The Wall Street Protests Are Justified

"notes printed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) are not just given to the government"He is correct, some notes are loaned, while others, as I said, are given to pay off United States debt. "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]"We're talking about Capital Hill here, their solutions are not always logical."The 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. "Had the Federal Reserve and the United States Mint not printed the money, the debt situation would be far worse. "The U.S. could not have accumulated this much debt without the Fed printing money"The debt problems were caused be frivolous federal spending over decades, not because of the United States Mint or the Federal Reserve Board. Make the distinction, the Federal Reserve Board is not the omnipotent beast in Washington, the President and Congress have that ability."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. "As I pointed out, a rate of 3-4% inflation is a healthy rate. Your entire rebuttal rests on the fact that income levels have remained the same. If inflation goes up without a increase in income, then yes it would be stealing from the people. But the simple fact of the matter is the amount of income for nearly all Americans has increased over the past decades along with inflation. I checked out his source, and in fact it says right on the side of the page "Annual Inflation: 3.9%", that is perfectly within the target range according to my economist evidence."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."Actually, it was a direct act, by the Federal Reserve Board.I never said the lowering of interest rates was a result of the market."...there is massive malinvestment. An example of this is the housing crises. "The housing crisis of 2008 was not caused by the lowering of the interest rate, rather, it was caused by massive distortions created in the market caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as Bernie Madoff defrauding mortgages. Read the book "How Capitalism Will Save Us", it will explain in far more detail than I have time to provide. "We don’t have a purely capitalistic society, as con has stated, "Unfortunately, the near-purity of Capitalism has been tarnished in recent years." We don't have a purely capitalistic economy, obviously. What we do have is a mostly free economy, in a pure capitalistic economy such greed and corruption as the likes of Bernie Madoff never would have happened. Government distortions allowed corruption and greed to occur. "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."There is absolutely competitiveness in the markets today. Look at Iphone vs. Android, Burger King vs. McDonald's, Walmart vs. Kmart, Toyota vs. Ford, I could on for hours. Corporate failures are not guaranteed to be bailed out, we have rarely bailed out corporations if you look at the history of our nation. You point to 2008 as the bailouts, however those were the first bailouts in years. "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."The Heritage Foundation is an internationally respected authority, they recieved the goals of the OWS campaign via leaders of it. They have every right to publish findings. "Cons argument is against goals he falsely claimed to be of Occupy Wall Street; therefore they deserve no rebuttal. "My opponent has once again failed to realize the goals of Wall Street as published by the Heritage Foundation.Extend my 2nd arguments throughout the round today.So let's take a step back and take a look at the entire picture. Observation One: The protesters on Wall Street are in an indirect way protesting Capitalism, the very foundation of our nation and its economy. They protested the supposed (and I argued non-existent) greed and corruption of the 1%, and aimed for a more "democratic spread of wealth", a spread of wealth is not in sync with Capitalism's values.It's clear that the Occupiers are unjustified because they protest something that they do not fully understand.Observation Two: The Heritage Foundation, an internationally respected authority on politics, recieved the goals of the OWS Campaign and published their responses. My opponent today has only argued my source, not the argument itself. The arguments stood throughout the round and therefore can be carried through.It's clear that the Occupiers are unjustified in light that their goals are anti-Capitalist and anti-business.I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for the enlightening debate over the past few days. I'm extraordinarily happy that there are people like him that are willing to closely examine the pertinent issues of the day. For that, I thank him.I urge a negative ballot today, thank you all.