The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

(MIG Tournament) Conservative Showdown #2: Gold Standard

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 4 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,361 times Debate No: 24921
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: The U.S. should implement the gold standard for its monetary system.


Definitions

Gold Standard: The system by which the value of a currency was defined in terms of gold, for which it could be exchanged.


Rules

1. No new arguments or evidence in the last round

2. Drops are not concessions, but can be evaluated as independent voters

3. FF = loss


Good luck to my friend Roy!





RoyLatham

Con

I accept the challenge.

We agree on most things so finding a topic was difficult. I'm looking forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

C1: The Austrian Business Cycle, Depressions, and the Gold Standard (TGS) [1]

Rothbard writes,

Without bank credit expansion, supply and demand tend to be equilibrated through the free price system, and no cumulative booms or busts can then develop. But then government through its central bank stimulates bank credit expansion by expanding central bank liabilities and therefore the cash reserves of all the nation's commercial banks…Bank credit expansion, by pouring new loan funds into the business world, artificially lowers the rate of interest in the economy below its free-market level.

But what happens when the rate of interest falls, not because of lower time preferences and higher savings, but from government interference that promotes the expansion of bank credit?

…For businessmen, seeing the rate of interest fall, react as they always would and must to such a change of market signals: they invest more in capital and producers' goods. Investments, particularly in lengthy and time-consuming projects, which previously looked unprofitable now seem profitable, because of the fall of the interest charge. In short, businessmen react as they would react if savings had genuinely increased…

So the workers set about to consume most of their new income, in short to reestablish the old consumer/saving proportions. This means that they redirect the spending back to the consumer goods industries, and they don't save and invest enough to buy the newly-produced machines, capital equipment, industrial raw materials, etc. This all reveals itself as a sudden sharp and continuing depression in the producers' goods industries. Once the consumers reestablished their desired consumption/investment proportions, it is thus revealed that business had invested too much in capital goods and had underinvested in consumer goods.

The inflationary boom thus leads to distortions of the pricing and production system. Prices of labor and raw materials in the capital goods industries had been bid up during the boom too high to be profitable once the consumers reassert their old consumption/investment preferences. The "depression" is then seen as the necessary and healthy phase by which the market economy sloughs off and liquidates the unsound, uneconomic investments of the boom, and reestablishes those proportions between consumption and investment that are truly desired by the consumers.

And, TGS reduces the harm of the B&B cycle. [2]

Since TGS restricts the fiat creation of money and credit, the possibility of the Fed printing money to try and stall the effects of a depression or recession. Intervention from the Fed only masks the symptoms without actually solving the underlying problems, and exacerbates the problems for the future. Empirically this is correct when analyzing the periods of Hoover’s and Bush’s intervention in the market – the following depressions were far worse due to prolonged government intervention. Moreover, the empirics show that even though fractional reserve banking is the main culprit in these cycles, periods of the gold standard have lessened and blunted recessions than those without the gold standard.

Thorton writes,

The only necessary requirement is that the interventions help to forestall the correction process and that the interventions collectively undermine the ability of the price system and the system of profit and loss to properly reallocate resources.

Among all business cycles, few have degenerated into prolonged depressions or recessions. Most business cycles come and go so quickly…

What makes the difference between the ordinary business cycle and an extraordinary depression? The one factor that is consistent in all four of the major crises is massive government intervention to address the initial economic crisis. In all four cases, the government responded not in the traditional laissez-faire manner of leaving things alone but instead with policies that attempted to reverse the economic crisis.

In the first three major depressions, governments consistently intervened in the economy and made long-term institutional changes in the economy. In the case of the stagflation of the 1970s, the government met the initial crisis with comprehensive wage and price controls and the closing of the gold window, along with a loose monetary policy, deficit spending, and bailouts.


