The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Federal Reserve

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 80074
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




First is inflation, 100$ in 1832 equals 120$ in 1872, we lost 1/6 our moneys value, whereas 100$ in 1940 equals 588$ in 1980, the Federal Reserve multiplied inflation by 5 this blows the whole "But the Federal Reserve prevents inflation" notion out of this debate.
Second is the constitution, according to the constitution, congress should control the monetary system, the only dispute I got over this is "Congress controls the Federal Reserve", the Federal Reserve Board of governors does.
Third is that it isn"t part of the government, it is a privately owned central bank, some people try to argue that allowing a group of nonelected officials is a good thing because supposedly politicians would use their economic power to sway elections, nonelected politicians are not more trustable than elected politicians.
Fourth is checks and balances, what checks and balances does the Federal Reserve have? If the board of governors wanted to make 30 Trillion Dollars out of nowhere right now, they could, they just have to set an order with the Beuro of Printing and Engraving, there"s not even a consensus, the Beuro just does what the Federal Reserve says.
Fifth is the Federal Reserve Act, the group that proposed the act were a group of capitalists including J. P. Morgan (The frivolous banker), and John. D. Rockefeller (Ludlow Massacre John. D. Rockefeller), Senator Aldrich proposed the bill, it was turned down, until the bills name was changed from "The Aldrich Bill" to "The Federal Reserve Act", congress read the Aldrich Bill, but not the Federal Reserve Act, this should tell you something about the bill, but this isn"t the point, the point is the text, you will never find "To preserve the buying power of the American Dollar", or "To preserve the middle class", or "To ensure the general welfare of the public", what you will find is "To provide cheap loans to businessmen", and "to promote business growth", so it makes itself very clear that its intent is to help the billionaires and monopolies.
Sixth is trustworthy ness, in 2008 9 Trillion Dollars went "missing" from the Federal Reserve, they kept quiet about it, it took them 7 years to come up with this "it was a corporate bailout" thing, this is ridiculous as there is 9 trillion dollars in our economy, not 18 Trillion, if it was used to bail out an American corporation, the money would still be in America, it had to go to a foreign country.
Seventh is term limits, people will say that the board of governors are not eligible for reappointment , why then has Goldman sacks been CEO of the Federal Reserve since before the Reagan Administration?
Eight is recessions, we had 6 major recessions in American history, 1807, 1837, 1873, 1893, 1929, and 2008, 4 of which happened under the supervision of a central bank, 1807 happened under the First Bank of The United States, 1837 under the Second Bank of The United States, and 1929 and 2008 under the Federal Reserve, what you can conclude from this is that a central bank is bad for any economy.
Ninth is repercussions, the Federal Reserve caused both 1929 and 2008 disasters through loose economic policy, they issued a lot of money, causing inflation, causing stock prices to increase, causing people to buy into it in hopes of their value increasing later so they could sell it for more later, low interest rates enticed more loaning, allowing people to loan money to buy stock, bubble pops, recession, same with 2008, just replace stock with houses, and 1929 with 2008.
Tenth is power, there is no way a group of nonelected officials can be trusted with our economy, the largest economy in the world and the largest currency in the world, the most powerful economic institution in the world, anyone would use that power for their own interests.
Eleventh is a practicality; is it practical to have a central bank? What has a central bank benefited any economy in history? Well the Bank of England got Brittan debt up the wazoo, The Bank of Canada got Canada 9 Trillion in debt, the European Central bank got all of Europe in a debt crisis, the Federal Reserve got us 18 trillion dollars in debt, and The Bank of Mexico, well you got me there Mexico"s economy to a great position (just look at their GPA).


I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Federal Reserve system.

Economics began as a complicated topic and has become increasingly intricate as populations, industries, and technologies have sprouted for centuries. The Federal Reserve is meant to buffer various side-effects of the complexity. Specifically this includes preventing banking panics, balancing between public and private responsibilities, regulating banking institutions, protecting the credit rights of consumers, maximizing employment, and stabilizing prices and interest rates.

Strategic and educated reform is always warranted for complicated systems of government and business such as the Federal Reserve, and we ought to push our system to be more friendly towards the working classes. There are many who believe the most effective way to reform an economy is to eliminate and reinvent it, and those who took control of such nations as Egypt, Iran, and China in the last century have toyed with these ideas with disastrous results. Masses can starve and revolt in the time it takes to destroy and rebuild an economy. What leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt have proven is that reforming an economy through the existing systems improves lives accross the board. So my position regarding the Federal Reserve is that while there is always room for improvement, eliminating its existence would be extremely damaging.

