If you don't listen to anything else the concluding statements are clarifying. While we agree that central banking activity in the aftermath of the crisis significantly reduced prospect for further damage to the financial sector and private sector lending- neither can fully conclude these efforts are significant enough to produce prosperity. This is a case where the limitations are significantly leading, with fits and starts, in the direction of the other major input of new money into the economy-the public sector for support.
Edward Conard in his below closing argument makes sums up the debate by bringing in some of the most important voices in the field-
"Liberal Berkeley economist Brad DeLong recently described each side of the motion we're debating. About our opponents' view, he said, “Even though the Fed printed much more money than economists would have thought necessary to offset the impact of the financial crisis, a fivefold increase in the monetary base, from 800 billion to 4
trillion, it wasn't enough. Bernanke balked taking the next step, more than doubling themonetary base to $9 trillion.”
Our view of monetary policy Berkeley's DeLong said, quote, “Larry Summers and Paul Krugman argue that there is
little evidence that monetary policy will ever restore full prosperity.” End quote. DeLong admits, he doesn't know which one of these views is correct.
Why doesn't DeLong know which one of these views is correct?
Because $3 trillion of printing has produced no discernible effect on the economy. And if it had, DeLong would have seen it and he would be urging more.
Our opponents can't bring any more evidence to the debate that central banks can print their way to prosperity than what Summers, Krugman, and DeLong have already considered. If the evidence hasn't persuaded even those ardent advocates of stimulus, why should it persuade you?
Bernanke now flat out admits central banks cannot print their way to prosperity.
Our opponents have the burden of proving the motion through a very tough burden in this case. They haven't
made a convincing argument, because no one can make a convincing argument on this issue."
This conclusion bears itself out in the debate polling results as well with 23% of those present and previously undecided siding against the motion. Good News!