Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The production of pennies in the U.S. should cease.
Pennies should be phased out due to their negligible value and the fact that they cost more to manufacture than their actual worth. Throughout time, the purchasing power of pennies has dwindled. Nowadays, there are few items you can buy with a single penny. You might argue that you can accumulate pennies to increase their value, but that requires collecting 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and effort. It costs 1.7 cents to produce a single penny, while its face value is only 1 cent, meaning the U.S. government incurs a 0.7 cent loss on every penny minted. This results in a dollar loss for every 143 pennies produced, which is a needless waste of funds that could be easily avoided.

The Federal Reserve is obsolete: There is no point to the Federal Reserve, it failed at all of its supposed intentions, which are, according to the Federal Reserve is; "to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system." The Federal Reserve actually did the opposite, only 16 years after the Federal Reserve was established, the stock market crashed. This was because the Federal Reserve kept a loose economic policy for too long and it caused a bubble, when the economy went under it did the opposite of what is was supposed to do, it contracted the money supply and stopped making loans, if the Federal Reserve"s intentions were to; "destroy the economy at any opportunity given", then I would argue they did just what they came here for. Another argument for the Federal Reserve is that it "regulates the economy and enforces banking regulations"; the truth is that these things are already taken care of, the invisible hand can regulate the economy, and law enforcement can enforce regulation. http://www.federalreserve.gov... The Federal Reserve is Destructive: The Federal Reserve is destructive to our economy, 1929 for example, the Federal Reserve kept monetary policy too loose for too long and it caused a stock bubble, in 2008 for another example, the Federal Reserve did the same, they kept monetary policy too loose for too long and it caused a housing bubble. Another supposed purpose of the Federal Reserve is that it "offers immediate liquidity", meaning that it bails out banks to prevent them from going under, if the banks think that they can get away with destructive behavior, they are more likely to do more destructive behavior, so the Federal Reserve"s bailing out banks who engaged in dangerous business practices, is only enticing them to be even more irresponsible. The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 of the constitution states; "Congress shall have the power; to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution states; "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The constitution states that congress should manage the money system and that our money should be gold and silver coin, the Federal Reserve issues the money, it is not congress, and it issues fiat though the constitution mandates a gold standard. One of the counter arguments to this is that "the constitution can be amended", but the fact is that neither the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 nor the Economic Recovery Act of 1971 got the necessary 2/3 vote to amend the constitution; hence they are not laws at all. Another counter Argument to this is that "The Supreme Court is above the constitution and can interpret it", this is not in the constitution, hence the Supreme Court does not have this power; the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, courts are not above the law, they just enforce it. http://www.archives.gov... The Federal Reserve is dishonest: In 2009, a series of transactions occurred, adding up to 9,000,000,000,000$ (That"s 9 trillion) being transferred out of the Federal Reserve to person/persons unknown. The U.S. Senate had a tribunal to address this, and the Inspector General had no idea where 9 Trillion dollar went, later, the Federal Reserve said that it was a bail out, but failed to say who it was given to. Not only is saying it was a bail out undefined, it is also impossible; our money supply is 10 Trillion, if 9 trillion was added, it would be 19 Trillion, so it had to have gone out of country. What happened to this money, which it was given to, why the Federal Reserve said it was a bailout even though we know that our money supply was not increased, and why the Inspector General didn"t know what happened is still an enigma; I don"t know if Alan Greenspan had a large gambling debt and was threatened with his kneecaps or if he just wanted to see what it looks like for the entire US money supply to go up in flames.

I thank Con for his opening argument, I shall start shortly with my arguments. 1. The Letter is an necessary letter. The letter Q is amongst rarely used letters in the English alphabet. In a study by Samuel Morse (inventor Morse Code), Mr. Morse wanted know how he could get the simplest code out of using the most commonly used words in the English language. He made a chart afterwards documenting the most commonly used letters to the least commonly used. In the first column to the chart he put the letter itself, in the second column he put a percentage meant to represent the prevalence of the word in English, and in the last column he made a scale proportion with the least common letter of the English language (Q) representing 1. The chart is seen below: E11.1607%56.88M3.0129%15.36 A8.4966%43.31H3.0034%15.31 R7.5809%38.64G2.4705%12.59 I7.5448%38.45B2.0720%10.56 O7.1635%36.51F1.8121%9.24 T6.9509%35.43Y1.7779%9.06 N6.6544%33.92W1.2899%6.57 S5.7351%29.23K1.1016%5.61 L5.4893%27.98V1.0074%5.13 C4.5388%23.13X0.2902%1.48 U3.6308%18.51Z0.2722%1.39 D3.3844%17.25J0.1965%1.00 P3.1671%16.14Q0.1962%(1) The letter Q is rarely used, it can be replaced by more commonly used letters (this will be elaborated in the succeeding arguments) 2. The letter Q can be easily replaced. The letter Q can be replaced by the combination of the letters "k" and "w", for example it is spelt "Kwanza" and not "Quanza". The letter Q in many other cased is only there to mimic the letter "k" for example in the words "liquid" or "equator". While many other words would be more phonetic without the Q for example the word "Question" would sound more phonetic as "Kwestion". 3. Other languages have removed certain characters to make the reading more phonetic. The Japanese syllabary system "Hiragana" acts as the Japanese equivalent to an alphabet. Despite having two other scripts, all sound that could possibly be made in the Japanese language. Over time this script changed constantly before being standardized after WW2, but even then linguistic changes saw the removal and replacement of two characters of the hiragana script. Here is the original standard script: Two of the characters |32;(wi) and |33; (we) were replaced over time since these characters were rarely used in everyday prose, and were eventually replaced by the characters {56; (i but pronounced like ee) and {60; (e but pronounced like eh) For example: The Japanese Kanji 上 meaning "up" "above" or "upper" used to be read as we, but over time became read as ue. The Japanese language did not lose much when they removed the two characters. Therefore by removing the letter Q one does not only make the language more phonetic (hence easier to read) but also makes the language easier to memorise with less letters necessary to read. Sources: 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://www.wordfind.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://upload.wikimedia.org... 5. http://www.sljfaq.org...

