Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

John Maynard Keynes was right

Finished

The voting period has ended

After not so many votes, surprise surprise...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
Socialism will only work if its the kind thats actually regulated capitalism
Round 1
Published:
"Keynesian economists generally argue that as aggregate demand is volatile and unstable, a market economy often experiences inefficient macroeconomic outcomes in the form of economic recessions (when demand is low) and inflation (when demand is high), and that these can be mitigated by economic policy responses, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, which can help stabilize output over the business cycle.[5] Keynesian economists generally advocate a managed market economy – predominantly private sector, but with an active role for government intervention during recessions and depressions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Keynes was not a Socialist, in fact he thought they were nit wits , ionically most european social democratic parties embrace kEYNesian policies and the welfare state both Liberal ideas originally 

But my only point is this is the place on the economic spectrum that is ideal Laissez faire Capitalism what most conservatives and libertarians, mean when they talk about Capitalism, the alternately rant against keynsian policy as socialist when it falters and laud it  as free market economic when it often works as in the Nordic Model  
Published:
Pro spends most of his round defining Keynesian economics. But provides no argument as to why Keynes is correct in his analysis of economics.

I will contrast this with the following points.


Contention one: Keyensian economics is based on unsound economic theory.

Keynesians see the market as inherently unstable and identify the government as the stabilizing actor, however, in reality, government interventionism only stands to create greater uncertainty in the market relating to the choices and activities of individual buyers and sellers due to the massive level of aggregation in Keynesian theory. Keynesian economics does not deal with supply and demand in the proper way. In this theory, there are only two types of goods: Consumer goods and investment goods. The patterns in prices between these two categories are not at all considered. To make matters worse, the one relative price that is retained in this formulation: the relative value of consumer goods to investment goods as expressed by the interest rate is assumed not to function or to function incorrectly.

Keynesian economics also ignores scarcity. Scarcity is the relationship between investment goods and consumption goods. You can have more of one, but only at the expense of the other. Identifying this market mechanism allows for our understanding of the market and how it tailors production decisions to match consumer preferences. The aggregation inherent in Keynesian economics and it's disregarding of scarcity serves to obscure this integral market mechanism that allows us to understand the intertemporal allocation of resources. This is what causes the very macroeconomic instability that Keynesians try to correct.



Contention 2: Keynesian Economics has never been successful.

Keynesian's greatest claim to fame rests in the New Deal which until recently was credited with ending the Great Depression. However, the Keynesian policies of the New Deal are now considered by most economists to have exacerbated and extended the Depression. For example, Roosevelt attempted to manage the market by influencing the price of gold. Not only destroying the restraints on inflation but provoking backlash from other countries putting a greater stranglehold on international trade and throwing world economies deeper into depression. He did this because he was a Keynesian and as such had the supply and demand relationship completely inverted from how it actually works. He believed that the Depression occurred because prices fell. In reality, prices fell because of the Depression. In response, he tried to artificially create shortages in order to drive up the price of goods cracking down on production causing massive decreases while at the same time ramping up government spending. Economists at UCLA have determined that these crackpot schemes prolonged the Great Depression by as much as seven years.



The one argument my opponent alludes to but doesn't fully unpack falls under this contention. And that is the success of the allegedly Keynesian Nordic Model. The Nordic Model could at one time have been considered a Keynesian success, but it is now in decline. The problems that Keynesian economics has have finally caught up with the massive preexistent wealth of the nordic countries. This has caused them to respond to their decline by liberalizing the market. Today, Denmark ranks higher on the economic freedom index than even the United States with less government regulation and interference in the market.








References
Garrison, Roger W., “Cycles and Slumps in an Overly Aggregated Theoretical Framework,” in Steven Kates, ed., What’s Wrong with Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2016 

The Nordic Model–its Arrival and Decline
Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management Volume 14 Issue 9 Version 1.0 Year 2014 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 2249-4588 & Print ISSN: 0975-5853



Round 2
Published:
I'm going to refute the most important issue, does Keynesian economics work  for that i need proof
jewish people are smart and they are good with money they are thats just a fact call me a bigot or a stereotyper do i have to prove jews are smart? okay 
What's Larry David's evidence for his exceptional brainpower? "To be paranoid, you need a very good imagination."  
FDR AND THE NEW DEAL WAS BASED ON KENYSIAN ECONOMICS AND THOSE WERE OUR BEST YEARS https://livingnewdeal.org/the-new-deal-worked/ we had a big middle class strong growth low unemployment and inflation and a wonderful standard of living
that only ended with the energy crisis 30 years later
also many nations used ketynsian economics to get out of poverty France and Italy come to mind 


