still have value. This is one of many reasons why Keynesian economics is better than Austrian for the US economy because the dollar is the world's reserve currency (fiat + high in demand by other world economies) by a very large margin so gov. spending is highly desirable.http://www.investopedia.com..."Increased gov spending requires that taxes be increased" This is not true. Deficit spending is spending beyond what is collected in tax revenue. Taxes under GW Bush decreased despite massive government spending. The debt "celing" is always increasing as well.http://www.forbes.com...http://www.gpo.gov...https://www.fas.org...;(see pg 24)The assertion that gov spending drags GDP down as your source stated was from an opinion article stated as an opinion by the article itself (opinion of a rightwing economist.)My opponent says that the National debt is not sustainable but offers no explanation why. It's also absurd to believe that the US dollar will lose its world's reserve currency status when looking at the data of held US reserves rather than relying on the opinions of those who disagree with Keynesian policies. "In fact, Paul Krugman himself has criticized the argument that the US can run persistent trade deficits simply because the dollar is the world's reserve currency."This is a blatant misrepresentation. Krugman said: "It"s often asserted that it"s only because of the dollar"s special status that America can run persistent trade deficits. But that"s just not true: other countries whose currencies have no special role can do the same, and have."He is saying that not only America can run trade deficits, but countries like Australia too can continue to run persistent trade deficits. He then showed this graph: Inflation argumentMy opponent says that the current state of the economy might be controlling inflation. This is an implicit admission supporting my argument that inflation hasn't increased."Inflation is underestimated."Rising tuition, medical care, energy costs My opponent says that these costs have been inflated because government has had a big stake in these industries. This a baseless assertion. Considering supply and demand, Obamacare, an influx of people returning to college as a result of the recession, and skyrocketed gas prices due to competition from China are much more likely causes for price increases in these sectors."Gov cannot create capital or wealth - only diverts capital from more efficient enterprises."The government doesn't divert capital if it's borrowed money - it's capital creation with the promise of debt repayment at a future date.My opponent says that saving (thereby increasing capital to counteract a loss in capital caused by a recession) is the remedy for getting out of a recession but quotes mises.org., a site named after Ludwig Von Mises who is one of the founders of Austrian Economics. Here is a better source that says the opposite: consumer fear leads to savings and worsens recessions."FearThis fear causes them to cut back on spending, causing the economy to slow even more." http://www.investopedia.com...My opponent sources Krugman (Keynesian economist) for a quote that was never said by him to support his points. "...Government deficit spending that creates jobs now comes at the expense of fewer jobs during the times when the government runs a surplus. Jobs are shifted through time, but over time there is no net gain. [4]"[4] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...Since the reasoning given above was baseless, not what was sourced, and not backed by any external data it shouldn't be accepted.My opponent says that the ARRA was the cause of additional economic stagnation but this was during the height of the housing bubble. His assertions don't show any causal link whatsoever.My opponent has dropped numerous arguments and agrees that Keynesian policies are better in the short run. Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy due to increased economic output resulting from deficit spending according to the GDP formula (+G) and the money multiplier effect. I've shown that the data is stable over the last decade (long run) as well.Thanks for the debate!Users who should NOT vote on this debate: WilliamOfOckham, Wycek, 1Historygenius, nor any new account.