C2: TGS, Deflation and Inflation [3] [4]

Deflation Good

Kaza writes,

If deflation is truly synonymous with contraction, as Keynesians maintain, one would not find periods of negative CPI in expansions. Yet this has occurred at least six times since the Civil War (1879, 1895, 1922, 1928, 1939, and 1955). According to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle chronology, which dates to 1854, expansions occurred in the U.S. all six years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004) published estimates that show CPI was negative for 11 years in the late nineteeth century, including 1879 and1895. The NBER chronology shows the economy was in expansion for nine months in 1879 and 11 months in 1895 despite a negative CPI both years. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis data show CPI was negative for 13 years in the twentieth century, including 1922, 1928, 1939, and 1955. The NBER chronology shows the economy was in expansion for 12 months in each of these years.

Inflation Bad

TGS prevents inflation, and inflation is bad.

Shostak writes,

Increases in the money supply set in motion an exchange of nothing for something. They divert real funding away from wealth generators toward the holders of the newly created money. This is what sets in motion the misallocation of resources, not price rises as such. Moreover, the beneficiaries of the newly created money--i.e., money "out of thin air"--are always the first recipients of money, for they can divert a greater portion of wealth to themselves. Obviously, those who either don't receive any of the newly created money or get it last will find that what is left for them is a diminished portion of the real pool of funding.

Furthermore, real incomes fall, not because of general rises in prices, but because of increases in money supply; in other words, inflation depletes the real pool of funding, thereby undermining the production of real wealth-- i.e., lowering real incomes. General increases in prices, which follow increases in money supply, only point to the erosion of money's purchasing power--although general rises in prices by themselves do not undermine the formation of real wealth as such.


C3: TGS reduces the chance of war [5]

The great wars of the 20th Century were made possible by the quick halt of TGS during that time period which made financing the wars indefinite. However, comparatively the wars during TGS were small and rare:

Lips writes,

“The era of the gold standard during the 19th century was the golden age of the white man. During this period, after Napoleon, there were only seven wars of any importance…. Theoretically, the U.S. cannot be warring at all, i.e., under the strict discipline of the gold standard it would not be possible. Because of the nation’s deficit, there would not be any money left to spend on an unproductive and destructive war. The U.S.’s foreign debt is enormous…. And still the U.S. is conducting wars, which it is paying for with paper-ticket-token money…So we may note that if the world were on a gold standard, the U.S. could not be conducting any wars. Why? Because then they would have to pay for them in gold. Gold, therefore, acts as a braking mechanism. Putting on the brakes has a disciplining effect.

[1] http://mises.org...

[2] http://mises.org...

[3] Kaza. Deflation and Economic Growth

[4] http://mises.org...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

RoyLatham

Con

C1: The business cycle

I agree with Pro on several important issues. With Pro, I reject the notion tat continually expanding the money supply benefits the economy. As Pro contends, that leads to a deepened business cycle in which over-expansion from excessively created money ultimately leads to recession. My point of departure is in using the gold standard as the remedy. The gold standard ties the money supply to mining and exploration technology. If the economy expands at a roughly constant rate and new old is recovered at about the same rate, then the claimed positive effect of the gold standard on the business cycle will be achieved. However, here is nothing requiring the gold supply from expanding at the same rate as the economy, or even at a close approximation.

Starting the 1500s Spain imported large quantities of gold from the New World. Since gold was money, thy thought they were rich. The actual result was one of the greatest inflationary episodes in history. Cecil Adams summarizes, "Although prices had dropped steadily during the 1400s, after 1500 they began to rise dramatically — 300 percent by 1600, according to economist Earl Hamilton, who wrote a well-known book on the phenomenon. The reasons for this are complex, but it seems clear that at least in part it was a matter of a sharply increasing amount of money (in the form of silver and gold) chasing a relatively fixed output of goods and services, thus bidding up the price." [1. http://www.straightdope.com...]