"Since, the opposition in this debate uses valuable space to only inquire on the Fed's constitutionality, this will be addressed first. The Supreme Court in 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland set legal precedent that the US Congress could establish a central bank https://www.law.cornell.edu...... ." Did you ever read the constitution? The constitution grants congress the power to issue currency, specifically to coin money in gold and or silver coin but that is another debate, if you were to read the constitution, you will notice that among the powers granted to the supreme court, amending the constitution is not one of them. So, the Supreme Court Ruling is insignificant, the Supreme Court is not here to make the law, it is here to enforce it and to oversee the court system, I will give you a link to the constitution so you can read it for yourself. http://www.archives.gov... "One assumption made in America is that every bill passed by congress and signed by the President is Constitutional. Every person in the process is sworn to protect the Constitution, it is their first loyalty. None are sworn to protect voters, special interest, or a political idea, only a sacred document. People that take an oath like that can only be trusted. The Constitution gives congress three clauses that apply to the Fed's constitutionality." If you think that just because someone said that they would protect the constitution that it means that everything they do is constitutional just because they said so, you better go read up on the milligrams test. http://www.simplypsychology.org... "Necessary and Proper Clause "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This clause, in its modern interpretation, basically, anything congress does is constitutional. As a former Speaker explains when questioned about an obviously unconstitutional bill was being debated in congress, http://youtu.be...... ." Your interpretation is insignificant, the constitution says what it means, this means that it can create departments to serve purposes, but these departments are still limited by the constitution, and no, if everything congress did was constitutional according to the constitution, then the constitution would just be one sentence; "The government is always right!" General Welfare Clause "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." It is in the general welfare of the residence of the United States to be protected from economic swings, hold stable legal tender, and have a safe banking system. The Fed has provided all of these for a hundred years. Congress with the Fed has increased the general welfare of America." This is actually very debatable, for one this is dependent upon your point that congress has the power to do anything regardless of the constitution if it is for the general welfare, I would like to state that Adolf Hitler said that the holocaust was for the general welfare. I would also like to state that saying that the Federal Reserve is beneficial does not make it so, truthfully, when you are talking about this, you cannot base it off of what the Federal Reserve says, I will base this off of fact though, for example, before the Federal Reserve, inflation was a steady 1%, then it spiked into double digit inflation, followed by a 2% deflation, now to all those people who are new to economic theory, you are probably thinking, "deflation, ell that can"t be worse than inflation", well the answer is no, it is much worse! In addition, this allows for congress to act for the general welfare, which is regardless still limited by the constitution, not for someone else, who is not congress, to pretend as if it is providing for the general welfare, and to violate the constitution, which is what you are proposing. Commerce Clause "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," This commerce regulation responsibility is centralized by a common legal tender. Without common legal tender merchants would not be able to accurately compare the value of products. Multiple types of legal tender is very confusing to most people, their phones can only have so many apps. People cannot be encumbered with currency conversion." This means that congress has the power to regulate commerce, not that they have the power to give that power to a private corporation. "The Fed does not print or coin money. One constitutional objection to the Fed is that money must be of gold or silver, from this clause in the Constitution "No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This clause limits States not the Federal government or private institutions. If this clause did limit the Federal government or private institutions, it still would not constrain the Fed, since it does not print or coin money, currency, or legal tender. The US Treasury has those responsibilities." So hold it, why then is it that if I open my wallet and get a 1$ bill it says "Federal Reserve Note", the US Treasury prints money for the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve simply is borrowing the Treasuries printer because, well, they have the most HD printers in the world, that"s it, the Federal Reserve orders the printing, they issue them, and it says Federal Reserve Note on all of them, so in short no, they don"t coin money they issue paper, and these papers are not legal tender because they are illegal, but they do issue currency. "The Fed purchases legal tender and bonds from the US Treasury with nothing but correspondent values on a balance sheet." If I did that my check would bounce and I would go to Guantanamo Bay. "Another clause, gives congress the responsibility to set value of money "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..." This clause does not apply to the Fed since no money is involved, only legal tender." Yes, it says congress, the Federal Reserve is NOT Congress. "Lastly, with the number of court cases with the Fed involved that have reached the Supreme Court, it would have been ruled unconstitutional by now. The Supreme Court's honorable justices only responsibility is to protect the Constitution, they would have ruled against the Fed by now if it were unconstitutional. The court is the final authority for the law of the land, decisions like Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Citizen's United, and Obamacare show that the court is always right, regardless of morality." Well there you go, you said it flat out "the court is always right regardless of morality, well, let"s all take an example from this man, and tattoo swastikas on our arms, then we can shut "Hail Hitler!" "With the Fed's constitutionality firmly established, next point of supported by republican government will be addressed. The United States is a republic not a democracy. The American republican form of government overwhelmingly supports the Fed, even bipartisan efforts to limit some of its powers are quickly stopped. The customer watch dog Senator Elisabeth Warren could not even get a bill to limit the Fed's powers as lender of last resort to pass the Senate. Another champion for the people Congressman Alan Grayson can't get an Audit the Fed bill through congress. This show the depth of support in America's republican government for the Fed." Again, just because the government says it, does not make it so. I am sorry, there is not enough space to finish my argument.

It seems like the statement we're arguing switched from "We should return to the gold standard" to "We're better off without central banks".But since my arguments only work if there's a central bank, I'll argue why it's important to have a central bank.But there's no need to bring forward all of the arguments myself. This debate was already held once earlier over here: http://www.debate.org...Note that the person who was defending the FED won.The debate is pretty long, but The_Commander shows pretty well why it's so important to have a central bank.Rebuttals aimed at your argumentsEven though a lot is said in the debate I mentioned above, I want to rebut some of your arguments myself. Recessions caused by the FED You're saying the FED caused two recessions at the end of the 19th century. Have you ever wondered WHY the FED did this? The FED did NOT do this, because the FED likes causing recessions. The FED did this to prevent the economy from overheating. A recession was required to get the economy back under control. Furthermore, a the end of the 19th century the FED was still pretty new, so they didn't know a lot about monetary policy just yet, which led to multiple mistakes. Hence the economy started to overheat, which meant the FED had to cause a recession to bring the economy back in place. In the 20th century the FED started to learn how monetary policy works, so no recessions were caused until 2008 (according to your data). The recession in 2008 was primarily caused, because banks weren't regulated well enough. After this recession the FED learned even more about monetary policy, which in turn will lead to even better monetary policy in the future. Inflation You're saying money is getting less and less valuable over time, but have you ever wondered WHY this happens?The most important goal of the FED is to keep the inflation around 2%. NOT 0%. 2% inflation isn't a lot, but it will lead to scenarios in which $1 in 1975 buys as much as $4 in 2015.So why does the FED want 2% inflation and not 0%? Because deflation is bad. Very bad. I'll back it up by copying a section of the debate that I mentioned above. All of the credits go to The_Commander: Deflation by The_Commander Now the actual point of the contention (which links to the other arguments he made) is that the Fed devalues the US dollar. It is true that typically the Fed targets the inflation rate to be about 2% per year. Personally, I think it should be about 1%, but it makes sense to keep an inflation rate. It makes sense when you consider how bad deflation is. Many of the US’s worst economic meltdowns were deflationary periods, such as the Panic of 1837, the Long Depression, and the Great Depression. (11) The Great Recession could have been that way as well (and become much worse) had the Fed not stepped in, but I’ll get back to that. One of the main problems with deflation is the deflationary spiral: It’s quite simple to understand. If everyone’s dollar’s are worth more, things cost less. In turn, less money is coming into companies, they can have less workers, less workers means less purchases, there is more supply than demand, and the cycle continues. This isn’t the only problem with deflation, however. If the value of the dollar increases, than so do people’s debt. This hurts the lower and middle classes the most, as pretty much all Americans need debt for houses, cars, and education. (12) However, I’m not making this up, this has occurred many times throughout history (like I mentioned earlier it ran rampant in some of the US’s worse economic downturns). This also happened in Japan in the 90s, commonly known as the “Lost Decade” for the Japanese economy. Deflation had hit the Japanese and the deflationary spiral started, and Japanese banks suffered greatly. (13) Sources 11-http://bit.ly......12-http://bit.ly......13-http://bit.ly...... Return on investment and inflation But there's another counterargument against your claim that 2% inflation a year is bad. You're saying we're losing money, but that's only true when you keep the money in your mattress. If instead you invest your money in stocks, bonds or even a savings account you'll get interest in return. Let's say I have $100 today and I put it in a savings account with a 5% return a year. 10 years from now I'll have $100*1.05^10 = $163. But there was also 2% inflation a year. So $100 at the begin bought the same as $100*1.02^10 = $122 buys today. Nevertheless, I can still buy more than I could 10 years ago. I can buy (163-122)/122*100% = 34% more stuff. But how did the bank calculate that 5% interest a year? It took the 2% inflation and added an extra 3%, because the bank want to reward you for storing your cash with them. If the inflation was 0% the bank would only give you 3% interest. Conclusions The FED only caused recessions to make sure the economy doesn't overheat The FED wasn't able to prevent the economy from overheating in the first place, because the FED still struggled with monetary policy. In the present day the FED struggles less with monetary policy The FED wants 2% inflation, because deflation is very bad Inflation doesn't make you poorer, because inflation is included in the returns you get on your investments The entire debate about the FED was already held over here: http://www.debate.org...

