Austrian VS Keynesian.

PRO is trying to engage in a rebuttal in the last round. Judges, please do not allow him. Further, he has dropped my entire case. Nevertheless, I'm going to take this opportunity to respond to wha he is sayng. "I did in fact engage his arguments"No, you did not. You forfeited the round after I posted, and then didn't post an argument in the next round. "I gave an example of inflation literally killing people. "No, not even close. You gave an example--unsourced--of inflation volatility under a gold standard were prices were contingent on how much gold you could mine. As my source says, there was 23 times more inflation volatility under a gold standard than undr QE. Further, you *never* showed inflation killing people, nor that those harms exist under the current system. Further, you dropped my arguments on the differences between inflation and the cost of living, more stable inflation since the 1980s, and the harms of deflation, which are inevitable under your system. In fact, you dropped my entire case, so the judges can immediately vote CON simply for that. PRO says, "Also, subsidies and welfare merely increases debt. " This is a new argument. He never engaged either of these in his opening remarks. These obviously need not increase debt, because it's possible to run a balanced budget and fund these things. Further, all Keynesians argue is that at zero nominal interest rates welfare expenditures can boost demand--and these are no different, because they're putting money (generally, though the term "subsidy" is a bit more ambiguous, and could apply either to poor people through the EITC or oil companies, the latter of whom ought not have a subsidy and whom Keynesians would not endorse giving lavish amounts of money to) into the hands of people who will spend it, and stimulating demand is fundamentally important amid a demand shortfall. PRO dropped my argument that the Depression and Great Recession were demand shortfalls, so you can vote CON just on this. PRO says, "The economy is not a machine, the economy cannot be learned in just one semester. "This is non-topical and irrelevant. The economy is a machine, albeit a volatile one, and it is complex. I never asserted you could learn it in one semester, so this is a complete strawman. I want to apply what we have learned rather than whitewashing it, as Austrians do, by concluding that any efficiency is ipso facto a result of government. That is what PRO's school does, and they've been wrong on everything--whether they were predicting hyperinflation, or higher long-term interest rates, or another bubble, they were wrong. History does not support the Austrian school, and it never will. PRO says, "I say that the government cannot play with the hopes and dreams of many just to line the pockets of the wall street executives and bureaucrats"This is sophistry. It's not doing that. We're trying to regulate Wall Street banks so that they don't play with people's hopes and dreams by, say, taking down the global economy. Regulation, as I pointed out last round and as PRO dropped, prevented financial crises for 50 years. Then we lifted those regulations, and got the crash of 2008. There's a lesson to be learned here: regulatory oversight is necessary to prevent financial excesses, and breaking up the banks prevents that we don't need to actually rescue them and can allow them to fail, because they won't be able to take down the entire global economy. In 2008, we had to: if they failed, we all failed. PRO says, "Keynesianism has lead us to where we are now. With tons of spending comes high taxes and tons of debt. "So much wrong here. First, lack of regulation and tight monetary upolicy, not "Keynesians," brought us here. Both of us are as far removed from Keynes as you can get. Second, the federal deficit is declining as the economy is improving and spending cuts have been made. Third, taxes are lower than at any time in the post-war era--though you'll note that Keynes supported tax cuts to boost aggregate demand. Fourth, the "debt" was a result primarily of spending during good times under Bush on wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and defense spending--none of which Keynes, who wanted us to pay down debt during good times would have supported. Then the remaining debt was brought on because of falling tax revenue and a deteriorating economy, and the government needed to spend money at a time when no one was in order to stimulate the economy so there wouldn't be even MORE debt, because cutting back, via the paradox of thrift, only would have made the economy much worse. What PRO won't tell you is that he can't cite any negative impacts of that debt. As the economy grow, the debt to GDP ratio stabilizes and we become better able to service it. We're not going to actually "pay it back. " That idea is ludicrous and misunderstands the fact that, if we so wanted, we could finance a deficit on our own, though we don't. The crucial point, is that we should pay down debt when times are good and run up debt when times are bad. Otherwise, you'll create a debt burden you can't carry because the economy will completely tank amid failed austerity, as in Europe. PRO says, "The national debt eats 7 jobs each day. " This is unsourced, completely false, and positively absurd. There is no mechanism through which that is possible. PRO says, "The national rescission will only be solved if we listen to the Austrians. "No, the Austrians were responsible for getting us INTO this crash because of their calls for the deregulation which brought it on. Further, the economy has been improving b Keynsian stimulus--not by doing nothing, as the Austrians want. Further, doing nothing isn't possible: we're at the zero lower bound, so allowing wages and prices to fall will raise real interest rates and reduce investment, lower inflation again, ad infinitum. The economy cannot self-correct at the zero lower bound. PRO's arguments are totally false and ahistorical. PRO says, "When we listen to Keynes we get the housing bubble, and high unemployment" This is so totally untrue. If we listened to Keynes--and we didn't--we would've regulated the banks (or refused to deregulate them, really) and prevented this bubble from ever forming in the first place. Then we would've, if we actually had a recession, responded quickly and aggressively rather than dragging our hands as we actually did, allowing the dollar to appreciate, real interest rates to rise--both Austrian policies--which prolonged the recovery. PRO says, "As for world war two that didn't end the depression. What ended the depression was free market capitalism. "PRO has nothing more than baseless assertions. He has no facts, no logic, nothing of the sort. The problem that led to the Depression was inadequate demand. The New Deal and WWII brought us out. That's a historical act. Market capitalism run amok CAUSED the crisis. Further, contractionary policy in the late 1930s--which PRO would have supported--prolonged the recovery, whereas if we followed a more expansionary, Keynesian policy, it would've been over much faster. PRO states, "Sure unemployment fell but we rationed meat, eggs, butter. "This is totally untrue, unsourced, and ahistorical. Do not allow PRO's complete lies to sway you. PRO states, "Is that his idea of a good economy? If everyone was in the military we would have full employment and nothing to eat. "This sounds like a line out of the Keynes-Hayek rap video. No, this is a strawman. I never said I want to ration anything or that I want everyone in the military and us to have nothing to eat. This is a bogus strawman. PRO states, "So vote PRO. And read Whatever Happened To Penny Candy, by Uncle Eric. "No, do not vote PRO, because he has not provided a single accurate, logical, or sourced argument and has dropped my entire case. His conception of the crisis of 2008 and the 1930s is incorrect and ahistorical, and he fails to even challenge the accurate account I actually portrayed in my last round of sticky wages and prices inducing recessions following demand shocks.