The Instigator
Con (against)
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

All Countries Should Use the Same Currency

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,748 times Debate No: 29330
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




I would like to thank DoctorDeku for agreeing to this topic of interest.


All countries should use the same currency.

BoP is shared.


All countries: All independent nations.

Use: "To employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of."[1]

Same: "I
dentical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned."[2]

Currency: "A generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade."[3]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible in your argument. No outside links including some or all of either.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
6. Time to argue is 48 hours.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




Sorry for the wait Subutai, and thanks for issuing this challenge! I've got to say I really appreciate the round structure you're laid out for this debate to operate under, and I look forward to the forthcoming clash.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks DoctorDeku for accepting.

For this debate, I am going to concentrate onthe Euro as my example since it is the closest thing we have to an universal currency. Any and all examples of problems and difficulties come from Europe and the Euro.

Countries rely on various economic tools to direct their plan for economic growth. Each country has an individual set of needs and wants that should be satisfied. However, with a global currency, this customizable economic plan is impossible. A single monetary union that serves a single interest to all the worldis impossible. The world is a hodge-podge of different countries; it is a “patchwork of sovereign nations with distinct languages, cultures and histories that have more often been at war with each other than in search of common ground”. Each country has its own economic problems that require individualized solutions.[1]

This causes many problems as all countries must have one monetary policy. Take for example interest rates. The ability for Governments to set interest rates on their own is a vital tool to combat economic problems. Interest rates are monetary policies set by the Government to combat economic problems. Raising the interest rate slows inflation, while lowering the interest rate helps end a recession, and every country has a different interest rate to satisfy its economic needs. “By adopting a single currency, Euroland governments will lose control over a vital instrument for managing a national economy – the power to mint money and influence its value by adjusting interest rates."[1]

Or take the example of exchange rates. Exchange rates are also very important to the well-being of an economy. Countries set rates depending on their economic conditions. If a country is experiencing a recession, it might start exporting more and importing less so as to create a trade surplus and raise GDP. As with interest rates, a world currency takes this vital power away from each country. "Monetary union has shackled together nations with vastly different economies, depriving them of an independent monetary policy that can help them through rough times. The interest rate and exchange rate that serve Germany also have to serve Spain, though that country has more than four times Germany’s joblessness."[2]

The effects of all this are economic problems. "That presents these countries with some painful choices they didn’t have to deal with back in the days when they could devalue their local currency. Italy, for example, faces some stark choices, according to a 2006 report by the Center for European reform, a London-based think tank. It can continue to muddle along as the slowest growing economy among euro countries. Or it could boost productivity, chiefly by cutting wages. Or it could leave the euro, devalue its debts and create its own currency. Doing so, however, would make it much more difficult to borrow.

Other euro countries with high debts face similar downward spirals. Those debts increase costs, forcing tax increases or spending cuts. Cutting future borrowing costs means raising productivity — either through layoffs or wage cuts or both. None of those choices is likely to win much support on Election Day."[3]

In addition to economic problems, a single currency also debt. Governmentsshould beable to control borrowing through economic indicators. However, as with everything else,a world currencytakes that power away from countries. "Before the monetary union was put in place, large fiscal deficits generally led to higher interest rates or declining exchange rates. These market signals acted as an automatic warning for countries to reduce their borrowing. The monetary union eliminated those market signals and precluded the higher cost of funds that would otherwise have limited household borrowing. The result was that countries borrowed too much and banks loaned too much on overpriced housing. This caused “rapidly rising ratios of public and private debt to GDP."[4] In the Eurozone, in just five years, Debt-to-GDP ratios have gone up around 12%, and even more forsome countries (for example the PIIGS).

In conclusion, "Diversity means different strokes for different folks. But a common currency means a common economic policy, which is turning out to be impossible for groups of people with habits as different as those of the Germans and those of the Greeks."[5]

I will end with a hypothesis:

1) A global currency takesaway the power for countries to dictate their individualized economic policies.

2) This causes problems in the countries where that global economicpolicy is not what they need.

3) Therefore, there should be no global currency.


[1]: Cooper, Mary H. "European Monetary Union: Will It Stabilize Prices and Boost Global Trade?" CQ Researcher 8.44 (1998). pp. 1025-48


Great constructive Subutai!

I stand affirmed, that 'All countries should use the same currency'. Unlike my opponent I will not focus on any specific established currency. The resolution does nothing to indicate the adoption of an already established currency, so under the suspension of belief anything could suffice.

