The Austrian Model Of Economics Is Better Than The Keynesian Model

Con says that “The issue that caused the Great Depression was decreased capital investment” but doesn't deny that it was the Fed that directly caused this as I already explained, so I assume he concedes that point. Con also says that “The problem that caused the Great Depression was a lack of government intervention” but forgets that the Fed, a.k.a. Government intervention, actually caused the Great Depression like I also explained previously! Con has resorted to ignoring my arguments from the previous round and just making claims to the contrary without substance. He hasn't rebutted my arguments so I see little need to rebut his all over again. Strawman #1 Con strawmans the Austrian School by claiming that “Austrians would prefer that the entire market collapse and eventually somehow rebuild itself.” This isn't true; Austrians would permit the market to suffer (not fail), then rebound all on it's own. The Great Depression was a market collapse during the reign of the Fed (and caused by it) so it would seem that it's actually the Keynesians who prefer entire market collapse. Another claim from Con is “The Keynesian plan ended the Great Depression that was originally caused by a lack of early government intervention in the marketplace” but for the umpteenth time, that's incorrect as I already demonstrated! Early government intervention CAUSED the Great Depression! Con goes on to describe how “The Great Depression was a "forest fire" that lasted for around a decade and showed no signs of rapidly improving by itself.” Aha, no sign of RAPIDLY improving by itself. But improve on it's own IT WOULD, as my opponent concedes! The only reason it wouldn't improve as fast as most would like is because this was no natural bust; this was an artificially induced bust caused by the Fed! “Poor management of local banks” and “bad stock investments” were a result of the Fed's lowering of interest rates. So here we are again, seeing how the Fed caused the Great Depression regardless of which angle we view it from. The source of the magnitude of the Great Depression can always be traced back to the Fed. Con says that I don't think the Great Depression could be stopped by the Fed, but that's a strawman! I never said that. However, that's not much of a feat, considering that the Fed caused it in the first place. I could steal everybody's money and then give it back to them, then point out how I rescued everybody's fortunes and paint myself as a hero, but this doesn't mean I should be put in charge of regulating people's wealth. Strawman #2 My opponent says “The Austrian alternative, of course, would have been to allow the market to collapse--or, to go with my opponent's analogy--to let the forest burn down.” This is another strawman! If you go back and see my analogy from a previous round, you will see how I compared letting busts run their natural course to a SMALL FIRE, not letting “the forest burn down”! Con says “Overall, the Austrian School's views seem comical when juxtaposed with real, empirical facts.” In reply, I must ask, what facts? The fact that the Great Depression was caused by Keynesian monetary policy through the Fed? Here is a final quote from Con: “A self-sustaining market that builds itself up from the ashes is a bizarre theoretical fantasy, like much of Austrian economics.” No, that's not what any of Austrian economics is. What Keynesian economics is, though, is a bizarre theoretical fantasy of a few bankers creating money out of virtually thin air, with practically no responsibility, and expecting the economy to benefit from this. One only needs to look at the state of the economy to see this. Don't let the banker win. Vote for me!