We should return to the gold standard

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...