Opening Remarks I would begin by noting that as I, as the affirmative, have the burden of persuasion. However, I do have an advantage in that I need only show that inflation can be good for an economy. I need not show that it is good for all economies nor that it is good for a given economy under all circumstances. In this first round I will give three reasons why inflation can be good for an economy. First, I will make some general remarks about the types of economies I will be discussing. There are two general forms of currency: convertible and fiat. A convertible currency is backed by a commodity (such as gold) or can be exchanged for a foreign currency (like the Bahama dollar). A fiat currency is backed by nothing[1]. It derives its value from the willingness of people to use it and the requirement that government taxes be paid in that currency. I will be talking about an economy with a fiat currency where the nation is the monopoly issuer of its own currency (like the US, UK or Japan but not Eurozone countries). In countries like these, the money is purely a product of the state, and it can (within limits) be manipulated by the state to achieve desired ends. To drive economic growth a country must expand its ability to produce. That is, the more the country can produce per citizen, the more each citizen can consume. This is what determines prosperity at the national level, not money. How much of a country's own money the country has is largely irrelevant (there are some secondary transaction effects and the like) to the economic prosperity it experiences. Most money exists simply as numbers in a computer system[2]. The total amount of money a country has is just the sum of all those numbers in all those computers. Clearly increasing or decreasing the total will have no direct effect on the country's wealth. Wealth is determined by real goods and services. Thus, I will be describing how inflation can increase a society's ability to produce real goods and services. Point 1. Average positive inflation prevents periods of deflation In a dynamic market, price levels will naturally fluctuate around an equilibrium. As unexpected events influence aggregate supply or demand, prices will naturally change. Absent strict price controls, there is not much a central government can do to prevent such fluctuations. For example, a sudden increase in population will cause an increase in demand. A natural disaster that interferes with shipping will decrease production and thus supply. Technological advancements will have the opposite effect. Each of these effects will have short term effect on prices. Those periods that lower prices can cause periods of deflation. If, however, there is a background (fairly stable) rate of inflation then these situations cause a reduction in inflation rate without actually allowing the economy to go into deflation. Because it’s a necessary antecedent to my argument, I will briefly touch on why deflation is bad for an economy. Since the economic health of a society is dependent on the amount of real goods and services that can be produced, to grow an economy means to invest in increased production. When an economy goes into deflation, holding cash becomes a profitable “investment” since it will be exchangeable for more real goods in the future. This effect reduces investment in otherwise profitable projects. Additionally, deflation means nominal wages have to fall in addition to prices. Since there is resistance to cutting wages (contracts and the like) the only way to have a decrease in aggregate wages is to have a rise in unemployment. Point 2. Inflation encourages investment over saving Money sitting in bank accounts or cash in a safe does not stimulate the economy. Construction of new factories and research into better production methods do. A small level of inflation discourages hording of money and encourages the holding of assets, either through outright purchase or by financing their creation. It is this creation of new assets, which in turn produces more goods, that grows the economy. Point 3. Inflation is caused by a growing economy Inflation (in a sovereign currency) is naturally caused by a growing economy. Central governments should not seek to prevent this. Generally speaking, a company needs to pay its costs (materials and labor) prior to receiving payment for finished goods. If a company expands (either by hiring more people or paying more for higher skills) it has increased the total demand in the economy (those new or higher paid workers will want to buy things). However, the new goods they are producing have not yet come on the market. Now imagine a similar phenomenon across the economy as a whole – companies are expanding and producing more. This causes a temporary jump in prices. Once the new goods come on the market, prices stop rising, having reached a new equilibrium. If, however more businesses expand, that will push prices up again. If businesses are expanding continuously, the price rise will be continuous and we have inflation. Yes, if businesses expand too rapidly, you can have a bubble. However, not all expansions are bubbles. If there were never an expansion, we would all still be tilling our own farms, and there would be no cars or iphones. References [1]Greg Mankiw Principles of Economics 659 . http://books.google.com... [2]. http://www.pbs.org... [3] . http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... (cited for the internal quotes, not the author’s opinion)

Wow that was an incredibly weak argument. Just because it does not endorse a specific religion like Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. The concept of god is a religious concept and according to the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The reason God should not be mention in our money is because some of us believe in more than one god, and some of us don't even believe in a god like myself. The Government is supposed to represent all of its citizens irrespective of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. By respecting a religious stance the government misrepresents and fails to acknowledge those with different beliefs by upholding one religious view over others. This is a form of religious oppression because those of us with different beliefs are forced to use money that displays views we don't believe in This is why it's illegal to have religious symbols on public property, and why public school can't endorse any religion or religious view. The US government obeys the establishment clause in most cases just not when it comes to our currency.