" As a result of these nationalisations, France became the most state-controlled capitalist country in the world. Another factor behind economic recovery was the Marshall Aid Plan an American initiative which gave grants, loans and subsidies to struggling post-war nations. The issue of raising the birth rate was an additional factor in France's industrial recovery: more babies meant more demand for goods and services and more potential worker-consumers. There was a clear link, then, between production and reproduction, conception and consumption. Immigration too played a central role in the economic modernisation and growth that characterises les trente glorieuses.




    The New Affluence
    Les trente glorieuses witnessed rapid economic growth. For those who like their statistics neat, between 1945 and 1975 the economy grew on average by 5% per annum, which was a considerable economic achievement at the time. Both industry and agriculture were undergoing a process of increasing modernisation.  




    The New Affluence
    Les trente glorieuses witnessed rapid economic growth. For those who like their statistics neat, between 1945 and 1975 the economy grew on average by 5% per annum, which was a considerable economic achievement at the time. Both industry and agriculture were undergoing a process of increasing modernisation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_economic_miracle  "The Italian economic miracle or the Italian economic boom (Italianil miracolo economico, or boom economico) is the term used by historians, economists and the mass media[1] to designate the prolonged period of strong economic growth in Italy after the Second World War from the 1950s to the late 1960s, and in particular the years from 1950 to 1963.[2] This phase of Italian history represented not only a cornerstone in the economic and social development of the country—which was transformed from a poor, mainly rural, nation into a global industrial power—but also a period of momentous change in Italian society and culture.[3] As summed up by one historian, by the end of the 1970s, "social security coverage had been made comprehensive and relatively generous. The material standard of living had vastly improved for the great majority of the population."[4]"


I'm gong to throw in a bonus from the years when EVERYONE WAS USING KEYNSIAN economics sweden socialists ruled sweden but instead of doing marxist stuff they took the tax and spend route of sir john and guess what happened then??

"The record years (SwedishRekordåren) is a period in the economy of Sweden, dating from the international post–World War II economic expansion to the 1973 oil crisis,[1] and largely coinciding with the mandates of prime ministers Tage Erlander and earliest years of Olof Palme. The concept was originally a satirical left-wing description of the years 1968-70.
Sweden had maintained neutrality during both world wars, and entered the post-war boom with industrial and demographic advantages. Sweden also received aid from the Marshall Plan. Between 1947 and 1974, the Swedish economy grew at an average rate of 12.5% annually[citation needed]. The urban population, living in towns of over 15,000 people, grew from 38% of the total population in 1931 to 74% by 1973. Sustained by an export boom of automobiles, heavy machinery, electronics, ship-building, and heavy weapons, the per capita income increased by as much as 2,000%. Sweden had successfully moved into the high-income group of countries by 1955–56." 12.5% a year for 30 years.. beat that i dare you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_years
okay one more china today isnt really on a mrxist course yet its not on a laissez faire course either the state plays a huge role and the ecoomy and yet it thrives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCDDmBPdHs&t=1010s   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRjdJWeCuFo china isnt socialist any more not really but it isnt capitalist its an economy where the state plays a big role and stimultes often like keynsian economics was

Published:
I will now refute each of my opponents "arguments"

Jewish economists

an economist's ethnicity is of no import in this round. This isn't a valid argument.

The New Deal

Pro never refutes any of my arguments against the New Deal In which I proved that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse and also extended it.


French and Italian economic recovery

" As a result of these nationalisations, France became the most state-controlled capitalist country in the world. Another factor behind economic recovery was the Marshall Aid Plan an American initiative which gave grants, loans and subsidies to struggling post-war nations. The issue of raising the birth rate was an additional factor in France's industrial recovery: more babies meant more demand for goods and services and more potential worker-consumers. There was a clear link, then, between production and reproduction, conception and consumption. Immigration too played a central role in the economic modernisation and growth that characterises les trente glorieuses.
This point doesn't prove that Keynesian economics pulled France out of the Depression. It only says that France was the most state-controlled capitalist country in the world. It then goes on to outline all of the factors that actually got France out of the Depression. IE: the Marshall Plan, increased birth rate, and immigration. But he never proves that Keynesian economics actually helped. Meanwhile, I showed exactly why Keynesian economics severely damaged the United States and the entire world economy.


