should we end the federal reserve
Debate Rounds (3)
1. The federal reserve violates article 1 section 8 sentence 5 of the constitution.
2. The federal reserve was the leading cause in both the great depression and the housing bubble.
3. The federal reserve is a privately owned central bank.
4. The federal reserve has made payments to person/persons unknown without the consent or even knowledge of the American people until just recently.
5. The federal reserve issues fiat while the constitution mandates a gold standard.
6. The federal reserve is given a unconstitutional unlimited power over the American economy.
7. The federal reserv has flooded the American economy with trillions of dollars without regards to the consequences to the American people.
8. The federal reserve is governed by a select few non elected officials.
9. The federal reserve act was not thoroughly read through by congress or president Wilson.
10. The federal reserve has robber the US treasury of its constitutional right to issue currency.
11. The federal reserve board of governors has implemented their power for their own personal interests without regard for the welfare of the people.
12. The federal reserve is privately owned, and unfit to govern the economy of any nation.
My argument is simple -- historical evidence indicates that the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has overall served to keep the economy stable by maximizing booms and minimizing busts. Let's examine a detailed list of recessions which have occurred since the country's founding . There have been 18 recessions over the 102 years that the Federal Reserve has existed, adding up to a grand total of 19 years and 10 months under recession. Meanwhile, during the 77 years of American history in which no central bank existed there were 20 recessions, adding up to roughly 37 years and 2 months total. To put that into perspective, 48% of the laissez faire era was spent in recession, whereas only 19% of the Federal Reserve era has been spent in recession. This means that without the Federal Reserve's intervention, economic downturns would more than *double* in severity. That alone is reason enough to negate the resolution.
Onto Pro's case.
1. The part of the Constitution which Pro is referring to is the one which grants Congress the power to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." This is one of the Federal Reserve's roles, and the Federal Reserve was legitimately instituted by Congress in order to fulfill that role, so I'm not sure how that violates the Constitution.
2. Pro provides no source to back this bold assertion up, and therefore the assertion should be dismissed.
3. False .
4. No source = dismissed.
5. Pro needs to provide a reference to a specific part of the Constitution in which the gold standard is mandated.
6. Actually, Congress does limit the Fed, as it has the authority to amend the Fed's charter at any time.
7. No source
8. So what if they're non-elected? Non-sequitur.
9. No source
11. See 3
12. See 3
2. The Fed issued a surplus of money, inflation, more dollars are needed to equal stock, people think it will still rise, they buy into it to sell it later for more, bubble, crash, depression.
3. No it's not.
4. Here's your source:
5. "Fix the standard weights and measures" means gold standard.
6. No source.
7. Common knowledge.
8. What ever happened to freedom and democracy?
9. Common knowledge.
10. The treasury is where you would put your gold and silver for certificates.
11. No it's not.
12. Check 11.
I'll address Pro's points anyways.
1. It may have been proposed by capitalists, but it was legitimately established by Congress in accordance with the Constitution, and therefore there was nothing illegal about it.
2. Still no source.
4. "The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday. The loans were made through a special loan program set up by the Fed in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse in March 2008 to keep the nation's bond markets trading normally" . The "missing" 9 trillion dollars were a necessary expense to prevent the nation's economy from crashing.
5. This is not an argument for ending the Fed -- it is an argument for returning to the gold standard (a bad one, but an argument nonetheless). Dismiss it as non-topical.
6. Here ya go 
7. Still no source.
8. As demonstrated by the link under #6, Congress has a large amount of authority over the Fed, and members of Congress ARE elected, so the democratic process is still indirectly preserved. The majority of federal laws are crafted by agencies which Congress controls in a similar way, so this is not a unique situation in the US government. "In terms of actual policy, most of the action is located in administrative agencies and departments, not in the Congress and the President as is commonly thought. Unelected bureaucrats -- not elected representatives -- are running the show" .
9. Still no source.
10. See 5.
1. Capitalists made and designed the bill, congress just mindlessly sighted it.
2. It's kindergarten economics, common sense, easily verifiable, you have fingers I'm not going to site something for you to say it's not true.
4. If it was just doing it's job then why was it hiding in the shadows about it?.
5. No, it is a part of the constitution, the federal reserve violates it, end of story.
6. That is not a source, it's a number in parentheses.
7. It is common knowledge, you don't need a source.
8. No they do not, it is a private corporation.
9. See 7.
10. See 5.
1. Pro has not provided a source to indicate that Congress's passing of the Federal Reserve Act was "mindless". Dismiss his baseless claim.
2. I have no obligation to go fact-finding for Pro. He made the assertion that the Fed directly caused two of the biggest economic crises in US history, so he needs to back that up with solid evidence. All he has provided so far is some theoretical mechanism by which the Fed *could* have caused those crises. Reject this argument as a bare assertion.
4. As demonstrated in the CNN article from last round, people in general do not like the idea of their tax money being used to bail out banks, yet bailing the banks out was absolutely necessary to prevent economic collapse from ensuing. What the Fed did both saved the economy and prevented an increase in public distrust of the government. It was wholly justified.
5. Richard Nixon is the one who took the US off the gold standard. Eliminating the Fed for Nixon's alleged transgression of the Constitution is completely absurd. This argument remains non-topical.
6. The source was linked at the bottom, along with my other sources... Pro has dropped this argument.
7. No, it's not common knowledge. I could just as easily say "it's common knowledge that the Fed is a force for good in the economy" and win the debate that way. Dismiss Pro's baseless claim.
8. Pro totally ignores my evidence that the Fed is NOT a private corporation, and that it IS limited by Congress in a manner similar to other federal agencies which make the majority of our laws. Pro has dropped this argument.
9. See 7
10. See 5
Vote Con because I said so and because you're not as illiterate as Pro is.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who used sources so he gains those points. Arguments also go to Con since Pro dropped many of those points and with that I give the debate to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.