Gold supplies could increase dramatically due to a technological breakthrough. Only a tiny percentage of the gold on earth has been exploited, so it's there to be extracted. For example, here is a lot of gold in sea water, although no one has figured out an economical way of extracting it. But, "With so many technological advancements, the theory of extracting gold from sea water might turn in to a living reality." [2. http://www.marineinsight.com...] It's not a high probability, but if it happens it would be fatal to a gold standard economy.

A group of billionaire high tech investors formed Planetary Resources, Inc. with "plans to send swarms of robots to space to scout asteroids for precious metals and set up mines to bring resources back to Earth." [3. http://www.wired.com...] We don't know their chances of success, but the point is that it's a mistake to build a monetary system that requires that no technological breakthrough be achieved.

C2: Threat of deflation

Pro established that deflation does not equate to economic contraction, and he cites several short periods when the economy grew despite deflation. There are also many periods when economies grew despite inflation. After devastating inflation, inflation dropped to 3% in 1983. [4. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]Despite 3% inflation the economy boomed. The fact that growth is possible with either modest inflation or modes deflation, neither are good things. The Great Depression is an example of the severe effects of deflation, and another is the recession of 1920-21.

We don't know how mining and exploration technology will match up against economic growth. If mining fails to keep up, we will have long term deflation. "Limited gold supply causes deflation. True, inflation is bad, but deflation is even worse. Firms had to lay off workers as price declined. According to the World Gold Council, annual production of gold is about 2,500 metric tons or 80 million troy ounces. This implies that world GDP cannot grow more than about $80 billion (at $1000/oz), had we been on the gold standard today. Thus, the gold standard would cause a severe deflation in the world economy." [5. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu...]

The gold standard worked well for a long period from about 1750 to 1900. That's because gold mining kept up with economic growth. We have no good reason to suppose that will e the situation in the future. Right now mining is lagging world growth, so we would expect deflation under a gold standard. A technological breakthrough like asteroid recovery could flip that situation around and produce massive inflation.

C3: The chance of war

Let's suppose that Pro's claim is true, and " the U.S. cannot be warring at all, i.e., under the strict discipline of the gold standard it would not be possible." If that were true, then the U.S. could not defend itself if threatened or attacked. We would have had to concede World War II and the Cold War. when terrorists struck on 9/11, we would simply surrender, knowing that resistance would be unaffordable. So if Pro's claim is true, it is a fatal defect in adopting the gold standard.

However, during the period when the U.S. was on the old standard, it fought the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Civil War. The Civil War consumed 13.2% of GDP. The total of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was about 1.2% of GDP through 2008. [6. http://www.history.navy.mil...] and Since 2008, the GDP and yearly war costs have been roughly constant so the percentage wouldn't change.

N1: Using a formula is superior to the gold standard

What we would like a monetary system that always matches growth, so there is no inflation or deflation. The Federal Reserve is supposed to control the money supply, but they have traditionally added too much to the money supply. One alternative is proposed by Libertarian economist Milton Friedman,

"I have, for many years, been in favor of replacing the Fed with a computer," he adds. Each year, it "would print out a specified number of paper dollars" to augment the money supply. "Same number, month after month, week after week, year after year." [7. http://www.cato.org...]

N2: Transitioning to gold is impractical

About 5.3 billion ounces of gold have been mined in human history. [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The U.S. has 147.2 million oz. troy in it's reserves, about 2.5% of the total. [9. http://en.wikipedia.org...]The U.S. money supply, M3, is about $6 trillion. So to back all U.S. currency with gold using existing reserves, the exchange rate would have to be set at $40,816 per ounce, compared to the present world market price of about $1643 per ounce.

The U.S. cannot maintain a price of gold different from the world market price, otherwise gold would flow in the direction of the higher price. Clearly the U.S would have to start buying very large quantities of gold, driving the world price up substantially. Roughly $6 trillion in gold would have to be purchased to back our $6 trillion of money supply since our current supply is only about 5% of what is needed. So where do we get the spare $6 trillion? Creating fiat money doesn't work, because whatever is created has to be backed by gold, so there is no net gain.

