The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,357 times Debate No: 23835
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (2)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

You daid you wanted to debate this. I have taken away the stances.

Full Resolution:

The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by causing the stock market to crash. In other words, the stock market itself did not cause the Great Depression, but was tanked by actions precipitated by the Federal Reserve.

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is an automatic loss and all seven points for voting should be given to the other person.
3. No semantics.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals by con)
Rounds 3 and 4: Rebuttals (no new arguments made)
Round 5: Conclusion (just summarize your arguments and the flaws in your opponent's arguments, no new arguments, max 2500 characters).

By accepting this debate my opponent agrees to the full resolution, rules, and debate structure.
TheOrator

Con

I agree to all terms listed above, with the exception of the lowered restrictions which my opponent agreed to. The floor is yours :)
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I agree with my opponent for dropping the presupposed stances, and from now on, there will be no required stances.

I. How Did the Federal Reserve Cause the Great Depression

In 1913, the Democrats wanted a more centralized banking system, and they did just that with the Federal Reserve Bank. It would lower interest rates, regulate the amount of money in the economy and control inflation. All of this sounds good right? The reserve was ratified by Congress in the same year.

Things went right initially. The Federal Reserve drastically reduced interest rates, and fueled by recent stock gains, stock market investment was at an all time high. The Stock Market was making gains approaching 20% per year in the mid-1920s, while the interest rate was around 1% at the time. If you could borrow money at 1% and get a return of 20% with inflation being marginal, wouldn't that sound like a good idea? Thus, massive loans were taken out. The economy was in the best shape it had ever been. But there was a problem.

Inflation started happening as people bought more and more, and there soon was too much money chasing too few goods. As incomes went up, so do costs. The Federal Reserve had to maintain a steady flow of money into the economy to keep the economy running. Thus, the economy had become dependent not only on the low interest rates for growth, they had become dependent on a steady supply of money flowing in.

To try to counteract this inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. This caused fewer loans to be given out and less money to be flowed into the economy. The savvy investors saw this, and got out of the market. This weakened the market. The other investors saw the slowdown in the growth, and immediately paniced, and withdrew all their money as fast as they could. "Some investors who saw this happening got out of the marketplace early, weakening the bullish market. As the markets stopped going up investors began to panic and sell their shares of stock. Overleveraged investors scared of losing their life savings sold their shares of stock and forced the market downward."[1] This caused the stock market to nose dive. Americans started saving more and more, causing the essential parts of GDP, Consumption and Investment to be drastically reduced, this having a disasterous effect on GDP itself. "After the crash Americans started spending less and started saving more. This lead to less production and less jobs, causing unemployment to go higher and higher."[1] And thus, we have a recession.

II. What Did the Federal Reserve Do Wrong?

II.i Lower interest rates

The Federal Reserve at the time was doing the exact opposite of "correct" monetary policy. Normal monetary policy is to have low interest rates during recessions, high interest rates during inflation, and medium interest rates at all other times. But before the crash, which started out normal and then turned into an extreme boom period, the Federal Reserve's interest rates, as stated earlier at 1%. "You could borrow money at 1%.". This was bound to be a disaster as infation was encouraged and a huge boom was created that was so large that the pace could not be kept up. And because of that, when the Federal Reserve had to raise interest rates, there was a crash.

II.ii. Pumping of money into the economy

When you pump money into the economy during infation, you are basically just contributing more to inflation. This caused the interest rates to be raised higher and to be raised higher quicker.

II.iii. Retreaction of money into the economy

"And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary."[2]

The Federal Reserve caused a decline in money in 1929 (not to be confused with the pumping of money in the mid-1920s that caused the inflation in the first place) that restricted the amount of money flowing into the economy. This is disasterous during a recession when you need all the money you can get.

