The Instigator
Csavage472
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Jones1
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Is it IRRATIONAL For the United States to Revert Back to the ***Primitive*** "GOLD Standard"???

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,502 times Debate No: 2016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Csavage472

Pro

Hey Jonesey, what's up? Well, since I don't see you "bombarded with debates," I just couldn't RESIST to "invent a controversy" (haha).

First and foremost, as both committed supporters of Rep. ROn Paul (R-TX), we are both ADAMANTLY supportive of SOUND Money.

Nevertheless, I am "resurrecting this debate" b/c I will attempt to PROVE "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it will essentially be IRRATIONAL if the United States were to revert back to the ol' "GOLD Standard" that was in place prior to 1933, not withstanding that gold should NEVER be the commodity backing the U.S. Money Supply.

Thanks for accepting my challenge and take care.
Jones1

Con

Well the burden of proof is on you my friend, as it was the have all end all before this country's fiat money system took over.
Debate Round No. 1
Csavage472

Pro

First and foremost, thanks for accepting my debate challenge.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the Government DE-legitimize the "Federal Reserve Notes" for "U.S. Treasury Notes/Certificates" printed DIRECTLY by the Government at 0% interest (thus SAVING the American People 40% of the $10 Trillion National Debt....haha).

However, in contrast to the "Greenbacks" that Lincoln printed that incurred excessive inflation, the Legal Tender Act is amended to DEMAND that each Dollar be 100% Redeemable for ***Full Face Value*** (under the FLOATING Exchange Rate model; NOT the "fixed exchange rate") on a BI-Commodity Standard of Silver and/OR Oil (which ever "certificates" that the market accepts in competition EXCEPT for Gold).

Now, WAIT!!! I know everybody loves "gold," but actually when you do the research, you will discover that it is basically IRRATIONAL to have a Gold-backed currency. Let me explain:

(1) For the most obvious reason, Gold is ~$850/oz. and approaching $1,000 so in order for the Government to buy back all of the Gold at the current Market price, it would result in significant INFLATION (if not "hyper").

(2) (a) Gold (and/or Platinum) would NOT be good as well b/c it is TOO scarce and it can very easily be CORNERED (and thus manipulated) by the International Banking Elite.

cf. http://www.wikipedia.org...

(b) Also, since Gold is extremely scarce, the other "worse case scenario" is that it will lead to a Dollar that is TOO strong and, as a result, the economy will experience DEFLATION, "credit crunches," and Depressions. Remember, before the "Great Depression," depressions were basically a "dime a dozen" when we had the MONO-Gold Standard; and also the Great Depression was initially CAUSED by excessive Supply and DEFLATIONARY pressures that was ***worsened*** (purposefully, in my view) by the Fed when they contracted the money supply when they should have expanded it.

cf. http://www.wikipedia.org...

(3) (a) Last, but certainly not LEAST, the ***Main*** reason why I am adamantly opposed to a Gold-backed currency is the argument that you would use that we have "tons of Gold" heavily guarded at Fort Knox. However, when Ronald Reagan conducted an audit of the Gold, it was reported that it was all OWNED by the shareholders of the Federal Reserve for COLLATERAL of the $4 Trillion Debt that we owe them. Therefore, if we buy the Gold back from them at ~$1,000/oz., we will be (literally) SUBDIZING their intentional DE-basement of the Dollar since 1913:

(b) "The MoneyMasters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America," a 3 1/2 –hour Documentary by William Still:

It gives a more in-depth look at the history of the banking industry from the time that Jesus threw the moneychangers (biblical term for bankers) out of the Temple in the Bible to the Iraq War. It can be viewed at the following link:

cf. http://video.google.com... ;

(c) "Money as DEBT", a 47-min. documentary Explaining the nature of the modern Banking System today and how it works in general:

cf. http://video.google.com...

(d) In fact, Ronald Reagan was going to put the country back on the Gold Standard after heavy lobbying by Ron Paul, but he dropped it after the results of the audit.

(4) Finally, I just wanted to say that the reason that I floated an OIL Standard was that I reasoned since Oil is basically"Black Gold," if the Government bought all of the 22 billion gallons of oil that we produce DOMESTICALLY from the Oil companies to use as a stable monetary standard (in competition w/ silver) as opposed to energy, then the Congress could afford to IMMEDIATELY implement a 100% RENEWABLE Energy policy centered on Bio-Diesel, Celluose/"switchgrass" Ethanol, Solar, RECYCLED Garbage, Hydrogen, Clean Coal Technology, etccc.

Thanks for your feedback and take care.
Jones1

Con

Jones1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Csavage472

Pro

I FORFEIT this one too (haha)!!!

Well the burden of proof is on you my friend, as it was the have all end all before this country's fiat money system took over.

haha!!
Jones1

Con

Kinda let that 3 day gap go to long...

1. To address your first argument about the cost of "buying back" the dollars for ones backed with Gold: simply legalize competing currencies that are backed by Gold. It would take years if not decades to cycle out the fiat currency towards an eventual Gold standard, so I don't think anyone wishes to see the government so such a thing overnight.