Pro also did not prove that Keynesian economics caused the economic boom in Italy. Economics is a complex matter and my opponent needs to be careful that he does not commit the Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy.


Sweden
Pro has not disproven my claim about the decline of the nordic model. Sweden is liberalizing it's economy and moving away from Keynesian economics as I proved in my last post. I would also like to note that my opponents copy-pasted wikipedia paragraph has "Citation needed" in it.

China

You're doing yourself a diservice by claiming the Chinese economy. 
1. They aren't Keynesian they're a quasi-Fascist, quasi-Communist economic system wherein the state has near-total control of the economy. Even Keynesianism isn't that bad.
Round 3
Published:
I will adress two main points, and then a bit on china and explain how it is a lot like France in the 1960s so it defintely is keynsian. we are not talking here about human rights, that is anothe rissue for another time, metioning how mean and nasty commies are in china and caling them names like fascist isnt an argument
singapore is another amazing statist society that has very authoritarian aspects, you dont bring that up in a debate about economics because they are a non sequitor an irrelevant point we arent talknig about warm and fuzzy we are simply talkin g about what works

1) The is no one serious economist that contends the depression was prolonged by the new deal thats revisionist bull crap that was fabricated by talk show host blabbers like Rush Limbaugh and  Glen Beck  and Alex Jones its a rubbish fake news taunt from uneducated people that simply dont like paying taxes and dont understand how economies work 
"Afterward, suffering pangs of self-doubt, I wondered whether I and most of the country are the crazy ones. Sure, the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well. But are conservatives right? Did the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolong the Great Depression"?

Ummm ... no.
Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway."

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" - its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?
Nope.
According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK - if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians - do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?
Again, no.
As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."
But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week - the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.
As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.""https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php
2) As far as the decline of the Nordic nations, what the hell is that based on?  lets see some evidence you make claims and produce no proof i s dont have enough room here but Nordics top the charts in all catagories economic freedom and quality of life "
Overall, the Nordic countries take gold for family life. Even 2018's “biggest loser” Sweden performs well, ranking 5th out of 50 in the Family Life Index. Finland, unsurprisingly, comes first, with Denmark not far behind in fourth place. Any Nordic country seems to be a good destination for expat families.
3) China again we are not talking about human rights if you do you violate the boundaries of this debate, if you wanted to debate human rights violations in china i think you'd have plenty of ammo this ain't that debate so you are here by warned to stay away from this irrelevant topic because this isn't  debate on human rights, if it was you'd have a valid point but since this isn't that debate YOU DON'T

China is a state capitalist model, but in reality in the 1960s when the French economy was booming along at about 5% gnp growth a year it had more state run industries than china does now "As a result of these nationalisations, France became the most state-controlled capitalist country in the world. Another factor behind economic recovery was the Marshall Aid Plan an American initiative which gave grants, loans and subsidies to struggling post-war nations. The issue of raising the birth rate was an additional factor in France's industrial recovery: more babies meant more demand for goods and services and more potential worker-consumers. There was a clear link, then, between production and reproduction, conception and consumption. Immigration too played a central role in the economic modernisation and growth that characterises les trente glorieuses.