"This massive destruction of liquidity began when the Federal Reserve responded to the 1929 stock market crash by allowing the quantity of money to decline by 2.6 percent over the next year. This extremely tight monetary policy put the economy into severe recession."[3]

III. The Federal Reserve Failed to Help the Great Depression

The Federal Reserve several times during the great depression decreased liquidity, when it actually should have increase liquidity, thus making money harder to get. "The Federal Reserve was derelict in this responsibility during the three banking crises that culminated in the Great Depression. Indeed, more often than not the Federal Reserve sold bonds and raised the discount rate, thus reducing banking liquidity when it should have increased liquidity. The first banking crisis began in the autumn of 1930 when the Federal Reserve stood aside and permitted banks to fail in the South and Midwest. The result was to undermine confidence in banks. Runs on banks spread as depositors rushed to convert their deposits into currency."[3]

The Federal Reserve also allowed bank reserves to be reduced, when they should have been increased, "The second banking crisis began in the spring of 1931 when the Fed stood aside negligently while banks reduced their lending in order to meet their depositors' demands for cash. By August commercial bank deposits had shrunk by 7 percent, a further contraction in the supply of money. Then in September, in response to the British leaving the gold standard, the Fed further deflated a deflating economy by pushing through the biggest hike in the discount rate in history. This extraordinary mistake caused commercial banks to stop their use of the discount window and to hoard cash in order to meet rising withdrawals stemming from the public's declining confidence in banks. ...this put the famous multiple expansion of bank reserves into vicious reverse. By January 1932 bank deposits had declined another 15 percent. Large monthly declines in the money supply continued through June 1932."[3]

Then, the Federal Reserve made yet another mistake; they raised the discount rate even higher, making the already hard way to get loans worse. "The Fed responded to these events by again raising the discount rate, making it harder for banks to meet the cash demands of depositors. From January to March the money supply fell dramatically."[3] ""The central banking system, set up primarily to render impossible the restriction of payments by commercial banks, itself joined the commercial banks in a more widespread, complete and economically disturbing restriction of payments than had ever been experienced in the history of the country. One can certainly sympathize with President Hoover's comment about that episode: ‘I concluded the Reserve Board was indeed a weak reed for a nation to lean on in time of trouble.'"[4]

Conclusion:

So the Federal Reserve did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do on numerous occasions, and even made the Great Depression itself worse by doing the same thing.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.stocks-simplified.com...
[2]:http://www.wnd.com...
[3]:http://www.hoover.org...
[4]:Friedman, Miltons writings, contributed by Source 3
TheOrator

Con

The burden of proof in the round is to prove that the Federal Reserve is the cause of the Great Depression. If I can prove it wasn't the cause, or it had another cause, the burden of proof cannot be upheld and the round is negated. Thus, my constructive speech will be focused on the point that there were too many reasons that the Great Depression happened for the Federal Reserve to be wholly blamed

Contention 1: Bank Failure
Subpoint A: investments
Although the Federal Reserve is the "head bank", in a sense, the most impactful bank failures were on the local level. Unlike today, where governments have legislation dictating what they can and can't do with our money, banks in the 1920s had next to no restrictions. As a result, many banks invested their client's money without consent into the stock market [1], tying them up in other investents. When the stock market crashed (as well as the Banks' investments), and people rushed to withdraw their money, they unfortunately learned that all of their money was gone because it was invested in a system that had failed. Can you imagine that? All of the money you invested over your life time, just gone without you ever being able to use your nest egg. With so many people left without money, no one was able to invest. Without investors (after the crash barely anyone still trusted banks), and without the money they invested in the stock market, banks just started going out of business. In total, 9,000 banks failed [2] completely, with many more struggling to survive, so the economy had even less banks that could pump money into the economy, and those that did survive didn't have enough money to give out many loans. Because the Great Depression was caused by individual bank failures, the resolution is negated.
Subpoint B: Lies
SpB is fairly simple. When the stock market did begin to fail, starting with the mini-crash on March 25, 1929, there was a mini panic. Unfortunately, instead of slowing down the investments in the stock markets, influential leaders of privately owned banks, such as Charles Mitchell, lied to the public and stated that the economy was fine and loans wouldn't be impacted. As a result, " [it] was followed closely by reduced steel production and a slowing down of car sales and new home construction. June through August saw the stock market hit its highest peak." [1], so while the stock market and the private sector were beginning to fail, the lies introduced by individual banks were causing investments in these failing businesses to rise to never before seen heights, leading to a more profound recession which eventually became the Great Depression. Because misleading information from Bank leaders caused more investments in a failing economy, the resolution is negated.

