Debate Rounds (3)
Many countries like China, Russia, and south Africa are suggesting on a global paper currency. I think this is wrong.
Point 1: This will give a centralize bank the most amount of power in the world. The bankers are normally unelected in centralized banks.
Point 2: This will be used as a force to punish those that differ from the norm.
I made two simple points. I would like to see the counter argument.
I agree with you that a global currency will likely lead to some sort of centralized bank. Perhaps something similar to the UN or the International Monetary Fund shall regulate the world's banks. However, I disagree that this centralized bank will have any significant negative effects.
I will reserve my counter-arguments until you elaborate on Point 2 and tell us how the centralized banks will misuse their power. Let me present 3 arguments in favor of a global currency:
---Contention#1: Stop wasteful currency trading ----
The world trades about 1.2 trillion worth of currencies daily. Ceasing trade between the present 190 or so currencies would save hundreds of billions in foreign exchange costs. 
---Contention#2: End national currency crises-----
A currency crisis occurs when some national currency goes haywire and becomes unreliable, prompting mass hysteria, sale of the national currency and purchase of foreign currency, devaluation of the national currency... and ultimately, massive job loss and industry shutdown. Recent examples include the Argentinian crisis (1999-2002) and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. A global currency would stop such crises, thus preserving jobs and industries. Also, the country will be absolved of the need to constantly maintain foreign currency reserves. 
----Contention#3: Stabilize international business----
Investors are more likely to invest in a country with a stable currency, in order to have stable and safe investments. Consequently, a global currency would spur investment and lead to development all over the world, in the sciences, in infrastructure and in services. 
Point 1 of my previous discussion are actually much more significant than you may realize. Without a strong and stable world order it is impossible to make a bank, that is required to print this money, to have proper check and balances. The UN will be mostly immobilized because most of the big countries have vast different economical ideas on how currency or for that matter the world economy should work. It won't likely do anything to the banking system. The currency can't be started by the UN either because the United States and United Kingdom will likely not accept it. This has to be started by another international entity.
Lead bankers of big bank become politicans naturally because of their power. Many have social plans but mostly economical ideas such as proving capitalism is good or bad. Right now every country has different ideas on how to solve this economical crisis. Any future economical crisis if the global currency act happens will cause the centralize bank to be in charge of solving the problem. Ben Bernanke believes that the spending that the United States is good because inflating the currency will prevent massive deflation. However other experts believe that we need to enter deflation in order to get out of the crisis. They say that Bernanke plan will lead to hyperinflation. If the global currency idea happens than this will be a decision of the centerize bank leader. With many currency other nations are more likely to survive if one messes up their currency. If this centralize bank ruins the currency it will destroy the world's economy.
Your points are good but they look at the market side assuming no political tension. In argument against contention #2 it will prevent problems in countries with small economies but not with big economies because the big economic powers are the ones that back it up. This will cause further dependency for small powers on the superpowers.
I. Your first paragraph argues that internal disagreement on currency and economic theories will immobilize the centralized bank. I respond that the centralized bank members can periodically elect a cabinet whose members share similar philosophies to each other. Each cabinet would have to mandatorily step down after a given period, and the new cabinet would step in. Cabinets, who share similar ideologies, would work smoothly together, preventing any paralysis of the bank.
II. Your second paragraph's main point is that a global currency would mean that each banking failure is enacted on a global level, and that the status quo ensures that each nation's banking failure is primarily its own, making other nations more likely to survive. I have two responses. (a) Nations in the status quo are ALREADY interconnected, and an important country's failure impacts all others significantly. The USA's economic crisis should be sufficient as an example here! I admit that the global currency would enact each failure on a global scale, but such failures would not prove significantly worse than the status quo's interconnectivity. (b) Whatever additional harm the global scale failure does cause, it is outweighed by the benefits of global currency that I gave: billions of dollars, tremendous preservation of jobs and industries, and increased growth in science and infrastructure.
III. In your last paragraph you said:
"Your points are good but they look at the market side assuming no political tension. "
Could you elaborate?
"In argument against contention #2 it will prevent problems in countries with small economies but not with big economies because the big economic powers are the ones that back it up. This will cause further dependency for small powers on the superpowers."
I'm sorry, but neither do I understand this nor do I see how it relates to my Contention #2. Could you elaborate?
I hope that the audience sees how the benefits of billions of dollars, countless jobs and a flourishing science outweigh the disadvantages of a global scale failure!
grayron forfeited this round.
In my post R1 I gave several benefits of a global currency (decreasing costs and economy crises, and promoting investment). My opponent did respond to some of these benefits, but she failed to give sufficient analysis to rebut them.
On her side, Con's 2 main arguments were: (a) a practical system for implementing a global currency, and (b) the harms of a global collapse of global currency. In response to (a), I have given the basics of a tentative system, and for (b), I have argued that the harms of a global collapse of currency would occur even now, and are nevertheless outweighed by the benefits of global currency.
Since the benefits outweigh the harms, vote Pro!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.