Should there be a one-world currency?

Siam (Yes)

The US dollar has dominated global currency for years, but this does not necessarily benefit all nations. For more than two decades, some economic experts have called for a universal currency for numerous reasons.

Firstly, there would no longer be a currency risk when conducting international trade because currency fluctuations would be eliminated. And having a universal currency would also remove the dreaded exorbitant international transaction fees that businesses and travelers have had to deal with for decades. 

Because universal currency would enable international business and travel to be easier, nations could save billions--as was evidenced by the somewhat recent adoption of the Euro. Through its steady, pre-planned roll-out overseen by the Economic and Monetary Union of Europe, the Euro allowed trade between European nations to become more efficient and more convenient. And the Euro also successfully stabilized the inflation rate among its member countries, keeping it below 2% on average.  

Additionally, having a universal currency would not only stabilize the global economy but would also help developing nations compete on a level playing field with rich countries. We live in a world with ever-growing technology, but the disparity between rich and poor nations is enormous. Having one currency would provide better opportunities and allow us to improve the lives of others who are not so fortunate. 

Finally, having a universal currency would prevent one nation from dictating the rules of trade. And for the naysayers who think this would not happen, cryptocurrency is making universal currency possible as a straightforward, secure, and faster mode of conducting financial transactions. 

One-world currency is plausible and preferable to the destabilizing and inefficient local currencies that countries currently rely on.  

Morgan (No)

Historically, control of the money supply has been synonymous with control of the people. The Federal Reserve, a deceptively named private entity, demonstrates that when a self-regulating corporation holds power to produce and profiteer from an entire nation's currency, they also hold power to dominate in that nation's spheres of politics and media. Several countries' central banking systems have also exemplified this. It is extremely dangerous to support the use of a one-world currency, as inevitably it would be regulated by a central institution--which, by nature, would be a global monopoly. 

Countries' economies can differ widely, and broad economic decisions could benefit some countries while negatively impacting others. For example, a debt crisis in one country could result in the reallocation of funds from another. At the introduction of the euro, a common complaint was that a broad monetary policy could not adapt to specialized local conditions.

Additionally, a nation's currency is akin to its flag, bearing unique and influential historical figures and culturally relevant symbolism, so erasing a nation's particular banknotes in favor of a globally homogenous currency would eradicate part of that nation's cultural identity.

On the backside of the US dollar bill, one can see the text 'novus ordo seclorum,' Latin for 'new order of the ages.' Global efforts to promote a unified currency have long been present, and the launching of many digital currencies is already underway. However, all free-market transactions would be eliminated if this trend comes to full fruition, making every individual's sales and purchases traceable and therefore taxable.

Adopting a one-world currency would eradicate local autonomy, limit individual purchasing freedom, and diminish cultural identity--all while enabling a global monopoly.