The Instigator
TheDebater_101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ninjahammer
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The World Should Return to the 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ninjahammer
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,328 times Debate No: 80484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

TheDebater_101

Pro

As pro I think that the World should return to the gold standard as in the gold standard of 1950. Con thinks that it shouldn't return to the gold standard as in the gold standard of 1950.

Definitions:
The Gold Standard:
A monetary system in which a country's government allows its currency unit to be freely converted into fixed amounts of gold and vice versa. The exchange rate under the gold standard monetary system is determined by the economic difference for an ounce of gold between two currencies. The gold standard was mainly used from 1875 to 1914 and also during the interwar years. [1]

The World:
the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples. [2]

Should:
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): [3]

Return:
to restore to a former or to a normal state

Rules:
1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.
2. No Trolling
3. Both Sides have equal Burden Of Proof
4. Please take this seriously
5. No Semantics or kritiks
6. No Insults or Ad Hominem
7. No arguments outside of the debate, so no arguments in the comments, also no sources outside of debate or in the comments
8. No Forfeiting
9. No Cheating
10. No Spamming
11. Only Votes which have Reason for Decison will be accepted
12. No Straw-Man Arguments (we would have to carry gold bars. Etc)
Debate Structure

R1. Acceptance
R2. Presentation/Case
R3. Rebuttals
R4. New Arguments

[1]: http://www.investopedia.com...
[2]: https://www.google.ch...
[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Apply in the Comments. If you accept the debate without applying, automatic forfeit.
Ninjahammer

Con

I will accept the con side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebater_101

Pro

- I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Arguments

Contention 1: Stable Economy

P1: Economic Stability

The Gold Standard Promotes Economic Stability. "The U.S. price level was almost exactly the same in 1913, when the Federal Reserve Board was established, as it was in 1792, when Congress passed the Coinage Act defining the value of the dollar under the Constitution. That value of the dollar was the same as well in 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt terminated the original, Constitutional right of every American to exchange every dollar for its defined amount of gold." "But since America abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the purchasing power of the dollar has declined by 85 percent. A dollar saved in 1971 was worth only 15 cents by 2012. While gold cost $20 an ounce in March, 1910, the same as in 1792, by April 15, 2012, it cost $1,658. A dollar, worth one twentieth of an ounce of gold when the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, was worth only 4 cents by 2010." "By contrast, under President Obama, since 2008, oil prices have almost tripled, gasoline prices have doubled, and basic food prices, such as for sugar, corn, soybean and wheat, have almost doubled" [1]. So the gold standard promotes economic stability, unlike the fiat money which creates hyper-inflation, so the gold standard is beneficial to the economy, unlike the Fiat Money, which creates massive inflation, as seen in the graph below. s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="550px;" height="296px;" />[2]


P2: Stable Long-Term Economic Growth

The Gold Standard Promotes Long-Term Economic Stability. "The original Founding Founders understood basic economics so much better than any Nobel Prize winner, or any of the other 20th Century economic sophists who convinced us to abandon the gold standard that worked so spectacularly for America. When America was on the gold standard, the real rate of economic growth averaged nearly 4% a year. Since then real annual growth has stagnated at about 25% less. Under Obama the Magnificent, real growth has been barely half what it was under the original American gold standard. At 4% real growth, our economy, incomes and standard of living would double every 17 years. After 34 years, a generation, per capita GDP, which defines the standard of living, would be 8 times larger.

On the gold standard, the wages of working people would be paid in gold, as all would enjoy the same right to exchange their dollars for gold. That means their wages would not be depreciated by inflation. They would know that anything they saved would be worth the same any time in the future when they needed it. By contrast, under President Obama, since 2008, oil prices have almost tripled, gasoline prices have doubled, and basic food prices, such as for sugar, corn, soybean and wheat, have almost doubled.

Moreover, the gold standard strongly encourages investment, since investors know the dollars they will be paid back on what they invest will be worth the same as the original dollars they put into the investment. That investment is what creates jobs for working people, as new businesses are created, and current ones are expanded. That investment also increases real wages for working people, as it increases the demand for their labor. Capital investment also increases worker productivity, as workers enjoy new tools and equipment that make them more productive. That results in higher wages, consistent with the higher economic growth.