Contention 2: Business Failures
Another reason why the Great Depression was caused was because of errors made in individual businesses.
Subpoint A: investments
Throughout the 1920s, many invested in the stock market, and business owners were no exception. Not only did they invest money like everybody else, but they also invested capital in the stock market [1]. this capital was then reposessed by the banks in an attempt to cover the loan, so not only did banks lose money, they lost their own property (which due to bank failure they were not able to afford to buy back).
Subpoint B: International trade.
Declines in international trade also helped turn the intial recession into a full-blown depression. "Many economists have argued that the sharp decline in international trade after 1930 helped to worsen the depression ... Most historians and economists partly blame the American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (enacted June 17, 1930) for worsening the depression by seriously reducing international trade and causing retaliatory tariffs in other countries." [3]. A decline in international trade kept some businesses from getting back on their feet because other countries were unable to trade with us, both because of the depression going on with their own countries, and the retalatory tariffs in response to the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which would make international trade unprofitable.

Contention 3: Stock Market Failure
Subpoint A: Stock Market Failure
My SpA is simply an explanation of the third contention. Although the Federal Reserve did in part contribute to the crash due to their misleading interest rates, they were not the sole reason. Just like with the depression as a whole, the Federal Reserve was not the whole reason for the stock market crash.
Subppoint B: Inaccurate Stock
A main reason that the crash was so harsh on the investors was the fact that the stock they invested in was not actually worth the price they paid. When investing in the stock market, the price of the stock is worth the highest amount of money paid for that stock. [4] This would mean that people were simply paying for the amount that some idiot who wanted pay high and buy everybody our for, not how much the actual stock was worth, so you had cases where people were investing large amounts of money that didn't represent how well the business was actually doing. To make this problem worse, investors such as Richard Whitney would pay generous amounts for stocks in order to convince investors that the banks still had faith in the stock market [5] and keep the investors lined up. This attempt to keep money flowing led to even more investments in worthless stock, which made the consumer actually continue to pay for failing companies rather than let them die out, as is capitalism's way.

In conclusion, the reason Federal Reserve cannot be considered the cause of the Great Depression is because it is not the sole reason the Great Depression occured, or even the sole reason the stock market crash lead to a depression. I have personally provided 3 arguments with 2 reasons per argument, so there are at least 6 other causes for the Great Depression (hopefully I won't have to cite basic math as this isn't a Hez debate:P) Because the resolution cannot be considered true, vote Con.

On a more personal note, it's clear that my opponnent is also a history buff, so I'm looking forward to rebuttals :)

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.archives.com...
2.) http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
3.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.) http://www.gophslions.com... (specifically it's either chapter 23 or 22, I'm not sure)
5.) http://www.snopes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Please read the "To My Opponent" section of my argument before you read my argument and start on your rebuttals.

Yes. The Burden of proof does rely on me. I must prove that the Federal Reserve did not cause the Great Depression.

I. Bank Failures

I.i Investments

"Still, the importance of rural failures in the twenties is evident from comparison with the Great Depression, when rural banks accounted for 68% of the failures, but only 19% of the loans and investments of failing banks"[1] So while the small bank failures might have been the majority of the failures during the Great Depression, their effects weren't as huge as the fewer, larger, urban banks, and most importantly, the central bank, or the Federal Reserve. "solvent banks were closed by runs because the Federal Reserve failed to act as lender of last resort. Failures were thus caused by a failure of monetary policy"[1] So in truth, not only did the rural banks' failing have a lot less effect on the economy than big banks, but the Federal Reserve failed to help stop the banks from failing. The depression could have been prevented if so.

"It is similar to saying the Titanic sank because it is made of Iron and steel, and while yes the titanic was made of iron and steel and those elements do sink in water it wasn't the reason it sank. Ships made out of iron and steel float all the time. Only when something major happens (like hitting an Ice Berg) do they sink."[2], the major happening being the Federal Reserve. So the stock market did cause the great depression, but the Federal Reserve was the one who wrecked it, so the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.