My interpretation (and my opponent may feel free to reject this definition) of the work 'should' will be something that is a good idea. Meaning that my opponent and I have no obligation to outline a policy to support our advocacy, just whether or not a universal currency would be a good or bad idea.

First: A Universal currency would be convienent-
There are a lot of different kinds of money used all across the world[1], and in many cases you'll see neighboring nations using different types of money[1]. This doesn't seem like all to be of a problem at first, but the truth is it's a big hassle. Unless one intends to say in their own country they're required to exchange a certain portion of their money every time they go to a different country.

With a common currency, exchange rates would be a thing of the past. Money would just be money.

In many cases private businesses are forced to only operate under their nation's approved currency, lest they face severe threats from not only their fellow citizens, but their own government[2]. This happens for a variety of reasons, including tax codes, social order an racism. However the common thread among these are that they are problems which can be easily solved with a common currency. Governments could tax citizens based on their revenues and surround people would be none the wiser as to the source of the money.

Second: A Universal currency would solve dishonest trade tactics-
China has consistently undermined the global economy by artificially keeping the Yuan low. It is undeniable that the strength of the Yuan has steadily increased over the past decade as first world countries have become more and more dependent on China as a producer of goods, so the Yuan's low value isn't logical.
By suppressing the yuan, the Chinese are able to market goods at a much lower price (as well as quality), which harms producers of nations with higher currencies. The United States and the European Union can't be expected to keep up!

Another dishonest tactic which would be deterred, would be the abuse of the stock market[4]. With a common currency set at a flat rate, those involved in the stock market would be discourages from manipulating prices and currencies of various currencies and commodities[5].

Third: A Universal currency would encourage cultural diffusion-
The argument here is very simple, when everyone has the same standard for what money is, you can spend your money anywhere you want. I spoke briefly in my first argument about how neighboring countries will often use different forms of currency, examples would be Norway and Sweden[6]. Despite being very near neighbors and even calling their money by the same name (Krone) there exists a gap in the value of their money.
For one who would travel between the countries often (which is often the case among European nations) this would be a hassle. Citizens would be forced to carry both currencies out of necessity.

More than however, the banking institutions of some nations are so drastically different, that tourists are often hard pressed to get access to their own money when in another country. For instance, in Japan most stores operate in cash only paradigm[7] with very few accepting credit or debit. So if you run out of money you're basically SOL. Now I know you're thinking 'why not just use an ATM? well even this draws a problem as many Japanese banks have been hesitant to incorporate ATMS, and those that have keep them inside the bank itself[8]. So if your bank is closed, you're not getting any money, and most Japanese banks only operate from 9am to 3pm.

Essentially if you could use your money anywhere, you would be more otivated to use is anyway where. There are other domestic examples as well, such as certain institutions not accepting credit cards or checks, but I'm running out of room.

Fourth: A Universal currency would encourage equality.
A survey of the cost of food among several nations reveals a not so surprising gap in the prices paid by different families[9]. From more than $500 dollars a month in Germany to only $29.00 in Mali. With a universal standard of currency we could better see different culture's standard of living and classify people on a global scale.

This would created a more distinct summary of need when delivering foreign aid, and make it easier to promote equality those who have different needs. It would definitely make those involved in the occupy movement drop the 99% moniker, as it would show that while there may be a one percent, not too many Americans dip below the 81st percentile themselves[10]

The incentive to take care of one's own problems is the most glaring impact here, but the subsidiary benefits trail into charity as well as tax reform.

In conclusion I have shown that all countries should use the same currency by pragmatic advantage.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks DoctorDeku.

He mentioned that he will not be focusing on a specific currency. I’d just like to reiterate that my arguments are not bound to the Euro. It is just an example because it is the only modern example we have of a universal currency.

I. A Universal Currency Would Be Convenient

Eliminating exchange rates is not a good idea. They deprive countries of the ability to control their economic policy. If a country is experiencing a recession, it should depreciate its currency so as to make exports look more profitable to foreigners and to discourage imports, in order to create a trade surplus. However, eliminating exchange rates ends this. Countries can no longer set exchange rates to help in recessions. If exchange rates are too high forprofitable exports, then it’s too bad for that country. The problems with this can be seen in Spain.[1]

I’ll concede that using a foreign currency at home may cause tension, but no system is perfect. However, having a universal currency would not affect tax revenues. For example, a 10% flat tax on income is 10% of all income, no matter the medium.