Okay, well it seems we are getting off topic here and I really don't want to go into Keynesian or Austrian economics. That's for another time.Lets stick to the FED. "1: The Federal Reserve bank is necessary to maintaining price stability. I will explain further if challenged, but prices convey vital information to producers, consumers, workers, and investors in an economy. Sudden and/or unexpected changes in the overall level of prices can have adverse effects on national output by changing the terms of trade. A central, independent monetary authority, like the Federal Reserve, can help to maintain price stability that cannot happen either under a Gold Standard or under a free-banking system. "This was your main point.The problem with this statement is that Gold Standard economies don't require the need to be stabilized. Gold's price has pretty much stayed the same since Roman times (that's mostly where Austrian economics brings in ancient times; this subject) Up until 1914, (the time of the elastic currency's creation) the price of gold had stayed effectively the same price since Isaac Newton, as master of the UK Mint, set the price of it in 1717.And no, it couldn't happen in a free market because that doesn't happen at all. Businesses go under, and then a better business takes its place. Certain businesses aren't supposed to stay in existence forever because they're "too big to fail." Obviously they failed, so they were doing something wrong.Take General Motors for example. People weren't buying cars from General Motors. Mostly because people had been buying Asian cars like Nissan, Honda ect. For years, General Motors had been reducing the quality on their vehicles. People started buying Asian cars because of their quality and price. So when General Motors goes under, the government decides to try and prop them up by pumping money into the economy and giving General Motors bailout money. People weren't buying the cars before, so even if they had more money to buy them, they're still not going to go buy them.In the free market, that company would have gone out of business, and something better would have taken its place. And the economy would go on happily ever after. But for some reason, the government believes they know what's best for us. These brains up their in Congress know more than everyone else, so regular citizens can't be trusted with freedom. Yeah, that's pretty much it.Now that I have explained that, let me explain that the FED does more harm than good.The FED creates money from buying up our debt. This is basically counterfeiting! I know, its crazy, right!? No other business can counterfeit money, but the government can. The government is a monopoly on force. The FED buys treasury bonds (basically IOU's) and creates money from it. It also has other assets, like buying up debt of other countries. (The Federal Reserve Act has been amended 200 times, they can do create money from anything) So, excluding the fact that we counterfeit trillions of dollars and then let the government go wild with it, this new money causes inflation. So I will humor my opponent (and take out all those big words) and say that a little bit of inflation helps the poor. Oh but wait a minute, the poor don't really have enough money to spend in the first place, so somehow making the prices go up, allows them to spend more. Yeah, I don't know about that. Isn't that basically the same thing FDR did by forcing business to sell goods for a certain price? Oh yeah, it was, and the Great Depression lasted 11 years because of it. (Most depressions last 4)By the way, those IRS and FED balance sheets have a lot of stuff missing. And yeah, they pumped 7.77 trillion into the economy during the bailout, and they also shot some money over to Europe for awhile. You're right, I misspoke when I said they gave it to the government directly, but they gave it to banks. The banks now have 7.77 trillion dollars to give loans on. So now, they're receiving interest on money that comes from nothing and making inflation rise. Maybe Bernanke is just terrible with math. I don't know. And I said "was" in secret. Bernanke also can't keep his mouth shut. And my opponent argues that this EPI index is flawed, unlike the CPI because of outside factors with supply. So wouldn't things like cars and houses, which the CPI only takes into account, also be affected by supply factors? Everything has to be produced. Increases in the price of gas affects how machines that create cars are made. So, I don't see how this EPI could be too terribly flawed, only a more reliable source. High or unpredictable inflation rates are regarded as harmful to an overall economy. They add inefficiencies in the market, and make it difficult for companies to budget or plan long-term. Inflation can act as a drag on productivity as companies are forced to shift resources away from products and services in order to focus on profit and losses from currency inflation.[11] Uncertainty about the future purchasing power of money discourages investment and saving.[30] And inflation can impose hidden tax increases, as inflated earnings push taxpayers into higher income tax rates unless the tax brackets are indexed to inflation. -WikipediaSo apparently I'm not the only one who thinks inflation is a bad thing. It seems Wikipedia agrees with me. And since 1913, the value of our dollar has decreased and inflation has risen over 2000% But, gold stays the same for 200 years! Wow, that's crazy. And since its limited unlike paper, inflation barely even occurs. Plus our government really shouldn't be spending as much money as it does in the first place, seeing the ridiculous things our government pays for. And yeah, dude, REALLY! Keynes himself died in 1946. I don't think he was using data points from the 1970's. I'm thinking even he had to use some data points from a good number of years back, when many policies we have today were not around. The FED creates inflation through basically counterfeiting money and then either shoving it into the banks, or giving it to the government and letting them pump it into the economy somehow. Inflation, overall, is a negative factor in an economy. It destabilizes the economy. Also, when a recession occurs, pumping money into it doesn't always fix it. Even with money, people will still not buy from the businesses the government tries to prop up, such as General Motors. Businesses are not supposed to stay in existence forever because they're "too big to fail" In a free market, that business would go under, and a better business would take its place. So, main points. The FED destabilizes the economy through inflation.The FED disrupts the market by propping up businesses that, in a free market, would normally go out of business and something else would replace it.The FED creates our most unfair tax through inflation. Prices rise, and people have to pay for those increased prices. The lost purchasing power is received by the government. (Bernanke even said it was a tax.)The FED rarely prevents economic crashes. (I say this because my opponent did bring up one incident where the FED supposedly did this. I really don't know if this is true or not. The FED dilutes our currency and the decreases the value of the dollar.

its not only hunger if we are spending are welfare on food how will we pay the bills and if we caint will be put out on the streets i dont agree with you that it should be gone if you can give me one reason why welfare should be abbolished maybe id agree

I hate rigid round structures. It would be way better if I could just do my arguments and rebuttals together, but I'll go ahead and conform to the rules. Here's a short constructive case: - C1) Symbolic Value The British Monarchy serves as an essential symbol for the country's political unity and rich history. Having played an integral role in running the country for almost a millennium, the monarchy provides the British government with a sense of continuity which is very important for public perception of its legitimacy. "As England's oldest secular institution, it is intertwined with the nation's identity and political culture. When functioning properly, the monarchy embodies the best of English society. If abolished or radically changed, the nation would lose an essential element that solidifies its political system" [1]. The monarchy's immense symbolic significance to Great Britain is more than enough reason to justify keeping it around. C2) Economic Benefit People are crazy about the members of the British royal family -- they are more or less the most popular celebrities in the world, and like all celebrities, they tend to bring about massive amounts of consumer spending. The British Tourism Agency has calculated that Monarchy-related tourism generates an average of $767 million for the British economy every year. Compare that to even the most liberal estimates of the monarchy's public costs, which come out to $307 million per annum. Basic math reveals that the monarchy is an enormous economic boon to the UK, creating an annual surplus of $460 million. - The UK should remain a monarchy in order to (1) retain an essential piece of its history, culture, and political identity, and (2) reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. The resolution is negated. - 1. http://ashbrook.org... 2. http://www.express.co.uk...

"I disagree but comply nonetheless." Consider it a lesson - challenge someone, have an argument to challenge with. "I believe if we were to eliminate welfare it would be no better than murder. It is unjust to let people starve due to their economic status." False Dilemma Fallacy - the alternative is not death. Simply because the state does not enforce a welfare system does not preclude institutions both private and charitable from existing that will help any one individual. Nor individuals following their own desire to help others. "It goes against our foundation as a nation to have the oppurtunity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we eliminate welfare it would go against all three of these notions. It would eliminate the freedom to live because some people couldn't afford food. It would eliminate our liberty because people's voices wouldn't be heard due to economic status." Right to life is also entails one is responsible for it - that include one's own decisions and the resultant consequences. Wish for people to have freedom? Then support that. By Government enforced welfare you are advocating for a system where irresponsible behaviour is both supported and rewarded at the cost of others productivity. "Finally it would eliminate the pursuit of happiness because people could not pursue their dreams due th constraints on income." Taxation doesn't restrict income? It is not the Governments role to provide happiness to the populace. Its role is the protection of the populace so that they have the best opportunity for self realisation of their own goals. "The average welfare family barely gets by, with only money for food water and shelter. People on welfare aren't rich, They get by on the bare minimum. It is so small compared to us. The financial truth is that welfare barely registers on our national budget." The point being? If you want to support those incapable of supporting themselves - then pay into a charity. I, no one, should be forced to however - and those that can truly not improve their means by any way are the vast minority of those on actual welfare. "People on welfare aren't necessarily slackers. I will admit, some are, but when you look at the psycological aspect of this, is facing the social ridicule of needing to be helped by the government worth the extra money." Rubbish. If the state supports welfare then that's the biggest endorsement you are going to get that it's ok to be on it. If they wish to remove the *guilt* which is the driving effectiveness of ridicule - then they can change the cause. "And the other people who are on welfare don't always search for a job as they need to focus on surviving." What are you doing to survive if you are not working?


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The penny should be taken out of circulation immediately. (Kleptin Tourney)

Thanks for the engaging debate, Con! Here are my arguments:

Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence
- I did not place a "definitely will" burden of proof on the finance minister. However, the quote provided shows little reason to believe that discontinuing the penny will lead to the downfall of the economy. Moreover, most of the harms that the minister cites are related to not minting low denomination coins in general, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's concerns come from all coins.
- My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination.
- Cost stats still stand. See later responses.
- This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to "picking a random metal" is just a cop-out.
- My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1]
- The US aluminum market is in poor health. Aluminum exports alone have decreased 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2]
- Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Moreover, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3]

Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper
- Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do.
- Until my opponent addresses my analysis on the cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended.
- Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum.

NACS:
-

I find this to be a rather useless debate considering that there is no argument to be made.

