BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Keynesian economics

Many governments were not following Keynesian economics during the boom before 2008 and so cannot expect to be able to implement extra spending now. France for example last had a budget surplus almost forty years ago in 1974[1] so has not built up the necessary surpluses to be able to use government spending to reduce the impact of recessions. Moreover that government intervention is a good thing makes the assumption that the government knows what it is doing and will do better than the free market.[2] This is not usually the case. Instead government spending is regularly misdirected and not nearly as good a stimulus as it should be. [1] Égert, Balázs, ‘Bringing French public debt down: the options for fiscal consolidation’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No.858, 21 April 2011, p.5. [2] Blinder, Alan S., ‘Keynesian Economics’, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty.
Countries that are uncompetitive need to reduce wages and welfare

It is hyperbole to think that more government spending over the short term can be compared to the state planning of the soviet union. Instead the parallel should be drawn to those countries who have grown precisely because the state helped guide the market; the growth of Japan from the 1950’s guided by MITI or of Chinese ‘state capitalism’ today. Europe is only becoming relatively rather than absolutely less competitive. Yes, there are thousands of new graduates in India and China but there is also an expanding pie, globalization is not a zero sum game, there is room for developing countries to catch up while European nations continue getting richer, albeit at a slower rate.  This is because new technology will make workers more productive and increase living standards for everyone.
Governments have a moral duty to help their citizens

We all have a duty to provide aid to those who need it and the government is the best placed to act on this duty. We all need a place to live, a level of healthcare and some income in order to survive. The idea behind the welfare state is to provide for this through creating a safety net for every citizen. The state is responsible for the social and economic wellbeing of it citizens.[1] It does this by, for example, provision of social housing – either at greatly reduced rates or free of charge, through state hospitals, through unemployment benefit for those made unemployed and disability benefits for those who can’t work. With austerity the government is doing exactly the opposite of what it should be doing to help its citizens. Just at a time when more people need these payments they are being cut back. To make matters worse an increase in VAT has been a favored method of increasing government income while there has been a squeeze on unemployment benefits as the government does not want to pay more as unemployment rises; in Greece in the year to December 2010 the number of unemployed workers was up 45.1% whereas the number of unemployment benefit recipients went up only 9.6%. As a result the whole package of austerity measures is usually regressive, with its impact falling harder on the poor than the rich, as has been the case in Greece.[2] [1] Kavanagh, Dennis, British Politics Continuities and Change, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 1993, p.17 [2] Matsaganis, Manos and Leventi, Chrysa, ‘The distributional impact of the crisis in Greece’, in Vassilis Monastiriotis ed., The Greek crisis in focus: Austerity, Recession and paths to Recovery, Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe, July 2011, pp. 5-43, p.28, 31, 37.
Austerity is creating a cycle of decline

Austerity leads to a cycle of decline that continues on down until the state has been stripped down to the bare bones. We are seeing this in countries where the European Union has enforced austerity as a condition for bailouts, particularly Greece. Government austerity reduces demand as the government is spending less. With less demand the economy is damaged and a smaller tax take comes in for the government leading to even greater austerity if the government is to balance its books. Austerity therefore creates a vicious cycle when there is no extra demand from the private sector to cushion the blow.[1] Even Standard & Poor’s previously a champion of austerity in its justification for downgrading the credit rating of Eurozone governments said “austerity alone risks becoming  self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues.”[2] The answer is therefore less austerity, more support for the economy and more social support for the citizens. If people are less concerned for the future as a result of knowing there will be government support if they are made unemployed they will be more willing to spend rather than save when they are employed so helping the economy to recover. [1] Stiglitz, Joseph E., ‘The Ideological Crisis of Western Capitalism’, Project Syndicate, 6 July 2011. [2] ‘Credit FAQ: Factors Behind Our Rating Actions On Eurozone Sovereign Governments’, Standard & Poor’s, 13 January 2012.
Keynesian economics

