The Instigator
Grandbudda
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The federal reserve should be dismantled

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 2 votes the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,481 times Debate No: 45501
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Grandbudda

Pro

The federal reserve should be dismantled means that Pro will argue that the current system is harmful to America and should be replaced. Con will argue that the federal reserve is helpful to America and should remain in place.
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - lay out your side
Round 3 - arguments/ rebuttals
Round 4 - conclusion
Tophatdoc

Con

I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. I as Con will be arguing the status quo in terms of keeping the Federal Reserve. The burden of proof is Pro since he is proposing an action. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Grandbudda

Pro

Before the Federal Reserve was founded, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to "panics" in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. The failure of one bank often had a domino effect, in which customers of other banks rushed to withdraw funds from their own banks even if those banks were not in danger of failing. Banks needed a source of emergency reserves to prevent the panics and resulting runs from driving them out of business.
A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve System, initially created to address these banking panics, is now charged with several broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.

I agree that a central banking system is necessary to maintain a sound banking system and a healthy economy. However the current system has proved to be unsatisfactory in doing so. The Federal Reserve System was devised by the wealthiest families in America on order to help and control the monetary system of America. The problem is that the FED has failed in its quest for monetary soundness. The Federal Reserve System was designed to be complicated and is a deliberate mystery. It was deliberately designed in 1910 to deceive the public, who were opposed the idea of a central bank. The conspirators who met on Jekyll Island in November 1910 knew this. The system was devised by a group of big money families under the idea that it would provide safety to our economy in tough times. The general public today knows little about the FED. Prior to Ron Paul's Presidential run in 2008, far fewer people understood it.

If there was no Federal Reserve it could be replaced by either the free market or Congress. People who think of themselves as free market people often are not. The tax-funded public schools and the state-regulated and accredited university faculties have taught that the modern system of intrusive civil government is necessary for an orderly society. People cannot imagine a market-based society. The free market is growing world wide and times have changed radically. The Fed is an outdated and harmful system to protect our money and our people. The free market social order is expanding around the world, which is why the world is getting richer. At the Federal level, a free market social order in banking existed prior to 1914. That was back when the dollar was worth over 20 times what it is worth today. One only needs to look at inflation as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The free market used to control the system and must again.

The free market will determine which will survive and which will not. This isn't a radical idea at all since there is historical precedents for it. There are two historical cases: the refusal of Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States in 1811, and the refusal of Congress to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836. Both of those central banking systems went bust and we survived. The standard response is that there must be independence between the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. government. This is ridiculous since there exists no such separation with most other agencies. The Department of Defense,The Department of the Treasury,The Department of State and The Department of Education all are established with government. We could list all of the thousands of agencies that are funded by Federal taxes and which operate by means of the authority of the U.S. government.

Whatever replaces the FED will decide the economic fate of Americans. A system controlled by Congress will only lead to hyperinflation. A system controlled by the free market will lead to economic stability. The central bank faces a big problem in order to maintain the boom, the FED must inflate. To cease inflating would allow the credit bubble to implode on a scale far more devastating than what happened in 2008. The monetary policy they follow must produce hyperinflation at some point. That will destroy the FED"s ability to guide the economy. Hyperinflation will lead to alternative currencies.

1) The Bureau of Labor Statistics
2) federal reserve.gov
3) FRED Economic data- St.Louis Federal reserve
Tophatdoc

Con

I have put together three points for my opening arguments why we should keep the Federal Reserve.

1) The Origins of the Federal Reserve
Sorry, I won't explain this since I just noticed my opponent has explained some of the origins. I won't waste any time here.

2) The Federal Reserve's Purpose
The Federal Reserve regulates commercial banks[2]. The Federal Reserve is responsible for quantitative easing. Most notably the Federal Reserve is responsible for inflation and deflation[3]. This is when the Federal Reserve increases or decreases the money supply in American society/ The most important function of the Federal Reserve is providing security for banks and their account holders[4].

[2]http://www.frbsf.org...
[3]http://www.money-zine.com...
[4]http://www.newyorkfed.org...

3)The Federal Reserve prevents problems
My question is simple, when was the last time we have heard of a bank run-on in the United States? We haven't that is because it rarely happens. If the Federal Reserve was "dismantled," te chances of run-ons on banks would increase significantly. Commercial banks would no longer be as secure.