The death penalty should be Illegal. The death penalty is wrong and immoral. According to "Against the Death Penalty" there are many different factors that play tribute to why the death penalty should be illegal. Firstly, a life sentence would save time and money as opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, many people believe the death penalty is used as a deterrent, as in we have to make crime rates go down. The truth is, crime rates have not gone down. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other countries. Nothing bad can come from sending someone to life in prison. It keeps crime off the streets and it is a lot more moral than the death penalty. We live in a country where killing is wrong, yet we kill people on death row. It is almost as if we are hypocrites. We do not live in a country where we live by an eye for an eye. We live in a country where we have the right to life, and that should not be taken away from us, no matter what the circumstance.

My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.

"And it is not a good idea to stimulate the economy by just throwing more money into it. It never works. Which is a major flaw in Keynesian economics."That is an incredibly broad and sweeping claim. You're not going to convince anyone here, no matter how fanatically-devoted to Ron Paul they are, that Keynesian economics is wrong by dismissing out of hand their monetary prescriptions. The empirical evidence (unemployment in all sectors and yet very little change in nominal wages shows that sticky prices and wages, combined with a fall in investment and consumption spending are responsible for our woes) shows, strongly, that the recession was caused by a fall in aggregate demand, which was caused by a fall in investment spending thanks to the financial sector. Now it is true that short-term interest rates are close to zero, but long-term interest rates are not. 10-year treasury bonds currently 2%, which means that monetary stimulus, if the Fed can convince the bond markets that it will aim for a larger inflation target (say 4% instead of the usual 2%) can work even when short-term quantitative easing can't. "The government says it is at 3.1%."There are several measures of inflation, the CPI being one among many. There's the GDP deflator, which shows strong deflation since 2008, there's the employment cost index, the fisher index, the billion price index, etc. which show that, since 2008, prices have fallen. "But the formula they use to calculate it is by using products that people rarely buy, like cars, and houses."And so what if an individual does not buy cars or houses very often? Millions are being sold every year, and the quantity and velocity of money will be reflected in the prices that are charged for such services. "The real inflation rate is actually above a whopping 8%. This includes all products that you buy everyday like milk and cereal. This formula is called the EPI (Everyday Price Index)"The so-called EPI is fatally flawed, especially when using it to judge monetary policy, because the factors which are responsible for the increases in the price of gas (and, thus, food) are real supply side factors, not demand-side factors in America. "And, there’s really no way of telling whether Congress taxes more than the FED because there’s no real straight story on how much the FED creates a year"You can check the Fed balance sheet any time. "and there’s also not a straight story on how much the government receives in taxes per year."The IRS publishes the amount it collects in taxes every year. "Also the FED creates money depending on the economy. Of course it does. That's how the FOMC works. It sets a short-term interest rate target by buying or selling assets on the open market. When the interest rate is below the target rate, the FOMC sells assets, the most popular being short-term treasury bonds. If interest rates are too high, the federal reserve buys assets. "In 2008, the FED gave the government 7.7 trillion dollars for the bailout." Eh, no. The Federal Reserve loaned several trillion dollars to private investment banks and other depository institutions and other central banks. It didn't give money to the federal government. "And that was in secret."Then how do you know about it?"That is way more than the government takes in with taxes, which from what I’ve seen, averages around 2 trillion a year. There is really no way of telling how much money they pump into the economy." Again, the Federal Reserve injects money into the economy by buying assets. Loans are last-resort by banks. "But another problem is that the government spends way more than it takes in. The Federal Reserve creates most of its money from debt."Sure, most of the assets that the Federal Reserve buys are treasury bonds, but it has also bought other assets. "This means that our money is basically backed by debt."We do not have a fixed exchange rate monetary policy, which means that our money isn't backed by anything. Money is just a convenient, universal medium of exchange. But treasury bills are an asset. You really can have treasury bills in your portfolio and then sell them and use the money to buy stuff, as in output. Money really does create output in the economy. "It might seem good at some points, but that’s only because all of this money is just credit. Bad credit."That doesn't follow at all. "And the reason that Austrian economics sometimes use examples from hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years ago, is because, there’s only so many variations of government."That definitely does not follow at all. Variations of government, therefore we need to use data points which are hundreds of years old and shrouded in obscurity? You're seriously going to tell me that inflation caused the downfall of the Roman Empire when we have absolutely no GDP figures with which to tell our stories? The Byzantines didn't have an IRS or Bureau of Labour Statistics. "Every school of thought has to base its knowledge from somewhere, and most of the time, its from hundreds of years ago."Really? You're REALLY going to claim that every school, even the Neo-Keynesian school's models are based on data points which are hundreds of years old? You really think that Keynesian econometricians use data from the recent past?

The Minimum Wage should be reduced to $1 an hour in the US Reasons: 1. Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs. 2. The US Dollar will become stronger, because it will be able to buy more goods.

I have rebutted all of the previous arguments my opponent made on this topic. You still cannot constitutionally put a religious statement on a government coin and call it separation of church and state consistent with the Everson decision. I win.

There are 2 points that strongly support my debate: 1. First and foremost, the Death penalty is an extraneous situation in which long and complex judical court processes proceed. There are other means to kill a person which would be much simpler than the death penalty. 2. The death penalty costs around $137 million every year with around $90,000 for each prisoner destined for death. This is exorbitant compared to other methods such as life-term prisoner condition (costs $11.5 million) or even putting a bullet through one's head (to put in straight terms). Therefore, it is a waste of important resources. Sources: . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc...

I would like to share a quick little anecdote to illustrate the absolute and blatant monstrosity of what my dear opponent proposes. Marie, a senior at an excellent university, was in a hurry for her exam. After kissing her grandmother goodbye, she rushed out the door of her shoddy apartment, her "Protect the Rainforest" and "Save the Dolphins" pamphlets spilling out of her backpack (for she was a member of these charities, including others), and her dark green sweater only halfway pulled over her. As she ran, she quickly remembered that she needed to pay for the Scantron sheets in order to take her exam. Knowing there was no money in her apartment (she knew this quite well in fact, quite well), she prayed that there would be enough change in her car to cover the $2.15 fee. As she got to her 1975 Ford Pinto, she noticed someone had spray-painted "Im Poor" against the rusty, decaying exterior. Tears came to her eyes, but it was only when she attempted to open the door, and the handle broke off into her hands, did she actually begin to cry. And yet she knew she had to carry on, for if she missed the exam all her hard work would come undone. Opening the door through a previously smashed-in window, she got inside and started the car. As the engine slowly warmed, she looked desperately for any money she could, but found only bits of broken glass and some old books. After having to kick the gearstick into 1st, the car slowly began to sputter along. With only 11 minutes before her exam would begin, she quickly came to the avenue where the bank was. Noting that parking would be nearly impossible to find at this hour, not to mention would sap all her time, she pulled to the right hand lane, next to the parked cars, and ran toward the ATM. As she neared the kiosk, however, two uniformed figures walked into her path, cocked their modified shotguns loudly, aimed, and shot her in the knees. She crumpled to the floor, blood splattered everywhere, and died. Speaking of the incident later, for which he was touted as a local hero, one of the officers said: "Only the 'andicapped can do what she did...'if an able bodied person does the same, let's give them a proper excuse to do so – traffic wardens should be instructed to f*****g spastic the c***s by blasting their f*****g kneecaps off.'" Are human lives really so worthless, so devoid of any value that this measure could possibly be ok? Is simply stopping at an ATM really the infraction that deserves the most cruel, ultra-violent and inhumane death sentence of any civilized society? Didn't thinks so.