And the banks also crashed for another reason, their customers. When the stock market corrected, everybody did what economists call a "bank run", where everyone gets their money out of the bank. This will dry the bank of money quickly. But are bank runs bad? "So if a bank fails, suddenly there's a lot less money for other banks to borrow. Depositors get worried about the solvency of those banks, and they start demanding money back there, too. Pretty soon, the whole system is collapsing."[3] System collapse.

I.ii. Lies

This is a little misguided. First of all, it was the Federal Reserve that caused the mini-crash. Why? Because they have just raised the discount rate. "When the Fed increased interest rates in 1929 it would be one of the main causes of the great depression."[2] Second of all, the lies don't exist because the investors actually got out. "Some investors who saw this happening got out of the marketplace early, weakening the bullish market."[2] This was the mini-crash. As the high investors left, the businesses they had invested in took a hit, and the common investor started to pull out, this causing the infamous black Friday. The Great Depression can be attributed to the common investor leaving, which can be attributed to business falling, which can be attributed to the mini-crash, which was caused by the Federal Reserve. Thus, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.

By the way, more investment=a better economy, so more investment cannot be attributed to the Great Depression.

II. Business Failures

II.i Investments

Correct. Business owners did heavily invest into the stock market, and this was a major part of the '20s boom. I have two questions for my opponent. Why would the banks repossess the capital of the businesses and what right do they have unless it was a loan taken out from the bank? If they repossessed the capital, couldn't the pay off the loans?

I apologize to my opponent, but he is a little vague here and I can't quite understand it.

II.ii. International Trade

I agree with you here. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was dumb since GDP=C+I+G+X, you want to raise GDP in a depression, and Tariff Acts would lower net exports (the X), which would lower GDP. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not cause the Great Depression, it only made it worse. Still, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, worsened both by the Federal Reserve itself and by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

III. Stock Market Failure

III.i Stock Market Failure

Ok. My opponent seems to be making an assumption here, and his proof seems to be below. The stock market crash was caused by the Federal Reserve due to incorrect discount rates and by raises in the discount rate. The raises in the discount rate caused a slowing of the bull market, which begot more selling, eventually turning the bull market into a bear market, and then after that, crash.

III.ii Inaccurate Stock

"However, the stock market collapse did not cause the depression; nor can it explain the extraordinary length and depth of the American contraction."[4] "The stock market crash was only a reflection — not the direct cause — of the destructive government policies that would ultimately produce the Great Depression: The market rose and fell in almost direct synchronization with what the Fed and Congress were doing. And what they did in the 1930s ranks way up there in the annals of history's greatest follies."[5] Why were these destructive government policies so bad? "By 1928, the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates and choking off the money supply. For example, its discount rate (the rate the Fed charges member banks for loans) was increased four times, from 3.5 percent to 6 percent, between January 1928 and August 1929. The central bank took further deflationary action by aggressively selling government securities for months after the stock market crashed. For the next three years, the money supply shrank by 30 percent. As prices then tumbled throughout the economy, the Fed's higher interest rate policy boosted real (inflation-adjusted) rates dramatically."[5] So the Federal Reserve end up choking off the money supply, that drained the economy of money it needed to flow (money in an economy is like oil in an engine), and this caused a significant reduction of the amount of goods, which caused businesses to lose profit, and of course, a recession. And if the stocks were invested in real companies, then they would not be worthless without outside (the Federal Reserve) forces, as is socialism's way.

Conclusion:

The Federal Reserve did cause the crash because of wrong discount rates. It's not that they were untimely, just that the wrong monetary policy was used at the wrong time. When they had to raise the rates due to incredible inflation (caused by incorrect monetary policy), the stock market slowed down, stopped, reversed, and crashed. Your causes are either incorrect, or did not cause the Great Depression, but rather just made it worse (i.e. the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act). I have provided several arguments with a few reasons per argument.

To My Opponent:

First of all, I don't think so, but do you agree that the Federal Reserve was the main cause of the Great Depression? If yes, that is my fault. I misworded the resolution. If not, forget it.