The following are reasons why the Federal Reserve should stay in place:
1) The Federal Reserve protects the public.
The Federal Reserve prevents bank run-ons as I pointed out earlier. I also pointed out how the Federal Reserve protects smaller banking institutions. Therefore, people who invest in banks have their accounts secured. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve will make their accounts more insecure. Is this desirable considering people put their life savings and investments within the banks?

2) The Federal Reserve dictates monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve has the power to influence employment, inflation, and deflation. There would no authority to replace the Federal Reserve's responsibilities.

3)The Federal Reserve regulates banking institutions.
The Federal Reserve regulates banking institutions as I pointed out earlier.

4) The Federal Reserve is privately owned.
I would argue to nationalize the Federal Reserve so it can be controlled by Congress would be the worse thing that could possibly happen. Congress currently struggles in agreeing in fiscal policy which is merely taxing and spending. If the Congress controlled the Federal Reserve, some cabal of fanatical congressmen may take the opportunity to purse maximum employment. Or possibly Congress may attempt to cause so much inflation to the point of hyper-inflation as we see in Zimbabwe[5]. To give the Federal Reserve to Congress is a disaster in the making. The banks who make up the Federal Reserve system are all authorized by the government.

[5]http://www.economist.com...

5) The Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy or a secretive organization.
Some people would have you believe the Federal Reserve is controlled by a secret society like the Illuminati or the Bilderberg Group. However, the Federal Reserve is not a monolithic organization. There is dissent among those that serve as Governors of the Federal Reserve[6]. This is common knowledge among those who pay attention to the Federal Reserve.

[6]http://www.nextnewdeal.net...

6)The Federal Reserve releases a comprehensive report every year.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is released yearly by the Federl Reserve releasing their financial statements to the public[7].

[7]http://www.federalreserve.gov...

7)The Federal Reserve is regulated by Congress and the President.
The Federal Reserve can be audited by the Congress aside from their annual financial statements anytime they vote on it. The President nominates who can control the Federal Reserve, like the governors and the chairman[8]. The people who control the Federal Reserve are not appointed privately.

[8]http://www.federalreserve.gov...

8) To get rid of the Federal Reserve will have unpredicted consequences on the American economy and the global market.
The consequences of getting rid of the Federal Reserve are unforeseen. Ending the Federal Reserve will not bring a balance of inflation or deflation at all. The economy will become less stable due to the lack of regulation from the Federal Reserve. Then this will have horrendous effects upon the global economy. The United States is one of the world's strongest economies and to get rid of the Federal Reserve will affect many economies aside from the United States.
Debate Round No. 2
Grandbudda

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his efforts in this important debate. Unfortunately as we will see he has failed to prove the value of the Federal Reserve. My opponent lays out three points for his opening argument about why he thinks we should keep the Federal Reserve. First he willingly submits that the origins of the Federal Reserve were sufficiently explained by me. In other words the plan was laid out by a group of the countries wealthiest in their own self interest. He says: "my opponent has explained some of the origins. I won't waste any time here."

That's the exact attitude that allows the FED its free reign of our economy. My opponent then states that the purpose of the Federal Reserve is to regulate commercial banks. That they are responsible for "quantitative easing" as he cites. That they are responsible for "inflation and deflation." I would argue that they have been the sole reason for inflating our currency and for 100 years have manipulated our currency causing the destruction of our purchasing power. Finally he points to the duty they have regarding money supply and providing security for banks and their account holders. As if the federal reserve does so, which it doesn't. The FDIC and other programs guarantee our safety. My opponent uses the federal reserve as source for much of his arguments.

My opponent says "If the Federal Reserve was "dismantled," the chances of runs on banks would increase significantly. Commercial banks would no longer be as secure." There is no evidence that the FED prevents runs on banks, ie the Great Depression of the 1930s. Also that commercial banks are secure, ie the bailout of the banks by congress in 2009. They didn't prevent anything, in fact they helped to cause repeated bubbles and recessions in trying to manipulate the free market. My opponent says they protect the public and I say they protect themselves with our money.
My opponent says Federal Reserve dictates monetary policy. And I say that is exactly the problem, they dictate to what is supposed to be a free market.