Recessions are caused by too little demand in the economy so austerity in a time of recession is exactly the opposite of what the government should be doing as it means further reductions in the amount of demand in the economy. Governments should take an activist approach to try to stabilise the economic cycle (the swinging from boom to bust to boom that characterises the economy) or at least reduce the depths of the recessions and temper the booms. This means that Governments should spend less when the economy is booming and, crucially, more when the economy is in recession so as to stabilise the economy.[1] It should be remembered that government spending does not just affect the public sector there is a multiplier effect on the economy, spending on building a road not only means construction companies get business but so do their suppliers and their workers spend their new wages in shops. Economists working for President Obama at the time of the U.S. stimulus believed that for every 1$ spent by the government there would be 1.6$ benefit to the economy.[2] [1] Blinder, Alan S., ‘Keynesian Economics’, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty. [2] Much ado about multipliers, The Economist, 24 September 2009.
Without more social support there will be a ‘lost generation’

The current course of austerity on top of austerity risks creating a lost generation of youth across Europe. Unemployment is high everywhere in Europe but it is particularly pronounced among young people. In the Eurozone the average youth, under 25s, unemployment rate is 21.6% while in Spain and Greece it is more than 50%.[1] Such staggeringly high unemployment rates will have immense consequences as a whole generation is demoralised. Even when the economy recovers this lost generation may not be able to get a job as new school leavers and graduates will get the jobs in preference to those who have been unemployed for long periods. There needs to be more money, not less, for education and retraining for the sectors of the economy where there are jobs, such as IT specialists. This means more investment not just in adult education but more money being spent on creating jobs, whether permanent, placements or internships, specifically to give young people experience in work. The European commission recognises the problem and is providing €275 million for placements around Europe, member governments must do the same.[2] [1] Monaghan, Angela, ‘Youth unemployment passes 50pc in Spain and Greece’, The Telegraph, 2 April 2012. [2] Vincenti, Daniela, ‘Vassiliou: European kids must learn to be risk-takers’, Euractive, 3 May 2012.
On your bike!

Welfare is necessary, but only for the really needy. There does need to be a social security safety net but it is often too generous, as is the case in many western European countries today. If welfare is too generous then there is a disincentive to work or even to be looking for work as those claiming benefits can live as well on benefits as they could if they got a low paid job. These people who are idle and living off benefits cost every hard working taxpayer who is paying for their idleness. Europe is an immense economy and not all of it is affected as badly by the recession; in Germany the unemployment rate for under 25’s is only 8.2%[1] those out of work should move to where there are jobs. Benefits therefore need to be cut in order to encourage the unemployed to be more adventurous in searching for work. [1] Monaghan, Angela, ‘Youth unemployment passes 50pc in Spain and Greece’, The Telegraph, 2 April 2012.
Austerity is necessary to deal with broken welfare systems

Welfare and social support can only continue as long as there is money to pay it. Only at great risk can European countries continue their current generous rates of social support as these systems are going bankrupt. It is workers taxes that pay for the state’s expenditure on healthcare, education and benefits. Also almost everywhere current taxes pay for state pensions rather than the pensions having been already paid for by workers contributions throughout their working life. Unfortunately there is a squeeze on all social support mechanisms due to Europe’s aging population. The dependency ratio, the number of workers compared to those receiving pensions, in Germany will grow from 24% in 2000 to 61% in 2050 meaning rather than there being four workers paying for every pension there will be less than two.[1] As a result pensions and health care costs will rise dramatically. These are costs that the state will have to manage on a declining tax base due to having fewer workers. Today’s young, the ‘lost generation’ are going to be hit with having to pay for these changes. We need to start reducing these expenditures now. [1] Meir, Volker and Werding, Martin, ‘Ageing and the Welfare State: Securing Sustainability’, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, CESifo Working Paper No.2916, January 2010, p.3.
Countries that are uncompetitive need to reduce wages and welfare