Thanks! I appreciate your accepting the argument and overlooking my behaviour. I didn't realize this was formal. My apologies. First, I will address your first two points. Yes, I concur, the reason that rounding exists is for both the ease and speed of computation. BUT! at the expense of accuracy or error, which is what we are debating. I choose the position that this inaccuracy makes the metric system unsuitable for multi step equations with feedback. I concede your point that it works fine for single stage equations such as averages, conversions, statistics, etc. Again I attempt to iterate my position, The margin of error introduced by rounding increases with the time complexity of the problem and is exagerated through feedback and amplification. This accumulated error over time make the decimal/metric systems with rounding flawed. This flaw or amount of error is measurable. Case in Point: Look up the rounding issue on the targeting system for the Patriot Missle System. The compounded inaccuracies over extended periods of time rendered the Patriot Missle System targeting ineffective. There are thousands of algorithms where the accumulated error of rounding impacts the desired results. Simple equations do not suffer from compound rounding errors and therefore are not applicable to this debate. Do you want your aircraft landing systems subject to compound rounding errors? Some young coder writes you a Ground Level indicator and doesn't understand this, could put you off 10 feet from ground level. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" even in mathematics. You cannot truncate or round up without consequenses. These consequenses are the core of my argument. Second, I will address your inclusion of irrational numbers as a proposition for your position. Irrational number are both number and function. Irrational numbers can only be modeled with the decimal/metric system. The rounding function combined with the irrational introduce complexity that cannot be easily modeled. Algorithms that include irrational number/functions introduce the problem of compound rounding at every step of the equation. The divergence between the right answer and the approximation become even more random and exagerated. Irrational numbers increase the accumulated error and further validate my position that the amount of error is large enough to consider the system flawed. Your apparent position that the decimal/metric system is neccesary for the ability to work with irrational and imaginary numbers will never be disputed by me. This debate is not on if we should or should not use the decimal/metric system, but the fact that the decimal/metric system IS subject to compound rounding errors AND the argument that this error indicates a flaw or not. Thanks! I appreciate your time. Don

My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The penny should be phased out without delay. (Kleptin Tourney)

I appreciate my opponent's response and apologize for the late reply. There are many factors to consider. :) Below are the arguments:

Pro Case:
1. Consumer Confidence: I don't argue about the net effect on consumer confidence. My point in contention 1A is the excessive cost of production. Even the German Finance Ministry can only speculate that confidence in the Euro "might" decline without penny production, and education could mitigate this risk, assuming it exists. The movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as my sources in the Pro case illustrate. Removing a coin deemed useless by a large portion of society is different from introducing a new one.
2. Counterplan: Eliminating the penny entirely is the only way to save money, as I explain in contention 1A. Keeping pennies in circulation, regardless of material, still leads to wasting $10 billion in transactions. The counterplan is vague and abusive. What material is proposed? Without knowing, I can't address the concerns. If another metal controlled by a foreign market is chosen, the problems in contention 2 remain. If a U.S.-marketed metal is chosen, practicality issues arise.
3. Cash Transactions: The cost of receiving cash transactions is lower than checks, debit, or credit cards, but this doesn't negate the increased cost from pennies. My analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted in transactions is not contradicted by the source cited. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash vs. other transactions.
4. NACS "Report": Familiar with the NACS website, as it was cited for the statistic. Never claimed it was a report. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1, front page, CTRL "F" Walgreen.
5. Cross-Apply Counterplan: Apply the vagueness analysis on the counterplan. The problem remains without an alternative material named.
6. Bright-line for China Dependency: China holds over $1 trillion of U.S. debt, a significant portion of the total $12 trillion. China's economy is powerful, and reducing trade and debt commitments gains benefits by stopping financial flow to China.
7. China & Human Rights: No leverage now due to long-term obligations. Reducing trade and debt commitments to China benefits by stopping money flow.

Neg Case:
1. Math: Lombra predicts a $60

Thanks for a great debate! My opponent has offered a shocking amount of apologism and defense for a system that is corrupt to the core and has no business wielding the power that it does. I am astounded that after all this evidence showing that an external body has the willpower to do whatever they wish with the nation’s money, creating debt and instability along the way while they rob the middle class with income tax, my opponent still sticks up for the Fed as a benevolent institution that acts in the best interest of the country. I’ll start out by rebutting many of his arguments presented last round. Even though it was ruled to not be a government agency, the Fed is "..... a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect 2/3 of each Bank's 9 member board of directors…The Fed is not privately owned by malicious filthy rich bankers liek the Pro is trying to suggest” Isn’t that what the facts you just presented point to? Just because they don’t physically own it doesn’t mean that the bankers don’t exercise a significant amount of control over the day-to-day affairs of the Fed banks. Plus, these are “stockholding banks”, which essentially amounts to combined ownership by the commercial banks. The main point I make by bringing up the Lewis case is to demonstrate that the Fed is most definitely an unregulated agency, unlike what Con tried to suggest earlier. This complete lack of regulation lends itself to the stockholding banks having relatively unrestrained power to enact whatever policies they wish. The commercial banks have the power to elect the majority of each Fed branch’s board members. Common sense dictates that the banks will naturally select individuals who will serve the bank’s self-interest, which is usually at odds with what benefits the general citizenry. On the topic of regulation, I’ll bring up a glaring inaccuracy in one of my opponent’s points. He states that “Congress has the power to coin money and determine its value, the Fed does this for them because it is their job assigned to them by Congress.” First off, our money has no value since we have a paper currency backed by nothing. In the days of the gold standard, a dollar was 1/20 of a gold ounce, which is not the case anymore. Also, “coin” essentially means “print” in today’s system, which is the sole power of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, Congress has none of these powers. My opponent is trying to contend that Congress still technically has these powers just because they have delegated the responsibility to the Fed. If the Fed had some degree of regulation by Congress, then this argument might be valid. However, as the Lewis case determined, the Fed is so independent that it cannot be considered a federal agency. If Congress were to allow individual states to declare war (a power of Congress outlined in A1 S8) without having any say at all in the process, this would indeed be unconstitutional. The same principle applies to the Fed. Also, Con claims that I am trying to unfairly use the Great Depression to “prove him wrong” about the pre-Fed era panics. If he recalls, he stated in Round 2, “Imagine the bank closures of the great Depression happening once every ten years and that was what it was like prior to the Fed's creation.” I merely proved that this was a patently false claim with bank failure statistics. Indeed, none of the panics before the Fed ever approached the conditions of the Great Depression’s 5,000 failures, which occurred under the Fed after it had been solidly established. “The Con is trying to argue how the Fed was the sole cause of the Great Depression which is a glorified lie if Ive ever seen one…there are many other causes of the Great Depression…” So the opinion of a Nobel-prize winning economist (Friedman) is just a glorified lie? Plus, I never said it caused the Great Depression to initiate. I realize that all the factors you listed caused it to initiate. The Fed had nothing to do with it starting up. Friedman’s contention is that the Great Depression would have just been the Panic of 1929 if the Fed hadn’t made some poor monetary policy decisions that did nothing to control the rapid contraction of the money supply from bank failures. In other words, without the Fed’s existence, private clearinghouses could have done what the Fed didn’t do, and the worst economic depression in US history would have been much more mild like the panics before the Fed’s creation. Chairman Bernanke himself has accepted this explanation. The Great Depression disproves the notion that with the Fed in place, the US will automatically see more economic stability. We had the worst-ever crisis under the Fed’s existence, and are currently in the midst of a crisis that could surpass it. I also find it astounding that my opponent finds no objection to the immoral and secretive actions of the Fed. Not being able to question economic policy is something that fascist societies have possessed, but not the US. After all, the Fed’s decisions affect all of us. Why is it justified for them to have absolutely no transparency and accountability to the American people, under the guise that secrecy is necessary for them? Secondly, the massive conflicts of interest that I mentioned are clear examples of cronyism that were meant to help out Wall Street while Main Street suffered. To put the $16 trillion the Fed loaned out into perspective, that amount is more that the US total GDP during the previous year. For them to create all this money to bail out banks that had made bad decisions in lending is definitively wrong, due to the MASSIVE debt created by printing an amount of money that exceeds the GDP. There were alternative solutions, but the bankers who had so much willpower in the Fed didn’t want these solutions since they wouldn’t benefit them. Finally, the audit that I mentioned revealed vast amounts of AMERICAN MONEY being lent out to EUROPEAN banks. They have their own central bank: why should the US be put into debt in order to bail out banks that aren’t even in the US? Glaring injustices were revealed by this audit that the Fed didn’t want. Unfortunately for them, it has exposed their cronyism and unchecked power, aspects that only end up benefitting the elite bankers and CEOs on Wall Street. Regarding the interest rate graph, I never said that an increase in interest rates automatically leads to immediate depression. The graph does show a clear trend of major interest rate hikes leading to depression; sometimes the depression was just delayed slightly. Let it be noted that my opponent dropped the income tax argument. It seems that he has accepted that this gorging of hardworking Americans’ incomes goes only to serve a central bank that is infiltrated with banking interests rather than a prerogative to preserve economic stability. He also says that eliminating the Fed would force us to borrow even more money. This is unjustified and incorrect. If the Treasury were able to print interest-free US notes that belong to the US government, the debt could be paid off quite easily. Compare this to using the current system under the Fed, where the govt. must go into further debt every time it needs money. There are no positives to a system that facilitates oppressive income tax and a debt that is becoming mathematically impossible to pay off. Many cannot imagine life without the Fed, but there are numerous alternatives to ending its corruptive domination of the economic policy. Think about it: people could keep a larger percentage of their income, the government could pay off the national debt with interest-free currency, and the corrupt bankers of Wall Street would not have a stranglehold on monetary policy. We wouldn’t be free from economic cycles (this is a natural part of a true free-market society), but ending the Fed would not be the end of the world: it would merely be the end of mutant capitalism that has festered since its establishment.

