The Instigator
Francisco_DAnconia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The global economy no longer needs or benefits from Central Banks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 58569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Francisco_DAnconia

Pro

Central banks around the world have taken unprecedented actions since the Financial Crisis in 2008. Ostensibly, these actions were necessary to prevent economic calamity and to preserve overall wellbeing. In the six years since the Financial Crisis, central banks around the world have continued to pursue, by historical standards, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy in order to restore national economies to more robust growth, consistent inflation and full employment.

Pro puts forward that the actions of these central banks have had an overall negative effect on the global economy and that, given the vast improvements in global communications over the past 25 years, the primary function of the central banks as global clearing houses and lenders of last resort are no longer necessary or beneficial to the global economy.
wrichcirw

Con

I thank my opponent for posting a pertinent, intelligent, and significant economic issue for debate, as the economics section of this website has been experiencing a pronounced dearth of activity.

Although I would personally rather this debate be a "no scoring" debate, I will leave it up to my opponent to make that determination.

Finally, I will note that rounds are only 2,000 characters long, so arguments will be decidedly short, brief, and more than likely unsourced to adhere to such a spartan character limit.


Opening


My argument is very, very simple - the Fed and other central banks exist to deal with market failures - that's exactly what the Fed has been doing since 2008 - correcting for a market failure in the mortgage industry by buying up massive amounts of mortgage-backed-securities (MBSs) to prevent a market collapse.

My opponent's argument would seem to imply that such market failures no longer exist "given the vast improvements in global communications over the past 25 years." The collapse in housing and the potentially astronomical losses associated with deriviatives contracts linked to housing has proven that market failures still exist despite massive improvements in communications, meaning that the Fed still has a role to play. Human nature is what it is, and "animal spirits" will surface.
Debate Round No. 1
Francisco_DAnconia

Pro

Francisco_DAnconia forfeited this round.
wrichcirw

Con

My opponent has forfeited without addressing my rebuttal. Extend.
Debate Round No. 2
Francisco_DAnconia

Pro

Francisco_DAnconia forfeited this round.
wrichcirw

Con

And so this "debate" ends. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Fair enough, and good luck.
Posted by Francisco_DAnconia 2 years ago
Francisco_DAnconia
Thanks for accepting MacArthur. I am going to keep it a voted debate just to get feedback, but I will be viewing it more as a prodding discussion (hence the character limit).
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Francisco_DAnconiawrichcirwTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Francisco_DAnconiawrichcirwTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Francisco_DAnconiawrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The rebuttals went unrefuted, therefore it's impossible for Pro to fullfill his BOP. Likewise, some of his points were affirmed, but affirmed points have lower weight compared to dropped points in these circumstances, but since Con wants a no scoring debate, I'll only vote conduct, so if Pro decides to come back, someone can tie it up.