Second of all, if you would like to do you some history debates, that's fine by me. I love them (yes, I did get the WWI one and will accept it in a day or two when some of my debates go into voting period. I will accept).

Thank you.

Sources:

[1]:http://web.lemoyne.edu...
[2]:http://www.stocks-simplified.com...
[3]:http://www.marketplace.org...
[4]:http://www.econlib.org...
[5]:http://www.fee.org...
TheOrator

Con

I'll adress my opponent's questions before addressing her constructive.
To My Opponent:
1.) No, I beleive there were too many causes for the Depression to claim that the Federal Reserve was the sole or main cause, which is what I'm arguing in the round.
2.) Cool, looking forward to it.

I. How Did the Federal Reserve Cause the Depression
The first three paragraphs are on the good times during the roaring '20s, so I'll skip them.
Fourth Paragraph:
"To try to counteract this inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. This caused fewer loans to be given out and less money to be flowed into the economy." This is one of the key sentences in my opponent's first contention, as it deals with the flow of money into the economy, which is my opponent's key argument in the debate. However, even in this key quote, we can see that the Federal Reserve is not the sole cause of the Great Depression. Were it not for infaltion caused by a naturally helathy economy when people buy large amounts of consumer items, then the amount of money pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve wouldn't have been a problem. This actually contributes to the key point I'm trying to make throughout my argument, because seeing as there were both inflation and Federal Reserve problems in the beginning, you cannot call the Federal REserve the cause for the Great Depression.
"savvy investors saw this, and got out of the market. This weakened the market. The other investors saw the slowdown in the growth, and immediately paniced, and withdrew all their money as fast as they could."
This quote also showed that the amount of money being pumped into the economy by the Fed (which I will use as the abbreviation for the Federal Reserve) was not the sole problem. Aside from from money being pumped in, you also had a stock market scare which made investers flee, which caused failures in the stock market.
savvy investors saw this, and got out of the market. This weakened the market. The other investors saw the slowdown in the growth, and immediately paniced, and withdrew all their money as fast as they could.

II) What the Federal Reserve do Wrong?
This entire paragraph focuses around what the Federal Reserve did wrong in during the 20s and 30s. However, I'm not arguing that the Fed didn't do anything wrong, I'm stating that even though the Fed used wrong procedures, and helped contribute to the Great Depression, my stance on the argument is that it's not the sole reason, and the multiple reasons behind the Great Depression mean you can't limit the reason to the Fed. So this contention, although it's not wrong, does not make an impact on the negation of the resolution.

III) The Federal Reserve Failed to Help the Great Depression
The resolution does not state "The Federal Reserve did not help the Great Depression", we are arguing over what caused it. Because of this, an argument makiing a point about what happened after the Great Depression had already taken place does not make an impact on the resolution. Because it does not deal with what the resolution is stating, you must disregaurd this contention.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

I will be defending my original case in this round.

To My Opponent:

1. Thank you for clearing that up.
2. If I don't get to it, can you rechallenge me on the WWI debate? I have had some unexpected difficulties and am committed to at least 3 more debates, my other debates aren't in voting period, and I need to make an argument (I've never really done that).

I. How Did the Federal Reserve Cause the Great Depression?

I.i. Fourth Paragraph, part I

As stated originally, the Federal Reserve used incorrect monetary policy during the years before the Great Depression. To help the economy that was in a slump, they lowered interest rates to a near zero level, or a expansionary monetary policy. But they kept the rates at this level for a long time after the recovery, and into a long time after the beginning of the boom period. An expansionary monetary policy, due to its increase of money into the economy, during a boom period is going to result in inflation because too much money is chasing two few goods. So, the economy was booming too fast. When the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to try to counter the inflation, there was a slight dip that caused the bigger dip.

"All of the money flowing into the economy thanks to the Federal Reserve and their low interest rate created inflation. As incomes went up, so did the price of goods and business costs. The economy was now dependent upon the inflow of money from the Federal Reserve and the low interest rates. As a result less loans were being created and less money was able to flow into the economy."[1]

So yes, there was two much money in the economy, which caused inflation, which then caused a restriction on the amount of money in the economy, which caused the Great Depression. But all of this can be traced back to the Federal Reserve for pumping to much money into the economy in the first place.