My opponent says that the FED is privately owned as if that's a virtue. The fact is that the idea of privately owned institution running our economy has the fox guarding the chicken coop. He says: "to give the Federal Reserve to Congress is a disaster in the making." I do agree that we should have a new central banking system but not one owned by the banking industry. My opponent then goes on to talk of some conspiracy theory and I don't believe its a conspiracy. I do believe that it's a well oiled business that creates money out of thin air and loans it to banks at ten times the amount they have in order to loan it to customers who need to borrow money. I would love to be an owner if that privately owned corporation known as the Federal Reserve.

There is an old saying that " if you always do what you've always done, you will get what you've always gotten." The FED is an outdated concept that is no longer needed as it exists much like other government organizations.

From the days of America"s most famous postmaster, Benjamin Franklin, two decades before the American Revolution, residents of North America have thought that the country could not do without a government-funded postal system. In the past 15 years, this faith has quietly died. The United States Postal Service now delivers mostly subsidized opportunity mail. In other words "junk mail." With email, UPS, FedEx, and text messaging, the first class letter is archaic. Historians will not be able to trace much after 1998 based on copies of letters. With no fanfare, the postal system has become optional. The public does not go to the local Post Office often. All of this has happened without any new legislation. The once unbreakable monopoly of the Post Office is a rusted-out shell, staffed by union-protected workers who probably know their jobs are peripheral. Its volume declined by over 12% in 2010. This is expected to continue. That would cut volume by 50% by 2017. About 40,000 employees were fired in 2010. Saturday delivery will be dropped soon. There is another rate hike scheduled. Yet the outfit will lose $10 billion this year. All this has happened without any enabling legislation. It has happened quietly. Market competition has reduced the USPS to an anachronism. It is a leftover shell of a bygone era. Nevertheless, the Post Office is slowly dying. No one planned this. The free market has replaced it, despite its official monopoly.

This example offers hope in that it means the free market solutions can come into existence before a government entity is shut down by law. The Post Office officially is a monopoly, yet its monopoly status has been eroded over the last four decades. It has been almost entirely replaced over the last two decades. While critics of the postal monopoly had for decades tried to get Congress to revoke the Post Office"s monopoly, all attempts failed. They were associated with the fringe. Yet, year by year, the Post Office fell behind. It is almost irrelevant in American life today. This was not planned by any political group. It was the result of new technologies. People made decisions, day by day, to bypass the Post Office. But don't expect Congress to revoke the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 in this decade. The powers that be who run this country do so by means of the Federal Reserve System more than by any other semi-private institution. It is at the center of control, because the monetary system is at the center of the economy.

We will be much better off as a society if we get rid of the Federal Reserve before it gets rid of us. We don't need a group of wealthy families to control our economic system. Not in this day and age of technology and information. We need a central banking system of course, but we don't need the Federal Reserve.
Tophatdoc

Con

"Unfortunately as we will see he has failed to prove the value of the Federal Reserve. My opponent lays out three points for his opening argument about why he thinks we should keep the Federal Reserve. First he willingly submits that the origins of the Federal Reserve were sufficiently explained by me. In other words the plan was laid out by a group of the countries wealthiest in their own self interest. He says: "my opponent has explained some of the origins. I won't waste any time here."

The three points were to show what the Federal Reserve is and what it functions as currently. I actually don't want to get into Pro's claims about the "wealthiest" creating the Federal Reserve. This will open a whole can of worms suited for a different debate contesting the origins and intentions of the Federal Reserve. At first, I was going to reply to it in my "Origins of the Federal Reserve" but I ended up having over -4,500 characters. So I had to remove that section because it is not relevant either. The origins of the Federal Reserve is not relevant to the resolution unless Pro's connecting it together for the justification of having the Federal Reserve dismantled. Pro is guilty of appeal to emotion because he is attempting to use the "wealthiest" as a pejorative. The origins of the Federal Reserve thus far is irrelevant and let us not be bound in webs of tangents irrelevant to the resolution at hand.

"I would argue that they have been the sole reason for inflating our currency and for 100 years have manipulated our currency causing the destruction of our purchasing power."