The Federal Reserve regulates long-term inflation. Inflation needs to be limited, but it serves a purpose. As the population rate explodes accross a century, so too does the many different types of jobs and methods of trade, and the need for more cash in the system increases exponentially. The Federal Reserve's regulations sometimes increase inflation and sometimes decrease it, depending on the government's assessment of what the economy needs, but inflation existed before the Federal Reserve and is not solely the product of Federal Reserve Policies.

Congress could cut off ties between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury whenever it wishes; it is the choice of Congress - as Constitutionally provided in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution - that the Treasury continues to sell currency for the Federal Reserve to distribute to American banks.

Whatever you think is the effectiveness of Congress - and we're all agreed it's very debatable - accountability to voters has repeatedly proven to be completely inneffective.

The Federal Reserve cannot legally "pocket" the money it orders from the U.S. Treasury. There is a small slice defined as "profits" which is regulated by Congress, but even that belongs to shareholders. The Reserve essentially has to "purchase" the money it orders from the U.S. Treasury.

J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller did not help draft or propose the Federal Reserve Act. My opponent has no way of knowing how much of each Congressional Act was read by Congress, and has not quoted anything about what the Act or the Federal Reserve actually does.

At this point I have no idea where my opponent is coming from. The U.S. GDP is just over $17 Trillion, and was less than $17 Trillion before the 2007 meltdown. Claiming that money has been smuggled to other countries is simply conspiracy.

Goldman Sachs is a bank, not a CEO of the Federal Reserve.

We are discussing the Federal Reserve, which didn't exist until 1913. Meaning four out of six of our recessions occurred without the Federal Reserve.

Issuing additional currency does not change supply-demand ratios. The 2008 economic meltdown was caused by a chain effect from the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1993. Eliminating the Federal Reserve would have caused a comparable meltdown.

Debate Round No. 1


TheodoreRoosevelt1 forfeited this round.



I forgot in my first round to welcome you to the DBO community. This is your first debate on the site after all, and I applaud your participation.

Best regards,
Debate Round No. 2


TheodoreRoosevelt1 forfeited this round.


Although my opponent has declined to continue this debate, he has rushed to correct one of my Round 1 points via private message:

I can only assume this is in reference to the following point I made in Round 1:

Claiming that money has been smuggled to other countries is simply conspiracy.

But for the record, I did not use the word false. or blame my opponent's lack of information on conspiracy theory. What I said was that my opponent's argument was "simply conspiracy", and nothing more. That is to say, an accusation in the absence of evidence.

Without access to NSA records or video recordings, I cannot prove that the Federal Reserve did or did not secretly print and ship billions or trillions of dollars to Puerto Rico, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. A simple but strong accusation would show that the Federal Reserve had means, motive, and opportunity to secretly export money to other countries. On DBO we might expect many cases to be stronger or more creative than that. But what evidence did my opponent present?

It's not my role in this debate to provide sources to back up my opponent's arguments, but I have tried, and my observations of the total currency of "our economy" are as follows:

Raw data:
GDP Function (<r> language):

The famous 2007 meltdown flattened our GDP growth, our GDP grew from roughly $14 trillion in 2007 to roughly $15 trillion in 2008, and it dropped back to roughly $14 trillion in 2009.

Not only has my opponent failed to establish means, motive, or opportunity for the crime he has accused against the Federal Reserve, he has even failed to establish that the crime was committed by anyone at all. We can't blame anyone for taking $9 trillion unless $9 trillion has disappeared.

So I assumed my opponent mean to say billions rather than trillions, but he corrected me when I challenged HarryTruman33 to this other debate:

The Federal Reserve secretly sent $17 billion to other countries in 2007

Which publicly verifies that TheodoreRoosevelt1 and HarryTruman33 are the same person.

I don't usually tell audiences to vote for me, but this time . . . vote Pro. Even after forfeiting two rounds and misquoting facts about the GDP, the Federal Reserve, and the 2007 economic meltdown, the Instigator's Truman account might still dare vote for his Roosevelt account.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
To ensure we understand each other, I will include these photos in my Round 1 response, in which I summarize each of your arguments:

I recommend you look over my summaries and tell me if I'm misquoting you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lee001 3 years ago
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 from Con
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
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