Keynesian economics is valid

Though out this debate, you have continuously tried to argue against conservationism and Austrian economics as if there was no other economic philosophies besides Keynesian and Austrian... I am not an Austrian- I am a Technocrat. I have spent this debate attacking Keynesian Economics with out promoting Resource Based economics because RBE was not relevant to the topic. You failed to grasp that I was deliberately not stating my position on economics because it wasn't relevant. In closing arguments, You never fully addressed the issue of war, obviously modern weaponry is too advanced to be economically useful in the way it was in the 2nd world war but you shied away from this point instead of confronting it. WW2 is an invalid example of why Keynesian Economics is relevant going forward because that mass mobilization of industry was unique to its situation and cannot be duplicated... that was my contention, it remains unrefuted in a meaningful way as the debate concludes. Your contentions about bust cycles in the market are irrelevant. Humanity has seen almost unhindered progress in it's scientific and economic advancements in the last 2 centuries, when scaled up to a period of 2 centuries the 1970's and the 1930's where speed bumps but progress was made even than. You don't refute the point. Stimulus IS a simulation of growth... you have not separated Keynesian economics from the growth model, or really made a good case for its stability and sustainability going forward. Your references to historical data only help drive my point home, the unique set of circumstances that have driven growth in the western world Namely the exploitation of Oil. We know That peak oil is finished,that extracting oil is more and more expensive and complicated. The period of real growth is over. 47% of U.S. employment is threatened by total automation in the next 20 years, while the digital editions are replacing alot of formerly blue and even some white collar positions such as entertainment media, with crowd sources,crowd funded material from a widely democratic system, but even this aside the growth in profit margins is not and should not be mistaken for growth in the actual well being of people in the economy. Profit margins are higher than ever across the board and yet. http://finance.yahoo.com... The behavior of corporate entities goes directly against your contention of market behavior that companies will raise wages and etc. We don't see that behavior at all.Be it American Robotics " Baxter" or the Keva Systems now owned by Amazon- Automation is taking physical jobs while bloggers are replacing journalists... you tube is replacing subscription cable. http://www.bloomberg.com... The only growth left to have is on paper, if you honestly believe that digital growth is equating to real economic growth... well... there is a lot more thinking on the topic you need to do. As for industrial spending and the market system being effective... I have spent this debate pointing out to you that it isn't the 20th century anymore. If you need any additional evidence that it is No longer the 20th century, I suggest consulting the 3.2mm/year rise in sea levels. The legacy of the market system long after the market system fails. None of what you reiterated is relevant... You have not established even in the slightest that Keynesian Economics can or will carry Humanity through the 21st century. Of course Government intervention created the Internet, of course they built the highways. We know, its the coolest of stories, it doesn't make a good case for Keynesian economics going forward into the 21st century. You have how ever made a good case for 20th century Keynesian practices. Kudos for that. This is usually where I would invite you to debate me again, win or lose. However, your conduct during this debate has smug,arrogant and I will not extend an open invitation to you- even as a courtesy. You're a jerk quite frankly. I am quite sure you understood atleast this much.