Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global Currency to promote free trade

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.
The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
bad idea. Economies have no control over business cycles since they won't have control of the money. Economies have different growth rates, leading to inflation and deflation depending on the economy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:18:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
bad idea. Economies have no control over business cycles since they won't have control of the money.
Well if the currency is digital, than the volume of transactions can be automatically calculated, and the monetary supply can automatically adjust accordingly.

Economies have different growth rates, leading to inflation and deflation depending on the economy.

Law of one price
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:35:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:25:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:18:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
bad idea. Economies have no control over business cycles since they won't have control of the money.
Well if the currency is digital, than the volume of transactions can be automatically calculated, and the monetary supply can automatically adjust accordingly.

But each country needs a different level of money supply.

Economies have different growth rates, leading to inflation and deflation depending on the economy.

Law of one price

What are you talking about, law of one price? Have you travelled abroad and noticed that prices are different around the world.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That would never work.... It would take just one insane government to go crazy printing the money to completely destabalize its value and trigger a massive economic problem
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:35:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:25:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:18:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
bad idea. Economies have no control over business cycles since they won't have control of the money.
Well if the currency is digital, than the volume of transactions can be automatically calculated, and the monetary supply can automatically adjust accordingly.

But each country needs a different level of money supply.

The collective monetary supply =/= the local monetary supply
The global monetary supply may be 80 trillion, while the local monetary supply is only 14 trillion. When one region trades with another money switches hands from the consumer to the supplier, thereby increasing the monetary supply in the supplying country.

Economies have different growth rates, leading to inflation and deflation depending on the economy.

Law of one price

What are you talking about, law of one price? Have you traveled abroad and noticed that prices are different around the world.

The Law of one price states that once exchange rates are taken into consideration, the price will be the same everywhere (provided there is perfect competition). The prices only differ in region A compared to region B, due to regulations, taxation, inflation, and other market imperfections.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:45:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
Are you advocating a kind of eurozone system for the entire world? /clarification

I believe we should adopt a digital currency, which automatically adjusts according changes in transactions. This would eliminate inflation, and improve the efficiency of interest rates and international trade.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:07:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:42:55 PM, imabench wrote:
That would never work.... It would take just one insane government to go crazy printing the money to completely destabalize its value and trigger a massive economic problem

Which is why I suggested an automatic supply system, using a transaction based digital currency.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:08:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 11:05:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:45:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
Are you advocating a kind of eurozone system for the entire world? /clarification

I believe we should adopt a digital currency, which automatically adjusts according changes in transactions. This would eliminate inflation, and improve the efficiency of interest rates and international trade.

Are you aggregating the demand of the entire world? The governments won't have any control over the monetary system of their country, you mean?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 11:08:17 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/8/2013 11:05:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:45:13 PM, Cermank wrote:
Are you advocating a kind of eurozone system for the entire world? /clarification

I believe we should adopt a digital currency, which automatically adjusts according changes in transactions. This would eliminate inflation, and improve the efficiency of interest rates and international trade.

Are you aggregating the demand of the entire world? The governments won't have any control over the monetary system of their country, you mean?

yes, hence the title "Global Currency to promote free trade"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time. Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government. There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

A worthy notion nonetheless.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 2:11:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time.
Can you please elaborate?
Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

Why does there have to be a global government or global hegemony?
The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

The world had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar, and the dollar was backed by gold. There was not enough gold to support the growing monetary demand, so other countries began adopting floating exchange rates. When the system failed, Nixon took us off the gold standard.
A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government.
There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

Why? That is a pretty bold assertion.
A worthy notion nonetheless.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 2:35:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would have thought you a free-banking supporter, Dan. At least this is slightly less crazy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 3:06:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 2:11:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time.
Can you please elaborate?

I will not. I can see it turning into a political argument I do not want to have with you. It will involve political terms. I've learned to avoid political terms with you.

Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

Why does there have to be a global government or global hegemony?

Because a global monetary system would require one to work.

The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

The world had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar, and the dollar was backed by gold. There was not enough gold to support the growing monetary demand, so other countries began adopting floating exchange rates. When the system failed, Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Source this please. My understanding is that the Nixon Shock was due to escalating debts from Vietnam, and the questioning of the viability of the dollar going forward, which caused European nations to exchange dollars for gold. Nixon, fearing a run on the US gold reserves, closed that window.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government.
There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

Why? That is a pretty bold assertion.

No it is not.

A worthy notion nonetheless.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:03:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.
The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

In short-run this will cause massive economic casualty in all level, think of it as some day you suddenly found that your wages is now that of the same level of those who works in Africa.

A lot of people will probably die, bankrupt, out of jobs etc. Although I believe that is generally good in the long run. When the weaker business and necessary profession has been get rid of (and the suckers are all starve to death), what remains will be stronger, more stable and have better resource from those who are perished in the process.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 3:06:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 2:11:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time.
Can you please elaborate?

