Question: whats wrong with going to a one world currency?

My wife just asked my what would be so wrong with a one world currency?
I have to agree, why would this be such a bad thing? When traveling it would make things a lot easier. When she was in Europe she said it was "annoying" to constantly have to exchange money? Thanks in advance for your comments!

I don't think that it is just the fact of a one world currency in and of itself that would be a problem, but more along the lines of who would be controlling that money.

A one world currency isn't a bad idea on paper. It's a great idea actually.

However when you place the control of such a resource in the hands of priovate corporations who have no intent on helping out the middle man, that's when it truly becomes a bad idea.

Rockefeller once said:

Give me power over a nations currency, and I care not who makes it's laws.

It's a very true statement, one that we should all learn to take heed of.

With these private banks in control they can shift the power balance back and forth, instigate any type of situation they want, without consequence. We are left to clean up the mess.

The times of Kings and Queens has never left, they simply call them bankers now and they changed Feudalism to Democracy.

~Keeper

When we do get a one world currency and the world doesn't end,

They'll just look for something else to be fearful of.

The Paranoid, the Fearful.

Any nation that gives up their currency is at the full mercy of the currency "provider".

Who would be the currency provider? The Chinese?

Think about it... the power to freeze your budgets, your bank accounts, ect from a "foreign" power.....

Any sovereignty your country had would fly right out the window.

Do as we say or we freeze your economy. Thus freezing trade.



People may say that our "Fed" can kind of do the same thing but not really... the "people" in power at the Fed are in the US and the US Government CAN intervene if it wants to and abolish the Fed and arrest, prosecute or at least cause that power structure to go Bye Bye.

That can't happen with an international organization. That kind of power centralized overseas with reliance on foreign paymasters that have NO accountability to the people is FOOLISH!

This is like proposing "Why don't we just have a one world military and one world police force?" we can have Putin run it!

Get what I am saying?

Question: whats wrong with going to a one world currency?

Well, instead of whole country's and economy's and leaders and governments, determining the factors involved in an individual country's currency value.
And what it can buy etc.
You will have one person telling everyone how much there money is worth.

Thanks folks, these replies are along the lines of my thought process as well. I agree it does sound like a good idea. But its just a matter of who is in control of that money. the way I understand it the "fed" isn't actually the federal government or is sort of a quasi government agency. So don't we have something similar now, where the bankers are in control of the currency? -- Isn't the IMF already in control?
(If there are other threads regarding this please feel free to post the links to help us understand)

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Actually it was Rothschild who said that.

Nobody controls money.

If that wasn't obvious already, the events of the last year should have made it so.

And a single world currency won't make money any more controllable. The people on the thread that have been making that claim should show us their evidence.

Tell you what: when there are numerous freely traded currencies in parallel use in the world (as is presently the case), then it is quite easy to manipulate the value of a currency by buying or selling large amounts of it on the money markets. Happens all the time. That's what was beyond the SE Asia financial crisis of 1997.

Come on, currency fundamentalists. Hit us with your best shot.

Well, while i can't add any new points that haven't been made all ready, i can ask a question: what would back the currency and provide its value? If the world bank decides to give everyone money, what other currency serves as a meter stick? if the currency collapses, what do we use?

having a single currency over the entire world would still pose the same problems we are facing today.

Who would print the money? This is extremely important because whoever has control of the international reserve currency immediately becomes an extremely powerful country

also, pricing currency in areas of the world with different economies makes this nearly impossible. Unemployment rates increasing in one part of the world would make the currency worth less, and a falling GDP would do the same. Unless the entire world grows/shrinks at the same rate (impossible, even if youre on drugs), the currency will appreciate/depreciate in different areas of the world.

There are tons more but I'm tired and need sleep.

I have a finance/economics background if you were wondering.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a one world currency.

The problems comes when you decide who runs it. I could think of a few people I would trust but billions I wouldn't. All you need is one bad apple in the group running things and you can corrupt the others even if they mean to do the right thing one person can mess up everything.

Well the problem is you have to get that currency from someone. Whoever controls your money controls you. They can decide to lend to you or not lend to you. They can choose what interest rates you have to agree to plus other conditions. Like, well we're not going to print anymore money unless you start a war with Russia. So, you'll do what we say or starve!

Okay well the other major problem is a one world currency won't be controlled by your elected leaders. It'll be controlled by another country that has no loyalty to your country. So, it depends on who controls it. Ever borrow money from a loan shark? It always seems to end in either death or rape. That's what it'll be like, but on a worldwide scale.

Now, the religious aspect. You might not believe in God, but that isn't important right now. Here me out cause it doesn't matter. We're talking about other people that do believe in it and I'm gonna try to get inside their head for a minute.