At this point in history, there is no practical way to make the transition. Propnents of the gold standard have postulated elaborate transistioning schemes, but there is no escaping the need to have full monetary reserves at the world market price, and that's too much to pay. Friedman's proposal to control fiat money gets the advantages claimed for the gold standard, and it can be accomplished seamlessly without the enormous costs.

It's too late to tie the monetary system to mining technoogy. Computers are a better alternative.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

C1: The business cycle [1]


His first empirical argument is that of Spain and their exploration of the new world.

The problem with this is that Spain was within the deluded mindset of the time known as overstretch mercantilism. This is when, as noted by my opponent, a mother government tries to siphon as much wealth as possible from its colonies. As we know now the effect was disastrous. But now that we know that this would have terrible effects it would be obvious that the U.S. would not do such a thing. The U.S. is not an imperial power with colonies situated within gold-rich areas. Unlink Spain who controlled approximately 2/3 of the New World at the time, the U.S. is strategically constrained from a policy of overstretch mercantilism. As such, the degree and magnitude of my opponent’s empiric would not apply to the U.S.

His second argument is that of sea exploration, but as indicated by my opponent’s source:

“No commercially viable procedure for extracting gold from sea water has been identified as yet and doesn’t have much hope in the future. …There is one milligram of gold in a ton of sea water which implies that in order to get one gram of gold a million pounds of water has to be processed, which means to get an ounce you have to process 30 million pounds!”

His thiird argument is space exploration, again a highly speculative and improbable feat. However, my following analysis should suffice as a response:

Gold Mining as Self-Correcting

“The general rise of prices in the economy (due to inflation) includes the prices of goods in whose production gold enters as an input (essentially all main industries and GDP producing industries). The result is that a unit of gold employed in industrial processes now yields a net return in terms of monetary goll... and this encourages entrepreneurs to allocate additional quantities of the metal to the production of various consumer and capital goods. The resulting increase in the supplies of these gold products eventually drives their prices down and eliminates the discrepancy between the value of gold in monetary and nonmonetary uses.”

Increased Gold Mining

“The first criticism is that the supply of gold...depends on such fortuitous factors as discoveries of new mines and technological improvements in the methods of extraction. …oil, copper, wheat, and, for that matter, of all goods produced on the market are influenced by changes in the availability of the natural resources required in their production as well as by advances in technology. Moreover, in the specific case of gold, purely fortuitous discoveries of new gold deposits and of improved methods of extraction have long ceased to have a significant effect on the annual output of gold. The regularization of gold production has resulted from the operation of the market itself.”

Essentially, just as other commodities are determined by market forces, such as the fact that companies do not wish to oversupply the market as to decrease the overall value of the commodity, a system under the gold standard would operate according to the same market forces. And, as indicated by the evidence, gold mining is induced not accidental as was the case in the 1500s, like Spain.



C2: Threat of deflation [2] [3]

My opponent makes the argument that the economy grew despite inflation, and I will not argue that. However, my argument is that comparatively and based on analytic reasoning the economic probability of economic harm is higher with inflation and lower with deflation. The analytic is simple: inflation causes a rapid increase of capital at the top without an immediate trickle-down effect in order to compensate for the rise of prices. Thus, on a whole the bottom is hit worst with inflation. But moreover, my opponent already agreed that inflation and expansion of credit is the culprit of business cycles in the first place.

My opponent tries to argue that empirically deflation has been a bad thing, like the great depression. The problem with this analysis is that the deflation leading to the great depression was not true deflation, but rather an economic misrepresentation. The analysis provided by my opponent indicates just that, that deflation was measured only within the decrease of price rather than with a decrease in the money supply. Whereas the Fed tried to inflate, uncontrollable factors such as no multiplier effect (caused by reduction of saved capital) is the reason the money supply shrunk after the fact. In other words, the decrease of overall capital was not the cause, but rather an effect.