As a result, the American people would increase their savings and investment under the gold standard. But the gold standard would also draw increased investment in the American economy from the world over, in response to the assured stable value of the dollar. Combining the restored gold standard with the tax reform previously proposed in this series would further increase capital investment in America, both domestic and foreign, in response to the much lower tax rates on savings and investment" [3]. Stable Economic Growth has 2 factors: Investment and an Upward growth spiral, which is created by investment. So the gold standard increases stable long-term growth, because it encourages investment, which Fiat Money does not encourage.


Contention 2: Government Control

P1: Government Debt

The Gold Standard would limit government debt. This is because as evidenced by these quotes, debt can't be created as the money supply must be equal to or less than the demand. If it's not, than the government must have enough gold to buy the extra money. So it's impossible to have a high national debt, if the government uses the gold standard instead of the fiat money. "Contrary to myth, and intellectual confusion, under the gold standard the money supply would not be limited to the government’s holdings or supply of gold. The Fed could increase the supply of dollars to meet the demand for dollars, providing the money needed to service economic growth. As long as the supply did not exceed the demand, there would be no increased draw on the Fed’s holdings of gold due to the increased supply of dollars. So if the economy demanded more money to support the level of economic growth, under the gold standard, there would be no limitation on the Fed supplying it. This is why any country could operate a gold standard on any reserve of gold the government holds to support it. (The government could also print more of its currency to buy more gold in the marketplace if it thought holding more gold was necessary. That is fully consistent with the gold standard as well.)" [4]. "Today, the United States lives with federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion each year, interest rates that are artificially held below market levels, aggregate debt that is growing much faster than the economy, and a chronic trade deficit that is larger than whole industries" [5]. So as shown in the quotes when the US abandoned the gold standard and turned to the Fiat, it's public debt skyrocketed and became volatile and grew exponentially, while when the government had the gold standard it's public debt was low and stable. This can also be seen in the graph below. So the gold standard limits government debt. s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="545px;" height="290px;" />[6]


P2: Power to the People/Government Intervention

The Gold Standard gives the power to the people and takes the power away from the government. This is because the definiton of gold standard makes that it relies on supply and demand and only the people can control the demand. This evidenced by the following quote from Forbes, a Financial Newspaper. "Under the gold standard, working people would control the money supply, not elitist bureaucrats. If the Fed increased the supply of dollars beyond the people’s demand for dollars, people would exchange dollars for gold. The people would consequently stop the Fed before it could create inflation.

But the people could also increase the money supply if needed to support economic growth. Under the gold standard, banks and other financial institutions would be empowered to mint their own gold coins as long as the amount of gold in the coins was correctly denominated. Banks could consequently increase the money supply to meet the demand for business loans or other unsatisfied demand for money. That increased demand for gold would induce mining companies to increase their supply of gold.

But they could not increase the money supply faster than the demand for money. If the people did not want to hold more gold coin, there would be no takers for the newly minted coins" [7]. So the government can't control the money, which is good as politicians might have an ulterior motive such as that humans are naturally short-sighted and so a typical voter cares more about short-term economic growth than long-term economic growth, while in the long-term long-term economic growth benefits the economy more than short-term economic growth. in fact short-term economic growth doesn't equal long-term economic growth and might even be in the long term detrimental to the economy. This is why politicians prefer Fiat Money over the gold standard, as Fiat money is more beneficial to the economy in the short-term, but the gold standard is less detrimental to the economy in the long-term. However politicials want to get reelected and so they have an ulterior motive. However if the people are well-informed, they will decide with no ulterior motive as people will help themselves, so it will be beneficial to the people to give power to the people, which the gold standard, unlike fiat money does.

s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="457px;" height="700px;" />[8]


Conclusion:

In conclusion, I explained why it would be beneficial to return to the gold standard. The points i explained were that it helps economic stability, long-term economic growth, government debt, government intervention. So due to this it is my opinion the world should return to the gold standard as it would be much more beneficial to the global economy than Fiat money.


Citations:

[1]: http://www.forbes.com...

[2]: http://www.unanimocracy.com...

[3]: http://www.forbes.com...

[4]: http://www.forbes.com...

[5]: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org...

[6]: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk...

[7]: http://www.forbes.com...