The Bible talks of a one world currency and says just that. Whoever controls it controls you and that's bad for you. The Bible says it's bad right? Remember that for a second (even if YOU personally don't believe that.)

Also, it says a one world currency is a prophetic sign for the end times. Just like a lunar eclipse in itself isn't bad, but if that's the sign then now it's really really bad right? Okay then, the one world currency is one of those signs. It says that's a sign of the end times.

Alright, so maybe you don't believe in religion, but the leaders in the US DO BELIEVE IN IT! That's what they always say on TV when running for office right? Like even Obama says he's a Christian right?(I think, I don't really remember.) Bush says he's a Christian right? Kerry is Catholic I think? Anyway, most of the people in congress say they're religious right? Why? Well, it's because it's near impossible to get elected in this country if you don't say you believe in God.

Okay, well then if they all believe in the Bible then they know the one world currency is a sign of the end times right? Not only do they know that, but apparently they BELIEVE THAT! After all they said they believe in the Bible right?

So, why do they keep messing up our economy and passing laws that basically push us into having a one world currency against our will? Make any sense to you? If they believe in the Bible like they said they did they wouldn't be pushing for a OWC. The Bible, the book they supposedly worship, says no no buddy, don't do that!!!

Well, it can only be two things right? They're either trying to bring the world to an end or they don't really believe in the Bible and they're LIARS! It has to be one or the other. That would mean either they lied about their religious and moral beliefs JUST TO GET ELECTED or THEY'RE HOMICIDAL MANIACS TRYING TO DESTROY THE WORLD!!! It has to be one or the other because they all themselves said they believe in that book called the Bible and that's what the Bible says.

So, when they try to sell you a one world currency and tell you it's good for you, how can you believe them? At best they're liars and at worst they're trying to KILL you! At least in their own minds anyway.

Originally posted by djon01
What would back the currency and provide its value?

The same thing that backs today's currencies: public confidence that the currency will be honoured as legal tender. As for the actual value, this would be determined, as ever, by the amount of currency in circulation - which would, in turn, be determined by the cost and accessibility of credit, just as it is now.

Originally posted by djon01
If the world bank decides to give everyone money, what other currency serves as a meter stick? if the currency collapses, what do we use?

If the 'world bank' gives everyone money, it would cause inflation and devalue the currency. This would happen whether there was only one currency in circulation or many, as there are today. Of course, in a one-currency world, central banks can't create artificial demand for their own currencies to raise their value, the way they do now.

Originally posted by steve22
Whoever has control of the international reserve currency immediately becomes an extremely powerful country.

This is not a problem at all. The amount of money in circulation would be controlled by an international currency board - a world central bank, if you like - which would represent all participating countries, just as the ECB now does for the Euro zone. I admit the practical issues are daunting.

Originally posted by steve22
Pricing currency in areas of the world with different economies makes this nearly impossible. Unemployment rates increasing in one part of the world would make the currency worth less, and a falling GDP would do the same. Unless the entire world grows/shrinks at the same rate (impossible, even if youre on drugs), the currency will appreciate/depreciate in different areas of the world.

Yes, all this is true. For a single world currency you would need a free-trade world in which barriers to trade and immigration did not exist. A very different world from that in which we live. But the question being discussed isn't the feasibility of a single world currency but its desirability. I think it would be extremely desirable. It would promote - actually, as I've noted, demand - greater global economic integration, with all that implies for the eradication of poverty and the promotion of world peace.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think it would be extremely desirable. It would promote - actually, as I've noted, demand - greater global economic integration, with all that implies for the eradication of poverty and the promotion of world peace.

I think this goes to the heart of the problem. The first job of the snake oil salesman is to convince the rubes that snake oil will cure anything. People, rubes especially, love the idea of Utopia.

On the whole, people do better in competition, with multiple choices and I believe, multiple currencies.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The first job of the snake oil salesman is to convince the rubes that snake oil will cure anything. People, rubes especially, love the idea of Utopia.

A borderless world with a single currency would hardly be Utopia. People, intelligent ones especially, understand that Utopia is an ideal, not a practical objective.

On the whole, people do better in competition, with multiple choices and I believe, multiple currencies.

People are always in competition. This is known as natural selection. Could you explain, please, the advantages inherent in a multiple-currency world economy? No-one has yet offered an intelligent defence of it on this thread. The kudos is up for grabs; take it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Nobody controls money.

Tell you what: when there are numerous freely traded currencies in parallel use in the world (as is presently the case), then it is quite easy to manipulate the value of a currency by buying or selling large amounts of it on the money markets. Happens all the time. That's what was beyond the SE Asia financial crisis of 1997.

I read this and thought for a few hours cause something didn't seem right cause I don't know much about currency exchange really. Eventually I came to this question and it's not an insult or anything. It's a real question that I don't really understand so I'll ask and see if anyone knows.

