As apart of an independent study course that I will be doing in the spring semester, I will be doing a debate on the legacy of Greenspan’s career at the Fed. The format of the debate is that there will be two teams, one arguing for a positive intepretation of it and the other vice versa, each team will have around 4 members, and during the debate each member will have around five minutes to support the team’s overall thesis with debate occuring before almuni of my college (University of Massachusetts Amherst if you desire to know). Of course, I plan on trying to convice my team ( the anti-Greenspan team) on taking a position hinging on the Austrian theory of the business cycle described mostly in neoclassical terminology as done by Roger Garrison in his powerpoint presentations.
What I request is ideas and help on both how to a, convice my team to take this position, b, formulate a thesis that both is undiluted as much as possible and quick to explicate, and c, how I should go about describing it.
The Austrian materials that I have at hand now is Human Action (3rd Edition), an rather decrepid copy of Man, Economy, and State another rather dated copy of Prices and Production (I got the previous three at my university’s library thus their ancientness), 15 Great Austrian Economists, Economics in One Lesson, and Theory and History plus whatever I can find online (which is pretty much everything).
Thanks for your help.