The Federal Reserve should be abolished

Should the Federal Reserve be abolished? Why abolish, lack of need, ineffectiveness, or immorality. Lack of need was never addressed, but might have been an interesting angle to convince the free market types of the lack of need for the Fed, Pro will admit this as a mistake. People that support free markets in everything except currency, might have been more persuaded by this angle.Ineffectiveness is not a reason to abolish the Fed. As Con does a great job of detailing, the Fed is fulfilling its immoral mission with every action. Con effectively outlines the methods the Fed uses to punish the innocent, reward the irresponsible, and to distort free markets. All of which both Pro and Con agree with. That leaves Pro's point of immorality as the reason to abolish the Fed. Outlined on terms for good vs. evil, no moral person could be for punishing innocent people by stealing their money’s purchasing power through currency debasement. Pro also discusses how irresponsible business owners are benefited by low Fed interest rates, again how could any moral person support an action like this. Yet, Con does.Con states about the morality of the Fed’s "Even if this is ‘rewarding irresponsibility’ it is necessary for the economy to function. The economy is intertwined. Simply, as companies hire people who take their salaries and purchase things so other companies can hire people. Therefore, a strong economy is needed for businesses as a whole to be successful." Con’s argument is that since an economy is intertwined, innocent must be punished for the good of the whole. Con also did not respond to AT WHAT COST! Con clearly places the interests of a few wealthy connected elites above a grandma trying to live on a fix income.Con’s favoritism to the controlling interests of big bankers and powerful elite is fully confirmed in this statement “The Fed also helped growth rate continue in 1998, when they cut interest rates to 4.75% to counter the Asian financial crisis. This helped keep the American economy strong to prevent a global economic crisis, specifically leading to an abundance of Internet start-ups.” Fed actions like these favor the connected rich elite’s, and then when the bubble burst the Fed was there again to help the friends by cutting rates, all in the name of a “strong economy”. A strong economy for whom? Certainly not those on a fixed income or trying to live on saved earnings.The side debate on inflation/deflation was interesting. For an individual person, lower prices and money that can purchase more is a great situation. However, to Con and those like Con this situation is the root of all evil and must be destroyed. Pro established a form of deflation that was contrary to Con’s which was dismissed as an individual one time occurrence. Nevertheless, if an entire economy excelled with this type of deflation, by the Fed’s measures, this deflation must be stopped at all costs. Accordingly, the distortion of markets premise was verified by both sides.Lastly, “Macroeconomics is Astrology” not developed at all. If developed, Con could have countered with fallacy of composition, which would have been effective defense. However, with Pro’s limited mental capacity Pro’s would still ask, if something is good for one, why is that bad if everyone does it? Example savings. Maybe Con will post a debate on "Macro-economics Verses Astrology Which is a Science", "animal spirits" are key to both.In closing, Con knowledge of the Federal Reserve is commendable, yet morals ... well, let the voters decide, if any institution that punishes the innocent, rewards the irresponsible, and distorts free markets in the name of a strong economy for the top 1% is moral.Your attention and thoughtful vote is appreciated.