Finally, he argues that gold might not keep up with growth. Blumen writes,

“Economic growth, defined as an increase in the quantity of goods produced per capita, requires the capital to labor ratio increases in favor of more capital per unit of labor. Capital accumulation must be funded by real investment. However, while nominal investment depends on the quantity of money, real investment does not. Any amount of real investment can take place with any amount of money because prices adjust not only to the quantity of goods but the quantity of money. Economic history also suggests the contrary:...the economy grew faster than the rate of gold mining.”

But moreover, Salerno’s study indicates that 90% of the time deflation does not correlate to a depression, while on the other hand inflation is statistically much more likely to be linked with a following depression.


C3: The chance of war

His first argument is that war would be impossible. This is just not the case – the U.S. in dire circumstances like the Civil War could suspend the gold standard temporarily and with massive government approval. My argument is that unnecessary wars and overstretch expansion wouldn’t be possible. Afghanistan could have simply been a counter-terror operation with Northern Alliance and Pakistani assistance, without the need to nation build. His argument nowhere responds to the empirics provided by my argument where empirically the wars under the Gold Standard have been shorter and rarer. Even his examples (War of 1812, etc) are much less in magnitude and timeframe than those waged under a fiat system.


N1: Using a formula is superior to the gold standard

My opponent offers an interesting alternative, however vague and with no really implementation mechanism except with that of changing the Fed with a computer. The problem with this is that it is as open to political manipulation as the Fed is now. Some group of elite economists and government officials must come up with this formal and must also operate the computer. The advantage of TGS is that it is determined by the market itself, not a group of elites. But, his alternative is much to vague and speculative to be a viable counter-plan in this debate.



N2: Transitioning to gold is impractical [4]

Essentially, my opponent is arguing that due to the abysmal failure of the fiat system to incorrectly expand economies into bubbles is a reason why we cannot transition. The numbers my opponent uses are all overly inflated numbers in the first place which does not translate to real capital. A return to the gold standard would actually normalize those numbers and have society work within a monetary system not inflated at the baseline.

Second, the objection of my opponent assumes a radical and not gradual shift of fiat to gold. As advocated by Mises, a Conversion Agency can be implemented to ensure protection of intrusion by forces such as the Fed. This agency would be independent and work with other agencies to implement TGS in the future.

Third, this resolution is only applicable to the U.S. and since other nations are not returning to the gold standard it is possible for the U.S. to increase its gold supply without having other nations race to buy up more gold.

[1] Gold Standard: True or False. Basic Characteristics

[2] http://mises.org...

[3] http://archive.mises.org...

[4] http://mises.org...

RoyLatham

Con

C1: The business cycle

W
hen the money supply is tied to mining and exploration, there is a risk that the money supply will not match the growth in the economy. The example of Spain shows that a gold standard does not inherently prevent massive inflation. Pro didn't dispute that. Exploiting colonies is not in play, but anything that significantly increases the supply of gold would have the same effect of producing inflation.

I granted at the outset that economically extracting gold from sea water has never been done. However, it is subject to a technological breakthrough. Economically deriving power from uranium was not accomplished until about fifty years ago, but the previous centuries of it not being done did not stop the ultimate breakthrough. It came suddenly and unexpectedly. If gold is equated to money, people will be interested in all manner of technology for extracting gold. It's not just sea water, but extraction from all types of low-density sources.

Pro argues that gold extraction will automatically adjust to the requirements of the money supply. The assumption is that mining technology is about the same, so that production depends mainly upon capital invested according to the market need. That might have been a good assumption a hundred years ago, when technological advances were more predictable, but it certainly doesn't apply to technological breakthroughs.