Again, notice how Rational dissed my very valid point. He is more focused on a comment that really does not apply. Anyway, I am not convinced and this is our concsion round.

First off, not all senior citizens are "ticks of society." There are obviously thousands of elderly that do better for the economy than you and me. Very few of the. Are put in elderly homes. There are more independent senior citizens than there are one who need assistance. They shouldn't be alive just because they don't work? They should die because they serve no use, is what you mean I suppose. So in that case children should be euthanized. They're useless beside the fact that they might go on and be of importance. I mean I could give you every example of just useless people in modern society. They're everywhere. Not just the senior citizens. Going along with your ideology, culture infested people should also be euthanized. Hillbilly and rednecks should be euthanized as well. They don't do anything for the economy just like the elderly. They don't go on to do anything useful. They're just a tick on society. Lets euthanize them! Young gangster kids too? All they do is steel and provoke violence right? Murder is the answer? Hobos too? Anyone who loses their home or whom that is poor? They're just in the streets or living off welfare. EUTHANIZE! What about criminals? Someone steels something from a Wal-Mart, sent to jail for weeks or months. Should they too be seamlessly killed? See the human race is above sub petty acts of not dealing with problems. Euthanizing senior citizens would be a very harsh case of social Darwinism. No one wants to die just because they turn old. Think of growing up knowing that we plan on killing you the minute you were 70 or 80. It's just not sensible. Give a case of how that isn't just plain randomness and barbaric.

The opposition in this debate is focusing on constitutional issues. When a bill is passed by Congress, signed into law by a President, and up held by the Supreme Court, that law is constitutional regardless of the morality, the examples that will be sited again of Dred Scot, Plessy v Ferguson, Citizens United, and Obamacare are all examples of immoral laws that were/are constitutional. Another key point the opposition is getting wrong is the deferences between money, currency, and legal tender. The Federal Reserve does not have any responsibility with money, it only deals with legal tender. Legal tender is not addressed in the US Constitution, thus Congress can use any of the three clauses stated earlier to do anything that a President will sign. As the opposition states "If I did that [create legal tender from nothing] my check would bounce and I would go to Guantanamo Bay." Almost correct, if you did it as a banker that is a member of the Fed it is fine, banks create tender everyday. Plus, counterfeits don't go to Gitmo that is saved for the most dangerous terrorists that threaten America. The next point about the Fed is it role as a vanguard against economic activity. Moderates economic swingsAs for economic swings, when comparing pre-WWI and post-WWII, the Fed has done no worse than earlier systems. Today's Fed staffed with the best economic minds in America stand a vanguard from the excesses of capitalism.One of the Fed's most important roles is control of the economy using macro-economic tools. The Fed gained this authority by passage of the Humphrey""Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1977. In the 1970s, after a generation of economic indoctrination, macroeconomic planners believe that if given the authority unemployment and stable prices could be controlled with monetary policy. Macro-economists point to the Phillips curve for justification. Simply put, the Phillips curve correlates inflation rate to unemployment rate in the US economy .http://www.econlib.org... .The below graph shows the curve in action:http://www.debate.org...As anybody can see, a clear tread and predictable tread line. Thus macro-economists can control the unemployment rate by managing the inflation rate. With management of the inflation rate America gains a bonus of stable prices. The Fed, using macro-economic analysis concluded that a 2% inflation rate was the Goldilocks of inflation, not too much and not too little. Some uneducated and unenlightened might state, stable prices mean little change, but how little they understand. If prices stayed constant or even fall that is not good for an economy. If people can hold currency without penalty then people will do so, this will lead to currency hoarding. Savings is good for people but hoarding is something that must be prevented. Hoarding leads to a reduction is spending which is need to keep the GDP growing. Without GDP growth politicians must answer why there is a recession. For these actions to be effective, the rest of the world must understand that international trade is to be conducted in US dollars. In other words, US currency hegemony. This hegemony has been enforced by US diplomatic and military actions. The first step was the Bretton Woods agreement just after WWII. Then upon Nixon's executive order removing America from a semi gold standard, the petro-dollar was born. With all crude oil international trades done in US dollars, America created a financial system the rest of the world must obey.In the opposition's initial statement, it is pointed out that $9 trillion was issued by the Fed in secret. The Fed must operate in secret, America's banking system is fragile. If the Fed had stated the who's and Whys in this creation of legal tender the system would have collapsed due to lack of confidence. America's fiat money system is extremely fragile, every bank is by definition bankrupt because they can not meet all depositor liabilities. This is the great trick of double entry accounting, for a bank, a deposit is a liability and a loan is an asset. A loan is offset with creation of a reserve, thus legal tender is created for nothing legalized by Congressal action. If a non-authorized institution did the same action, people would go to jail. If a government makes it legal then citizens must comply. The Fed protects American from economic swings thus ensuring that people maintain their place in society.

