- Position‹4 of 5›
- Coronavirus will impact our economies
- Argument‹2 of 2
Coronavirus will destroy the global economy
GDP collapse, record global unemployment, supply chains shattered, workers unable to perform their work: Coronavirus will destroy the global economy with consequences for years to come.
The argument
Major damage to one of the world's biggest economy cannot simply be shielded from other economies in an era of globalisation. Dramatic declines in commodity prices have had knock-on effects for commodity export dependant markets. Industries from pharmaceuticals to tourism are bracing for impact. The OECD has characterised coronavirus as the biggest threat to the global economy since the 2008 crash. Already, the economic effects Coronavirus has wiped $1.7 trillion off of the US stock market in a couple of days. China is a major part of the global supply chain. Companies like Apple and Huawei - who rely on trade with China to maintain distribution - have already experienced disruptions in their earnings. China is also one of the largest importers of oil in the world, meaning that global oil demand has decreased significantly. China is shutting down major parts of its industry. When Chinese industry shuts down, so does global industry. When global industry shuts down, so does the global economy. Coronavirus' impact on the global economy isn't a hypothetical; it's happening. The global economy is in grave danger and the effects are already being felt. As coronavirus itself spreads internationally, so does economic volatility, and like the virus this shows no signs of stopping.
Premises
Counter-arguments
A rebuttal is that the argument overshoots its own position. The position claims coronavirus will "impact our economies"; the argument's evidence — market falls, supply-chain disruption, an OECD warning — supports serious impact, but not the far stronger prediction that it will "destroy the global economy." A severe shock is not the same as destruction. Critics add that early volatility is a poor basis for forecasting collapse. Economies proved more resilient than the alarm suggested, with large fiscal and monetary responses and partial rebounds in output and markets, so extrapolating a $1.7 trillion drop into wholesale destruction is unwarranted.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Serious damage to a major economy causing global knock-on effects supports the position's claim of "impact," not the far stronger prediction of "destroying" the global economy. [Rejecting P3] A $1.7 trillion market drop and early disruption evidence a severe shock, not destruction; markets and output partly rebounded amid large fiscal and monetary responses.