I.ii. Fourth Paragraph, part II

Again, this can all be traced back to the Federal Reserve. If the stock panic was caused by inflation, which was caused by the Federal Reserve, then the Federal Reserve can be called the true cause of the Great Depression since they caused the cause of the crash.

"The Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics."[2] So in addition to causing the crashes in the first place (including the bank panics), they failed to try to stem the crashes from worsening.

So here, the Fed can be traced back to causing almost all the causes of the Great Depression, and made the Great Depression by failed to help stop the crashes they created.

I.iii. Final Arguments

"Instead, the Federal Reserve collapsed purchasing power and forced 25 percent of the workforce into unemployment. This massive destruction of liquidity began when the Federal Reserve responded to the 1929 stock market crash by allowing the quantity of money to decline by 2.6 percent over the next year. This extremely tight monetary policy put the economy into severe recession."[3]

"The Federal Reserve was derelict in this responsibility during the three banking crises that culminated in the Great Depression. Indeed, more often than not the Federal Reserve sold bonds and raised the discount rate, thus reducing banking liquidity when it should have increased liquidity. The first banking crisis began in the autumn of 1930 when the Federal Reserve stood aside and permitted banks to fail in the South and Midwest. The result was to undermine confidence in banks. Runs on banks spread as depositors rushed to convert their deposits into currency."[3]

"The Fed responded to these events by again raising the discount rate, making it harder for banks to meet the cash demands of depositors."[3]

So here, the Federal Reserve can be traced back to all your causes of the Great Depression, including incorrect monetary policy, inflation, lowering of money supply, the stock market crash, among others. And when the Federal Reserve could have turned around the crash, they actually made it worse.

II What Did the Federal Reserve Do Wrong?

Ok. So my opponent agrees with my contentions here. That is a concession, but not a full one. Arguments extending this are above.

III. The Federal Reserve Failed To Help the Great Depression

But, the Great Depression could have been stopped if the Federal Reserve had not made those three mistakes listed in my original argument. It would not have been a Depression, but merely a small recession if the Federal Reserve had taken the correct course of action.

So here, the Federal Reserve did cause the Great Depression by failing to help in stopping the decline, and actually making it worse.

Thank you.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.stocks-simplified.com...
[2]:http://www.wnd.com...
[3]:http://www.hoover.org...
TheOrator

Con

TheOrator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

This will be my conclusion.

The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression by keeping the interest rates the same. When the economy started to recover in the early 20s, they placed a low interest rate in place, but kept it there even after the recovery had completed and a boom was taking place. When they had to raise interest rates to counter the high inflation, some investors got out of the stock market because they saw the lower rates of net return effect that a big increase in the interest rate would bring. Then more and mre people got out of the stock market, and, crash.

The Federal Reserve failed to ease the crash by not only keeping the interest rates at the same high level, but then decreasing the money supply. This made the crash even worse as people did not want to re-invest in the stock market and turn it around. The decrease in the money supply made an already money strapped economy worse. Also, they allowed banks to fail, and made bank reserves lower, and even decreased liquidity.

All of the attributes to the Great Depression, such as the stock market crash, bank failures, inflation, the decrease in the money supply, and the incorrect interest rates can all be attributed to the Federal Reserve's actions. So, these many things were the causes of the Great Depression, but since they were all caused by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve is to blame for the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve also failed to slow the crash, making the recession a full depression (so point III is relevant)

I will eagerly await my opponent's conclusion.

I know my opponent forfeited, but I am going to allow him to post his argument for Round 4 here, and skip the conclusion.

I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate.
TheOrator

Con

Because of the Forfeit, I concede as many points as the rules specify to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
CONCLUSION:

I skipped pros rebuttal round 4 as that was the round of the FF, and I thought he defended his case. Now there is a reason pro still won, as con dropped pros rebuttal in round 3 therefore his case stood refuted and all objections dropped. This was a major reason pro won, though he seemed to control the debate either way.

Now based on the other 1-4 posts I had (some shorter then others), I have shown on balance pro won this debate.