2. our second claim about the cornering of gold markets... we should note that even in the source you provided, it is acknowledged that the greenbacks that Lincoln printed caused the cited crisis. Any commodity (since everything with price is scarce) can be hoarded if enough value is placed on it (think oil, silver). Only the level of scarcity can be debated, and the more scarce the commodity is, the more it is worth (the monetary unit would thus suffer less infaltion).

3. Now, to argue that the gold standard caused economic panics and the "deflation" preceding the Great Depression is a PURE REJECTION of history. Save the bust of 1907, nearly all the economic crises of the early US history were caused, at least in part, to poor government policy or intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

etc.

(to be fair:) http://en.wikipedia.org... (which had little to do with a gold standard for money, but rather over-speculation. And eventually, "[J.P.] Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives. The team redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. Within a few weeks the panic passed, with only minimal effects on the country."

[...correcting itself...]

Now, the Great Depression would have recovered from a stock market crash (as in 1907) had we not had the vaunted Federal Reserve System. We have to look no further that the FED itself, as even Ben Bernanke can admit these:

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

http://www.federalreserve.gov...

4. Now to the "buyback" proposal you mention. "Therefore, if we buy the Gold back from them at ~$1,000/oz., we will be (literally) SUBDIZING their intentional DE-basement of the Dollar since 1913" Indeed. We needed buy back from them, just from the market (mine our own if it's feasible) over a very long period of time. I'm looking at a long term solution, not a quick-fix.

5. An Oil standard seems to present a solution, but to me it presents the same "problem" as gold. Scarcity. Both are scarce, and I would rather not have a commodity tied to our nation's energy supply, but rather an expensive luxury.

I'm writing this in between classes, so I haven't spent the time I would like to on such a discussion, even though it will be a great day when an issue like this becomes the forefront of American politics. Ha!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
(3) "An Oil standard seems to present a solution, but to me it presents the same "problem" as gold. Scarcity. Both are scarce, and I would rather not have a commodity tied to our nation's energy supply, but rather an expensive luxury."--KJ

(a) Well, anyone with a family-size Station Wagon would irrefutably agree that Oil is SCARCE (haha), but it is actually much more VOLUMINOUS than both Silver AND Gold which can be much more appealing and concilatory between the "GROWTH Hawks" AND the "Inflation Hawks" in the Congress.

(b) As for tying the currency to an energy source like OIL, you are not seeing the "big picture." That is, that if the U.S. buys up the DOMESTIC supply of Crude oil to use as a monetary standard, then the Congress can (at the exact SAME time) kill "TWO birds with ONE stone" by implementing and enacting a 100% RENEWABLE Energy Policy centered on Recycled Garbage, Celluose/"Switchgrass" Ethanol, Bio-Diesel, Solar, Wind, Water-power, and CLEAN-coal tecnology.

(c) In fact, even if an "Oil Standard" would induce slightly more inflation than a SILVER standard, it MORE than compensates for the loss by the gain that we get in 100% RENEWABLE energy (haha)!!!

P.S.: Check your "Aol" E-mail account about a possible litigation lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Take care.
Posted by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Thanks, Kyle, for your feedback. I appreciate it greatly. Just a few more comments:

(1) "simply legalize competing currencies that are backed by Gold."--KJ

(a) The idea of "private currencies" that bear INTEREST is basically the SAME problem that we have TODAY with the DECEPTIVELY-named Federal Reserve Notes. FRN(s) are PRIVATE currency but just are under a Government-INDUCED monopoly.

(b) While it would be BETTER than the status quo--[and that is precisely why I support Ron Paul's "Competition in Currency Act" and the Liberty Dollar], the fact remains that it is INTEREST-bearing. It is much more practical to have a UNIFORM currency that is owned and issued by the PEOPLE Interest-FREE, yet is 100% fully REDEEMABLE in a commodity of value.

(2) "Any commodity (since everything with price is scarce) can be hoarded if enough value is placed on it (think oil, silver). Only the level of scarcity can be debated, and the more scarce the commodity is, the more it is worth (the monetary unit would thus suffer less inflation)."--KJ

(a) Yes, you are 100% correct that any commodity with SCARCITY can be cornered by the Market, but my point is that it is much HARDER and more difficult to corner commodities like Silver and Oil b/c of their liquidity and volume.

(b) In addition, while a Strong National & SOUND Currency is the defining objective, a Dollar that is TOO strong as a result of a CONTRACTIONARY money supply is EQUALLY dangerous as it will severely impede on economic GROWTH since it will induce DEFLATION and MIS-investment (as opposed to the MAL-investment that we have today).

[...]
Posted by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Also, a another good documentary:

"The Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud)" [~47 min.]

cf. http://video.google.com...

Thanks again.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
Csavage472Jones1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Csavage472Jones1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
Csavage472Jones1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
Csavage472Jones1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jones1 9 years ago
Jones1
Csavage472Jones1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03