[8]: https://commons.wikimedia.org...

In case the graphs don't work, click on the respective link for the graphs or look in this album
http://www.debate.org...

Ninjahammer

Con

Thank you for letting me take up the con side of this debate.

First of, how much gold is there in the world?
The amount of gold in the entire world is 171300 tonnes with a gold price of $1138.40 per ounce, giving all the gold in the world a net worth of about $6,681,000,000,000, just above six and a half trillion dollars.
http://www.bbc.com...
http://www.goldpriceoz.com...
http://onlygold.com...

Second, how much money is there in the world?
Now there are a lot of different ways to measure the amount of money in the world, but let's just take the smallest one, the M0, which only looks at how many physical coins and bills there are in the world.
Looking only at America there are 1,380,000,000,000, almost one and a half trillion dollars. However the amount of coins and bills around the world have an estimated value of five trillion dollars (5,000,000,000,000). This amount would make t possible to use the gold standard, although the logistics of dividing the gold between nations would be really complicated.
http://money.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.federalreserve.gov...
http://dollardaze.org...

The money in the world is not just the amount of bills and coins though.
The M1, which also includes money in checkings accounts is estimated to be about 25 trillions for the entire world, making the gold standard impossible to enforce with the current gold prizes. But even the M1 does account for all the money in the world, to do that you need M3, and while a lot of the money aren't quickly spendable, they are still money. The world's M3 reaches 75 trillion dollars, meaning if you wanted to switch to the gold standard you would make gold worth ten times as much as it is now.
http://dollardaze.org...

The fact that the gold standard restricts the governments power which is one of the usually cited strengths is also one of the great weaknesses of the system. Fiat currency allows the government to stimulate the economy during regression or depression.
http://www.investopedia.com...

Proponents of the gold standard often claim that it is much more stable than fiat money, but take a look at these graphs:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com...
http://cdn.theatlantic.com...
There has been 23 times less fluctuation since Fed began quantive easing than under the gold standard.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

And this quote by Nouriel Roubini, co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics:
"When you had a traditional gold standard, boom and bust with severe swings in economic activity were the norm"really big ones. It was only once we moved to fiat money that central banks were able to smooth the business cycle, and make it less volatile, as we did during the financial economic crisis,"
http://www.cnbc.com...

The gold standard makes wealth depend on how much gold we can dig up from the ground, totally shifting the economy upside down. Not all countries have large gold reserves and lots of gold mines, and that will mean that there will be a lot of wealthy countries that won't be wealthy after implementing the gold standard. Also on a larger scale it tends
http://www.theatlantic.com...
http://www.cnbc.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheDebater_101

Pro

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Ninjahammer

Con

Stable economy
I explained why this wasn't true in my last round.

Government control
Actually the gold standard would increase the debt, since inflation gives the government more money, deflation gives it less, making it even harder to ever pay off the debt.
I explained why government intervention is a good thing.
Debate Round No. 3
TheDebater_101

Pro

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Ninjahammer

Con

My opponent never even attempted to rebuke any of my original arguments, so I see no reason to post new ones.
Debate Round No. 4
TheDebater_101

Pro

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
Damn, I totally forgot to point out that you were supposed to be arguing for the whole world implementing the gold standard, but only seemed to argument for America.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
In case you just missed the deadline, feel free to post in comments.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
I just have to check, it says rebutals aren't until next round, by my job basically is to refute the gold standard. Am I supposed to refute the gold standard generally but not comment on your points until next round?
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
NOOO!. I have to redo the arguments
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
In Round 1 you just write "I accept the debate"
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
Thank you very much. You post say that representation doesn't begin before round 2, round 1 is only acceptance. What am I expected to write to that?
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
It's normal on this site to have to apply. Since you're new, however, I'll let you of with only a warning.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
So, I automatically forfeit? What is the warped up logic behind that?
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
Oh sorry, I apply then.
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
You're supposed to apply in comments
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
TheDebater_101NinjahammerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
TheDebater_101NinjahammerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules set by Pro, breaking a rule results in all seven points to be forfeited. Pro then broke his own rule, #8, and thus forfeits all points to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
TheDebater_101NinjahammerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
TheDebater_101NinjahammerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeits merit a loss of conduct