My opponent seems to misunderstand how inflation works. The Federal Reserve influences inflation and deflation but is not solely responsible. Inflation is commonly caused by cost-push inflation which is the result of a dramatic increase in the cost of goods and service[1]. The Federal Reserve is not responsible for this nor can control it. The Federal Reserve controls money supply so they can cause a little inflation but it is not. Plus also my opponent ignores the fact that the economy has grown significantly over the past hundred years or so.

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

According to his scenario, the cost of goods and services did not change on their own so we should not of seen inflation if there was no Federal Reserve. But the Federal Reserve is not in control of most occurrences of inflation aside from the money supply. That is not true because prices are inflated and deflated due to speculation and interest as well. There are numerous reasons for inflation. The Federal Reserve is not solely responsible for the decline in purchasing power. National debt, credit ratings, interest rates, and consumer confidence affect the purchasing power of the dollar as well. So let us not fall to the idea that the Federal Reserve is solely responsible because it is simply not true.

" Finally he points to the duty they have regarding money supply and providing security for banks and their account holders. As if the federal reserve does so, which it doesn't. "

The Federal Reserve does control the money supply[2]. My opponent has not shown any evidence to the contrary. Pro is wrong here indefinitely. The Federal Reserve also provides security for banks whether my opponent likes it or not; it is a fact. The Federal Reserve requires banks to uphold certain standards in order to serve the public and prevent the deterioration of their own banks[3].

[2]http://www.investopedia.com...
[3]http://www.investopedia.com...

"The FDIC and other programs guarantee our safety. My opponent uses the federal reserve as source for much of his arguments."

No, the FDIC only insures depositors and failed banks. The FDIC does not regulate banks or banking practices. FDIC does not guarantee are safety. That is like saying you have property insurance then a fire breaks out at your house. Does the property insurance protect your house? No. Property insurance only pays after your house has been burned down. As the FDIC only pays out after problems have ensued and after people have suffered. The Federal Reserve is responsible for regulating of bank behavior. The FDIC only pays for the consequences of banking results. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is responsible for our safety.

"My opponent uses the federal reserve as source for much of his arguments."

Of course, if one wants to find out how one uses their bank account, do you go to a physician and ask? No, you go to where your bank account is located and ask your bank how it functions. It is illegal for them to tell you things they do not do or offer, that is called fraud. Therefore, the Federal Reserve would be the most valid source since they are bound by tort law to be honest otherwise have the potential of losing their bank charter and people will be held liable to be sent to jail due to fraud.

"There is no evidence that the FED prevents runs on banks, ie the Great Depression of the 1930s."

Yes, there is evidence, since the Great Depression, there has yet to be any major run-ons considering there has been multiple recessions since that time. If there had not been any Federal Reserve during the recessions in the 20th century the banks would of been insecure. Then the economy would of suffered.

"My opponent says they protect the public and I say they protect themselves with our money. The Post Office officially is a monopoly, yet its monopoly status has been eroded over the last four decades. It has been almost entirely replaced over the last two decades. While critics of the postal monopoly had for decades tried to get Congress to revoke the Post Office"s monopoly, all attempts failed. They were associated with the fringe. Yet, year by year, the Post Office fell behind. It is almost irrelevant in American life today. This was not planned by any political group. It was the result of new technologies."

That is a weak analogy fallacy[4]. The US Postal Service does not effect the whole American economy. Nor does it help dictate the policies of said economy.

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

" The powers that be who run this country do so by means of the Federal Reserve System more than by any other semi-private institution. It is at the center of control, because the monetary system is at the center of the economy."

The powers that be? This seems to be an imagined group. Who would this include?

"We will be much better off as a society if we get rid of the Federal Reserve before it gets rid of us."

Another fallacy, an appeal to fear[5].

[5]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

"We don't need a group of wealthy families to control our economic system."

Pro has yet to show evidence of how wealthy families control the Federal Reserve. I have shown evidence to the contrary how the public officials are responsible for appointments to the major positions of power in the Federal Reserve.