I will not. I can see it turning into a political argument I do not want to have with you. It will involve political terms. I've learned to avoid political terms with you.

As usual, you refuse to explain your assertions. >.< Typical.
Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

Why does there have to be a global government or global hegemony?

Because a global monetary system would require one to work.

That logic is a bit circular, don't you think?

The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

The world had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar, and the dollar was backed by gold. There was not enough gold to support the growing monetary demand, so other countries began adopting floating exchange rates. When the system failed, Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Source this please.
http://www.time.com...

My understanding is that the Nixon Shock was due to escalating debts from Vietnam, and the questioning of the viability of the dollar going forward, which caused European nations to exchange dollars for gold. Nixon, fearing a run on the US gold reserves, closed that window.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Exactly, there was not enough gold to back the dollar, so to avoid a run on Fort Knox, Nixon took us off the gold standard. The monetary supply was insufficient to support the global economy, because it was limited to the supply of gold.

A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government.
There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

Why? That is a pretty bold assertion.

No it is not.

You are defending your assertion with another assertion.... >.< Typical wrichcirw
A worthy notion nonetheless.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:16:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:06:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 2:11:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time.
Can you please elaborate?

I will not. I can see it turning into a political argument I do not want to have with you. It will involve political terms. I've learned to avoid political terms with you.

As usual, you refuse to explain your assertions. >.< Typical.
Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

Why does there have to be a global government or global hegemony?

Because a global monetary system would require one to work.

That logic is a bit circular, don't you think?


The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

The world had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar, and the dollar was backed by gold. There was not enough gold to support the growing monetary demand, so other countries began adopting floating exchange rates. When the system failed, Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Source this please.
http://www.time.com...

My understanding is that the Nixon Shock was due to escalating debts from Vietnam, and the questioning of the viability of the dollar going forward, which caused European nations to exchange dollars for gold. Nixon, fearing a run on the US gold reserves, closed that window.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Exactly, there was not enough gold to back the dollar, so to avoid a run on Fort Knox, Nixon took us off the gold standard. The monetary supply was insufficient to support the global economy, because it was limited to the supply of gold.

A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government.
There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

Why? That is a pretty bold assertion.

No it is not.

You are defending your assertion with another assertion.... >.< Typical wrichcirw

Ad hominem. You need to learn how to agree to disagree DanT, especially when people proffer their opinion, and do not wish to argue with you.

And, at this point, I am done with you. I could care less what you think now, as your manner leaves a lot to be desired in a perfectly civil discussion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:19:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You've yet to source this assertion:

The monetary supply was insufficient to support the global economy, because it was limited to the supply of gold.

But I guess I shouldn't care.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:23:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:03:30 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.
The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

In short-run this will cause massive economic casualty in all level, think of it as some day you suddenly found that your wages is now that of the same level of those who works in Africa.

>.< Wages are determined by local job markets. The supply of relevant Knowledge Skills and Abilities vs the demand for those abilities determines the wage of the individual worker. Other employees with the same KSAs, who is applying for the same job, will compete with you for the job. The competing employees lower the wage, and the competing employers increase the wage.

A lot of people will probably die, bankrupt, out of jobs etc.
How do you figure?
Although I believe that is generally good in the long run. When the weaker business and necessary profession has been get rid of (and the suckers are all starve to death), what remains will be stronger, more stable and have better resource from those who are perished in the process.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:33:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm just going to say that I'm appalled by the utter lack of civility on your part in this thread DanT. If someone does not wish to enter into a long-winded, ridiculously convoluted and absolutely pointless argument with you, then it would be nice of you to respect that person's wishes, instead of lobbing insults at that person.

Anyway, I suppose I should have stuck to my original stance, which is absolute and total avoidance of any sort of discussion with you. And, at this point, I will begin to question your character as well.

And for the record "DanT is always right."
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:39:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:19:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
You've yet to source this assertion:

The monetary supply was insufficient to support the global economy, because it was limited to the supply of gold.

But I guess I shouldn't care.
I already did, but here is another;

" Over time the world economy grew and needed more liquidity or reserve assets.

(ii) Given the fixed quantity of gold (165,000 tons or 4 billion ounces, annual production of gold = 80 million ounces) , other countries had to hold US dollar and gold as reserve.

(iii) As the world economy grows, the increased world demand for dollar as reserve assets meant that US had to maintain increasing trade deficits.

(iv) But the US was not able to devalue the dollar.

The dollar was the num"raire of the system, i.e., it was the standard to which every other currency was pegged. Accordingly, the U.S. did not have the power to set the exchange rate between the dollar and any other currency.

