The broken window fallacy always hold true

However many of his rebuttals do not refute many of my main arguments. He has not demonstrated why the broken window fallacy always holds true. Since he is the affirmative, the burden of proof lies on him. In fact, in his onw conclusion "While the Broken Window Fallacy may be a bit off it can be very close to reality under most circumstances. " This is a concession, since PRO had to show that the broken window fallacy is a fallacy under all circumstances. The resultion is that it always hold true, not mostly holds true. This is an automatic win for me, but I will continue to respond for the sake of argumentation. Dropped arguments Pro has dropped the following arguments:-Emperical evidence of the "broken window fallacy" in action. : Pro does not contend that WWII, while destructive, increased economic output or that government spending increases gdp during recessions and depressions. -People in a recession just save his/her money thus producing no real economic effects: Pro does not dispute this data that the savings rate and excessive reserves in banks dramatically increased during the Great Recession. As stated previously, this produces no real economic benefit, since gdp is based on spending, which cannot Arguments: 1. Total spending in an economy is equal to total incomePro states that individuals can spend more then their income. However, I do not dispute this. In an open economy, any individual can save more or spend more then he/she earns. But the reason why some people can spend more then he/she earns is because he/she is in debt to another individual. One person's debt is another individual's investment. In a closed economy, the sum of everyone. Pro did not dispute the logic that toal spending = total income, only on emperical grounds. However this discrepency arises becauses the US is not a closed economy. The US has 14 trillion dollars in foreign debt[1], and has around 15% of its gdp in imports and 11% in exports. If one is to look at in a global scale, then the world economy is a closed system. Recessions and depressions tend to occur on a global scale If economies are large enough, as was the case of the global financial crisis of 2008 and great depression. Also, since most of the US gdp is still within its own borders, it can be considered semi-closed. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Since PRO admits that income is strongly correlated with spending, he does not really contend this position. 2. A broken window causes spending to increase Pro does not contend that a broken window causes spending to increase. However, Pro states that other destructive actions could cause the same result. The resolution specifically stated that:The broken window fallacy is the idea that events that cause destruction (ex: breaking windows) can have economically positive effects. A broken window is simply an example. Pro agrees with me on this resulotion, and actually negates the own resolution Pro is trying to defend.3. In a recession or depression, resources are underutilized Pro disagrees with this statement but goes on a red herring. None of Pro statements demonstrate that resources are not being underutilized. a) I demonstrated that resources can be underutilized just through looking at unemployment rates, in which people who want to work, aren't working, thus an underutilization of workers. Pro did not rebute this. Pro states that resources are being used more efficiently, and uses the increased in gdp to support this. However a few problem with the statment are. a) Just because resources are used more efficiently, theb) The real US gdp per capita is lower then it was pre-recession. What Pro showed was nominal gdp. Nominal gdp is different from real gdp, because nominal gdp does not factor in inflation. Also, the US population is growing, so even if real gdp is growing, if the population is growing at a faster rate, then the standard of living decreases. c) Real gdp decrease once the recession occured. This is because resources were underutilized during the recession. This point remains affirmed4. Prices are "Sticky" so inflation does not necessarily occur. The increase in spending would only cause inflation if the economy is producing near maximum capacityPro agrees that prices are sticky, only that in some areas they are not. However, based on the equation:MV = P*Q, even if there is not complete stickiness, an increase in velocity of money would stick correspond to some increase in quantity of goods and services, even if the proportion is not equal. In all for quantity of goods and services NOT to decrease, there would be absolutely no stickiness, which Pro even admits isn't true. Pro then states that economic growth has been show to drive inflation down, but that just reaffirms my position that inflation would not occur due to a broken window during times of recessions, just an increase in GDP. ConclusionI have demonstrated how a broken window or other event of destruction corresponds to positive economic indicators, specifically gross domestic production. Thus, the broken window fallacy is not always a fallacy.