Technological breakthroughs are not accidental. People try very hard to break the cost curves, like the one upon which the gold standard relies for gradual growth. A "breakthrough" means that some invention allows a dramatic increase in production for a relatively small cost. That's what the high tech billionaires think they can do with Planetary Resources, Inc. The venture is funded by people who made fortunes by taking risks that paid off in enterprises like Google and Microsoft. The chance of their success cannot be discounted. Pro argues that results are likely to be incremental with gold produced at costs comparable to traditional mining. That's not likely. More likely it will be either a complete bust or big success. If it's a success, the gold standard fails.

I gave examples of how technology might emerge to produce gold at lower cost than conventional mining, but a breakthrough might come from a technology that no one now contemplates. It makes no sense to base a monetary system on any commodity, because the technological risk is omnipresent.

C2: Threat of deflation

The problems from deflation are not very controversial. Progressive Nobel-prize economist Paul Krugman points out that deflation discourages buying, worsens the position of debtor by increasing their real debt, and because there is resistance to cutting salaries, worker are laid off instead. [10. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...] From the conservative American Enterprise Institute, economist John Makin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute calls deflation "a classic prolonger of crises." [11. http://tinyurl.com...] It's true that we don't care if something like price of computers drops because buying power is retained overall; the problem is when deflation is across the board.

Pro argues the the Great Depression was not real deflation, saying "deflation was measured only within the decrease of price rather than with a decrease in the money supply." But the money supply definitely decreased. "In October 1929 the monetary base was $7.345 billion, and by October 1930 it was $6.817 billion. That’s a drop of over 7%, one of the largest declines in the 20th century." [12. http://wallstreetpit.com... ] The Fed had cut interest rates in hope of increasing the money supply, but they missed by a wide margin.

Pro argues that the decrease in the money supply was an effect rather than a cause of the Depression. However, the deflation occurred in the first year, too quickly to be an effect, and analysis shows that the Fed in fact erred in its attempt to increase the supply. Pro attributes the Depression to "uncontrollable factors," but that denies the central role that the money supply plays in the business cycle. If uncontrollable factors produce the business cycle then controlling the money supply with a gold standard won't help.

Pro goes on to argue that the money supply is unimportant, saying "Any amount of real investment can take place with any amount of money because prices adjust not only to the quantity of goods but the quantity of money." If so, we certainly don't need a gold standard, because all the gold standard does in control the amount of money. If the amount of money doesn't matter, then there is no need for monetary policy at all. The error in that argument is that investment is made by borrowing or using savings in anticipation of future. The money received is less, then the loan cannot be paid back, or the investors lose their savings. If an investment is made with expectation that widgets can be sold for $10, but deflation means they can only be sold for $8, then the investment fails.

Japan presents a good recent example of chronic deflation. The claimed bad effects happened with even modest deflation. “...why has there been so much concern expressed over the possibility of renewed deflation? One reason is the mediocre economic performance that has been associated with the Japan's deflation.” [13. http://eh.net...] “The implications [of deflation] for the Japanese economy are hard to understate. These gaps are likely to significantly worsen Japan’s fiscal position in the future ...” [14. http://www.voxeu.org...]

C3: The chance of war

Pro says that with a gold standard, necessary wars will be possible but unnecessary wars will be impossible, and that's true even if necessary wars cost ten times as much. How does the gold standard know what's necessary? There is no way to tell which wars are necessary and which are not. Elected representatives vote on what is necessary. If Pro is arguing that it is in general harder to raise money for a war of any kind, then than remains a disadvantage of the gold standard, because when the country needs to fight a war for it's survival, the task will be more difficult. I agree that poor judgments can be made about what is “necessary,” but attempting to prevent things that are really necessary is not a cure for that problem.

N1: Using a formula is superior to the gold standard

Friedman's proposal to replace the Fed with a formula is simple to implement. We currently have measures of the money supply like M3, so there is no problem monitoring it. If the money supply drops, the formula will lower the interest rates the government charges, and that will increase the supply. If the money supply grows too much, then rates are raised to slow the growth of the money supply.