I am looking for someone to give a reasonable explanation(s) and arguments on why he or she feels that the death penalty should remain legalized in certain areas of the United States. Therefore, I will be arguing on why I do not agree with the death penalty. For this 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is only my second debate and compared to my last argument, I know this is going to be even more controversial, so, I'm not quite sure what to expect. First off, let me introduce myself. My name is Destinee Bayona and I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and majoring in Psychology. As a requirement for my Philosophy class I am taking, and for 15% of my overall grade, I must complete 3 debates throughout the semester, with this being my second so far. Each debate must be a maximum of 3,000 characters, for 5 rounds, and must be completed by April 1st. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own thoughts. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)

Con ff'ed and failed to address pretty much all of my points. I have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, we have agreed that it often is given to innocent people (too often for it to be legal anyway) and we have agreed that it is more expensive than life sentencing. Is a penalty which does not deter crime worth the extra cost in the lives of innocent people and taxpayer money? I think not.

My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.

Don't worry, you didn't violated any community standards; if anything it's even more impressive that you've formulated such concise logical arguments in your first DDO debate. --- I would like to clarify one thing before I get into my line-by-line refutations, That being, when liquidating cash one must liquidate the entire sum if it is an single bill or coin, otherwise must get the left over change change from the liquidation. So then even if my opponent only liquidated 100 dollars to his swiss account, he would still get 999,999,999,900 back in some way or another. You're not going to go to a store and hand the cashier a 100 dollar bill and say 'I just want to get 20 of this bill, leave the rest alone'; you're going to get a 20 dollar bill and 80 more dollars in whatever form the cashier decides to return the money. Accordingly if it is a single coin my opponent is liquidating, he would have to either liquidate the entire coin when depositing it, or else otherwise get the rest of the change from what he refused to liquidate. Either way we understand that the money would be taken from somewhere in a simple lump exchange. Until he could exchange the coin for smaller bills, it wouldn't be worth anything to him. (who could give him change? ) Furthermore, take out any paper money you have (USD) and look in the top right corner under the word 'American'. For those of other countries here's a point of reference[5] [5] . http://www.onedollarbill.org... If we know that the federal government would place a serial number on a single dollar bill, then it logically follows that they're going to do something similar, if not much more special, with the single largest piece of currency in human history. Keeping this in mind, I move onto my two premise I've discussed in the previous rounds, First: These coins were made for a special purpose and you would be caught as soon as you used them Once the most powerful country in the world has had 1 Trillion dollars stolen from them, word is going to spread fast. Even countries who are not allies with the U. S. would know of this and be wary of you for fear of retribution from the U. S. This is mind it logically follows that once you found someone willing and able to liquidate the coin (it would have to be a registered, certified bank) you would be caught immediately, before you would have a chance to put that money to use. This is because, The money's value isn't intrinsically related to the coin or bill, but indicative of wealth elsewhere, And where do you think that elsewhere would be? the federal reserve[6]. So it is still my intention to show that Con wouldn't be able to do anything with the cash. Even operating under the premise that the federal reserve honors Pro's liquidation (as per our agreement), as soon as he had the cash in some form or another he would be immediately incarcerated and the US would get their money back. [6] . http://www.frbservices.org... Let's consider these possibilities then; if he liquidates $1-50,000,000,000 he still has at least 50,000,000,000 on his person and the Federal Reserve will be notified of the exchange of funds. If he liquidates $50,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,000,000 then he'll $0-49,999,999,999 on his person and the federal reserve will still be notified of the transfer. Once notified, the federal government would forcibly freeze his account; violating whatever foreign laws they needed to do so, and he wouldn't be able to leverage enough of the cash in his favor to become the most powerful man before he was caught. The most he could carry on his person would be a couple of million dollars[7] [7] . http://www.frbservices.org... In Conclusion, I've shown that while pro could get the money, he couldn't use it to his advantage. All the money in the world is useless if you can't spend it.

"My granny says that when you print more money to pay for hospital (parking lot) stays, you cause tire-inflation. This IS good. You Socailist/Communist/Fascist/Atheist/Muslim(Terrificist!"If you concede that printing money is good, then you must admit that it is a failsafe in case we need more money, therefore taking care of any financial problems. Also, you cannot be a communist and a fascist at the same time. A communist believes in government control of business, while Fascist believe in business takeover of government."I concede that we can make Rhode Island a parking lot ON THE STIPULATION THAT WE AGREE TO ALSO ENCAPSOLATE THE PARKING LOT WITH A GIANT WOODEN CHICKEN!"Fine, but the chicken wouldn't be wooden. It would be a robotic chicken made of the hardest metal known to man, adamantium. It is going to be a hundred stories tall."Why not? I agree, but I would suggest we hire Muslims (Obama supporters") to fly airplanes into the taller/skyscrapers."Why would we do that? We wouldn't need false flag attacks anymore because the USA would be a carnival, and their wouldn't be a need for war, because everyone would love the carnival."What is wrong with you? The Mexicans will steal something. As for the African servants, if we kidnap africans, that stupid Russia will comand attack."Mexicans are not theives! Plus, we have an endless supply, so we can execute them on the off chance that we do catch one red handed. As for Africans, we won't kidnap them. We would do what we did before and buy them from the corrupt African governments! Russia only cares about rich people anyway. "About the hats: Japanese have money that would pay for the giant wooden chicken. Also, knowing the Japanese, they would be overjoyed by their comboy hats. They'ld create robot-cowboy-hats! These hats would also be flotation devices in event of a flood."Ah, but we wouldn't need Japanese money because we'd just print up all the money we need, as you said yourself! If the Japanese loved cowboy hats, why don't they make it themselves, or better yet, let our massive debt we owe to them be paid off in hats! As for the flotation devices, we could just use nuclear powered devices!crime will die out because of the angelic DNA"Why do they get the angelic DNA?Why can't good people get it? Charlie Sheen has Adonis DNA. What about me? Why can't we all live in a place where every guy has a Taylor Lautner body?Before you ask, I'm NOT gay. God hates gay people. Love thy enemy except for gay people? I WANNA LIVE IN HOTEL CALIFORNIA! "Simply put, we must make a sacrafice for the common good of the shareholders, and the pawns- I mean commoners.He's Black" [Long incoherent rant about racism]"How can you condemn me for stereotyping blacks when you did the same to Mexicans? Also, you never addressed my other arguments.

Ok, so we abandoned the gold standard topic and switched completely to the Federal Reserve, I will quickly and efficiently slam your argument out of the debate so we can return to the gold standard subject, this does in fact tie in to what we were talking about, though I don't want to spend the rest of the rounds on one aspect of the issue, so here is my sum down of your points please notify me on comments if I missed anything; 1. Inflation is good for the economy. 2. Deflation is bad for the economy. 3. Recessions are good for the economy. 4. Booms are bad for the economy. 5. Inflation increases interest rates. Here is my rebuttal; Inflation is bad for wage workers, the minimum wage in 1950 was 1$, 1$ in 1950 is worth 24$ now, inflation destroys the middle class, my next point is that inflation cannot go on forever, it is not feasible for us to go on a dollar that is worth 1", but going off a dollar that is worth 100$ is feasible as it has happened before, and under a good economy. Deflation is bad for the economy, obviously any rapid change in an economic system Wil have negative effects, any rapid change will do so, gradual deflation will increase the minimum wage as 8$ will be worth more. A recession such as 1873 or 1893 turns beneficial for the economy in the long run, it eliminates fraction reserve banks, while conservative banks such as Isais Hellmans surplus reserve banks ( he kept 150% of what was in his clients accounts) survived, and had an increased trust because they survived, this was good because it stopped an already coming disaster, whereas the federal reserve caused the economy to overheat in the first place. I don't see how th at last one is relevant. Now that I destroyed your side of this aspect on this debate, we can continue on the gold standard, if you have a rebuttal, say so on comments and I will send you the link to the federal reserve debate.