Topics I'd like to debate

I have some free time in about a month, and would like to, in the interest of being more active in this community, start a few debates. I'm primarily an econ nerd, so it follows that I'm most comfortable debating that. I expect to branch out as time goes on, and as I find the time to conduct more extensive research. Without further ado, here are the proposed resolutions and my preferred sides:


1. The U.S. economy is currently undergoing an era of secular stagnation (PRO)
2. The U.S. Federal Reserve should begin to unwind its accommodative stance (CON)
3. The U.S. Federal Government should increase the minimum wage (PRO)
4. The U.S. Federal Reserve should implement nominal G.D.P. targeting (PRO)
5. The U.S. Federal Reserve should be, on balance, less independent than it is now (CON)
6. The U.S. Federal Government should pass immigration reform (PRO)
7. The U.S. Federal Government should pass the F.R.A.T. Act (CON)
8. The U.S. Federal Reserve should place more weight on risks from abroad (PRO)
9. The U.S. Federal Government should implement fiscal stimulus whilst nominal interest rates are pinned at the zero lower bound (PRO)

JohnMaynardKeynes: We also added several economic topics to the site database
That states should seek to prioritize reducing income inequality over GDP growth
That governments should pump money into banks during recession
That central banks should be abolished
That governments should control stock investments

In my defense of the last one, I suggested regulate, but the administrator put control.

Blackflag: Hm, I can't say I'm much of a fan of any of those resolutions. I see the premise undergirding the first resolution as a false dichotomy, insinuating that there is necessary a trade-off between reducing inequality and promoting growth, when in fact the two can and should work in tandem. The second one is overly simplistic. "Pumping money into banks," a la QE, isn't a necessity amid a typical recession when conventional monetary policy--i.e., cutting the fed funds rate--is an option, but only when nominal rates hit the effective lower bound (and the Fed isn't a government entity, per se); the third resolution just seems silly; and the fourth would likely run into a semantical battle. For instance, I'd support a slight tax on financial transactions, but that is hardly "controlling stock investments."

insinuating that there is necessary a trade-off between reducing inequality and promoting growth
Nothing states a trade off. Just a priority over economic equality. Fully debatable and not a false dichotomy.

"Pumping money into banks," a la QE, isn't a necessity amid a typical recession when conventional monetary policy--i.e., cutting the fed funds rate--is an option, but only when nominal rates hit the effective lower bound (and the Fed isn't a government entity, per se)
Key word: debate.
You're downing the resolution because you disagree with it. Oy, debate as con!

the third resolution just seems silly
I've seen this resolution be done just fine.
It is 100% debate material.

and the fourth would likely run into a semantical battle
Semantics don't win debates

JohnMaynardKeynes: I'm considering adding one or two of these to the site database. If only they weren't so US-specific lol.

I particularly like 3, 4, 6 and 9.

admin: I agree that you shouldn't add country specific resolutions, unless you decide to make one for every country.
Another reason to use country specific resolutions is if the resolution is controversial internationally.

Blackflag: Lol, I don't even know how to respond to each sentence individually.

On the first: I suppose I misread the resolution. It was my impression that the Con position would be that GDP growth ought to be prioritized as opposed to reducing inequality, but it could easily be that they should be on an equal playing field. So, in that case, the resolution is debatable.

On the second: But I don't even disagree with it! Lol. It depends on the depth of the recession. If I took Con, I would need to argue that QE *shouldn't* be used during recessions, when in reality my position is that it should only be used as a last resort, when interest rates hit zero by virtue of a prolonged financial crisis.

On the third: I can't imagine a modern-day function economy without a central bank. Even if the resolution were possible, and you may be right that it is, it's not something I'm particularly interested in--it's far too theoretical for my tastes.

admin: Lol, good point. A few of them could be broadened--particularly 3, 4 and 9, I think, would be relevant to Europe and Japan right now.

Hey JMK - if you just copy and paste the parts of a previous post that you want to respond to, the site will automatically add the {quote} marks for you. Everything inside those markers will look like the quotes Stagman did of yours.

The idea is to avoid huge blocks of repeated text and only to have the parts that are relevant -much nicer.

nzlockie: Thanks!