It is true the markets can be manipulated by various people buying or selling different currencies. However, what happens to all those money markets when there's only one currency? You wouldn't be able to manipulate it anymore because you couldn't exchange one currency for another currency anymore. What would you buy it with? You'd only have one currency? Unless you started lugging gold around again I guess lol.

This would mean the people who currently create the currencies don't have complete control right now because it can also be manipulated in the market. However, if we switch to a one world currency wouldn't the board have complete control then? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Also, look at the situation in Zimbabwe right now. They've printed so much money that their dollars have basically become worthless due to hyperinflation. However, at least a few quick thinking people could have saved themselves in the beginning via exchanging it for U.S. Dollars before the hyper inflation.

However, what if we switch to a one world currency that's controlled by a board and they start to print so much money that it hyper inflates? Is hyper inflation even possible with a single currency and if so, what are you going to exchange it for to save your butt? There's only one currency!

Perhaps you could explain it better.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you explain, please, the advantages inherent in a multiple-currency world economy? No-one has yet offered an intelligent defence of it on this thread. The kudos is up for grabs; take it.

In a multiple-currency world economy one doesn't worry about the advantages of a multiple-currency world economy. The effect of this is one of multiple managers from different countries, dealing with problems of a smaller scale, instead of one manager dealing with a hugely complex problem.

Following from that, the advantage of having one's own currency is like the advantage of having one's own tailor. Tailor-made clothes fit and look better than stuff bought off the rack. A monetary policy made to measure for one's own needs will be better than a monetary policy made abroad.

There are more impediments to currency manipulation when a country can impose limitations on trade in it's currency and rules on that currency's value and how it may be redeemed.

Decisions of this sort are better left to individual countries in my view. The people of these countries are better served when their own governments control their own currency.

Generally speaking the more market forces have power, the more you and I have power. Market decisions are based on two people freely entering into agreement. Markets are based on free and mutual agreements, are peaceful, and are natural. In fact, any relationship can be seen in terms of economics -- peaceful and mutual agreement, and free and open give & take.

The Government State, to gain power and control over your life (including your relationships) needs to control the currency used. They do this by making fiat money (money that's worth whatever they can convince us it is worth) and then exacting control over any body and any institution dealing in Government Money.

This way, Government can manipulate your relationships with the community, with businesses, with your family (through finances and food and anything else). The Statists need you to need them.

That's why Government declared only Government Money to be "legal tender." That's why they tried to shut down the Liberty Dollar (which is something based in actual value). That's why the Federal State has also started seizing Credit Unions, as well as banks. That's why the Federal State is gaining power over anything from hospitals to newspapers to the so-called masses.

The Federal State controls the money, and thus they control the markets. This is not a free market society.

And a Global Government will follow a Global Currency. The reach of the Global State will be far more pervasive. And much more detached and arbitrary -- allowing for greater abuses.

Originally posted by mother1138
Generally speaking the more market forces have power, the more you and I have power. Market decisions are based on two people freely entering into agreement. Markets are based on free and mutual agreements, are peaceful, and are natural. In fact, any relationship can be seen in terms of economics -- peaceful and mutual agreement, and free and open give & take.

The Government State, to gain power and control over your life (including your relationships) needs to control the currency used. They do this by making fiat money (money that's worth whatever they can convince us it is worth) and then exacting control over any body and any institution dealing in Government Money.

This way, Government can manipulate your relationships with the community, with businesses, with your family (through finances and food and anything else). The Statists need you to need them.

That's why Government declared only Government Money to be "legal tender." That's why they tried to shut down the Liberty Dollar (which is something based in actual value). That's why the Federal State has also started seizing Credit Unions, as well as banks. That's why the Federal State is gaining power over anything from hospitals to newspapers to the so-called masses.

The Federal State controls the money, and thus they control the markets. This is not a free market society.

And a Global Government will follow a Global Currency. The reach of the Global State will be far more pervasive. And much more detached and arbitrary -- allowing for greater abuses.

Yeah. Speaking of abuses. What about how we're printing money right now to bail out the U.S. economic system. If we don't it supposedly collapses right? Well you can't do that in a one world currency. You'd have to ask them for permission to print the money. America couldn't just print its own anymore and that's exactly what Obama says we need to be doing right now to save our butts. Even though I don't like that plan.

If they don't give you permission, then you're screwed. If they do, then you're also screwed because if they do it for you, that means they'll do it for any other country that's in crisis. Well, some country is always having some type of economic crisis. That means they'd have to print money all the time to bail out all the different countries. Well, when you print money all the time it becomes worthless because there's two much of it.

Or, they would say yes to some countries and no to others. So, there we have it. There's a possibility that whoever controls the one world country basically controls which counties collapse and which don't.