II. A Universal Currency Would Solve Dishonest Trade Tactics

First of all, as the article points out, China is not suppressing its currency: “But there is little evidence the central bank is intervening on a large scale to suppress the value of the renminbi… The renminbi has been under downward pressure because Chinese businesses and households have been moving more money out of the country to diversify their investments and hedge against the possibility of a political change at home.”[2]

In fact, “When a boom goes bust, devaluing currency is the least bad way for governments to rein in wages and prices that are suddenly too high. But if you use the same currency as another country that isn’t in dire straits, good luck convincing them to accept devaluation on your nation’s behalf.”[3] There’s nothing really wrong with devaluing a currency to get out of an economic recession.

Finally, I see no correlation in dishonest stockmarket tactics and many currencies after reading his two articles (well reading the abstract of the first one). I ask my opponent give more information on this supposed correlation.

III. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Cultural Diffusion

I admit, it is a hassle to go to another country and have to use a different currency. However, it’s not the end of the world. It’s easy to get Sweden’s currency made into Norway’s (as long as you are in either country). These days, currency “vending machines” are everywhere. It is easier than ever to change your dollars into, say, Euros.

Next, it is also not that big of a hassle to use money in other countries. Every time I have traveled, I have had such an easy time getting currency that I wouldn’t even consider it a hassle.

It’s a price we have to pay for having the right to dictate our own economy in the ever-globalizing world. And with that globalization, it has become easier than ever to get the currency you need at the proper exchange rate. A universal currency would not encourage cultural diffusion any more than we already have it.

IV. A Universal Currency Would Encourage Equality

I don’t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot clearly see another countries’ standard of living and classify people on a global scale because of separate currencies. All you have to do is divide a countries’ GDP by its population and translate that value into the currency you want through exchange rates. We do it for all countries.

And again, I don’t understand why my opponent thinks that we cannot see that the US is better off overall than many countries. We don’t need a global currency to see that. That’s what GDP percapita statistics are for.

In fact, by putting the world under a universal currency, it will harm smaller economies that have not taken off yet by disallowing them from devaluating their currency to expand their economy, thus making the gap bigger.


While presenting a solid case, my opponent has several fallacies in his case. For example, many of his sources only back up half or less of his argument. For example, his sources 4 and 5 mention various forms of dishonest stock market tactics, but do not attribute it to separate currencies. My opponent has never proven that point, and several other points in that fashion.

He also contains a few fallacies where he thinks a universal currency will help promote equality. One, he hasn’t proven that a universal currency will help us see our position in the world better, and he hasn’t proven why a universal currency would promote equality in the first place. I even showed how a universal currency harms equality.

Not one of his arguments that even make sense hold a candle in comparison to countries being able to dictate their own economic-policies; not a one-size-fits-all policy that will screw up most countries under it. That is vitally important to a countries’ well-being and eventual prosperity, no matter the size or condition.




DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I know my opponent has a busy schedle since he is currently at a debate tournament himself. I respect his inability to post and ask the many readers of this debate to stay tuned to a round 2 of this debate. At the consent of DoctorDeku, I will get this debate deleted and we will start over again, either copy-and-pasting arguments or changing them, whichever one we choose.

I hoep to debate you on this topic soon, DoctorDeku. Apologies for making you waste the time in creating an argument when you obviously have more important things to worry about.


DoctorDeku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
I didn't see that he closed his account. Oops.
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
Not only am I certain that I will be posting my round at the very last moment (assuming I don't time out), but it will probably also suck since I am currently at a debate tournament.
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
If I've timed it right, I'll qualify for voting priviledges by the time this debate ends. Looking forward to see this through.
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
I'm probably not going to be able to post on this until the very last moment >->/*
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
thigner: while I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, please don't offer arguments in the comments.
Posted by thigner 3 years ago
Quite interesting debate.

I think having sole currency through all countries or all independent nations is pretty existing only in imagination. SO, I hope you all debate with situations happening while same currency used in the world.

Con's claim is like that A is working well in current currency system. Also, B is working well in current currency system. Furthermore, I doubt sole currency will work out in real world.


You need to make some critical points A, B problems can't be solved at one currency world.

I mean that's better argument you guys can do. Just suggestion and recommendation that's it.

And pro will need some imaginations with various sources supporting your claim

C is your imaginary claim and you need d, e and f, which are all supporting points real world occupy and which is adoptable to your imagination. good luck for both sides. I'm watching it with huge excitement
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
I have two requests which you may feel free to deny,
1st - Change the definition of 'all countries' to 'all independent nations'.
2nd- Change the max character count to 6,000.
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
I'll accept on Wednesday.
Great parameters, I look forward to this debate!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Magicr 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vb
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con for pro's ff, but arguments go to pro because con did not refute them effectively