Those who argue that more government spending can get European countries out of recession are plain wrong. This is because we are now living in a globalised world where ultimately the only way to growth is to be competitive in the global market place. The state sector has never been competitive as was shown by the collapse of the USSR and other communist countries whose state planning could not keep up either with demand or with their free market rivals. European countries no longer have a competitive edge in even high tech products and so European companies need to pay rates that are competitive against China, India and Turkey even in sectors such as IT, design and marketing. China for example now has more than half a million engineering graduates a year and over 10,000 Ph.D engineering graduates, in both cases considerably more than the United States.[1] If these graduates are willing to accept lower wages than their European competitors then Europe will lose business and jobs reducing wage rates. If wages are declining then unemployment benefits have to be made less generous to prevent people staying on benefits rather than finding work and pensions will need to be capped as the employed won’t be able to pay enough to pay for yesterday’s workers. [1] Gereffi, Gary et al., ‘Getting the Numbers Right: International Engineering Education in the United States, China and India’, Journal of Engineering Education, January 2008, p.17.
Trials help bring divisions into the open to help heal them.

For post-conflict societies to function, the tensions and divisions of the conflict must be brought out into the open and dealt with in order to be fully put to rest. Those most responsible for war crimes must be brought to justice, those involved in the regime but less culpable must have opportunity to make amends and victims must feel that they have been compensated. This allows compromise and the potential for effective governance. The alternative is to allow undiscussed, simmering hatreds and resentments to persist, which undermine growth and create a risk of further conflict.
The prosecution of war criminals is generally very ineffective.

The scale of crimes being prosecuted cause very slow trials, and a high likelihood of technical acquittals.  International Courts rarely have police forces of effective methods of enforcing rulings. The ICC has never achieved a successful conviction, the ICTY has been criticised for inadequate sentencing[i] and the current trials in Cambodia have become mired in court and national politics, to the point that it is expected that no further Khmer Rouge officials will be tried. Given the improbability of success, the cost and trauma of these trials is unjustifiable. [i]"Ten years in prison for Miroslav Deronjic". The Hague: Sense Agency. March 30, 2004. Retrieved 8 May 2011. "Judge Schomburg however thinks that the punishment is not proportional to the crime and is not within mandate and spirit of this Tribunal. According to him, the crime to which Deronjic pleaded guilty "deserves a sentence of no less than twenty years of imprisonment". In a brief summary of his dissenting opinion that he read after pronouncing the sentence imposed by the majority, Judge Schomburg criticized the prosecution for having limited Deronjic's responsibility in the indictment to "one day and to the village of Glogova." Secondly, Judge Schomburg adds that the "heinous and long-planned crimes committed by a high-ranking perpetrator do not allow for a sentence of only ten years", which in light of his possible early release could mean that the accused would spend only six years and eight months in prison. At the end of his dissenting opinion, Judge Schomburg quoted a statement by one of Deronjic's victims. The victim said that his guilty plea "can heal the wounds" that the Bosniak community in eastern Bosnia still feels - "provided that he is punished adequately". According to the victim, "a mild punishment would not serve any purpose.""
Post-conflict reconciliation

These trials are not always in the best interests of people on the ground in post-conflict societies. Victims may feel great trauma at having to testify and revealing information might inflame tensions. This is particularly true when large numbers of people in the society had connections to the war criminals. For instance, many high-ranking Cambodian businessmen and officials had Khmer Rouge connections[i] and in Rwanda, Hutus make up 85% of the population. Prosecution is intended to allocate blame not to encourage progress and reconciliation. If any official process is necessary, Peace and Reconciliation Commissions are more suitable. [i]Justice of a Kind, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/18898168
Double Standard

While proposition may claim that prosecution of war criminals is a moral imperative, the reality is that geo-political factors determine which prosecutions are taken. For example, all of the ICC’s prosecutions have been against African leaders.[i] Furthermore, although the United States is strongly suspected of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is too powerful to be prosecuted. Fair justice should apply equally to everyone. Because it doesn’t, these prosecutions are often seen as Western impositions. This aggravates international tensions and reduces willingness to take any action on war crime in the developing world. For example, the African Union has refused to uphold the ICC’s arrest warrant on Omar Al Bashir.[ii] [i]Case reports of the ICC http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Reports+on+activities/ [ii] BBC News, 'Warrant issued for Sudan's leader', 4 March 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7923102.stm
Problems with symbolic justice

There is no such thing as symbolic justice. While full justice is an admirable aspiration, its value is undermined by consistent failure. If prosecutions cannot be completed, the international community is seen as toothless. This undermines its deterrent value and trivialises the trauma of victims, who may feel their suffering is subordinate to esoteric legal principle. Furthermore, the prosecution of war criminals could use up political capital, thereby preventing more effective preventative measures, or real commitment to post-conflict rebuilding.
Justice needs to be seen to be done in order to provide a deterrent to others.