Debate Round No. 3
Grandbudda

Pro

The FED can be dissolved and it's care be given over to the US Treasury. Congress could introduce a bill to end the Federal Reserve System. It would get known as the "End the Fed Act." The act would state that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is hereby repealed. So are all subsequent acts based on the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. All authority of the Federal Reserve System to act in the name of the United States government is hereby revoked. The assets of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which are already the property of the United States Government, are hereby transferred to the Department of the Treasury. This includes all of the assets listed on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System. The twelve (12) privately owned Federal Reserve Banks will return all assets held in trust for the United States government within thirty (30) calendar days of the signing of this bill into law.

The gold reserves of the United States government that are held in storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will be transferred to the Government"s depository at Ft. Knox, within one calendar year after this bill becomes law. The Government Accountability Office will conduct an inventory of the gold held in storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before and after this transfer. The Board of Governors will vacate the premises of the Federal Reserve building within thirty (30) calendar days of the signing of this bill into law. The answer is quite simple since the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. Its authority would be transferred to the U.S. Treasury.

The dozen Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. All authority of these 12 banks that derives from their connection to the Board of Governors will cease. If they can make a profit, fine. If not, equally fine.

Only one government agency is defended by publicists, both on and off the payroll of the Federal Reserve System, as deserving to be independent of the government that has transferred authority to it: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The phrase, "the independence of the Federal Reserve System," is a code phrase for "the independence of the four largest U.S. banks from the threat of losses." A growing number of voters has figured this out since the fall of 2008. This is why the Federal Reserve System is facing public criticism for the first time since 1914. Ron Paul could not get Congress to audit the FED, which by law possesses this authority. The Congress has been in the hip pocket of the FED for almost a century. The Congress lets the FED run the nation"s economy. As criticism spreads, there will be more voters who figure out what the FED is and has always been: a government-created cartel of the banks. It operates for the benefit of the largest banks. We have had massive price inflation caused by the FED and subsequent recessions and bubbles also caused by the FED.

Digital technology is now international. If buying and selling digital U.S. dollars is no longer profitable, because long-term contracts are not possible under hyperinflation, then the citizens of the United States will do what citizens of Zimbabwe did. They will use other currencies. It will not take legislation to end the FED. All it will take is the FED. If the FED continues to inflate, it will destroy the monetary system based on the FED. But if it ceases to inflate, by ceasing to buy Treasury debt, it will create Great Depression 2.

Bernanke can get away with QE2 today only because commercial banks are not lending. If they start lending, M1 will rise, the M1 money multiplier will rise, and price inflation will return. He has bought time with QE2, but he has not bought a way out of the credit bubble that Greenspan and he created. He can play hide and go seek with Ron Paul, refusing to show up at the hearings of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee. Congress cooperates. But he cannot play hide and go seek with the business cycle. Greenspan did, but he got out in 2006. The Federal Reserve System bases its power on its ability to control the monetary base. It swapped T-bills for toxic assets to save the big banks, but to replenish its supply of swappable liquid assets, it has to inflate, as it is now doing. QE2 is replenishing the supply of Treasury debt to swap with large banks. The FED did not bail out any small banks in 2008. Its unofficial mandate is to bail out the largest commercial banks.
Tophatdoc

Con

"The FED can be dissolved and it's care be given over to the US Treasury. Congress could introduce a bill to end the Federal Reserve System. It would get known as the "End the Fed Act." "

Pro has given a plan to "End the Fed." But in that plan he does not state how the banking system will be regulated after the Federal Reserve is dismantled. Nor does Pro offer any his speculated results for the plan. Most importantly, Pro did not tell us what the benefits would be by dismantling the Federal Reserve. Pro just stated what would happen and how it would happen.


"The phrase, "the independence of the Federal Reserve System," is a code phrase for "the independence of the four largest U.S. banks from the threat of losses." A growing number of voters has figured this out since the fall of 2008. This is why the Federal Reserve System is facing public criticism for the first time since 1914. Ron Paul could not get Congress to audit the FED, which by law possesses this authority. The Congress has been in the hip pocket of the FED for almost a century. "

This a fallacy and an appeal to fear using terms like "code phrase" and "hip pocket." Pro has not shown once how Congress is in the "hip pocket" of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is audited every year as I pointed it out. The Federal Reserve is required to release their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report annually.