The New Affluence
Les trente glorieuses witnessed rapid economic growth. For those who like their statistics neat, between 1945 and 1975 the economy grew on average by 5% per annum, which was a considerable economic achievement at the time. Both industry and agriculture were undergoing a process of increasing modernisation."   https://eserve.org.uk/tmc/contem/trente1.htm
"Dirigisme or dirigism (from French diriger, meaning 'to direct') is an economic doctrine in which the state plays a strong directive role, as opposed to a merely regulatory role, over a capitalist market economy.[1] As an economic doctrine, dirigisme is the opposite to laissez-faire, stressing a positive role for state intervention in curbing productive inefficiencies and market failures. Dirigiste policies often include indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the use of market instruments (taxes and subsidies).
The term emerged in the post-war era to describe the economic policies of France, which included substantial state-directed investment, the use of indicative economic planning to supplement the market mechanism, and the establishment of state enterprises in strategic domestic sectors. It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth[dubious – discuss], leading to the coinage of the term Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious [years]").
The term has subsequently been used to classify other economies that pursued similar policies, most notably the East Asian tiger economies, and more recently the economy of the People's Republic of China.[2] A related concept is state capitalism.
Most modern economies can be characterized as dirigiste to some degree – for instance, the state may exercise directive action by performing or subsidizing research and development of new technologies, through government procurement (especially military) or through state-run research institutes.
 One last thing about Keynesian policy if you know anything about the history of economics you might have heard about the record years, when Sweden under control by the socialist(Social Democratic Party of Sweden ) used Keynesian policies to do something no one had ever done and no one not even China has done since for roughly 25 straight years from 1946 to about 1973 Sweden averaged 12.5% economic growth and went from one of Europes poorest nations to its richest in 1963 
"The record years (SwedishRekordåren) is a period in the economy of Sweden, dating from the international post–World War II economic expansion to the 1973 oil crisis,[1] and largely coinciding with the mandates of prime ministers Tage Erlander and earliest years of Olof Palme. The concept was originally a satirical left-wing description of the years 1968-70.
Sweden had maintained neutrality during both world wars, and entered the post-war boom with industrial and demographic advantages. Sweden also received aid from the Marshall Plan. Between 1947 and 1974, the Swedish economy grew at an average rate of 12.5% annually. The urban population, living in towns of over 15,000 people, grew from 38% of the total population in 1931 to 74% by 1973. Sustained by an export boom of automobiles, heavy machinery, electronics, ship-building, and heavy weapons, the per capita income increased by as much as 2,000%. Sweden had successfully moved into the high-income group of countries by 1955–56."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_years
there I refuted all your points

Published:
I would first like to point out that my opponent has completely dropped my first contention on Keynesianism being based on unsound economic theory.


Criticisms of the New Deal as Historical Revisionism?

The is no one serious economist that contends the depression was prolonged by the new deal thats revisionist bull crap that was fabricated by talk show host blabbers like Rush Limbaugh and  Glen Beck  and Alex Jones its a rubbish fake news taunt from uneducated people that simply dont like paying taxes and dont understand how economies work 
  • Firstly, there are quite a few highly reputable economists who argue that the New Deal prolonged the Depression, for example, Nobel Laureates  Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935. 
  • Or how about FDR's own treasury secretary who said: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
  •        Or how about famed economist Thomas Sowell who wrote a very good article here https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell-fdr-s-policies-prolonged-great-depression/article_3f80432e-e6c5-11df-affe-001cc4c03286.html



Further failures of the New Deal.

  • Over the course of Roosevelt's presidency unemployment did not drop but rather increased from 16.3% to 17.2%
  • When millions of Americans were going hungry, FDR destroyed millions of acres of crops and allowed food to rot in order to drive up food prices. This lead to thousands of tenant farmers being kicked off of their land and ending up in the unemployment lines of the cities.
  • New Deal excise taxes prolonged unemployment at over 17%
  • FDR gave Unions monopoly bargaining power causing them to achieve above market wages triggering massive layoffs that led to the further economic downturn my opponent incorrectly attributes to conservatives.
  • FDR forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods which caused consumers to have less money to use to stimulate the economy.
  • GNP would not return to its pre-1929 level until 1939 (see my previous citation of Nobel laureates who calculated that it should have done this by 1935 at the latest.)
Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."
Actually, this decline coincides much more closely to the massive layoffs that resulted from the deepening of Roosevelt's policies.


As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."
Except for all of the ones I already mentioned.

The Nordic Model

Again, my opponent doesn't make an argument here. He still hasn't answered my argument that the Nordic countries are moving away from Keynesianism. So pointing out that in 2019 they are going strong doesn't hold any weight seeing as they are moving over to my side.

Italy

Seeing as my opponent dropped my arguments on Italy, I must assume that he concedes this point.

China.

You do know that both Communism and Fascism are largely economic systems, right? So, either Communism is Keynesian in nature in which case you have a lot of failed states to answer for, or Communism is not Keynesian in which case you can't argue about China. The same goes for Fascism.

The New affluence

 It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth[dubious – discuss], leading to the coinage of the term Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious [years]").
This is one of the only parts of my opponent's copy-pasting that isn't merely a definition. Note where it says "Dubious-discuss" if you click on that you will see that this is a disputed statement. In short, my opponent still hasn't proven anything regarding the New Affluence. He merely showed that Sweden and France had an economic boom. He hasn't proven that this occurred Because Of Keynesian policies. Again, he brings up the Marshall Plan, a population boom, etc. All of these things can cause an economic boom in the absence of Keynesian policies. He still needs to prove his argument.


