Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy

Resolution: "Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy""Better" (per opening round): "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."Important stipulation: For the US economy.Shared Burden of proof.The reason why Keynesian economics is better than Austrian economics for the US economy is because deficit spending produces more economic output than a balanced budget would. Keynesians believe that deficit spending (government spending beyond what they can collect in tax revenue) produces more good than harm (if it doesn't result in increased interest rates) while Austrians believe that deficit spending inherently produces more harm than good."Austrian school economists (advocates of free market capitalism) are consistent in opposing government debt."http://libertarianinvestments.blogspot.com...Here is the formula for GDP (Gross Domestic Product): GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)GDP is the value of all goods and services produced domestically in one year. It is a measure of overall economic output.http://www.investopedia.com...G = government spending. So just by increasing government spending (+ G) we can deduce that an increase in GDP will result. The question becomes: has the national debt shown to have any adverse effects so far? Have the substantial increases in the national debt in the last half of the decade resulted in increased inflation or decreased confidence in the US dollar? We'll find out.First, let's see why every dollar of government spending produces a benefit greater than initial amount spent. I'll cover the money multiplier effect:Consumption spending accounts for 70% of GDP (consumption spending is simply what people spend money on). If the government spends borrowed money in the form of government wage increases or job opportunities through public project funding, people will have more money to spend. People will tend to spend more on goods and services the more money they have [1]. So once government spending increases the amount of money people have in their pockets, the more those people will spend. The more people spend, the more demand there is for goods and services. In order to keep up with demand, businesses will need to employ more people. By employing more people, those employees now have more money to spend on other businesses. Okun's law shows that when unemployment falls by 1% GNP (Gross national product) rises by 3%. The result of this spending is a compounded increase in GDP so the result of this is net positive and I'll why why this is the case. This is all due to the multiplier effect. This is the formula for the money multiplier:[1] http://www.investopedia.com...Money multiplier formula: Y = incomeG = government spending K = money multiplierMPC = marginal propensity to consume (how many cents per every dollar that is spent with an additional increase in income)Assuming a modest marginal propensity to consume at 0.80c per every $1.00 in additional income (MPC = 0.8) the formula is as follows: This means for every $1 in government spending, $5 of additional income will result. This supports my point that government spending will have a compounding effect and will result in a net positive from the initial loan.So now that I've shown that government spending has net positive effects on GDP, how has our substantial deficit spending harmed us by lost faith in the US dollar or through inflation?INFLATION as a result of increasing national debt?Here is inflation over the past decade: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...In september 2004 our national debt was $7.3 trillion and in september 2014 it was $17.8 trillion. Our national debt has more than doubled in the last decade, but inflation is decreasing! The current trend from 2009-2014 is averaging about 2%. Having 2% inflation is actually ideal according to Federal reserve. The Federal reserve sets monetary policy for the US."The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's mandate for price stability and maximum employment."http://www.federalreserve.gov...So the possible argument that the national debt increases inflation can't be observed. If my opponent claims that the national debt is bad because it increases inflation will have to face the hard data.LOST VALUE or LOST CONFIDENCE in the US dollar as a result of national debt?For this contention lets look at demand for the US dollar. What does the data show about the US dollar? Has demand for the dollar lost value over the last decade? For this we'll have to see what it means to be the world's reserve currency.Reserve currency explanation: "A foreign currency held by central banks and other major financial institutions as a means to pay off international debt obligations, or to influence their domestic exchange rate. A large percentage of commodities, such as gold and oil, are usually priced in the reserve currency, causing other countries to hold this currency to pay for these goods. Holding currency reserves, therefore, minimizes exchange rate risk, as the purchasing nation will not have to exchange their currency for the current reserve currency in order to make the purchase. "http://www.investopedia.com...So what does the demand for US currency look like despite increases in the national debt? http://qz.com...So as we can see, the US dollar is just as strong, if not stronger than ever as the world's reserve currency. This means that foreigners have the highest demand for the US dollar by a large margin. This trend continues despite the national debt increases.So now that we've established that the demand for the US dollar is stronger than ever, has the US dollar lost value? Let's take a look at the exchange rate of the US dollar compared with other leading world economies: http://www.oanda.com...The US dollar has been extremely consistent in exchange rate value with other world economies. So the notion that the US dollar is weakened by national debt would be false also. ConclusionI have shown how Keynesian economics is better than Austrian for the US economy. Better was defined in round one: "By better I mean that Keynesian policies would lead to more economic output than Austrian policies would."Keynesians believe that deficit spending is beneficial as long as interest rates don't increase (they haven't) but Austrians believe that deficit spending is inherently undesirable. Here's proof just for those curious showing that interest rates haven't increased with all the government borrowing: http://www.treasury.gov...I have shown that GDP unquestionably increases with government spending and have provided economic rationale as to why this is the case. I've also shown that government spending has a money multiplier effect so the economic benefit exceeds the initial cost of the loan. I've addressed concerns over the negative effects that government spending might have on the economy with hard data to back it up.Considering all of this, 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. Austrians believe that deficit spending is inherently undesirable.Thanks and over to my opponent!