The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

The finale approaches! Let's jump right in. All quotations are taken directly from my opponent's document or other sources if specified. Reason 1: "My opponent is right in that "to coin money" means so stamp bars/ coins of gold or silver to certify that they are a certain weight and purity of gold or silver." So by this definition of coining money, the Federal Reserve does not coin money. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is in no way violating the supreme writing of the Constitution. In the last quote you provided clearly it is clearly stated that this only applies to States, so I don't see where you're going with that one. So the States cannot grant letters of marque and reprisal? From Wikipedia: In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. So... Not really sure what I'm supposed to say... You seem very off topic. Reason 2: "My opponent claims that inflation is not caused by the Federal Reserve, though this is easily disproven and soi is his link, even though forbes is commonly a reliable website." You claim that this is easily debunked (disproven is not a word), but you never debunk it. The information I provided still stands strong and true. I'm not sure if the explanation of market based economics was supposed to debunk the source, but it's completely unrelated. "Secondly, there are 151 million jobs in the United States, there are 320 million people in the US, thus there are 169 million unemployed in the US, this means that unemployment is at 53%. " I don't know how to respond to this buffoonery other than to re-cite my original source. http://www.bls.gov... I don't know how it is possible for one to believe that more than half of the entire citizens of the US are unemployed. For the rest on monopoly I'll indulge in what you've written instead of arguing over definitions, it'll make this a lot easier. A monopoly at its core is exclusive control of something (broadening the definition in your favor). The Federal Reserve does not have exclusive control over our nation's money, it's a fact. Everybody owns money, and everybody can do what they want with their money (except destroy it of course). The Fed does control the supply of money, but for the reasons I've already cited to oblivion, to help battle inflation. As the rest of this section is about inflation, I extend my arguments. Reason 4: "the Federal Reserve really shouldn"t bail out Citi if it goes under because if Citi goes under, it"s because of its own destructive behavior" Banks can go under for a variety of reasons, such as sudden withdrawals and bad loans. While some bank failures in the past may have been the fault of the bank, now that's a far cry, and banking disasters are more likely to occur based on the factors caused by us, the people. Reason 6: I had a real trouble understanding this paragraph. I'm not sure if it was grammatical or what. I'll try to address the point I think is being made. "Though, over time the GDP growth and the rate of Recessions seem to decrease over time, and at rates independent from Federal Reserve involvement." You say this but have provided no alternative to why the GDP growth and rate of recession decrease occurred. Reason 7: Social Security fights inflation (that I proved is not caused by the Fed) with its COLA system. While like I stated earlier, wages are negotiated through unionization. COLA: https://www.ssa.gov... "no, the Federal Reserve giving free money to corporations is not good, because the majority of these were given to banks, the same banks who ruined the economy" How did they ruin the economy? I already clarified that banks are usually not solely responsible for bank failure. "they don"t need this money, and if they say they cannot redeem deposits, they are full of crap because it"s all in Bermuda." Your rambling is not cited or proven in any way. Reason 9: "these recessions were not quickly recovered from" According to your provided source (https://en.wikipedia.org...) here are the descriptions of each recession in your specified time frame. #1: "This was a brief but very sharp recession and was caused by the end of wartime production." #2: "The recession was short, but extremely painful...The economy had a strong recovery following the recession." #3: "Industrial production declined in 1923"24, but on the whole this was a mild recession." #4: "This was an unusual and mild recession" So according to your own source, your statement is false. "infact they were all just one big recession which the Federal Reserve kicked down the road a little further, when it was time to pay the bill, they kicked it down farther until the crisis grew too big to kick farther." And your proof is again nonexistent. ************************************************************************************************* Final Words / A debate in review: I'd like to thank harrytruman for a good debate, and I'd also like to review my interpretation on the standings and give some last thoughts before I close. Reviewing spelling and grammar / conduct: I leave this to our judges. Reviewing the strength of arguments: At the very least, I have provided reasonable doubt in every single one of my opponent's arguments. On the flip side, my opponent has not done a single thing to address my only argument, choosing to leave it uncontested. As he clearly stated to me that the burden of proof was split among both of us, I have no idea why he chose to ignore my only main argument for why the Fed should not be abolished. All right. I have nothing further to say. Thank you for your patience.