The Instigator
Interval
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Kylar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Dissolution of the Federal Reserve

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Interval
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 72258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Interval

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Second is first presentation of arguments.
I look forward to debating you.
Kylar

Con

I accept :), thank you for this debate challenge, and I can't wait to begin :)
Debate Round No. 1
Interval

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge.

Although it may seem strange, the Federal Reserve is not in fact a government owned bank. It is actually a private corporation with private interests[1]. This fact is particularly alarming because the Federal Reserve controls interest rates, and because of this they effectively control the money flow in America. Even more peculiar is the fact that our own government can coin and print its own currency. US congress is given the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Why are we entrusting our economy to a bunch of unelected private bankers at all?

Amazingly, the greatest period of economic growth in the US occurred when there was no established "Federal Reserve". This was between the civil war and 1913 [1]. Why should we have a corporation running our economy, when there is no inherent value in its application, as supplied by this evidence?

Since the creation of the Federal reserve, there was a drastic increase in inflation. Before the Fed was implemented inflation occurred at a rate of about .5% [2]. After its implementation the percentage of implementation was raised to 3% [2].

Since the Federal reserve was created the value of the US dollar went down 25% [2].

This organization was created with the idea in mind that it would reduce or completely rid the US of recessions and depressions. The Fed has completely failed at this directive. 20 years after the Federal reserve was set up the Great Depression occurred [2]. Since then, there have been ten different recessions [2]. This reason alone is justification for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve. If it ultimately fails in its express mandate, then it is clear that we need a new, and better system.

These reasons emperically show that the Federal Reserve should be completely abolished. A better solution would be to simply abolish a central bank. An even better solution would be to implement a system that actually prevents large economic problems, and was not rife with corruption. Either way, the Federal Reserve is clearly not an institution worth maintaining as the central banking system of America.

For these reason I urge a vote in favor of the affirmation.

[1]-http://www.infowars.com...
[2]-http://freedomoutpost.com...
Kylar

Con

Terrific arguments :) and thank you for the debate.
My refutals are these...
the value of the US Dollar going down 25%...I beg to differ...the value of the US dollar has gone up in some countries, it is worth more in Dubai than it is here.
The Federal Reserve also insures citizen's money against theft, and it helps when we need to borrow money for hopefully paying off some of our debt.
It also helps keep our good standing as a nation-for instance Fort Knox, the gold there in the federal reserve helps keep some of our moral high.
I rest my case for Round II, good arguments and thank you for the debate :)
Debate Round No. 2
Interval

Pro

My opponent attacked one of my four main arguments. He/she then went on to bring up two benefits of the Federal reserve, and made no other attacks.

The single attack on my case is a denial of the decreased value of the US dollar. My opponent cannot deny that the value of the dollar has declined radically since its creation [1,2], as this evidence empirically proves. I also think that it should be noted that my opponent has not cited any sources for this argument, while I have provided several (the third is in my previous argument).

As to addressing my opponent's provided benefits: My opponent stated that the Fed provides protection against theft. While this is a definite benefit of the Fed, the fact that the Fed has ultimately failed to fulfill its express purpose: prevention of economic recessions or depressions. In fact, these benefits could be provided with our own government, effectively excluding the involvement of a private industry. Because of this, these benefits are negligible, as they support both sides of the debate.

My opponent stated another benefit: that the Federal reserve keeps gold which maintains morale. Ignoring the fact that my opponent again provided no actual evidence, my opponent also completely glossed over the fact that this gold does absolutely nothing. American currency is legal tender, and as such it cannot be redeemed for gold [3].

I am not arguing that there should never be a central bank. The main objective of my argument is to prove that the Federal reserve should be dissolved. I prove this because of the fact that the Federal reserve has ultimately failed at exactly what it was designed to do: protect the US from economic recessions and depressions. If a person has a tool that no longer functions, then he discards it and replaces it with a better one, or he goes without it. I am promoting the fact that our own government has the authority to do all of the things that the Fed does, without the private intervention. In fact, if the government took on this responsibility than that very system would be easier to repair because it would lie within the government's jurisdiction, and as such the US would inevitably determine a method to preventing the economic recessions (or at least have a better alternative).

As I have proved that the Federal reserve should be abolished through my superior examples and evidence, and I have effectively negated the entirety of my opponent's case I urge votes in favor of the Pro.

Thank you.

[1]-http://www.dollartimes.com...
[2]-http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...
[3]-http://www.federalreserve.gov...
Kylar

Con

I thank you for the debate my friend, and I think you have won me over :). Concession grants you this one, and I think you have changed my views :)
Debate Round No. 3
Interval

Pro

Thank you for the debate. By the way, it isn't always a good idea to concede, even if you are already won over. By conceding the debate, you practically guarantee your loss, but if you continue debating you may end up winning. Even if you agree with what your opponent is arguing you can usually still find things wrong with it.
Kylar

Con

Kylar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Just came back and saw this. Alright.
Posted by Interval 1 year ago
Interval
Okay, if you want to debate me on this subject, please challenge me. However, do it after this weekend is over, as I won't be able to respond to it for some time.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
I'm totally tempted to post a rebuttal of PRO's entire case....so much wrong with it.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Oops, I meant current trend RGDP growth is estimated to remain below its *former* trend due mainly to demographic shifts.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Like, ignoring the fact that infowars isn't a credible source in the slightest, it claims to cite Wikipeida--also not particularly credible, though far superior. I searched for the quote, and only found it on conspiratorial, right-wing web pages--i.e., the link they provided didn't even contain that quote, though several libertarian websites ran with it as though it did.

Then, not to mention, it's logically flawed because (1) comparing the economy during the Golden Ages to the economy today isn't only apples to oranges, but probably meat to oranges (i.e., really bloody different--tariffs during the 1800s, rampant financial panics every 20 years, no lender of last resorts, horrible standard of living, etc.; (2) there was vast growth during the Gilded Age, but if the rate of growth is what matters, we could shut the economy down tomorrow, turn it on the next day, and watch it "grow" -- i.e., there's a significant diminishing returns to this, nor would "ending the Fed" return us to these levels because trend RGDP growth, as is, is estimated to be significantly below trend; and (3) growth is not, for myriad reasons, a proxy for standard of living.

That's all I'll say for now. Interval, I'd love to debate you on this or on anything. It's always a personal goal of mine to set straight conspiracy theories of the kind you're promulgating.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Sources: infowars and freedompost."

Lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
IntervalKylarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, conceded, and had no sources.