"Digital technology is now international. If buying and selling digital U.S. dollars is no longer profitable, because long-term contracts are not possible under hyperinflation, then the citizens of the United States will do what citizens of Zimbabwe did. They will use other currencies. It will not take legislation to end the FED. All it will take is the FED. If the FED continues to inflate, it will destroy the monetary system based on the FED. "

Again, this is an appeal to fear. Where is there evidence of the Federal Reserve of engaging in hyperinflation or intending to produce hyperinflation? It does not exist, there is not evidence that they are going to destroy the monetary system.

"Bernanke can get away with QE2 today only because commercial banks are not lending. If they start lending, M1 will rise, the M1 money multiplier will rise, and price inflation will return. He has bought time with QE2, but he has not bought a way out of the credit bubble that Greenspan and he created. He can play hide and go seek with Ron Paul, refusing to show up at the hearings of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee. "

Bernanke can get away with QE2? Interesting, I thought Janet Yellen was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve[1]. I don't know how Bernanke can do any of the things you pointed out when he is not responsible for them.

[1]http://finance.yahoo.com...

"The Federal Reserve System bases its power on its ability to control the monetary base. It swapped T-bills for toxic assets to save the big banks, but to replenish its supply of swappable liquid assets, it has to inflate, as it is now doing. QE2 is replenishing the supply of Treasury debt to swap with large banks. The FED did not bail out any small banks in 2008. Its unofficial mandate is to bail out the largest commercial banks."

The Federal Reserve has not been in QE2 for at least three years[2]. The Federal Reserve was not going to bail out the smaller banks because the Federal Reserve is concerned with larger banks who have a significant impact on interstate commerce. The smaller banks have little impact on interstate commerce. The larger banks required more attention because they affected the economy significantly.

[2]http://money.cnn.com...

These are the reasons why Con should be voted for according to the resolution:
1) The Federal Reserve protects the public.
This point stands as is. The Federal Reserve regulates the banking system.

2) The Federal Reserve dictates monetary policy.

3)The Federal Reserve regulates banking institutions.

4) The Federal Reserve is privately owned.

5) The Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy or a secretive organization.
Multiple times throughout the debate, my opponent has used conspiratorial tones. Using terms such as the "wealthiest," "hip pocket," and other loaded terms without back up the exact details of what he is referring to.

6)The Federal Reserve releases a comprehensive report every year.

7)The Federal Reserve is regulated by Congress and the President.

8) To get rid of the Federal Reserve will have unpredicted consequences on the American economy and the global market.

9)Pro did not offer what the benefits would be if we dismantled the Federal Reserve.
It seemed Pro was arguing for the dismantlement of the Federal Reserve but failed to explain why we should be concerned with it. What benefits will this entail? I would argue from what we seen in this debate there would be more negative consequences then immediate benefits.


I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. If you believe that the Federal reserve should remain in place after reading this debate, please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
"Bernanke can get away with QE2 today only because commercial banks are not lending," says Pro.

See, this proves my point--opposition to the Fed is largely rooted in ignorance (please note that this is not an attack on Pro, especially considering that the misinformation he is spouting is widely pervasive.

First, Bernanke is no longer the chairman of the Fed. Second, we're dealing with QE3, not QE2, today. Third, your next argument is moot because the intention of QE is to get backs--investment banks, mind you, though with the repeal of Glassed-Steaggall in 1999, the two can now coexist (with is a bloody disaster)--to lend and to stimulate demand. The fact that interest rates are in the zero lower bound is not an argument against QE, but for QE--for more aggressive QE, actually--because inflation is a nonexistant threat.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
An interesting burden of proof. Frankly, I think eliminating--rather than fixing--the Fed is crazy, but best of luck to both debaters.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RenoAlexander 3 years ago
RenoAlexander
GrandbuddaTophatdocTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro and I think his argument is much more sound than letting a coercive monopoly control the money supply and basically the entire economy.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
GrandbuddaTophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not come close to fulfilling his burden of proof, and provided zero footnotes or direct sources directly verifying his conspiracy theory that the Fed was devised by the wealthiest Americans as a secretive organization. Moreover, as I pointed out in the comments, his comment on Bernanke and QE2 was factually inaccurate.