Federal Reserve System and the base of "capitalist" America.

To clear up the issue PRO has with taken my resolution, it is in my very choosing and title of this debate that I addressed my resolution. In all simplicity, I am CON for the very existence of our Federal Reserve System and the "capitalistic" market it has created for us. My opponent has addressed the same dim look upon capitalism that we have heard economically left liberals weep about since such socialist ideals were strung up. The truth is all of those issues can be addressed within the capabilities of macro capitalistic procedures. My opponent criticizes capitalism with two points. One is the exploitation of workers. The choosing of the argument is understandably justified for during our free-banking era (After Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second National Ban of The United States), their were many wrongdoings at the expense of workers. But, who says that the idea of collective bargaining is a non-capitalistic idea? It is a matter of freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech that all individuals are guaranteed in a presumably capitalistic and freedom based country. It is when the government steps in for or against the systematic makings of the protest that free-market ideals are violated. Sure it may have been taken advantage of in the free banking era: a time of war, social conflict, and European National Bank's and their power hungry doings. However, if we were to have a free banking system today along with Government exclusion in dealings with private industry unions those issues would either be non-existent or brought to light through are blue-collar appreciating media and the mistreatment of workers would be ultimately bad for business. The other argument against pure capitalism my opponent debates is how capitalism virtually widens the income inequality gap. However, it is clear in this Wikipedia page: "http://en.wikipedia.org...; that gap between rich and poor is constantly growing in a market my opponent admits is not capitalist. As a matter of fact, the income inequality we have today is historically significant cited in this huffington post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Again, all in a economic system my opponent claims is not capitalist. For that I agree with him. To reiterate my comments about the boom and bust cycle, I must say my opponent's idea of the boom and bust business cycle is an ambiguous phenomena not only prevalent in economics but all social studies. It is when the certain industrial (in this case credit) tendencies fall into highs followed by lows that I believe to be artificial and not naturally started. The best example is the amount of credit The Federal Reserve incited during "The Roaring Twenties" caused by their increase in the money supply and then the detraction before the Great Depression after the Margin Loans were called in. That is not a natural market tendency if the ENTIRE THING was artificial and entirely created by The Fed's Board of Governors. My opponent is correct when he claims that no entity can create a perfectly stable market, but that opinion depends on what he believes a stable market is. According to classic economic theory, reaching the natural unemployment rate is a perfectly stable market. Even though there is an acceptable unemployment rate. Now a side-effect of monopolized and perpetuated inflation is an unstable natural unemployment rate, thus a result of the Federal Reserve's existence is the worse off tendencies of rates that would persist positively with the hand of the market. So where my opponent is either theoretically and historically mistaken or brainwashed by many years of economically liberal sob-stories is where the root of his falsehoods lay. Also, I call on my opponents gullibility considering the corrupt circumstances surrounding the Federal Reserve's founding that is not only widely accepted but deemed necessary for that particular time by people who have become naive due to the regularity of the federal reserve. I would like to know what my opponent thinks about well-known truths like The Jekyll Island meeting, the Rockefeller-Morgan rumors inciting the panic of 1907, the promise to sign the federal reserve act by Woodrow Wilson before being elected in exchange for campaign contributions, and the very corrupt and debt continuing essence of a central bank of paper money. Doesn't my opponent find it corrupt and an abuse of power that the federal reserve being the ONLY source of internal capital to the treasury while having the freedom to raise and lower the very interest rates that the treasury must pay back. Eventually, when the debt is funded the treasury goes back to the federal reserve resulting in an inevitable rate of growing debt. That is why not only this system is inefficient, it's very existence is corrupt, power-ridden, and hidden from the American people. So I ask, does my opponent find these truths acceptable and trustworthy. That is, if those facts are debated of course.