Changing the value of dollar in terms of gold has no real effect, because the values of other currencies were pegged to the dollar. This is the n-th currency problem.This problem would not have existed if most of other currencies were pegged to gold. However, none of these currencies were pegged to gold because they were not convertible into gold. (limited supply of gold)"
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:48:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:33:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I'm just going to say that I'm appalled by the utter lack of civility on your part in this thread DanT. If someone does not wish to enter into a long-winded, ridiculously convoluted and absolutely pointless argument with you, then it would be nice of you to respect that person's wishes, instead of lobbing insults at that person.

You are calling me uncivil???? You threw a bunch of assertions at me, than refused to elaborate. Why bother commenting, if you don't want a discussion? The only reason you bothered commenting, was because you saw an opportunity to criticize me; that's why you won't elaborate, and that's why you don't want a discussion.

Anyway, I suppose I should have stuck to my original stance, which is absolute and total avoidance of any sort of discussion with you. And, at this point, I will begin to question your character as well.

Your character is no longer in question, because the question has been answered. You are a dishonorable and disingenuous troll, who projects his own flaws into others.
And for the record "DanT is always right."
Well, when I am able to support my claims, but you can't support your claims, it does seem that way. Maybe if you would supply a little more substance, you would be right once in awhile.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:55:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:17:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:16:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 3:06:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 2:11:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 12:26:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/8/2013 10:16:02 PM, DanT wrote:
We need a global currency in order to promote free trade.
Currency is just a medium of exchange; nothing more, nothing less. Exchange rates defeat the purpose of currency, because they create a competing rate of exchange for mediums of exchange. When we are dealing with trade mediums, competition is counterproductive. Exchange rates hamper trade, therefore we should create a global currency.

This is good in economic theory but terrible in political reality. Politics trump economics, every time.
Can you please elaborate?

I will not. I can see it turning into a political argument I do not want to have with you. It will involve political terms. I've learned to avoid political terms with you.

As usual, you refuse to explain your assertions. >.< Typical.
Therefore, as good a notion as this is, and as necessary as I also think it may be for similar reasons as you state, it won't happen until there is truly one government, i.e a global hegemon. Without a global hegemon, the political reality is that nations compete against each other, and could care less about global aggregate productivity.

Why does there have to be a global government or global hegemony?

Because a global monetary system would require one to work.

That logic is a bit circular, don't you think?


The Bretton Woods system created a global currency based on the US dollar, but it failed due to the gold standard. The whole point of the Bretton Woods system was to promote trade, and it did until the monetary supply ran short. Therefore the global currency would preferably be a fiat system, based on economic transactions.

I think you're confusing this part a bit. The gold standard did not fail, the dollar failed, so Nixon released the dollar from the gold standard. That is why gold increased in price by nearly 2500% in dollar terms in the years following the Nixon Shock. It's implicit dollar devaluation.

The world had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar, and the dollar was backed by gold. There was not enough gold to support the growing monetary demand, so other countries began adopting floating exchange rates. When the system failed, Nixon took us off the gold standard.

Source this please.
http://www.time.com...

My understanding is that the Nixon Shock was due to escalating debts from Vietnam, and the questioning of the viability of the dollar going forward, which caused European nations to exchange dollars for gold. Nixon, fearing a run on the US gold reserves, closed that window.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Exactly, there was not enough gold to back the dollar, so to avoid a run on Fort Knox, Nixon took us off the gold standard. The monetary supply was insufficient to support the global economy, because it was limited to the supply of gold.

A global fiat system will not work unless there is an unitary global government.
There is no such thing now, and no real political possibility of there being one in the near future.

Why? That is a pretty bold assertion.

No it is not.

You are defending your assertion with another assertion.... >.< Typical wrichcirw

Ad hominem.
It is not an ad hominem. You defended your assertion with another assertion. "No it's not" is not a proper defense of an assertion.
You need to learn how to agree to disagree DanT, especially when people proffer their opinion,
That is just what it is, an opinion. Please don't present your opinions as fact, unless you wish to explain the basis of those opinions.
and do not wish to argue with you.

Why bother commenting, if you don't want a discussion?
And, at this point, I am done with you. I could care less what you think now, as your manner leaves a lot to be desired in a perfectly civil discussion.
>.< is that what you call this? You made an assertion, I asked you to elaborate, and you refused. That is not a discussion, that is you trolling me.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:00:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:55:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:17:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

>.< is that what you call this? You made an assertion, I asked you to elaborate, and you refused. That is not a discussion, that is you trolling me.

All I saw was "Blah Blah Blah DanT is always right".

I'll remember this. I consider arguing anything with you to not only be pointless, but grating. I also now realize you care less about opinions, and only want to "discuss" things, i.e. argue until people get sick of you. This is why I no longer care to elaborate upon anything I say to you.

