Category: Business
We Should Have Continued to Use Our Colonial Scrip System Instead of the Bank of England Model.
This debate began on Thursday, February 28, 2008, 7:13:20 AM Pacific Time.
| Who Won This Debate? | ||||
 3 Votes |
4 Votes |
|||
Versus |
||||
Pro ~ Round 1
Colonial Scrip was a monetary system invented by Benjamin Franklin, because the Colonies had, simply put, no money. So he created money backed by real estate (I don't know exactly how, but I wish I did.) that inflated at 3% per year to keep the price of goods almost the same as time goes on. This monetary system was so successful, that the average American farmer was wealthier than the average British aristocrat. The Bank of England got upset that they couldn't cash in on this success, so the British government banned the use of Colonial Scrip. This was one of the main causes of the American Secession (Revolutionary War) from England (You never hear about it, though!).
Colonial Scrip was a monetary system invented by Benjamin Franklin, because the Colonies had, simply put, no money. So he created money backed by real estate (I don't know exactly how, but I wish I did.) that inflated at 3% per year to keep the price of goods almost the same as time goes on. This monetary system was so successful, that the average American farmer was wealthier than the average British aristocrat. The Bank of England got upset that they couldn't cash in on this success, so the British government banned the use of Colonial Scrip. This was one of the main causes of the American Secession (Revolutionary War) from England (You never hear about it, though!).
Con ~ Round 1
Point 1: We are effectively on a colonial scrip system. Since eliminating the gold standard in 1971, we are on a fiat currency system, which is the same as the colonial scrip system.
Point 2: Fiat currencies encourage government manipulation of the market. These manipulations tend to lead to hyperinflation (as in Germany in the 1930s) because, with the currency not backed by anything but the "full faith and credit" of the government, the government can print as much as it wants. This has happened several times in the past, and in fact is happening right now.
Point 3: It encourages economic gambles. Because printing money is essentially a loan (the government lends the currency to a bank, which pays interest), the government tends to make decisions that it thinks will cause temporary bumps in the economy to boost revenue. These bumps inevitably lead to crashes.
Point 1: We are effectively on a colonial scrip system. Since eliminating the gold standard in 1971, we are on a fiat currency system, which is the same as the colonial scrip system.
Point 2: Fiat currencies encourage government manipulation of the market. These manipulations tend to lead to hyperinflation (as in Germany in the 1930s) because, with the currency not backed by anything but the "full faith and credit" of the government, the government can print as much as it wants. This has happened several times in the past, and in fact is happening right now.
Point 3: It encourages economic gambles. Because printing money is essentially a loan (the government lends the currency to a bank, which pays interest), the government tends to make decisions that it thinks will cause temporary bumps in the economy to boost revenue. These bumps inevitably lead to crashes.
Pro ~ Round 2
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Con ~ Round 2
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Pro ~ Round 3
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Con ~ Round 3
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Member Comments (6)
Only members can post comments.
I apologize for forfeiting this debate. I don't usually do that!
4 Months Ago
P.S DreamingBearcat, I noticed you began on this site in December but you only have done 3 debates. And while I haven't seen many debates from you where you have been critically challenged... your profile speaks of an intelligent individual. I would be very interested in seeing more debates.
4 Months Ago
While I agree with the Pro on this debate, the Con has no refutation from the Pro what-so-ever. Thus I am mildly saddened by this sites ability to vote, but that is okay. My vote goes Con, nice job.
4 Months Ago
Now it's got me interested too. Here's a pretty decent article on it:
http://reactor-core.org/...
It sounds like England was on the gold/silver standard. Only the banks had "money" so-to-speak, so people had to borrow from the banks to trade. This lead to a lot of poor and unemployed since there basically wasn't enough capitol in their monetary system to pay people.
The article does not say what they based their money on, but it could be property. The point was the currency was based on something everyone had, so there everyone was financially solvent thereby getting rid of poverty. He is right though, when England forced them back to the "Bankers own everything" system, the colonies were violently pushed into poverty which got everyone a little upset.
For this debate though, this part of the article seems to sum up what he wants to talk about
"Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the financial dictatorship.
There is only one cure for America's ultimate financial collapse and that is for Congress to exercise Clause 30 of the "Federal" Reserve Act, buy the outstanding shares of stock, shut down this unconstitutional system and sell off their assets to reimburse the people of this nation for this unspeakable theft of their wealth."
So the con would have to debate why we should keep the Federal Reserve, since it puts us all under the whim of a large ruling "bank", just like England used to do.
http://reactor-core.org/...
It sounds like England was on the gold/silver standard. Only the banks had "money" so-to-speak, so people had to borrow from the banks to trade. This lead to a lot of poor and unemployed since there basically wasn't enough capitol in their monetary system to pay people.
The article does not say what they based their money on, but it could be property. The point was the currency was based on something everyone had, so there everyone was financially solvent thereby getting rid of poverty. He is right though, when England forced them back to the "Bankers own everything" system, the colonies were violently pushed into poverty which got everyone a little upset.
For this debate though, this part of the article seems to sum up what he wants to talk about
"Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the financial dictatorship.
There is only one cure for America's ultimate financial collapse and that is for Congress to exercise Clause 30 of the "Federal" Reserve Act, buy the outstanding shares of stock, shut down this unconstitutional system and sell off their assets to reimburse the people of this nation for this unspeakable theft of their wealth."
So the con would have to debate why we should keep the Federal Reserve, since it puts us all under the whim of a large ruling "bank", just like England used to do.
4 Months Ago
I would like to debate on some of the details that were provided in the opening statement, but as far as the debate topic at hand I don't know enough to take it on.
4 Months Ago
This sounds very interesting. It's disappointing that you don't know how he managed to do this, but perhaps this debate will reveal some info. I'm following this debate.
4 Months Ago
Copyright © 2007 WebCorp, LLC™, all rights reserved.