Now even if we assume the resolution was in fact the feds where the only reason, the rules stated no forfeits. As CON Forfeited this is an automatic win to pro, and the other posts where just for so you know what my vote would have been otherwise.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Part 4:

CON argued the feds where not the sole cause of the depression on pros "I". But as I interpret the resolution differently then con, this is unconvincing.

He argued a similar stance on pros "II" but again I fail to see this as convincing. Although he had logic behind the statement I failed to see evidence. I also failed to see any convincing argument. And again my resolution interpretation on this also makes me think differently.

CON convinced me on pros "III" that helping and causing are different realms of debate and is essentially irrelevant to the resolution as well as the arguments presented.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Why PRO had better arguments part three:

PRO easily refuted cons bank argunemnt, he did show although con was correct, spot on, on his "look more small banks crashed" premise, he showed the amount of profit lost from these banks was minor compared to the ones heavily relying upon the federal reserve. In other words he showed the feds where still linked to the majority of the bank failures.

Now the reason people lied in the mini crash was because there was a crash, so we can link the lying to the cause of the mini crash, and as pro witfully shows the feds even caused this mini problem, forcing people to lie.

PRO could have won easily on the business argument, but his rebuttal failed to have an impact on me here.

PRO was able to show the tariff act and international made the depression worse and slow its recovery, and not the cause, but I think his rebuttal still failed to meet cons main argument here and merely skated around cons point. Although I see his logic I fail to see how it was supported through facts. So con keeps this argument, at round 3.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Why PRO had better arguments part two:

This post, unlike the last, will focus on cons r2 arguments.

His first point where local bank failures, and how even though the larger banks run the show it was the smaller, local banks which had the most overall impact. He attempted to show, in my opinion weakly showed, local bank investments due to lack of regulation are the main reason the economy failed.

His second point argued people lying about the economy saying we would boom forever, and as obama would say "the private sector is fine", it had interesting effects on peoples loan and spending habits. He argued this too caused the depression.

His next point again weakly argued failed business investments where to blame. He argued their investments where the largest portion, failed, and the stock market came with it. He argued a people failure.

His last point, his only convincing point, was the international trade problems. He argued this decline had detrimental effects (all trade downturns do), this point was his only solid one.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Why PRO had better arguments part one:

I assume this debate was over was the federal reserve the main cause, not the whole cause, as the resolution therefore slats in cons direction. If pro argued it was the only cause, he loses easily. But I think pro argued it was the main cause, not the only cause, if this is the case pro won.

Now the strong point pro has was why the feds caused the problem, this is quite self explanatory. A centralized system is bound to fail. Anyway back to pros case. PRO showed the feds injected the system with steroids, and essentially created a false/fake boom, which lead to inflation. The economy depended on low interest rates as well as inflation, it was like a placebo effect, until it popped.

Then what he argued was they lowered interest rates to form a correct monetary system, which we found out lead to a part of the crash.

We then found the faster inflation caused a interest rate problem, remember this is something in which the economy relied. In other words it shot of its leg.

Then he showed they tried deflation (idiots) which then worsened the problem, deflation shrinks an economy. This premise is self explanatory.

Then he showed he harmed bank liquidy. Which hurt the markets.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Alright. Oh by the way, on the WWI debate, can you wait a week or so?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
No, it would screw up the entire system, I'll adhere to the rules on this one.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
If you can post your argument, I'll let every point slide except for conduct.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
So sorry about that! I had no idea it would be over that fast. As per the rules I'll concede teh seven points, and I'll speed up the end as long as I can. Thanks for the debate regardless.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
So sorry about that! I had no idea it would be over that fast. As per the rules I'll concede teh seven points, and I'll speed up the end as long as I can. Thanks for the debate regardless.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
Ron-PaulTheOratorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had a conclusive final statement that showed excellently in manner how the Federal Reserve created the Depression, with artificially high interest rates. Orator never rebutted this well executed claim by PRO, thus PRO wins the arguments. A nice debate by both this though, but PRO overall did better.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ron-PaulTheOratorTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, I will give analysis of the debate before the FF in comments.