Pro objects that politicians may yield to the temptation to not obey the formula and inflate the currency. The same problem exists with the gold standard, wherein the temptation is to print some extra money under the assumption that not all the currency has to be backed by gold, because it's unlikely that everyone will rush in at once and exchange dollars for gold. The US was once on a gold standard, and that didn't stop the decision to abandon it.

N2: Transitioning to gold is impractical

We have six trillion dollars in the money supply and only enough gold to back about 2.5% of it at the current price. So how do we get the $6 trillion worth of gold? Pro says it would be phased in slowly. That does not change the need for $6 trillion in gold, acquired quickly or slowly.

Because only the US is going to the gold standard, only the US has an unconditional need to buy gold. The rest of the world will sell it, but not cheaply.

Pro gives “oh, don't worry” generalities, but no data on the costs of transitioning. It won't work.

Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

My procrastination has killed me and I wont have time to finish this round. I concede. Congrats Roy :)

RoyLatham

Con

Thanks for a good debate on an important topic.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"While the debate on using gold standard sounds pretty striaght forward to anyone, the idea behind is extremely complicated. And frankly, you made a few comments that show me you do not possess the necessary knowledge to compete in this debate. Perhaps you should stick with politics and history, and I will gladly join in a debate with you."

I am interested in how you discerned and managed to find out this person's state of knowledge in regards to such a debate, sir...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I think HG has the best response too the impracticality point that I have seen to this date.
Posted by TheBossToss 4 years ago
TheBossToss
Wow. I think Roy did a really good job with his part of Round 3. Kudos to both of you, you are doing an excellent job debating.... I've learned a lot.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I do know everything, so therefore I am fully qualified to debate ... I just don't understand why my wife doesn't recognize my omnibrilliance. ... ever ...

The purpose of debate is for the debaters to educate themselves on the topic and for readers to learn something from that effort. It accomplishes that, and it's worthwhile just for that. No one here thinks the world is watching DDO in order to set public policy. Well, maybe a few in the forums.
Posted by khkan 4 years ago
khkan
Not true, I will only maintain topics such as economic theories, which requires years of formal education for one to understand, should not be debated by amaturers like you and I.

History, politics, art, literatures and such are different, as they are not as technical as the topics you guys are debating on. I mean, do you think you are qualified to debate on the usefulness of the Dominated Convergence Theorem? Or whether or not bootstrapping is a proper method for data mining?

While the debate on using gold standard sounds pretty striaght forward to anyone, the idea behind is extremely complicated. And frankly, you made a few comments that show me you do not possess the necessary knowledge to compete in this debate. Perhaps you should stick with politics and history, and I will gladly join in a debate with you.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Then pretty much all competitive debates should be banned cause it always entails a high level of domestic policy, foreign policy, economics, philosophy etc. A point of a debate is to also foster knowledge on the topic.
Posted by khkan 4 years ago
khkan
Someone who is humble enough to acknowledge that I am not educated enough to support neither side of the argument, despite having over 8+ years of formal education (undergraduate and graduate) in math (BS,MS), statistics (grad certificate), history (BA), and economics(minor in grad school). I'm not listing my degrees to show off, but merely to state that I don't feel I am qualify to debate on ANY major economic discussions.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
V lolol who are u to say such a comment?
Posted by khkan 4 years ago
khkan
I think it is dangerous and irresponsible for people ain't educated on the matter and frankly, lacks in-depth knowledge of fundamental economic principle to feel so strongly about a topic as complicated as this.
Posted by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
I've been really interested in this topic lately. Nice to know its going to be handled by two formidable debaters.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
CiRrKRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Geez Cirrk, I was enjoying this debate too. All kidding aside, this was a great read. I hope you guys decide to possibly debate this same topic again in the future.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
CiRrKRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Too bad. Still an informative debate however.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 4 years ago
LaissezFaire
CiRrKRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
CiRrKRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, but Roy was winning, anyway.