References
Round 4
Published:
The problem with a lot of your statistics is they are just wrong https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1510  The unemployment rate rose sharply during the Great Depression and reached its peak at the moment Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. As New Deal programs were enacted, the unemployment rate gradually lowered. Virtually full employment was achieved during World War II. This graph does not indicate the numbers of people were “underemployed,” meaning those who did not earn enough to adequately provide for themselves and their dependents.https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1510 you sir are either a dupe or a moron unemployment dropped every year fdr was in office excpet when he cut spending so in other words when he listened to peole like you it went back up so he spent more and it went down
" I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway."ad its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway."https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php your sttistics are not deceptive they are out right lies sir out right lies
as for the nordic model watch this when sweden spent heavily its economy took off like a rocket in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAR1I1sVCg

Published:

First, He still hasn't attacked my first contention at all. At this point, he's conceded the ground.

He stopped his argument that no credible economists agree with me. I must assume that he concedes this.

My opponent also ignored my argument about China. I must assume he concedes this.

My opponent dropped all of my arguments about the failures of the New Deal except for the unemployment rate. I must assume he concedes them.

My opponent has now dropped both Italy and France and only addresses Sweden.


The unemployment rate under the New Deal

My opponent has failed to notice that Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary knew that unemployment rates had grown under Roosevelt's watch. Remember: "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot" President Roosevelt's own chief economic advisory agrees with me. I can't think of any better source.

Moreover, you're statistics take into account the fake "jobs" that Roosevelt created building bridges to nowhere and whatnot. As economist Burton Folsom wrote: "Every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation," Hazlitt emphasized. If the WPA builds a $10 million dollar bridge, for example, "the bridge has to be paid out of taxes… Therefore," Hazlitt observed, "for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else… All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project." 

It's easy to create the surface level appearance of a low unemployment rate if you have everyone digging ditches with sporks. (and yes, that was intended to be comedic.) But the benefits of those jobs are offset by the massive taxation required and the lack of any real production. That's why the private sector job market is a much better indicator of overall market health. Roosevelt caused massive damage to the private job market which is what the economy really needed to recover. This is why the two Nobel Laureates I cited believe the Great Depression was extended by the New Deal.


Sweden

You still haven't answered any of my arguments. Only repeated something you've already said. I repeat, Sweden is moving away from Keynesian economics and has been reducing government regulation for years.




Round 5
Published:
the unemployment rate under the new deal dropped markedly The unemployment rate rose sharply during the Great Depression and reached its peak at the moment Franklin D. Roosevelt took office. As New Deal programs were enacted, the unemployment rate gradually lowered. Virtually full employment was achieved during World War II. This graph does not indicate the numbers of people were “underemployed,” meaning those who did not earn enough to adequately provide for themselves and their dependents.adequately provide for themselves and their dependents.
okay take a good look other than a blip in 1937 it steadily dropped sheeshhttps://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1510  Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway.  https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php

Published:
He didn't answer my arguments. He just copy-pasted his previous argument.

He still didn't attack my first contention and has dropped all other points in the round.

Please vote con.
Added:
fdr did not prolong the depression Ummm ... no.
Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term - four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending, and the economy went back down again."
To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped - rather than hurt - the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes UC Davis historian Eric Rauchway. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/FDR-prolonged-the-Great-Depression-Really-3255706.php
As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."
Instigator
#8
Added:
Hayek, on Keynes: "His interests were largely guided by aesthetic appeal; he knew very little about economics as a discipline. He could have found any number of antecedents of his inflationary ideas among the writers of the early 1800's, but when I raised this with him, it was all new to him. He was rather contemptuous of anything which had been done before; he was convinced he could recreate the subject, and that came with a certain arrogance that there was nothing else worth learning."
#7
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Oh yeah I just looked Keynes up and you were right. He's pretty bad, so I guess Keynes isn't necessarily right about the capitalism and such.
#6
Added:
Can I kritik?
#5
Added:
--> @LordLuke
Undoubtedly so haha! But it'd nice to know exactly what about capitalism the renowned pedophile was allegedly right about before accepting a debate challenge. ^_^
#4
Added:
F A Hayek was correct, you fiend.
#3
Added:
--> @Harleygator
Probably Capitalism.
#2
Added:
--> @PaulVerliane
Right about what?
#1
No votes yet