Am I trolling? No. I left my honest opinion because from what I could tell, your OP was your honest opinion. I did not care to elaborate on it, as you did not elaborate on your OP. I even told you that I did not want to argue with you. That you call me trolling for doing so is...not exactly civil.

I will say again I disagree with your stance, for the reasons I stated above. Again, I do no care to engage with you in any argumentation. If you're fine with that, then we agree to disagree. If you're not, then you're not going to be fine with anything I say to you, which incidentally describes my interactions with you succinctly, and why I really do consider arguing with you about as fun as taking a swim through a vat of acid. In fact, you don't seem to be fine with anything that anyone says to you, unless they say explicitly "DanT is always right".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:02:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:48:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:33:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your character is no longer in question, because the question has been answered. You are a dishonorable and disingenuous troll, who projects his own flaws into others.

You are such a blockhead. What is dishonorable about agreeing to disagree? What is trolling about leaving one's own opinion on a thread?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 1:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:02:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:48:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:33:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your character is no longer in question, because the question has been answered. You are a dishonorable and disingenuous troll, who projects his own flaws into others.

You are such a blockhead. What is dishonorable about agreeing to disagree?
What is trolling about leaving one's own opinion on a thread?

First of all this is "Debate.org" not "opinion.org". Whenever you can't defend your opinions, you simply say "Let's agree to disagree"; which would be fine, if this was "opinion.org", but it's not.
Furthermore, if you are going to criticize someone's proposal, you should be able to explain the reasoning behind that criticism. Otherwise you have no right to criticize. I have not once seen you put forward an ingenious argument. Your arguments are based on semantics, straw-men, and unsupported assertions. When you can't refute an argument you "move to dismiss" the argument, you claim the argument is "irrelevant", you ask to "agree to disagree", or you ignore the argument entirely and claim it was never put forward.
You are a troll who projects his own negative traits onto others, and I would like nothing more to see you banned from this site. It is people like you, who are bringing this site down.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 1:22:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:55:45 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:17:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

>.< is that what you call this? You made an assertion, I asked you to elaborate, and you refused. That is not a discussion, that is you trolling me.

All I saw was "Blah Blah Blah DanT is always right".

I'll remember this. I consider arguing anything with you to not only be pointless, but grating. I also now realize you care less about opinions, and only want to "discuss" things, i.e. argue until people get sick of you. This is why I no longer care to elaborate upon anything I say to you.

Once again, this is Debate.org not Opinion.org
Am I trolling? No. I left my honest opinion because from what I could tell, your OP was your honest opinion.
Your opinion was regarding my opinion. You criticized my opinion, and than refused to elaborate.
This is a direct violation of the DDO Terms of Use, underContent Posted and Code of Conduct, Section T, clause 2, which reads;
"Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account... No personal attacks against other... member's opinions."

I did not care to elaborate on it, as you did not elaborate on your OP.
Actually I did.
I even told you that I did not want to argue with you. That you call me trolling for doing so is...not exactly civil.

When someone says "You are wrong", than refuses to explain why they believe "you are wrong", it is trolling.
All I asked was that you elaborate. Than you flipped off the handle.
I will say again I disagree with your stance, for the reasons I stated above.
For the assertions you stated above, and refused to elaborate upon.
A little lesson in civility, when you criticize someone's opinion, the polite thing to do is to elaborate. It is rude to tell someone they are wrong, but refuse to explain why they are wrong.

Again, I do no care to engage with you in any argumentation.
Than don't. But when you criticize me, and I ask you to elaborate, please elaborate. You are the one who turned this into an argument. All I asked was that you explain your assertions. Don't tell someone they are wrong, than refuse to enlighten them.

If you're fine with that, then we agree to disagree.
This is not opinion.org it is debate.org

If you're not, then you're not going to be fine with anything I say to you, which incidentally describes my interactions with you succinctly, and why I really do consider arguing with you about as fun as taking a swim through a vat of acid. In fact, you don't seem to be fine with anything that anyone says to you, unless they say explicitly "DanT is always right".

That is not true. I have not only accepted others' critiques in the past, but I have actively sought them as well.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 1:27:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 1:03:17 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:02:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:48:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:33:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Your character is no longer in question, because the question has been answered. You are a dishonorable and disingenuous troll, who projects his own flaws into others.

You are such a blockhead. What is dishonorable about agreeing to disagree?
What is trolling about leaving one's own opinion on a thread?

First of all this is "Debate.org" not "opinion.org".

This is a forum, not a debate. I have debated you multiple times, and I have regretted each and every one of them. I thought by leaving an opinion, you and others would be better for it. I now realize that it's not my opinion that is causing the problem here, but your incapacity to know when to stop arguing.

Again, what is "dishonorable" about agreeing to disagree?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 1:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Free trade means you are free to trade in the medium you wish, not Globgov's authorized medium only.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.