It is doubtful whether genocide such as this is based on rational calculations. For instance, the diversion of resources into the ‘Final Solution’ was a major reason why Hitler lost the war. In the same way, war criminals are unlikely to be deterred by legal threats such as these; they are driven by a fanatical hatred, not common sense. Furthermore, in wartime situations the immediate threats are so pressing that the hypothetical, long-term prospect of justice won’t affect the actions of lower-ranking officers.
The prosecution of war criminals is generally very ineffective.

Proving the commission of crimes on this scale beyond reasonable doubt must take a great deal of time and expertise. The end is so important that the cost must be borne. The successes at Nuremburg and the ICTY convictions prove that it is possible to bring war criminals to justice. While the ICC has had limited success, it is a young institution and is likely to streamline its processes and achieve more convictions in the future.
Post-conflict reconciliation

In most instances, victims support the progress of prosecutions and are willing to testify. If many people in the society had connections to criminal regimes then that has to be acknowledged and addressed through official means. If not, the tensions will still exist. Even if they are driven underground, the risk of violent tension re-emerging continues to exist. While Peace and Reconciliation Commissions may be useful in tandem with prosecutions, by themselves they risk appearing as mere talk shops that do not provide either punishment or compensation.
War criminals need to be prosecuted in order to provide justice.

 In the instances of small-scale crime we accept that if a community condemns a person’s action, our sense of justice demands that they be punished. However, it is often the case that those who commit the most heinous crimes at the highest levels of responsibility are not prosecuted because of the complexities of the process. For example Slobodan Milošević the former leader of Serbia’s trial took four years and he died before the verdict was given. According to ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte “The death of Slobodan Milosevic deprived victims of justice”.[i] As an international community we have repeatedly pledged to prevent war crimes, in recognition of the fact that they are beyond the scope of local courts. When they occur it is a collective failure to protect, so the responsibility to prosecute and make amends falls with the international community. An admission of our inability to prosecute war crime undermines the decades of work we have done to prevent them. [i] Online NewsHour, 'Milosevic Death Precedes War Crimes Verdict', PBS, 13 March 2006 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/milosevic_03-13-06.html
Justice needs to be seen to be done in order to provide a deterrent to others.

An accepted tenet of most justice systems is the achievement of deterrence. Without the prosecution of war crime, its perpetrators have to consider no tangible cost to their actions. This applies to those who claim to have “just followed orders,” who now face a counter-motivation to refuse or defect.  In the case of high-level war criminals it becomes effective when they realise they are losing a conflict. If they fear prosecution they are more likely to seek to negotiate rather than going on a final destruction spree. In the final days of the Nazi regime, Himmler stopped committing atrocities and attempted to negotiate peace because he realised his own vulnerability to prosecution.[i] [i]Allen, Martin, Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler.
Prosecution provides closure for the victims of war crimes.

The intention of many crimes of war is to destroy and demoralise individuals and communities. As a result, they often cause on-going harm to victims who cannot feel safe in their communities even after the conflict has ended. For victims, prosecuting war criminals has a vital cathartic function in helping them, to some extent, to come to terms with the crimes committed against them and their families. While full compensation is impossible, both the symbolic realisation of justice and the illustration of real commitment to prevention allows people to rebuild their lives to some extent. Failure to prosecute sends victims a message that the attacks on their freedoms were somehow acceptable.
Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.

The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it[i]. [i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.
Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust

During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats[i]. Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages. [i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010.
Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.

Quality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy.[i] [i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”
Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash

It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans[i]. The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess. [i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com