The Wall Street Protests Are Justified

The goal of printing this money is to lessen the actual value of U.S. debt's held by China and JapanThis sounds reasonable but con left out the fact that the notes printed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) are not just given to the government, they are loaned with interest. [1] Any person who would advise more borrowing to fix a debt problem is delusional. That just shifts the debt to another holder and creates an endless cycle. The number 1 step to eliminating debt is to stop borrowing! [2]The printing of this money is absolutely imperative in order to keep our 15 trillion dollar deficit under controlThe Fed was created in 1913[3] and at the time the U.S. had a national debt of 2.9 billion. [4] Today our debt is 14.9 trillion. I think those numbers clearly show that the Fed has not kept the debt under control and there is no reason to believe that now will be any different. The Fed Board is not acting to simply enable the "wealthy" but rather to save the nation's financial system and currencySince the Fed has come into existence the U.S. has added over 14 trillion dollars in debt. The U.S. could not have accumulated this much debt without the Fed printing money and to say that the Fed is acting to save the currency is as much of a contradiction as catching yourself on fire to get rid of your burns. 1 dollar in 1913 is equivalent to $22.92 in 2011. [5] The supposed "stealing from the people" is utterly false. Despite the printing of large quantities of money to offset United States debt, inflation has risen at a healthy pace.Con points out that, inflation has steadily increased. This is the devaluation of money. If a person put 1,000 dollars in a box in 1913 and finally decided to use it in 2011, their spending power would be equivalent to $43.63 in 1913. That is 96% devaluation in the dollar since the creation of the Fed. [5] This is obvious theft. According to the Economist, the United States should shoot for "the target rate from 2% to around 3% or 4%, the debt effect should be a salutary one".("http://www.economist.com......)This target rate is the percentage of increased inflation each year; it does not represent the true percentage of inflation which is about 96% [5] The lowering of interest rates was not an artificial act.It was a direct act.A direct act by the Federal Reserve and not the market; therefore, it was artificial.You lower interest rates, more people buy, you heighten interest rates, the more people don't buy.The lowering of interest rates is a successful tool (in most cases) to combat sluggish economic growth and revitalize the economy.In pure market conditions, low interest rates do help to boost the economy but when interest rates are artificially lowered by the Fed it sends a false signal and there is massive malinvestment. An example of this is the housing crises. The Fed printed money and loaned it out to banks. Then, due to the lowered interest rates and pressure on the banks to loan by the U.S. government, a lot of people borrowed to pay for housing. Eventually many of these people could no longer afford to pay off their loans and lost their homes. Then banks began to close do to the inability of many borrowers to pay off their loans. When the banks and the financials began to fail, the government and the Fed jumped in to bail out Wall Street and the big banks with tax payer money. They are protesting the wealth.Why? Because greed and corruption do not play a part a purely capitalistic society.We don’t have a purely capitalistic society, as con has stated, "Unfortunately, the near-purity of Capitalism has been tarnished in recent years." A greedy corporation would be unable to operate, due to the competitiveness of the markets today.There is almost no competitiveness in the markets today. If you are a big corporation and you fail, you get bailed out by the government.My opponent contended that my 3 presented areas are not the goals of the Wall Street Protests.However, according to the Heritage Foundation, an internationally recognized think tank, these are the goals of the movement:Whether the Heritage Foundation is an internationally recognized think tank or not, they are not Occupy Wall Street and therefore cannot speak for Occupy Wall Street.My opponent only debated the origin, not the argument, therefore the argument now stands unrebutted.Cons argument is against goals he falsely claimed to be of Occupy Wall Street; therefore they deserve no rebuttal. [1]http://www.chrismartenson.com...[2]http://www.financeandfat.com...[3]http://www.federalreserveeducation.org...[4]http://www.treasurydirect.gov...[5]http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...